Why don't Singaporeans take 'no eating' sign seriously?

Wed, Aug 15, 2007

The Straits Times

Why don't S'poreans take 'no eating' sign seriously?
By Andrew Chin

IT was a sight to behold. Something that outraged Mr Tang Juen Tee so much he decided to capture the spectacle on camera.

On a crowded MRT train at 10pm last Tuesday, a man having his own little "picnic" on the floor, taking his imaginary gravy train to the land of the well-fed.

Mr Tang, 34, a freelance IT consultant, said he has seen his fair share of people flouting the "no eating or drinking" rule at MRT stations and on trains - even though there are signs and recorded audio reminders to alert commuters.

There is a fine of up to $500 if you are caught.

And SMRT reports an average of 41 commuters fined each month this year for flouting that rule.

A spokesman said staff members conduct random checks at stations and trains. Last year, 294 passengers were fined for consuming food or drink in the SMRT system.

From January to July this year, 288 people have been fined.

Still, what Mr Tang saw that night was unbeatable.

He was on a train heading towards Pasir Ris. At the Clementi station, a large man who appeared to be in his late 30s, ambled in. Dressed in a blue singlet and bermudas, he plopped himself down on the floor in the middle of the carriage when he found no available seats.

Then, crossing his legs, he took out a packet of roti prata, and started to chomp away.

By then, the standing crowd around him was staring in disbelief. "People's jaws were dropping," Mr Tang said.

"Many were staring at him, but the man didn't seem to bother.

"Maybe he wasn't aware of the stares or maybe he couldn't care less."

Still, Mr Tang said no one approached the man to tell him off.

"The guy is big-sized. Maybe nobody dared to," he added.

When a seat was freed about 15 minutes later, the man went for it. But the food fest didn't end there.

In a case of either compelling hunger or plain defiance, he proceeded to eat a second packet of roti prata.

And when he was done, he stunned onlookers a third time by casually placing the empty plastic packets on the floor between his legs and pushed them under the seat.

"Unbelievable," Mr Tang said, adding that he didn't know whether to laugh, sigh or get mad.

Yet, as shocking as the incident may have been to Mr Tang, it is not an isolated one.

Other reports of such commuters have hit the press recently.

On 9 August, a thread was started on The Straits Times' STOMP forum about a boy who got away scot-free despite blatantly eating on the MRT.

STOMPer Yoosuff, who contributed a photo of the incident to the website, claimed he saw a train officer a few seats away, but he did not stop the boy from eating.

On the same day, another thread was started about a man eating Hokkien mee on a train.

The thread has received more than 30,290 viewings, making it one of the most-viewed threads on the forum.

Many forum users aired their views on such behaviour.

Some, like netballxw, felt it was okay for commuters to eat small snacks, such as bread or curry puffs, as long as they didn't litter.

Others, like taurius58, wanted SMRT to clamp down harder on offenders, suggesting that they be issued Corrective Work Orders.

The curious thing is why some Singaporeans seem to feel it is okay to ignore the no-eating-and-drinking rule.

There are signs in every MRT carriage stating that those who eat or drink may be fined.

The sign is placed beside two others which indicate higher fines for smoking and taking flammable liquids or gases on board trains.

Most commuters take these two rules seriously. Yet, many seem to ignore the first.

One reason, perhaps, is the perception that the fine is "just for show".

Wrote STOMP forum user strugglist: "The question is whether the $500 fine is for real."

In another posting, MRT commuter Clement, 60, related an incident where he told off a woman for eating a bun on the train.

TROUBLING
He said he was troubled that other commuters saw her eating but did nothing.

"What if they spot a bag and it could be a security threat? We have to be civic-minded enough to do something instead of thinking someone else will do that," he said.

To this, another forum user responded that the security issue was "a total different thing compared to eating on the train".

The perception: Eating is a small matter.

But trivial or not, it is something that SMRT looks upon seriously.

A spokesman said: "Eating or drinking on board trains and at stations is both an ungracious act and rule-breaking behaviour.

"We take a serious view of passengers who eat or drink in our system."

The spokesman added that commuters can help to remind fellow passengers not to eat or drink in the trains and stations.

Rule-breakers may also be reported to staff members, who will locate the culprits if they are still within the station premises.

THINK WE HAVE IT BAD?
Besides littering, New York subway commuters may also be fined for wearing inline skates, putting their feet on seats and throwing stones, among many other things.

Last month, a Taiwanese man was fined NT10,000 ($460) for stepping over the yellow line at an MRT station platform, reported China Post.

In March, the London Tube introduced new rules making evading fares a crime. Offenders face arrest and a fine of up to £1,000 ($3,000).

Drink-and-eat MRT offenders on the rise

Mon, Jul 06, 2009 The Straits Times
Drink-and-eat MRT offenders on the rise
By Maria Almenoar

COMMUTERS are caught munching or sipping at drinks at the Orchard MRT station at least five times a day.

Curry puffs, biscuits and soft drinks in plastic cups are the snacks of choice in the no-eating, no-drinking zones that are MRT stations.

'Their favourite excuse is that they rushing somewhere and this was their dinner,' said Mr Ng Chee Siang, an SMRT officer of two years who does a patrol every hour.

The majority of commuters are apologetic when caught, and stop eating or drinking immediately. They are let off with a warning.

Then there are the recalcitrant.

Said Mr Ng, 34: 'One student was blatantly eating a burger on the train and when I told him to stop, he said 'Just fine me, I don't care'.'

