I have been noticing that there is increased amount of unsafe driving on our roads. Today, my wife was driving and I was in the passenger seat. During the 2 way trip, there were 3 incidents. First, as our lane was blocked for work, my wife tried to pull into the next lane, after indicating. A van which was well behind then deliberately moved much much faster, and to make sure we couldn’t pull into the lane. Second I saw a SUV zip in and out, almost causing an accident – without bothering to indicate. Third, a lorry simply came into our lane, without indication and without giving enough allowance – almost an accident. The driver simply didnt care because of the lorry’s size. I wonder if it is the case that we are simply noticing this more, or if indeed our driving habits have become worse.
The above status update was posted on a minister’s Facebook page. It is true that the driving habits of some people are atrocious, but what took the minister so long to notice? As far as I am concerned, it’s a clear sign that he has been out of touch for too long.
Though many had lauded him for his opinion simply because of his office, I looked at it as just another whining motorist. First of all, the information that a particular lane is blocked for roadworks (or whatever) is often displayed on the Expressway Monitoring Advisory System [EMAS] quite a distance away. In most cases, a motorist would have passed under at least one of those EMAS electronic signboards, and thus have ample time to switch lanes. Unfortunately, a lot of people often ignored the information on EMAS and stayed on their lanes until too late – i.e. when there simply isn’t enough road left to do so safely while maintaining speed. As a result, an entire lane often comes to a complete halt. The chain reaction that followed causes the entire stretch of the Expressway to become congested because everyone would be attempting to change lane, with the vehicles nearest to the block doing so from a stationary position. Now, if I am moving along the next lane and someone tries to filter into my lane from a stationary position, that other driver can do so after I have driven past. Otherwise, I would have to slow down and suffer the inconvenience of being delayed. Just because someone has indicated that he wants to switch over to my lane doesn’t mean I am obliged to do so even though it is a gracious thing to do. Thus, I can understand why the van driver deliberately drove faster. That’s not mentioning, if the road has been congested, the van driver might have been frustrated with the slow moving traffic for a some time already and could tolerate no further delay. Unless the minister wasn’t traveling on the Expressway, the fact that the minister’s wife ignored those notices on EMAS and changed lane only when it is too late would suggest to me that she is among one of those people with a bad driving habit as well.
Next, I wouldn’t condone the action of the SUV driver who zip in and out of traffic. However, that points out another issue. A lot of people drives on the rightmost lane (or lane 1) on any road at speed limit. They drove like that lane belonged to their grandfather, and they are completely oblivious to the concept of an overtaking lane means nor have the common sense to leave that lane even when they noticed a fast oncoming vehicle. Granted the other driver maybe speeding and driving dangerously, it takes just a few seconds to get out of the way and let the other fellow overtake and be on his merry way (or rush on to his death, if you will). I have come to believe many drivers are in a world or their own, or they simply have an ego too big for their own good. That in itself is not surprising, since Singaporeans also behaved the same way when walking in a crowded passageway or shopping mall. That’s not forgetting that everyone paid a king’s ransom to own a vehicle for 10 years.
Slow moving lorries leaving the leftmost lane only make it worse. Not only are they a hazard to other road users, they simply slow traffic down. It is my considered opinion that the SUV driver is not solely responsible for his behavior. He may not have been driving that way had everyone been more considerate. In fact, we should subject a lot of drivers to a annual re-certification driving test since a lot of them apparently throw their highway code out of the window after they get their driving license. But I doubt the minister would care about the finer details of the can of worms he just opened. Frankly, I think this is just the excuse for the traffic police to take strong action against “errant motorists” and increase the revenue of the state coffers.
~ * ~
I think there is a little bit of disconnect between a very vocal small groups online and what I see on the ground… two examples you gave – housing and foreigners… you know, the common appeals I get at MPS, housing is one of them… No one… oh, I won’t say no one, but very very few people are coming forward and complaining that the housing issue is that they can’t afford a flat. Actually it’s the other way around. They are complaining that they can afford a flat but they’re not getting one fast enough…
Take foreigners, for example. I don’t have people coming to me and say there are too many foreigners… but the people that I speak to are asking for the reverse. Most of the residents who are coming to me, their appeals are the reverse, they are asking for help in bringing their relatives in, on a long-term pass, or to get PR or citizenship. A significant number are business owners asking for help in bringing in foreign labour because they just can’t employ Singaporeans.
