Reserved.

I came across an interesting article in The New Paper about the trains: No, it has nothing to do with the breakdowns which happened. Rather, it is about the distinctly coloured seat right beside the glass panel; A perfect seat to sit back, relax, and lean your head against the glass as you slip into unconsciousness. I am, of course, talking about the reserved seats.

Photo by Mohamed Yahya

It was a story on how the reporter, whilst ornamented (Merry Christmas!) to seem old and really tired, was offered seats by the passengers majority of the time she boarded the train. This was as opposed to what a STOMP reader might have expected. She went on to conclude that those who appeared on STOMP were a rare few, and that Singaporeans are actually a nice bunch, However, she also noticed that the reserved seats are usually empty if the train was not full, commenting that “This tells me we are obedient more than we are respectful”.

There have been a huge load of campaigns thrown in our way: from Phua Chu Kang rapping for us to wait on the side before rushing into the train, to the Dim Sum Dollies singing a melody for us to move in, to a creepy bear constantly smiling at us for no observable reason. Do the campaigns work? As the ad hoc experiment has shown above, they do, somehow. But Singaporeans do these only when told to by the government. They may seem respectful, but all they are is obedient.

What is wrong with that? Some may argue that though Singaporeans do it out of obedience rather than etiquette, the deed is still done. What does it matter if someone’s life improved gradually from a hypocritical action? The improvement is still there, and the net gain is measurable. It very well is. I agree with the fact that the general welfare of such people can be raised without us having to conform to sincerity. What good is caring about people if we are going to help them regardless?

As far as everyone else is concerned, it does not matter if you do it because you are following orders, for the sake of good karma or any other reason. Those who need it; the lame, the pregnant, the old; they really do not care why you are giving up your seat, as long as they get to sit down. (Something they need more than you, I have to point out.) The rest of the people around you, they are more interesting in the scenery outside the window than you. They do not know you, much less care about your reason for giving up your seat. Your thoughts do not matter when it comes to such actions, as long as the action is carried out. So why this essay? Well, as much as we live in an utilitarian society, functionality is not the only element which partakes in courtesy. I have two reasons as to why I feel this is so.

Actually, it can be just one reason, as it might be possible that the first reason does not apply to you. It is also rather subjective, as my first reason is that of personal morality. Look at yourself in the mirror. How would you feel if you gave up your seat just because of the fear of appearing in STOMP? I do not know the numbers, and we never will, but at least a percentage of people give up their seats for the fear of “losing face”. Ours being an Asian culture, sure, face is something we value. But when a grateful and tired passenger whom you gave up your seat for smiles at you, and think of you as a good and kind person, do you think you really deserve to be thought in that way? Is there not a moral fibre in you which might think that this is perhaps just slightly unfair? Once again, I stress that the issue of morality is entirely subjective, but based this paragraph on the assumption that hypocrisy is a value universally frowned upon. But maybe you think not. Maybe you think the exchange was fully justifiable.

A few readers may have skipped the last paragraph for its overuse of emotive linguistics. If I were a reader, I would have very much done the same things. Sentences which toy with emotions usually have a hidden motive behind it. That is not to say my writing of that was completely useless. The point made in a moralistic viewpoint still stands. However, my other point is not one concerned with morals.

My second reason is one of effort. I would argue that by making Singaporeans cultivate respectable and courteous values, a lot of unnecessary effort will not be spend fruitlessly. Why so? Well, look at the number of campaigns regarding the kindness of Singaporeans. There have been many, even in this year alone. Think of the effort put behind such media campaigns, and how much they have went to waste. All the effort can be saved if these media campaigns become obsolete. By teaching Singaporeans to be kind, genuinely kind, there is simply no need for any other campaign. Everything else, from moving to the centre of the train carriage to giving up seats to those who need it: all these will automatically stem from the good heartedness of Singaporeans. Who needs someone else to tell them to give your thanks when you already have to inclination to do so because of your kindred soul? There is simply no need for that.

Of curse, this solution is extremely idealistic. I recognize that it may not be a very practical solution. I have no ideas whatsoever to cause the ideal above to be reached, but it is a desirable ideal nonetheless.

All in all, I have no solution for the hypocritical situation of our society. However, I hope that this essay have caused questions worth pondering to be pondered, and thoughts worth thinking to be thought.