Other than item 2 on this post, which is experienced by someone, most of this are taken from letters sent to the papers. While I no longer have some those letters with me, I will attempt to recall the specifics of the letters (and in the case of item 2, the incident itself).

1.Keeping left on escalators

This was a hot topic for a while, around June and early July last year, but what really shocked me was two of the letters from those which opposed the suggestion that those who do not desire to walk should keep to the left and allow others to do so. One argued that the escalators are narrow and are not built for overtaking, while the other went so far to say that overtaking on escalators is irritating because the shoes of those overtaking make a lot of noise.

Well, I am quite sure everyone can attest to the fact that most escalators in Singapore allows two people to stand side by side per step without any discomfort. I do know of some escalators which are not really designed for two people, such as the ones linking the underpass of 1 Fullerton and the Fullerton Hotel, the one at the People’s Park Complex facing the entrance of the China Town MRT Station, and the ones at Katong Shopping Centre, but they are far in a few in between.

So what’s the real problem with these people? What is really so difficult for them to just keep a bit more to the left and allow others to pass? I do not wish to speculate, because I will settle down to very personal attacks on their person if I do.

This topic was subsequently extended to the use of travellators linking the N-E Line to the N-S Line in Dhoby Ghaut, in which one guy actually wrote in to suggest that no one should walk on the travellators. His opinion being that people would want to stand on the travellators to read their papers or magazine or whatever craps for that short distance they are on the travellator.

What the hell?! How long does it take for the damned travellator to traverse the whole distance between the N-E Line and the N-S Line in Dhoby Ghaut anyway? Just how much of his blasted reading material can he read on the travellator? Above which, I am always under the impression that travellators are either meant for people with some things in tow, or perhaps, for folks which have difficulty in moving around. But reading papers?!

I turned a blind eye to the continual refusal of fellow Singaporeans to keep left on escalators since I can’t really do much about it. But this is only the tip of the iceberg as far as ungracious Singaporeans are concerned.

2. There’s a demon at the back of the bus

Well, it’s the time of the year that I ended up in Maju Fitness Conditioning Centre again. I ended up there annually for a 2 month ‘stint’ and it is my own fault for not keeping fit.

One day, as the FCC 2IC (Second-in-command for short) was giving us a briefing on physical fitness conditioning and related topics, he suddenly broached on the matter of how unbecoming the younger generation of Singaporeans have become. The 2IC, 1WO Chua (now retired), is in his very early 50s. One can see from the gray of his hair that he isn’t young, but of course he’s hell alot fitter than many of us.

If I recalled correctly, 1WO Chua mentioned to us that one day he scolded a teenager from Ngee Ann Polytechnic as he was coming to the camp in the morning because the kid was blocking the pathway and he refused to move to the back of the bus. Instead of feeling sorry for his selfish act, the kid actually stared back at 1WO Chua.

1WO Chua told the kid off and said this, “You are in the wrong and you still dare to stare at uncle?”
(Well done, 1WO Chua. Do you know the RT guys at Maju FCC missed you a for your straight talking, and also your jokes?)

This has been a problem on our public transports for as long as I know. All you need to stand at a bus stop and observe some crowded buses and you will wonder if there’s an unseen, fearsome demon at the back of every bus keeping people from moving to the rear.

Bad enough? I’ll ease up on the poor folks using public transport, and direct your attention to our private car owners next.

3. Carpark lots for the handicapped

It was the week whereby there was a tradefair in SunTec Convention Hall. It’s either one of those computer fairs, or NATAS. I think it was just that few weeks before the Mid-Autumn Festival. As usual, Singaporeans drove their cars to SunTec, hoping to get their money’s worth of ‘value-for-money’ IT stuff or travel packages. (I didn’t use the word cheap or else someone who is overly sensitive might suggest that I am calling him a ‘cheapo’.)

That caused traffic jams in the surrounding area, and turned carpark space in the vicinity into the most wanted commodity during that weekend.

