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.

Why do we China woman this, China woman that?

This is not the usual blast the Stomp article entry, although I would say that there is some things to be criticized.

Either Stomp tried to sensationalize things by labeling China Woman, or that its the sender. I believe its both.

Why do we keep doing this? We repeatedly label them as from China, making it such that it seems as if China people are all doing something wrong. The white sheeps from China seem to suffer a lot due to the black sheeps.

“Put a stop to bad service,” the STOMPer said in an email on 18 Sept, after the encounter at about 6pm that same day with a rude staff she thinks is from China.

The problem with this is that the stomper does not really know if she is from China, and the only thing that probably led her to this conclusion is the accent. However my point is not how she derived at the conclusion, but rather, on the issue that society has become more biased against people from China.

Isn’t it?

Trust me, everything goes wrong on a China person, the proper nationality will be printed.

Stomping on snails..

Recently another article on Stomp amused me. Its a few photos of snails on grasses and apparently this person was quite bothered by it to take photos to send to stomp. The headline is also weird. It reads, “Are snails helping to cut grass?” which seems quite sarcastic to me.

However my dear Singaporeans, do not be more ignorant than Ignorantsoup. Such snails are quite common. In fact I have a few at the grass patch near my house too. Even toads. Should I stomp them? Perhaps I can say that toads are having a mini Esplanade at my house area.

Funny how some mundane stuff are contributed to Stomp.Maybe tomorrow I will use plenty of tissue paper and say “Look at how much tissue I use!”

Innocent Pregnant Ladies..

Don’t you think that pregnant ladies are quite vulnerable when they go on public transports? Their weak, under-developed fetus aside, they are extremely vulnerable to people with camera phones. Why are they vulnerable, you may ask, so let’s see some proof.

Pregnant Lady at Stomp

This pregnant lady was recently Stomped on the MRT because no one gave up a seat for her. Source: (Stomp, 3 Sept)

And a few other more examples: #1 | #2

Three examples in just the month of August / September.

I just wonder, did anyone ask for the pregnant lady’s permission before snapping that photo of her? Clearly, some photos does show the lady’s face and she might not like it when people take her photos like that. Besides, the purpose of sending photos to Stomp is to “shame” the people who do not give up their seats isn’t it? Then why, in certain photos, is the pregnant lady the “center of attraction”?

I think pregnant ladies are innocent and this is not a good way to treat a pregnant lady when it is clearly not her fault. I feel that pregnant ladies should be exempted from the shock of finding herself Stomped on a national “citizen journalism website”. I suggest that people who wish to Stomp for every single bit of thing exercise restraint in capturing the pregnant lady’s facial features. Perhaps you can just take the shot such that it is evident that the lady is pregnant, and yet the main attention is focused on the criminals discourteous passengers. In this way, we will save our ladies unnecessary stress and they may even be more encouraged to have babies since no one will be Stomping them unnecessarily.

Anyway that last sentence was a load of crap.

I stroke out the word criminals because, with all the attention being focused on these people, they may very well be seen as a criminal, however I do not think they deserve being labeled as such, thus I call them discourteous.

What do y’all think?

Who is this NUS idiot?

See Stomp post here.

I’m quite pissed off and irritated at this Stomper. Frankly I think what he/she did is lame and thoughtless. We are now judging people based on our values system. Do we know what’s going on in their heads?

Tell you what, I know the reason why they are putting the trays on the floor. They have no space to accomodate all the trays on the table, plus they need the trays to put all the plates and utensils back to the clearing point. That is the reason why they put the trays on the floor.

Its raining that day and it may dirty the tray? Hell I think the trays would be wiped down before re-use isn’t it? Plus the photo doesn’t really show that its wet. It may be raining, but if the rain does not fall or dirty the area where they put the trays, your argument doesn’t hold.

Makes me wonder how some people think. Please spare a thought for others. This situation is totally uncalled for.

3G SAF – You are Stomped!

Our 3G SAF has been stomped by a stomper. Apparantly, two guys in SAF No3 were caught by this stomper playing pool in uniform. Other alleged “crimes” include leaving his shirt untucked and taking out his name tag.

Our Stomp has since evolved into something as stupid as that. What is the real point in sending this photo? Like schools, our 3G SAF has their own delinquents. Why are we so busybody as to take a photo of such a minor thing? Unless the Stomper gets to win a little digital camera or something, I don’t see why he or she should even bother. Maintaining a high class SAF? Lol.

This Stomp post reminded me of another post. Remember the one where the policeman is sleeping in the police car? Well, maybe the public is getting too much into the uniform = strict rules and regulations thing. I guess its deeply rooted into our education system that when we go int an institution with a uniform, we must always uphold the image. Yes, uphold the image is the right thing to do, however, sometimes flexibility is needed. In the policeman example, he could be off duty and just did a 24 hour no rest duty, rendering him too tired. Thus, he fell asleep.

Granted, these SAF privates have no excuse, but the only wrong thing they did is to tuck out their uniforms and “smoke”. I say “smoke” because the photos do not show us evidence of smoking (if I am not cock eye). I think we should cut them some slack when it comes to playing pool. Even in the camps, we have pool tables to play too.

I guess Singaporeans need to keep to themselves more. Sometimes its better to close an eye and not appear to be so petty. The Stomper seems to be in a gleeful mood, saying “I will be looking forward to hearing from the respective units on the actions taken for their misconduct”. It seems like he has gotten screwed by rules and is waiting for people to get screwed too.

Indecent act in broad daylight?

Well lately, our MWH (Men with handphones) have been busy at work generating camera shots of people doing the wrong things. Whether it its wrong or not, we do not know, but we do know that our MWH are judging them based on their own judgement. One of it is this.

I do not know if that it is morally right to send this photo to Stomp. I do not know what the person experienced or saw in reality. I guess the person must have been courageous to go up and take a photo whilst the man is playing with his dick. However I do feel thankful that the person’s face can’t be seen.

This is to give the person a benefit of the doubt. He may not be playing with his dick. In fact, all he may be doing is scratching his balls, and if someone identifies him from a photo for something he did not do, I guess it would be horrendous. It is also tasteless to send such a photo. Is the person trying to get that guy into trouble? In fact I believe that the proper way would be to call the police to handle him for indecent exposure. Let the police handle it.

I guess next time someone will send a photo to stomp about a robbery and not call the police.. The day that happens, we’re screwed.