We Singaporeans are not unfamiliar with the law stating that no one is allowed to eat or drink on Buses and MRT. The enforcement of this law is crucial to maintaining the cleanliness of public area, yet there are certain parts of the law that is seen as too harsh. This commentary will be discussing the importance of this law, and its drawbacks.
This year, a monthly average of more than 500 Notification of Offence (NOO) is given out to commuter found eating or drinking on public transport. This may seem like a small number of people, but if every single one of them discards a wrapper, spill sugared drinks or leave morsel of food in our public transport system, the state at the end of the day will be unimaginable. Moreover, the 500 people caught red-handed are only the tip of the iceberg with many others getting away through lightning response speed once an officer on patrol draws near.
These self-centered individuals not only inconvenience others, but also create lasting damage on Singapore’s global image as a garden city. However, I feel that this law has the power to mould Singapore into a more cultured and civilized society which will cast a wonderful impression on tourists and foreign investors. The starting fine of $30 is an insignificant amount to many people, and will not act as a strong deterrent for people to abide by the law. Therefore, to increase the effectiveness of the law, I suggest a heavier fine and corrective work order should be given to offenders.
Now, I would like to raise the question “is an apparently gracious society formed by the citizen’s fear of punishment a truly gracious society?” The obvious answer is no, but it is still one step further towards such a society. The reason is that when people do not commit offences for an extended period of time, the idea of not eating and drinking on public transport sinks in and finally become a good practice. Another method of achieving a truly gracious society is to start nurturing our young generation to be considerate, thoughtful and selfless individuals. The large likelihood of this being effective can be seen from the fact that more than 50% of the NOOs going to teenagers and children which represent a relatively small fraction of the population.
However, there has also being many public comments regarding the ban on ALL drinks, including the pure, non-contaminating water. It is indeed true that some flavored drinks can be clear like water and thus SMRT said that people who need water can approach a SMRT staff for permission, which is clearly not practical. Almost all public transports are air-conditioned, which decreases the humidity of the air, and it is very common for rides to be longer than an hour in duration, which can lead to dehydration of different extent. When people desperately need to quench their thirst, it will be impossible to locate a staff immediately. I feel that this part of the law is too harsh and lead to more inconvenience to the public than it actually prevents.
In conclusion, I feel that the law of no drinking and eating on public transport is necessary to keep a check on the actions of individuals, but educating people to be more responsible is the key to solving the problem and changing Singapore into the Global Hut it is aspired to be. Yet at the same time, additional measures should also be put in place to ensure minimal disruption to the public.
(593 Words)
August 28, 2009
April 12, 2009
$40 Million Orchard Road Facelift -- Gone to waste?
Orchard Road is well known as the entertainment hub of Singapore with its numerous shops attracting millions of people to visit it every year. This shopping paradise is a place tourists in Singapore will not miss, even for the world. The Singapore Tourism Board had recently completed its $40 million makeover of Orchard Road, which includes the state-of-the-art lighting, power upgrading, landscaping, repaving works and many more. However, the facelift is seen as unnecessary by the majority of the public.
Since the purpose of the facelift is to improve the image of Orchard Road and thus bringing in more visitors, the facelift can be seen as mostly useless as this facelift have gone unnoticed for many people. In a poll done by LifeStyle, an astounding 40% of the population did not notice the changes, and even among the people for notice the changes, half could only name a single change along the pedestrian mall. Quoted from a civil servant, “I know that landscaping is expensive but I don’t think it’s worth it. I hardly see the difference.” and I agree with him wholeheartedly on this as I myself did not really see any difference the two times I visited the place after the facelift was completed.
Other than being hardly noticeable, certain parts of the facelift impractical and have also caused inconvenience to the public and even pose potential dangers. The flower totems and glass placed on the pavement have being said to obstruct the flow of people, making it harder to get from one place to another. One member of the public even commented “The flower totems are annoying because they block your view and we don’t really know the purpose of the glass panels.” At the same time, further queries have been raised regarding the safety of the glass panels as people may get drunk and smash it, or into it causing injuries.
During this period of global economic crisis, $40 million dollars is not a small sum at all, and the money could have made an extremely large difference to families with financial difficulties. Rather than doing so, the facelift decision was made without asking for any comments from the public, which resulted in the use of money in changes which was barely noticeable but not certain pressing problems such as the maintenance of the cleanliness of the pavements which are covered in leaves from the trees. A sales promoter also brings out more possible and significant changes by said “I read they were going to change the litter bins but I don’t notice anything. For $40 million, they should have built a bridge across the road.”
Therefore I feel that the authorities in charge should ensure that they have consent from every entity and be clear what the public wants before they set off in such a facelift in the future. As for the current situation, they should be trying to clear up the doubts of the public and also maintain the whole of Orchard road.
In conclusion, I feel that the most part of the $40 million had gone unnoticed or to waste, which is a failure on the part of the authorities, who should have been more thrifty in the current economic situations and made sure that the facelift is worth every cents put into it.
March 28, 2009
What is Exposition?
The four rhetorical modes of discourse are exposition, argumentation, description and narration. Exposition is a writing or a speech which is primarily intended to explain, describe, give information or inform the reader. Since they are used to help the reader understand certain things, they are mostly factual in nature and thus written in 3rd person. A piece of expository text assumes that readers have no prior knowledge and thus must be clear and organised for the reader to be able understand the crux immediately.
Exposition can provide the readers with some key information that is nessesary to understanding the plot, yet too much of it will cause the story to come to a stand still causing the reader to lose interest. Therefore, when writing a piece of expository text, one must know clearly what to write and what to exclude. The types of expository writing includes Sequence, Descriptive Essays, Classification, Comparison and Cause-and-effect.
Bibliography:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
