When should you offer your seat on the MRT or bus?

This Stomp article led me to ponder about this issue: When should we stand up and offer our seat on public transports? Public transports includes the MRT and the bus, but I think it is more applicable to the MRT since there is a greater chance that there is no space for sitting on the MRT.

The article is simple. This lady and her mum went into the MRT. Her mum is carrying the baby (her grandchild). This lady saw a selfish woman who signalled to her husband to tell him not to give up his seat. The lady felt that the woman and husband are both selfish and the worst thing is that they only sat for one more stop before alighting.

It sparked an interesting debate in Stomp that made me wonder, who is right and who is wrong? I guess it is pretty clear cut that the woman who was sitting down is wrong. She is entitled to decide not to give up her seat, yet her gesture to her husband is totally uncalled for. If her husband so decides that the baby carrying grandmum needs a seat, then he should give up his seat.

Yet, on the other hand I wonder, if the lady feels so indignant for her mum who was carrying her child, shouldn’t the lady carry her OWN child instead? Instead of making her mum suffer (if her mum wasn’t suffering then there is no need for a seat isn’t it), she should just carry her own baby instead. Maybe this way her mum would not need a seat.

But the central issue is, who should get a seat? It makes me angry when some people think that they should be given a seat. Once it happened to me. This Caucasian woman woke me up from my day dream and pointed to the sign above me that says “Give your seat to people who need it more”. I assumed that she needs it more, so I nodded and stood up. She sat down and her husband, who is in crutches, is leaning on the glass beside her seat. So who’s the needy one? The husband or her?

There are some times when I feel that the recipent is not too old. Probably in their fifties. Do I need to stand up and give up my seat? I think not. They should still be fit to stand isn’t it? I do not support the notion that younger people have to give up their seat to older ones. I feel that we should give up our seat to needy people, not old people. I feel that old people who are frail (I guess you can see how old they are?) should be given seats.

Pregnant woman should be given seats too.

However another issue is this: Is it nice of one to submit a photo of a selfish person to Stomp? This is an interesting issue because the selfishness is subjective to the photographer. That person may not be selfish, for example, when you take photos of some people sleeping on trains and claim that they are pretending,when they could be genuinely sleeping.

I do not support such photos and I never will. Give me a reason why such photos, which flames others, should be allowed.

Retired teacher took 19 minutes to solve 3 PSLE questions. I took 5.

The Sunday Times today (Page 3) has a report on the PSLE math complaints by parents. Every year, parents keep complaining that their child “cried” after the maths paper due to the sheer difficulty. Parents then questioned the use of “tough” exam questions to discern the standard of the student. I decided to blog about it after I read my friend’s post.

Page 3 has 3 questions that were provided by the pupils who sat by the paper.

I quote:

“Retired Teacher Ho Kong Loon, 60, who taught at the Primary 6 level for 40 years, thought the questions are difficult for the average pupil. “I took 19 minutes, or 14 percent of the total time, to complete the three questions. Unlike pupils who took the exam, I was not under any pressure and worked… with a calculator””

This makes one wonder what kind of standard our teachers are at. A primary 5 pupil is quoted to complete the 3 questions in less than 20 minutes. Are our p5 pupils as competent as the teachers? I doubt so.

For me, i took 5 minutes to complete the 3 questions without a calculator. Upon reading the entire question, I took less than 15 seconds before I knew what method I wanted to use to solve the question. Is it that hard? No. Perhaps Primary school students need more time and effort to complete, but a teacher of 40 years of experience should do much better than that. I have a feeling I know why he is retired. Perhaps he was sacked due to his level of competency in his specialized field.

Since a primary school teacher is of a higher standard than me, I suppose he should be able to finish the question in the same, if not less, time as me. I suppose he has a relative who is studying at that level and couldn’t do the question. Thus, he used himself as an authority to make the public feel that the math questions is incredibly difficult, to sway people’s opinion. That is really unethical of him.

With a calculator, I should be able to solve 3 triple integral questions within 19 minutes. NOT 3 primary school level math questions in 19 minutes. It just makes the whole teaching profession seem lousy. Well, I guess I just pwned a teacher.

More gay talk..