A few days later, someone wrote a letter to the papers, asking the management of SunTec City to reduce the number of lots reserved for handicap people. He argued that there were too many such lots, and SunTec should find out the ratio of handicapped people in the population compared to able-bodied people, and keep the number of lots equal to that ratio, or open those lots when there are not enough lots for people like him to park. (I wonder what is going to happen to this joker has SunTec replied that this is exactly what they did when assigning the number of handicap lots, or that the ratio of handicap lots is far lower than the ratio of handicap people vs able-bodied people in Singapore’s population. Vomit blood, perhaps?)

I go to SunTec almost every weekend, and I am sure everyone who goes there often will realize that when there are no tradefairs in SunTec, there are more than enough carpark lots to go about. The lots nearest to the Convention Centre, and furthest away from Carrefour, are available most of the time.

So, whenever there’s a tradefair down at SunTec, I always inform my friends and remind them to either park at Marina Square, Millenium or even Shaw Towers at Beach Road. And that caused me to wonder, what’s the matter with this fellow? What is so difficult for him to park elsewhere and walk a little to SunTec? Is parking fees in other places more expensive than SunTec? Or is he simply too damn blasted lazy to walk that few steps? Or perhaps he had some lower limb problems of their own with their hips, knees or ankles?

Then perhaps he should start a drive to accord to him handicapped status and so he can now rightfully park in the handicap parking lots!

I will not be too hard on him, and move on to the next problem child, again about public transports.

4. Making public transport more handicap friendly

This topic was even more recent. And again, I must say two of the letters almost had me wanting to find out the telephone number of the writer and to call him personally to give him a tongue lashing. This very person argued that if the transport companies were to put more buses which are handicap friendly, it will increase the time the bus will spend in every stop, and thus caused the able-bodied commuters to be ‘late for work’!

(And I seem to recall a reference in which this writer suggest that the handicapped people use taxis or specialised bus service be provided to them instead, but I will leave that aside since I have no reference to support this allegation.)

Yes! Late for work!

Come on man! If you are late for work taking this bus, then take the bus before this. I mean, how can one blame the bus for causing him to be late for work, when after a few days taking the same bus, and knowing the travelling time taken for the bus to reach his destination, not change to an earlier bus so he can be punctual for work?

While it is possible that once in a while, unpredictable traffic conditions like accidents, break downs or the weather might slow down traffic and cause one to be late, Singapore’s public transport is good enough to allow one an estimated travelling time so as to avoid arriving late for work. But again, isn’t that damned typical of people these days, to not take responsibility for their own doings?

Then there’s a follow-up letter by someone who also argued that public transport is not a suitable mode of transport for the handicapped, especially the MRT during peak hours because everyone is rushing to work. I don’t know how he come to that conclusion but it seems to be a veiled reference to handicapped users being a hinderance and that there isn’t room and time for able-bodied Singaporeans to make allowance for this people.

Disappointing? Well, look at the next breed of the ugly public transport user.

5. Giving up seats to those who needed it more

Someone wrote to the papers complaining that no one bothered to give up their seats to her, despite the fact that she had difficulty standing on the bus while carrying her child. In her letter, she was quite specific in directing her unhappiness at the undergrads who travelled on that bus.

I do think it wasn’t necessary for her to single out the undergrads on that bus, even though I do agree with her view that someone should be gracious enough to give up the seat for her. And I am not writing to say that she has no grounds to express her unhappiness.

I am writing about a follow-up reply to this letter in which a young undergrad replied that since everyone paid for their trips, then no one is obliged to give up their seats. I do not recall if he went as far as suggesting that the lady take a cab, but even without saying so, that was quite enough. Now, here’s someone who is pretty educated by our educational standards, justifying that he has a right not to do the right things!

Wow! No one can force you to do the right things really, but to actually justify that he is not obliged to do the right things in the mass media? I couldn’t find anything more offensive, and in fact, more stupid than that!

What is happening to our educational system? Are we imparting only the hard skills of making a living, but never bothered to stop and teach the younger generation the softer skills of living in harmony and graciousness with one another?

I was hoping that this will be the end of selfishness and self-righteousness I will be hearing about, then a bucket of pink shit hit the fan.

