I think they should just install CCTVs on every cart to take videos of people who goes overboard with their food and drinks (IMO plain water is fine, not FINE ) and catch them red handed.... they can't escape, since they'll have to go through the gates anyway.
That should also reduce cases of fighting on the train, pple blasting their music on the train, people getting touchy and what not... etc.
Rules may be set with a specific purpose in mind, but that doesn't mean they are the most appropriate in a given situation. Know when to follow the rules, and know when to break them.
While I agree that the rule is important for keeping our stations and trains clean for the comfort of all passengers (Rings a bell, doesn't it?).
Fining people for drinking plain bottled water is just too much. Needless to say, those corporate monkeys who come up with such regulations probably don't even take the MRT in the first place.
let say hong kong. everybody know hong kongers are also better and better.
for let say 1 point, the escalator. they stand to the right side in order.
local? sg? we are asked to stand to the left, but what people did. left right up down everywhere.
Last edited by LomoPhotographer; 22nd July 2009 at 01:45 AM.
Cardinal rule about laws in general, "applies to all or applies to none."
I find it hard to believe that people can't resist not drinking in between MRT stops. I'm sure when roaches start crawling all over the MRT stations, folks will whine and rant in Stomp or the other tabloidish newspaper about SMRT/SBS not being strict about the littering/food consumption rules.
It's just like smokers in general, if they can smoke, they need a puff every half and hour or so, but if they're watching a 3hr movie or confined in places where they either can't or having too much fun to do so, they'll live.
Seems like rebelious behaviour is too suppressed for some youths that they try to extend it to adulthood hehe.
Just like how morons pee in elevators or throw their junk mail in elevators, is it that long of a trip to not be able to hold it in?
It seems to be more convenient to make justifications than to just follow the law.
Last edited by theveed; 22nd July 2009 at 02:05 AM.
what if I'm having a hypoglycaemic attack and the only solution is to ingest sweets?
will I then get a nice bill from the authorities for a sum of $30, just because I decided to save myself the hassle of fainting from a low sugar count, hitting my head on the floor and probably causing some form of concussion?
Well, this is a discipline routine. Singapore is like a round robin rottan spree. One moment, they witness us peeing without flushing (literally seeing us pee), one moment on smoking, one moment on jay walking.. We are like old fools who can think straight and they graciously extend the rod for us to feel the pain.
If we need to shape the nation this way, it will surely backfire one day.
Sometimes, in raffles place and tanjong pagar, everyone will keep left. It's not true that it never happens. btw in osaka everyone keeps right.
Like everything, there'll be a transition period where it's very stringent before everyone gets the message, then it'll become more lenient - unless there's another mass influx of foreigners.
When during rush hour perhaps people will stay in one line, but outside of the peak hrs......no more in line dancing
Last edited by hongsien; 30th July 2009 at 11:49 PM.
I seriously think it's a massive flaw.
many Type 1 diabetics suffer from periods of hypoglycaemia and as such do get hypoglycaemic attacks when their blood sugar levels are low. the quickest remedy for such an attack is to ingest some sweet which does not contain aspartame. that, or faint from having low blood sugar. granted, not everybody in Singapore is a Type 1 diabetic, but the possibility of having one on board a train at any given moment is relatively high, and I dare say that the bulk of them would suffer a hypoglycaemic attack at one point or another.
somebody mentioned previously that we should be in sound mind and health before we travel, even going to lengths to quote that particular piece of law/legislation/whatchamacallit. but every diabetic does not know when a hypoglycaemic attack will come about, or how quickly it will strike.
are we then going to idly stand by and enforce the rule in a blanket manner, because we want to, to quote loosely, clamp down on such incidences?
Fella got scolded for giving a sweet for his Type 1 mum. She had fainted earlier. Luckily he got off with a verbal warning.
Its a silly way to treat an existing problem. If MRT has an issue with commuters who eat and leave rubbish on the trains, thus leading to litter and stains, then they should take action against these errant users. No one will complain if the MRT officers come down on a user enjoying a packet of char kway teow on the train. But you dont use a sledge hammer to crack open an egg. The blind application of the rule is draconian. The vast majority of users are law abiding and relatively considerate. A sip of water to quench the thirst, perhaps a small mint to keep one's breath fresh in a packed cabin. Its traveler comfort and welfare. While I understand that MRT is concerned about the itter bugs, this is ridiculous. And it has resulted in a lot of negative press about the company.
And in certain ways, MRT is setting itself for failure. I noticed that the stations are virtually free of litter bins, so as to discourage people from eating and drinking (presumably). But then while waiting at the station I rummage through my pockets and find old receipts. I wipe the perspiration off my face with a tissue. And I cant find a bin on the platform. Now, I like to think that I am considerate enough to put the stuff back in my pocket, but some will simply chuck it. Or leave it under the seats.
As a business organization, MRT is highly unappreciative of its customers.
Their corporate communications and PR departments need to wake up their ideas.
We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde
I always thought that the lack of rubbish bins was a two pronged thing.
1) discourage people from not eating, through some very paradoxical intention (no bin, therefore can't throw litter, therefore got to carry litter with me till I get out, therefore better not eat).
2) bomb threats (the IRA, while based in the UK, did most of their dirty deeds with rubbish bin bombs).
now, number 2 is a very legitimate reason, when compared against 1. but somebody is going to be very motivated to carry that piece of litter with him from one end of the island to the next, and then dispose it off when he gets out of the station. while the average Joe or Jane is going to do that since they are law abiding citizens, you do have token fools who will litter regardless of the circumstance (circumstances being, even if a litter bin was present, he will still litter regardless).
honestly, I think this farce is just ridiculous, and smacks of sheer stupidity and crazy drivel that has been spun up by some department to make it look like as if action is being taken against the errant few, whilst genuine people in genuine need are being taken down as collateral along the way.
The sweet thing is just ridiculous