Another person wrote in to talk about Section 377A again..Details as follows, quoted from the Straits Times:

NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause
I AM writing in response to the article, ‘NMP to submit Parliamentary Petition to repeal gay sex law’ (ST, Oct 12).

As a Nominated MP, Mr Siew Kum Hong is supposed to be non-partisan and should not be affiliated with any particular political group.

However, he has chosen to be the sponsor of a parliamentary petition to present the homosexual agenda.

While he is free to present his personal views on any issue, Mr Siew has overstepped the boundary as an NMP when he chose to represent the homosexual interest group.

MPs in Parliament have to run for election, look after their constituents’ interests and represent their views. As an NMP, Mr Siew bears no such burden.

He should not adulterate the NMP role further by becoming the proxy representative of the homosexual interest group.

This is especially so as the Government has already taken one year to review the Penal Code, with input from various consultation channels, and taken into consideration the views of the majority of Singaporeans who are for maintaining family values and preserving Section 377A of the Penal Code.

Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

This letter criticizes our NMP for petitioning parliament to take away section 377A criminalizing gay sex.

I do not understand. What is our NMP’s job? Does an NMP sit down, talk cock, sing song and play mahjong? No they should not.They should take part in debates and raise issues that should be of concern to parliament.

If he feels that a cause is important, he should find out more, and exercise some leadership by doing something in parliament and making himself useful. I do not see why championing the cause for a minority group of people means that he has overstepped his boundary.

I quote, “not be affiliated with any political group”. Is homosexuality a political group? Weird huh.

I also find it weird that this person is suggesting that since the NMP does not have the burden of having a constituency, then he should not be doing this. Its a fallacy as I see it.

I hope people will be objective in this issue. This issue is about a law that isn’t enforced. Since it isn’t enforced, it means that there is no such damage to family values, whether the law is there or not. Since something that doesn’t theoretically exist, then we cannot say that removing it results in something.

Let us look at this issue with an open heart and see how parliament acts. Parliament will not change our decisions even if we write letters to the forum denouncing the NMP. So lets not waste time writing such letters because it doesn’t show anything.

My views on the law in Section 377A for gays

Recently the law, or to be more specific, Section 377A of the law in Singapore, has been thrust into the spot-light. Mr Miyagi also wrote a post about Section 377A which I think is quite interesting and deserves a read. There is even a web-site to collect names and contact information to petition the government.

I didn’t want to comment about S377A at first, and my stand on 377A is that its a rather redundant law, but that there is no need to take it down. I saw a forum article written by a citizen and this is how it goes. Its quoted from the Straits Times.

Removing Section 377A threatens family unit
I SUPPORT the retention of Section 377A of the Penal Code – a law criminalising gay sex – to uphold our moral and family values.

The petition by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong does not serve the interests of Singapore as a whole but only of one small sector.

In fact, the removal of this law will lead to the disintegration of our social fabric, the family unit, which the Government has been establishing pro-actively.

I believe that strong families will lead to a strong nation.

I fully support the Government in keeping Section 377A. Gross indecencies must be penalised.

For the survival of our nation and the welfare of the future generation, the petition by NMP Siew should be ignored.

Lim Poh Suan (Ms)

I have differing views though. In what way does taking down section 377A not uphold our moral and family values? The police does not actively prosecute gay couples who have sex. Gay couples are having sex, whether the law is there or not. They just do it in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and moral and family values will not be tainted unless they start actively recruiting people to join them. I believe that it is their individual right to decide on their choices, and in this instance, they have not compromised on our moral and family values.

I do not see how resolving this law paves the way for the disintegration of our social fabric, the family unit. I believe this is a gross exaggeration. Doing away with this law will not make gays come out and have sex on our mrts or buses. I repeat, the gays are already making love with their own partners. Is doing away with such a law promoting homosexuals? Are perfectly normal human beings going to turn gay because of this? Is the law preventing normal human beings from turning gay? I beg to differ.

Whilst I cannot conclude that gayism is something that exists the moment a person is born, I can concur that gayism does not appear overnight. The female loving bunch of us will continue to love females and not start to love males simply because the law is taken down. Besides, the police are not even prosecuting. The law is kind of redundant in a way.

The part on strong families will lead to a strong nation is redundant. Why? There is no argument in the writer’s point of view that states why gays will lead to less strong families, and hence the nation. Are we still putting on a bias attitude towards gays? Gays may like males, but they may not be sissies. They can be active, contributing Singaporeans and they can also be part of our defence team should anyone invade us.