6. The Handicapped Toilets

Xiaxue aka Wendy Cheng shot to fame when her blog became the Singapore blog of the year (or something to that effect) last year. I will refer to her as xiasuay since I think all Singaporeans ‘kenna xiasuay’ [Hokkien for ’caused to lose face’] because of one of her blog articles.

While there is no wrong in saying that anyone can use toilets for the handicapped if it is not in use, it is completely wrong to justify that one has the right to use it simply because one’s friend was unfortunate to push open the door of a handicapped toilet that is not properly locked and got scolded, and another friend was unfortunate enough to get scolding from another handicapped person (or was it the same guy) when he came out of the cubicle after he relieved himself in another occasion.

Even if the handicapped person was very rude in the language or tone use to rebuke those two unfortunate souls, the matter would have been simply water under the bridge by apologising and getting on with life. There was no need to justify one’s right on using those toilets. It is my considered opinion that if you needed to use it, finish your business as quickly as possible, and leave before an urgent handicapped person responding to nature’s call comes around.

But then, what’s so wrong with her piece on her blog? She’s also saying that able-bodied people can use those toilets.

Nothing wrong with that, but what was the damned objective in the first place? She felt that her friends didn’t deserve a scolding and so went forth to give a good lashing to those handicapped people in question. Are we to say that the ends justifies the means if we say there’s nothing wrong with what she wrote?

A view out of a million perhaps? But it was a view out of a million read by tens of thousands.

Just imagine Adolf Hitler without the Nazis. And there will be no Holocaust. Xiasuay without her tens of thousands of blog hits, and no one gives a flying fox about her one view in a million. Q.E.D.

Is she the last of the ‘Moron-icans’?

Not quite yet. Another kind of self-righteous Singaporean enters the scene.

7. To pay or not to pay ERP?

The gover-min thought it was such a bright idea to put up another ERP after the YMCA and the LTA claimed that it was a measure to deter drivers from using the Orchard area as a transit route to another location. It is part of the state’s policy to ‘re-invent Orchard’ to ensure that it will remain a tourist attraction in the future.

Sounds goods?

Not after a cab driver demanded from a passenger that someone going to the YMCA also pay ERP because he would be forced to drive into the Orchard are and to shoulder the ERP charges because there will be no escape for him if he stopped right in front of YMCA.

The passenger refused to pay and so the cab driver dropped his fare 10 meters before the junction leading to the YMCA so that he can filter right to escape the ERP.

Needless to say, and true to being a Singaporean, the passenger wrote to the papers to complain!

Well, in most cases the cabbie would be in trouble. I don’t think he will be able to get away from this either, if he was harsh to his fare. However, I do think that the cabbie has a right to protect his self interest if it’s really the case that he would need to bear the ERP charges if he is to stop right in front of YMCA. It would be unfair to him, and after all, passengers going to the IBM Towers in Anson pay for the ERP too even though they never pass under the ERP.

So what’s wrong here?

What’s wrong is that the person who wrote the complaint went on to ridicule those people who stopped their cars before the gantry and wait for the operating hours to be over. He said that if these car owners have money to pay for their car installments, why are they not paying ERP.

That, is quite funny. Here’s a guy refusing to pay ERP, complaining about people doing the same thing.

If you do not see the irony in that, I do. But let’s move on to the next ‘genius’ that I want to make a point about in this post.

8. Board Skating at Raffles Place

Someone wrote a letter asking for more effective reinforcement in stopping skateboarders at Raffles Place because of the damage the skateboarders have done to public property, such as the granite seats. The writer mentioned that the skateboarders played a game of hide and seek with the law enforcers, often scattering to the four winds before the police arrive. (And if my memories didn’t fail me, even the grounds above Dhoby Ghaut MRT is faced with this menace.)

In my personal opinion, if the skateboarders want to go test if their knees are really harder than the granite seats, I would gladly oblige them, on the condition that they pay for the damage if the granite seats damage by their skateboards, or that they have super-knees made of titanium.

