A woman was caught with a sweet in her mouth while riding on the MRT. She explained to the station master, Mr Roger Foo, that she felt giddy and thirsty but since drinking was disallowed, she took a sweet instead.
Mr Foo was insistent that it was against the law to eat on the train, even if it was just a sweet – and he promptly proceeded to fine her S$30.
What’re your thoughts on this incident? Was Mr Foo blindly following the letter of the law instead of understanding the spirit of it?
The following video is from Razor TV:
PR video obviously.
Well this is the “season” for catching those who eat/drink on trains, give them some time, they will be “complacent” and stop checking.
Blindly sticking to the letter of the law? That’s how Singaporeans are educated in our world class education system.
Educated but ignorant and incapable of thinking.
This is also why Mas Selamat escaped. No law dictates that there should be window grills on toilet windows. No law dictates that there should be people guarding the OPEN window of the toilet.
No law = No need do. Simple.
Good job SMRT! Keep up the good work. Oh and I hope to see your excellent staff like the “fool” here checking on us a year from now.
Oh and I forgot to mention, due to the influx of foreign “talents”, there aren’t even SPACE on the MRT for me to enter at all, do you think your EVER vigilant staff can walk through the cabins and check?
Think, think and think before you open your mouth and make useless polices like this.
The government fines people for reasons no matter how petty or absurd to pocket more income due to its insatiable greed. Seriously, we ain’t mindless stupid androids, we are humans, for goodness sake! Where’s our rights?
SMRT is terrible service imo especially after the country received a sudden influx of foreigners & it decided to maximize its profits by making commuters wait longer between trains, say, 6 minutes.
6 minutes may not sound much, however, step into a train at super-peak hours from 10am-4pm on weekdays & you’ll still not be able to get a seat. The trains are still god damned packed. Not to mention the trains are really hot & stuffy too due to heat radiation from throngs of human bodies.
SMRT holds the monopoly for public transport, offers lousy service in terms of traveling comfort, ran the “happy journey” campaign despite its lousy service that caused pissed off, angry commuters, & still have the cheek to fine people for something so petty.
Dear All,
I am of the opinion that SMRT should clamp down on all irresponsible commuters not just ‘sweet-eaters’. (That’s so lame!)
My list of irresponsible commuters would include
- People who do not give way to alighting or boarding passengers;
- People who do not give up their seats to the elderly, disabled and pregnant women;
- People who sit on floor of the carriage;
- People who bring in foods that smell e.g. fried foods, anything with durian in it;
- People carrying ridiculously bulky items.
Also, SMRT should be really be firm about the use of the so-called priority seats. The signage above the seats should be changed to include stronger, assertive language like – ‘If you are not above 55 years; disabled or pregnant DO NOT SIT HERE’ and it should be done in all the four languages. Keep it clear, simple and idiot proof.
Of course at the end of the day, we should also acknowledge the fact that human nature is hard to change overnight. But I do believe that change can happen if there are concerted efforts by all concerned to play their part. Of course, some may need some ‘nudging’.
Benedict
37)BD
You indirectly prompted me to ask a question.
The law gives one the power to “arrest” and not to “harrass”..
Is it legally alright to have a camera crew to film one’s act and take action on them for a minor offence?Can the passenger in this case take legal action on SMRT If she does not give the consent to be humiliated?Any one can advise?Maybe the passenger can claim back some damages caused and can generate some profit from the embarrassment and humiliation ….
and
31)Kopitiamapek
Heng ah, this time a consolation you never say I off track though I have a bit.Anyway sad not to see “ah soh” with you here.
c’mon for god sake sweet is candy its not food, bunch of morons good for nothing wayang wayang month end collect pay, see the FOOL’s face also TL man spoil my appetite i have to take candy to fill my tummy when im hungry liao
You know I would have taken this a lot better if MRT service was for free. Since I’m the beggar, I’ll follow whatever sh*tty rules you have.
But the fact is I PAY for the service and SMRT makes millions every year. In other words, I’m a PAYING CUSTOMER. Where else on earth do you see customers being treated this way? So what if we dirty the place, from the millions that you make from us you can jolly well employ a cleaner in every cabin to clean up after us!