If there is any disconnect, that disconnect exists between this People’s Action Party [PAP] Member of Parliament [MP] and a large portion of the electorate. Then again, what can we expect from Mr Puthucheary, who has never served National Service? While it is true that Khaw Boon Wan – the current Minister of National Development – is increasing the number of flats built in the next few years to increase availability, it is clear to most people that affordability of the flats is a separate matter entirely. Unless Mr Puthucheary has done some calculation on his own for those residents, I am not sure how he could assert that those people who came to him complaining about the lack of flats really could afford it. That’s not forgetting that if I am telling someone to increase the supply of something, I would definitely be talking about the people who can afford it but not able to get it due to the supply issue.
Few would deny that some employers wants very badly to employ foreigners, and they are not getting enough of them. Has Mr Puthucheary find out whether they can’t employ Singaporeans, or they just won’t? I doubt he bothered. He simply want to portray reality in a way favorable to his party. Since he also mentioned that those seeking his help are asking to bring their relatives into Singapore, wouldn’t that indicate these aren’t local-born Singaporeans? So, why would they be complaining about… themselves? Even if these are new citizen, are they indicative of most Singaporeans in general?
Mr. Puthucheary not only showed the disconnect between the PAP and the people, he has reinforce what some of us have known for some time – i.e. the PAP’s claims that only it has the best candidates is an utter farce. In his haste to try and refute what a large number of people already know and experienced, and in his vain attempt to discredit opposing views as just vocal small groups online, he has forgotten that 39.9% of voters – which certainly isn’t just vocal small groups online – felt very differently and voted the other way in the last General Elections.
Try “try harder”, Mr Puthucheary. Or just continue to serve National Serivce as a doctor.
By the way, saving lives is the duty of a doctor. To argue it is a form of national service is to suggest that a life-saving doctor is an exception rather than the norm. I simply can’t think of a greater insult to the other doctors who are tirelessly doing their part to save lives.
~ * ~
Declaring the issue to be “of real public interest”, the Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision and allowed an application to proceed to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men. In a 106-page written judgment, Justice Rajah said:
We emphasise that we are not deciding here that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 12 as that goes to the merits of the Application, but are instead merely deciding that it is arguably so, which suffices for the present appeal on the preliminary issue of whether the Application should be struck out. The constitutionality or otherwise of Section 377A is thus of real public interest. We also note that Section 377A has other effects beyond criminal sanctions. One unwanted effect of Section 377A is that it may also make criminals out of victims.
The judge has a good point. The fact that Section 377A is vague means that if a victim is being forced to perform fellatio or is violated in his anus, he may also be charged under Section 377A. As such, I believe the law itself needs to be amended and refined to protect victims.
Since the Attorney-General position is there is “no real and credible threat of prosecution” under Section 377A for private consensual sexual acts between two adult males, and that there are ministerial statements made in Parliament indicating the law will not be “proactively” enforced, then Section 377A should explicitly indicate that anyone who does so in public places like a public toilet (even while in the privacy of a cubicle) should be punished, even when both are in mutual consent.
However, the matter of whether the provisions of Section 377A affects the lives of “a not insignificant portion of the community” is actually irrelevant. In any case, any figures – either official or estimates – are open to debate. If the figures are too low, homosexual lobbyists will insist many remained in the closet and refused to be counted. If they are too high, conservatives will challenge that those figures are inflated.
Just as not every heterosexual who engages in sex are doing it because they have any feelings for one another, the same goes for some who engage in the activities stipulated under Section 377A. In other words, I see no reason why this particular group should go unpunished – the same way the law punishes someone who patronises an underage prostitute, or someone who have sex in public. If this judicial decision results in the repeal of Section 377A, it would be the equivalent of throwing out the baby along with the bath water.
~ * ~