Frankly, I am no fan of more law enforcements. It has become far too common place for Singaporeans to go screaming for the authorities to take action. In some cases, some sickos even go on to suggest slapping fines on things which is simply a matter of having good manners – like being courteous to sales people, or to propose the harshest punishment imaginable – caning foreigners working as prostitutes in Geylang while on social visit pass. Sometimes, people believing that there’s a miscarriage of justice write to the papers to ‘remind’ / ‘inform’ the authorities to do their duty, such as the person asking why the buyer and seller are not charged while the lawyer and the agent are, for getting kickbacks in the deal. No one can fault this writer for being civic-minded and raising awareness to the skateboard matter, and as usual, I wouldn’t have care to mention this issue until some nosy ‘smart aleck’ makes some wise-ass comments when replying to the letter.

Now, Mr ‘Smart Aleck’ was so upset with letter complaining about the skateboarders, that he went on at some length building a case on why we should leave them alone. In summary, Mr ‘Smart Aleck’ argued that the writer lacked understanding of youth sub-cultures and claims that such culturally deviant behaviour has its place in society. He even chastised the writer for failing to see how much revenue skateboarding has generated for the economy, citing examples of T-shirts associated with skateboarding and how it permeates into pop-culture, billboards, MTV etc. Thus, he suggest that no matter what amount of public funds is needed for the repairs of the granite seats, the economic benefits from skateboarding – in the form of skateboard related items – is more than enough to pay for it.

Wow! Solid siah! Someone make this guy a mini$ter!! I am sure Mr. ‘Smart Aleck’ Mini$ter has already worked out the detailed breakdown on how much money skateboarding has earned for the Singapore economy, and how much of that goes back into funding the repairs of those broken granite seats!

No wonder the Cantonese said that even if you are 100 year-old, you will hear news. I have learn something new today and I find that as long as there’s economic benefits, even vandalism can be justified. Perhaps its high time I come up with special markers for vandals so that they can go turn graffiti into some kind of artistic sub-culture. In fact, I should also come up with a special solution that can clean the marks left by these markers and also a cleaning service specialised in cleaning walls with graffiti.

Clearly, there’s no better example of what the Hokkien called ‘黑白讲’ [literally translates as ‘anyhow say’ or twisting the truth] than this. And that brings us to the final specimen of ‘Moron-icans’ I want to talk about.

9. Ladies’ Night at pubs

One lady writer wrote that her friend, dressed in jeans and short sleeves, was denied entry at one of the Mohd Sultan pubs. And as if this discrimination isn’t bad enough, the female employee at the door actually called the friend a ‘butch’ simply because she didn’t approve of the way this lady is dressed.

Add bad service to this mess!

While I would admit that the definition of a ‘butch’ is really subjective, was there really a need to insult this lady? After all, was there a rule that one must dress in skirt or a dress by the pub? I’ll leave that to the pub in question to answer for it. But what really makes my blood boil, is the reply from a kaypoh lady reader a few days later.

A reply from another lady! Alright!

But if you thought it was a reply to support the original complaint, you are terribly wrong!

She went on to reiterate what is commonly known to pub goers, that Ladies Night is an event to draw the crowd and to help increase revenue. She even instructed the lady who is rejected entry to ‘play by the rules’ of the pub and if she doesn’t like it then go to the other 101 watering holes in the vicinity. She even gone so far to say it’s an event to promote ‘heterosexual interaction’ (or something along those lines). It was a subtle and explicit suggestion to the readers that the lady rejected entry is lesbian and thus a ‘butch’.

Fierce, isn’t she? (And I’ll need to ask a lawyer if there’s grounds to press charges for libel in this case.)

Yet, she failed to see the real issue behind. Discrimination.

She might have thought she’s doing the pub a favour in this reply, but the image she has presented to me was terrible. In my mind, this dumb kaypoh letter gives me the impression that if a lady wants to get cheap or free drinks on Ladies Night, she should dress like she’s ready to be picked up or in such a way that men will transfer their brain functions to their testicles and penis!

No wonder many guys think of pubs as a good place to look for one night stand! Can all the ladies stand up and give her around of applause for diminishing the role of women in her reply and making women sound like just play things for men at pubs?

I am sure there are more of these people for me to write about. Rest assured I’ll be back with more once I find enough of them to raise the ire in me.