“But the fact is I PAY for the service and SMRT makes millions every year.”
In addition, they are saving cost by removing seats away. Why this cost-saving never pass back to the passengers ? Pay more for discomfort and SMRT still think that it is doing the passenger a great service.
55) agongkia
///////Anyway sad not to see “ah soh” with you here.//////
Ah Soh, you are being missed in TOC
Please materialise
54) Benedict Thambiah
///////Also, SMRT should be really be firm about the use of the so-called priority seats. The signage above the seats should be changed to include stronger, assertive language like – ‘If you are not above 55 years; disabled or pregnant DO NOT SIT HERE’ and it should be done in all the four languages. Keep it clear, simple and idiot proof. //////
May I suggest sensor activated sharp spikes evenly spaced at 5 centimetres apart which will protrude from beneath the seat into your ass the moment it detects you do not belong the the catogory of old, diasbled, pregnant or near dead.
Hang on a second.
Is it even a law? Isn’t SMRT a private corporation, though under the purview of the LTA? I mean, their front page features, of all things, a stock quote. I was rather expecting to find a journey planner or somesuch. Never mind.
Point is – isn’t the whole ‘no eating and drinking’ thing a policy enacted by a private entity with regard to the acceptable use of its premises?
wayang wayang.
If the film is real, don’t you think the woman (eating the sweet) would protest ? what would you have done. the smart thing to do is to swallow the sweet immediately and demand the SMRT officer for proof! ha ha
Otherwise, as hansolo has pointed out, ST razor caused the problem!
Is it me or is it that more fine news are being reported?
So, what TIME is it?
get the drift?
I guess drinking is part and parcel of daily life. Many carry decanters around too. Decanters are really useful for fox hunting trips in the winter to store some whisky. It’s callled bar in the pocket.
50) I have had it!!!! on July 23rd, 2009 9.47 am
but look at it this way, more laws like this may make singaporeans EVEN MORE law abiding I think.
so , what is the effect?
======================================
will this have any effect on nurturing of singaporeans?
recently, i heard something like law professionals approvable by Law minster?
correct me if i wrong. i not very clear also.
I suspect the video is staged too, in order to test responses? But unfortunately, it also shows the harshness of SMRT or its stupidity in reasoning.
If sweet is not allowed, then SMRT should not allow coughing in the train too. Otherwise, those who have to cough would choose not to take sweet to control its manifestation. Or if you feel like vomiting, you better vomit it on the train instead of taking sweet to stop that.
Some talk of the spirit of the law which is a good point. If the intent is that eating is discourteous to other commuters (e.g. because of the smell), then the woman should not be fined. If on the other hand the intent is to keep the train clean and free from rats and cockroaches etc, then the woman should be fined.
This is really ridiculous. Come on … eating sweets infringe the law? GIVE US A BREAK MAN! And I read receently breastfeeding a baby is also not allowed? Are you going to fine the baby too? I dont know what is happening to our fellow singaporeans? tsk, tsk…
68) juliana
//////// And I read receently breastfeeding a baby is also not allowed? Are you going to fine the baby too? //////////
Interesting point you brought up.
I think since the baby is below 21, he/she could be placed in a juvenile home for babies. I hink it is now in Cluster 4 of Chnagi Prison. You would be able to recognised it by ear, an incessant noise of screaming of babies.
It is interesting to read all the comments…I think many are right to point out that the law should be more flexible: what should be allowed and what shouldn’t need be stated clearly. Honestly I don’t think mineral water or some small sweet is a cause of hygienic concern serious enough to get the drinker/eater fined… Besides, what about those who suffer from hyperglycaemia? How could someone in dire need of a sweet to prevent himself from fainting be fined for trying to save himself? There is really a lot of room for improvement on the current rules and regulations imposed on the public.
Sillypore with silly law, stupid SMRT. If ppl with low blood sugar cannot eat sweet get fainted & fell in the MRT track, who going to resposible for that?