Just read something online that really strikes a chord in me. A woman was fined $30 for sucking on a sweet while taking the MRT. You can view the video here. This is a very good example of Singaporeans following rules without using their brains to understand the need for such rules to exist. There are 2 things in this video that really infuriates me.
The first is the stubborn stupidity of the MRT officer in implementing the rules without any thought or reason in doing so. We should note that the officer is keenly aware of the video camera in front of him and perhaps that made him doubly more determined to dish out the punishment so he can appear to his superiors or anyone watching that he was doing his job well. Under another circumstance, without the spotlight of the camera, perhaps he may have chosen to be more reasonable and lenient. But that is really the point. Somehow for most Singaporeans, the need to be "officially and politically correct" overrides any otherwise reasonable and logical considerations. Some people will hesitate to perform the most logical and reasonable of tasks as long as there is the possibility of violating the letter of the law. We are talking about slavish obedience to every word of the rule instead of simply abiding by the spirit and purpose the rule is supposed to uphold. However, the same people will have no qualms with carrying out impossibly stupid and irrational exercises as long as the rulebook commands it.
The MRT officer is the best case in point. He rather err on the side of caution, and stupidity, than to exercise some discretion in this matter. The basic reason of MRT implementing the "no eating" rule is to prevent accidental/intentional littering of the cabin and, maybe to a lesser degree, eliminate food odours in the cabin. Surely the MRT officer understands that. But despite that, the officer still issued the fine, "just-in-case" someone in authority is watching. Stupidity, insensitivity, even cruelty is condoned in Singapore as long as one is following the rules blindly. But non-obedience, no matter the reason or appropriateness, is not tolerated here. Simply put, in many ways our system rewards stupidity and blind obedience but punishes intelligence and reasonableness.
The second thing in this video that really gets on my nerves is the lack of indignation and fight of the passenger that was fined. Instead of being exasperated by this mindless application of the rule by MRT, she seemed sheepish and tried to offer excuses for the sweet. She is not alone in this behaviour. Somehow we were brought up to instinctively follow the rules, no matter what the rule is. We are trained to feel guilt and shame when we did not do everything by the book. Therefore instead of challenging the right of the MRT to impose the $30 fine, she tried to mitigate her actions by claiming giddiness because it is somehow more "justified" for a sick person to violate a rule. Hell, I don't think there is a need to justify her actions to the MRT officer at all. He should be the one to explain and convince the lady of the need and validity of imposing the fine.
I can quote more examples of everyday Singaporeans that chooses to follow rules blindly without taking a second to consider the validity and reasonableness of those rules. There is a pervasive culture of fear within the fabric of our society that makes us act with unthinking obedience, that makes us such willing slaves to the existing rules and authority. There are probably many other societies out where blind obedience is more prevalent. But here are also plenty of those where people follow rules not because they have to but because they want to. Not everyone follows our Singaporean mantra of "Just Follow Loh". At least I hope not.
We Have A Bloated Government
3 months ago
i watched the video and i thought it was acted script. :( I wonder if schools in singapore ever taught critical thinking and reading. Some people even have problems with reading comprehension.
ReplyDeleteGrammar, grammar, grammar. You, sir, do not have it.
ReplyDeleteA long overdue comment on the post …
ReplyDeletePerhaps what makes me feel so strongly to voice my opinion regarding this post is how I am affected by both what is written regarding the topic and the topic by itself.
Is it a case of Singaporeans “just following law” blindly? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. In the over-exaggerated scenario where Ms Unfortunate was caught eating sweets, the officer insisted that Sweets are not allowed onboard trains. How often do one meets with a situation whereby you hear that “this is the rule”, “this is the protocol”, “we cannot do that” without further explanation? Rather that it being a case whereby people are following the rules or law blindly, I see it that most people / Singaporeans are using the simplest excuse that is most easily available to them. Myself, for example is guilty of that. This brings Ratress to bring up the scenario that happened to her at NTUC several years back. A bottle of water cost 50 cents; Promotion: 3 bottles cost 90 cents. Out of cheekiness, the Rat asked Mrs NTUC if I could buy 2 bottles of water at 90 cents. Poor Mrs NTUC was obviously shocked by the tongue-in-cheek question brought up by the Rat and without further thoughts just retorted, “No. This is not allowed”. Which brings to my point that Singaporeans are lousy at coming up with excuses. This frequently leads to bizarre rules and regulations or just plain stupid excuses.
Just this morning, I read on today’s Today: “World Swimming Championships – Heartbreak for Ting Wen”. Coach said, “But you also have to put things in perspective. It was a really hot day, about 34 to 35 degrees, and it takes a while to get adjusted to swimming in such conditions outdoors”. Stop. Does anyone think that there is a problem with this statement yet? An abysmal excuse in itself. But, how many readers out there actually realize the problem with the statement. This brings me to the second purpose of posting this comment.
Reading comprehension and the ability to read critically is largely non-existent amongst the people in the small coop. While a critical bunch I must say they are, critically acclaimed they are not. How many blogs have you read talking about the MRT sweet eating incident as if it really happened? Haven’t anyone questioned the likelihood that the incident has actually happened. How possible is it that the officer actually manages to catch someone eating sweets onboard the train. The lady must be sucking on her sweet real forcefully or the officer really does have a keen eye. Even Mr MRT, if the scenario is real, has he even questioned what constitutes food on trains? Isn’t it the Burger, Fries and Soft drinks you see in the poster? While the excuse given by Ms SMRT commuter that motion sickness is indeed reasonable, the Ratress thinks that she would actually put to her defense that sweet is not a food.
Some food for thought, is sweet a food? Or is it a class of edible product on its own? Is there any other thing that is edible only by sucking when placed in the mouth in a whole piece.
:)
Firstly, it wasn't the Ratress who asked Mrs NTUC. It was the Pirate!!! And more importantly, this episode at NTUC serves to strengthen, not weaken the claim that lots of Singaporeans just blindly obey rules, regardless of how nonsensical the rule is. Similarly, the MRT officer fined the woman with the sweet not because he couldn't come up with an good excuse. He did that because he was obeying rules. He thought that NO excuses or reasons need to be provided because he was abiding by the guidelines given to him. It seems to me that the comment is suggesting that one could justify the unreasonable punishment by being clever with words. I cannot disagree more. I think we should look instead at the underlying logic of the rule rather than the complicated or flowery lingo describing it. Next, let's consider that authencity of the incident. It seemed quite obvious to me that the woman that got fined isn't a real passenger. But the officer is undoubtedly real (the fact that MRT didn't come out with a clarification of the incident is good proof of this). The matter at hand is the unthinking obedience of the officer, the authencity of the woman is immaterial. Lastly, let's address the issue of the definition of food. To suggest that sweets is not food is pushing it too far. Is a MOS rice burger considered burger? What about our local Roti-John? Again, whether a sweet can be considered food is an invalid consideration in this context. It is and rightly so. The point to consider is whether it is food that can dirty the cabins and where do we draw the line at this definition. I think sucking on a sweet should not be punished. There may be an issue at the vagueness and imprecision in applying common sense and discretion in this matter instead of strictly abiding by the rules, but to suggest that the assertion in the post is due to naivety or lack of comprehension is akin to an insult to my intelligence.
ReplyDeleteSigh, point taken the narrow comprehension of articles.. yet again by the author of the blog.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned the RAT asked Mrs NTUC. It was never written as the Ratress asked Mrs NTUC.
Having said that, I do not see the point of me explaining myself further.