Singapore seems to be struck by so many exciting events, rolled over from 2011 into 2012. Whilst the number of suicides at Bedok Reservoir has been declining, the frequency of train disruptions managed by SMRT have continued and now, a sex scandal involving a prostitute who’s a minor with high profile and high ranking individuals from all walks of life.
Let’s take things one thing at a time.
1 – Train Disruptions
Everyone seems to be putting the blame on SMRT for failure to manage and maintain the tracks such that it is affecting commuting life in Singapore. Throughout the entire 25 years or so of SMRT’s operations, this is the first of such a major disruption and the entire nation is disrupted by it. I honestly wonder how life was like pre-SMRT. Perhaps it would be better indeed if everyone were to be accomodated back to pre-SMRT life.
I’m sure offices would allow people to clock in to work later and to report off earlier. Schedules would no doubt change and we’d all have shorter working hours in view of a lack of efficient public transport system.
BUT that’s not the point here, the point here is - I don’t think many people know that it is by far not SMRT’s fault for the disruptions.
There are old trains and there are new trains in SMRT’s fleet. These trains and along with the tracks belong to LTA. SMRT is only responsible for maintaining and running the operations of these trains. So, before anyone actually decides to point fingers, let’s try to imagine.
A Ferrari engine installed into a KIA. High performance engine into a body not suited for it. Chances are, the car might break apart in time no matter how much maintainance is being done because it’s incompatible.
Same applies to the current situation. The older fleet of trains are compatible with the tracks in terms of weight and speed. The newer fleet of trains are heavier and travel faster thus creating more pressure and vibrations. Thus, things begin to fall apart.
So, who shall we blame now?
SMRT for operating and maintaining OR LTA for purchasing more technologically advanced trains OR Advancement in technology OR Commuters for being so overly reliant and being demanding.
2 – Sex Scandal
A girl, working in one of the world’s oldest profession, prostitution, has gotten a whole lot of men in trouble. These men are established professionals and civil servants which includes a School Principal, Naval Officers, Bank Expatriate and even Howard Shaw of Shaw Organisation.
I wouldn’t even know where to start with on this topic because clearly this is a chicken and egg question and has roots in economics, demand vs supply.
Clearly the men are going to be jailed should they be found guilty of engaging the services of a prostitute who was a allegedly a minor at the time the act was committed. But in this case, who should be jailed?
Should it be the PIMP and the Prostitute herself be charged under the Misrepresentation Act, “If a party makes a positive but incomplete disclosure, the omitted disclosure may amount to a misrepresentation if it has the effect of distorting the truth of the information disclosed.”
The PIMP and the Prostitute were selling their business services after all. It would be the PIMP’s responsibility to properly publish all such information accurately, more so, since failure to disclose or distort information could result in, well in this case, a punishable offence by law.
As a paying customer, I would have entrusted this pre-disclosure of information to the PIMP. I mean, you wouldn’t go to buy an item in a shop and request that the packaging be opened and satisfies your doubt before making your payment. You would have expected that what you purchased was indeed as what was stated on the labels and only make demands for refunds or exchanges should the goods purchased be of unreasonable quality or not to your satisfaction/expectation.
Let’s take for example a box of cigarette. The shop owner would request that you show proof that you are above 18 years of age first. As a customer, you would have trusted that the brand of cigarettes you are making a purchase for, is the right one. You don’t open a box of Malboro to see Lucky Strike in it neither can you request for the shop owner to open the box first before you make a purchase because if you did and if it doesn’t satisfy or isn’t up to your expectations, it would be a loss to the business.
But of course, my example is one that is more simplistic in nature as compared to the issue on hand. But surely, I don’t think every other guy who goes to visit the prostitute in Geylang requests to see their ID first before engaging in sexual activity.
In the end, I think everyone is just as guilty and should be punished. Heaviest sentence should go to the PIMP for misrepresenting and I believe all those men involved should sue the PIMP too for getting them into trouble in the first place.
I doubt there would be any issue if the Prostitute in question was above 18 years of age.