The writer continues to say that gross indecencies must be penalized, but she fails to acknowledge that such “indecencies” have not been penalized and most probably will not. In fact, it is hard to proof that gays are having sex, unless you catch them red handedly, or they admit. A condom with sperm may mean that he was just jerking off.

“For the survival of our nation and the welfare of the future generation, the petition by NMP Siew should be ignored.” This sentence makes me wonder, will the survival of our nation be compromised? Will our welfare or our future generation’s welfare be compromised? Will there be danger? Unless the writer can sufficiently prove beyond reasonable doubt that it can materialize, it is unfair to reach such a conclusion.

We have to really think about this carefully. Will the removal of section 377A promote homosexuality?

I feel that, as long as the homosexual population do not come out and loudly proclaim their homosexuality and go around encouraging everyone to become homosexuals, then it should be all right. Most of us are uncomfortable with signs of homosexuality, thus they should not disturb the “peace” that we all have now. As long as the above conditions are met, homosexuals can have as much sex as they like and I won’t care.

Should the toilet seat be left up or down?

Over the many years since the toilet seat was invented, when males and females live together, there has been an argument on what should the toilet seat status be. Should it be placed up? Or should it be placed down?

When men pee, they leave the toilet seat up so that there is more “area” or “allowance” to urinate on, such that they have lesser chance of dirtying the toilet seat. (Some idiotic men pee with the toilet seat and end up peeing on the toilet seat. That’s disgusting)

When females want to urinate, they need to sit down on the toilet seats to do so. Don’t come telling me about that latest invention where females can now pee standing up, because that is not the point.

Thus the age-old question is, should the toilet seat be left up or down? If its left up, the men benefits because they do not need to put the seat up just to pee. If its left down, the females benefits because they do not have to put the seat down to pee.

If you think about it mathematically, since shitting also involves sitting down, whether you are male or female (tarzen’s not included. They shit hanging). Thus it makes perfect sense to leave it down since the males need to shit too.

Females who have problems with their male counterparts leaving the seat up labels them as MCPs, or male chauvinist pigs. This label is insulting and derogatory.

Males, on the other end, see this growing trend of argument as a sign of “feminism”. Or one could also term, FCP or female chauvinist pigs. Since the point is that both sides do not want to stand down, they are both as chauvinistic as each other and are both pigs.

The issue could be resolved simply. There is no need for an argument, truly. In fact, just use your hands to change the toilet seating status when ever you want to pee or shit. Its really that simple. Only lazy people will argue over this lame issue.

Or actually, it could just be gentlemanly of us to leave the toilet seat down. However, do not use this gentleman point to argue, because you will just be a dumb and lame person.

An advertiser chose my site?

Well its good news for me because an advertiser chose my site (finally) via Nuffnang. In fact, I nearly wanted to take down the ads since there doesn’t seem to be any activity. However, it shocked me to have 2 ads coming at once at 2 different periods of time.

I guess I will be blogging about the whole experience, so first time Nuffnangers can see what’s the experience like.

I’m happy now..Or should I be?

Anyway it seems too good, especially with all the Nuffnang posts out there about their 1 dollar deduction for postal fees etc. I actually posted a comment on a post and the boss actually remembered my blog. Do you think that’s the reason I suddenly get allocated 2 ads? Hmm.. I’ll never know.

People talk big when they hide behind a wall..

Has it occured to you that people start to talk big when no one can recognize who they are? Well, sometimes I make that mistake too, but ever since I started commenting more, people have started to recognize me so I have to think twice when I say something.

I refer to the post written by A Tattooed Blogger and he has written about a post on Dr Chee. The title of the post is “A disease called Chee“. This post has generated quite a number of comments, just like my other post, and I have discovered that some people like to criticize the blogger and the best thing is they are named Anonymous.

These are the type that call people names but they dare not show their own face. Its really sad, but its true. The internet has given us some matter of privacy, such that we can flame others without revealing our true identity.

I have also made a comment, which perhaps people will disagree and flame, but I couldn’t care less. I guess I am still interested in discussion on such related issues, just that perhaps sometimes the discussion isn’t all that mature when name calling comes.