The fine is usually $30, even for repeat offenders. If the case goes to court, the offender may be fined up to $500.

But the patrols to catch commuters in the act and the fines do not seem to be licking the problem.

Last year, 626 commuters were fined for eating and drinking, more than double the 280 in 2006. In 2007, 548 people were fined.

SMRT, which runs the trains of the North-South, East-West and Circle lines, could not say with certainty why more commuters were getting fined.

But a spokesman for SBS Transit, which runs the North-east Line, said: 'It must be noted that train ridership has also increased, which could explain why more commuters are caught flouting this regulation.'

Public transport ridership hit 4.87 million rides in the first quarter of this year, up from the 4.78 million in the same period last year.

SBS Transit has also seen a jump in the number of offenders. It handed out 10 offence notices in 2007, and 34 last year.

To deal with the masses traversing the stations daily, the two operators have put more than 500 staff on patrol to root out those who flout any of the other rules - not just those on eating and drinking.

Other regulations outlaw carrying of flammable goods and durians, and smoking. No commuters have been caught for being on board with flammable goods or durians in the last three years - but this could simply be because they can be concealed easily in bags or boxes.

Smokers, however, have been caught - three in each of the last two years. The maximum fine for smoking is $1,000.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) launched a 'gracious commuter' campaign on board trains and buses in May. It said that commuters have offered early feedback, saying they have seen an improvement in behaviour.

'You can cook only once a week, ok?'

Sun, Feb 22, 2009The Straits Times






'You can cook only once a week, ok?'
By Jamie Ee Wen Wei




For a prenup, or prenuptial agreement, this one's among the more unusual.

For instance, she's only to cook once a week. He said this is to ensure they have 'quality time' together.

He, in turn, has to agree to reduce his smoking by 5 per cent every year. And no puffing away in the bedroom.

QUIRKY CONDITIONS
Some unusual clauses in their prenup:
- He is not allowed to drink alcohol every day. She has to drink at least once a week
- He has to reduce his smoking by 5 per cent a year, but without going below six cigarettes a day
- She cannot buy jewellery which costs more than 5 per cent of her annual income

Johor idea draws flak

Johor idea draws flak
By Salma Khalik , HEALTH CORRESPONDENT [The Straits Times, Feb 10, 2009]

A SUGGESTION by Health Minister that Singaporeans might want to consider staying at a nursing home across the Causeway in Johor where it is much cheaper drew flak from two oppostion MPs in Parliament on Tuesday.

Workers' Party chairman and Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim said the suggestion was 'quite a bad indication of affordability of our own health care services here, and also a reflection of our national values'.

Fellow WP member Low Thia Kiang (Hougang) asked: 'Is the Minister suggesting that Singaporeans who cannot afford medical treatment or step-down care here should now consider such facilities in Johor?'

If so, is the minister 'outsourcing the Government's responsibility to provide affordable health care service to Malaysia', he asked.

This riled Mr Khaw Boon Wan.

'I'm not saying that if you are poor I will put you in an ambulance, send you across the Causeway to a Johor nursing home. That is not what I said and please don't twist my words,' he retorted.

In fact, the Johor option is not for the poor, who are heavily subsidised in Singapore.

'Everybody can afford health care in Singapore whether acute care or long-term care,' said Mr Khaw.

The suggestion was aimed at middle-income families who need to pay for the care themselves. It gives them choice.

'I just wanted to point out to Singaporeans that there are options like this,' Mr Khaw said.

The cost of nursing home care will always be more expensive in Singapore, as doctors and nurses are paid more, and construction cost is also higher.

Since many people visit the elderly in homes only on weekends, it makes little difference whether the person is housed here or in nearby Johor.

It's part of globalisation and this is already happening with Singaporeans going to Bangkok for Lasik to treat short sightedness and Americans and Russians coming here for treatment.

It is also not something that should, or can, be prevented, said the minister.

Singaporeans are already crossing the causeway for cheaper petrol and medicine.

'By allowing the flexibility of consumers walking across the Causeway... they benefit. I don't think we should constrain them from doing so.'

JB nursing homes for old folks?

JB nursing homes for old folks? [Today Online Tuesday Feb 10, 2009]

Since a “significant” number of Singaporeans visit their relatives who are in nursing homes only at the weekend, why not place these elderly folk in homes in Johor Bahru – where one month’s fees in a Singapore private nursing home could buy two-and-a-half months of care?

Making this suggestion, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said he recently visited a site in JB where a Singapore investor was planning such a facility. “I probed him on how much he is going to spend ... It’s mind-boggling. It’s so low. My cost of putting up a polyclinic is probably more than his cost of putting up a 200-bed nursing home.”

He added: “You can always ambulance in the elderly and the family members can visit the elderly on weekends. As this nursing home CEO told me, even in Singapore when they put the elderly in homes, they also only visit them once a week ... So what’s the difference in putting them in JB?”

Mr Khaw was responding to a question from MP Lam Pin Min on whether caregivers should be given an allowance. The minister said he preferred to use Eldershield, though the payout of $400 was too small and “should be pushed up to $800”.

In 2006, Mr Khaw sparked a minor controversy when he mooted the idea of retirement villages by private developers in neighbouring countries where land was cheaper. After his proposal was misunderstood by those who saw it as “dumping” one’s parents, he clarified that he felt such an intent was the worst sin possible. Alicia Wong