Jump to content
BabyBlade

COVID-19: SG to enter Phase 3 from 28th Dec

BabyBlade

Phase 2: 

 

Message added by BabyBlade

Recommended Posts

Twincharged

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/police-arrest-man-seen-video-refusing-wear-mask-mrt-train

A man was arrested on Sunday (May 9) for allegedly causing a public nuisance and flouting safe distancing rules after refusing to wear a mask on an MRT train.
Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/police-arrest-man-seen-video-refusing-wear-mask-mrt-train

 

 

fine him , send him home and bar him from returning to SGP, why let this useless guy here to waste our public fund? 

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged
6 minutes ago, Atonchia said:

Eh Please lah..... 

You are making our enforcer work more difficult by sharing such outfit...... 🤣🤣

How to identify? 

If he wore the full outfit he wouldn’t be unmasked and no one will give him any trouble at all

  • Haha! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6th Gear

@Macrosszero 

I'm probably the only one here not immediately stoning the aggressor in the video.

No doubt no one happy to have such behaviour acted upon us, it works both ways.

As shared, if 10 out of 10 people concur with his thuggish behaviour, it's either groupthink, or certain elements have triggered all of them, and sensitivity, I postulate, is lacking. 

Being a Singaporean from a majority culture and race, I have to be aware of the advantage and also the lens through which I see events. Being as mindful of other races and cultures, always, even when we have been trying to blend in for 50 years, IF that is the definition of a Singaporean identity. 

Obviously, I was not born with this awareness, but introspectively from unknowingly having hurt feelings of others due to my ignorance.

If we are not able to appreciate the difficultly of fasting continuously for almost a month, then the sticks are as dry as splints. 

  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supersonic

Changi Airport T3 B2 will be closed to public from Tomorrow.

  • Shocked 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged
52 minutes ago, Sturtles said:

@Macrosszero 

I'm probably the only one here not immediately stoning the aggressor in the video.

No doubt no one happy to have such behaviour acted upon us, it works both ways.

As shared, if 10 out of 10 people concur with his thuggish behaviour, it's either groupthink, or certain elements have triggered all of them, and sensitivity, I postulate, is lacking. 

Being a Singaporean from a majority culture and race, I have to be aware of the advantage and also the lens through which I see events. Being as mindful of other races and cultures, always, even when we have been trying to blend in for 50 years, IF that is the definition of a Singaporean identity. 

Obviously, I was not born with this awareness, but introspectively from unknowingly having hurt feelings of others due to my ignorance.

If we are not able to appreciate the difficultly of fasting continuously for almost a month, then the sticks are as dry as splints. 

Sure. As a supervisor of nearly 50 people of various religions I am completely understanding of religious routines and sensitivities and sympathetic to it. But to act out and play the immunity card when the laws are laid clear isn’t correct and the courts will likely bear this out - what you say probably merely mitigating factors but does not diminish that an offence was committed.

  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged
2 hours ago, Sturtles said:

@Jtis 

Agree with you the SDA as shown in the video was measured and professional even.

However, it may be incorrect to judge from effects rather than the cause.

As shared, possible lack of sensitivity to a hungry family may have triggered this outburst. 

Given I do not see anyone in the group of 10 holding back the young man, it could be concurred 10 out of 10 sides with his family where this incident is concerned.

For the purpose of "fairness", I would like to see the judgement of $300 fine be applied to all 10 of the family involved.

It would be an affront to "justice and equality" otherwise.

 

if the group of more than 5 (up to 10) arranged to meet up for this despite the limitation of max 5 persons gathering, it would be natural to assume they would not disagree with the guy arguing with the SDA. Esp if u consider that they are likely friends and/or family.

for sure, the $300 penalty should be applied to all that flout the rule. But special treatment should be reserved for the guy that got all belligerent with the SDA. Does SDA count as civil servant?

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged
1 hour ago, Ct3833 said:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/police-arrest-man-seen-video-refusing-wear-mask-mrt-train

A man was arrested on Sunday (May 9) for allegedly causing a public nuisance and flouting safe distancing rules after refusing to wear a mask on an MRT train.
Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/police-arrest-man-seen-video-refusing-wear-mask-mrt-train

 

 

fine him , send him home and bar him from returning to SGP, why let this useless guy here to waste our public fund? 

Just yesterday morning at blk 16 Bedok South HC I witnessed a no-mask event event with happy ending. 

I was withdrawing money from 1 of the 2 POSB atm machine when i heard  a aunty voice asking someone why he never put on a mask. I turned sideway to see an old man sruggling to give  a coherent answer. The SDA aunty then proceeded to ask if he would put on a mask if given and the old man accepted without hesitation. Glad it turned out that way as the old man could have been  stubborn like the old uncle on a bus that simply rdfused the effort. Think most locals are co-operative if talked to nice lah. Nobody liked to be instructed with a handphone camera pointed at him as surely will get defensively. Lets be mindful to be more tactful lah.

  • Praise 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6th Gear (edited)

@Macrosszero 

17 minutes ago, Macrosszero said:

Sure. As a supervisor of nearly 50 people of various religions I am completely understanding of religious routines and sensitivities and sympathetic to it. But to act out and play the immunity card when the laws are laid clear isn’t correct and the courts will likely bear this out - what you say probably merely mitigating factors but does not diminish that an offence was committed.

With so many replies, I have never mentioned the aggressor, nor his willing participants in the sideshow should get away scot-free if indeed they were rowdy and rude from the start.

In fact, it will be less confusing, to hear all offenders are thrown the rule book and fined or punished accordingly, regardless of circumstance in the name of fairness.

However, I am more interested to know what triggered the aggression, as it is indeed unfortunate the restrictions have tightened, putting a sour note to what is a festive occasion.

My main peeve is always with the people at the top. 

Their repeated ineptitude caused increased confusion, social tension, uncertainty, and definitely tarnished Singapore as a state that is ready to meet challenges. 

Members of the public, the boots on the ground (SDA) are merely the powder keg and ignitor, while ill-trained/ ignorant planners just put them together, patting themselves on the back, calling it a job well done.

Edited by Sturtles
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1 hour ago, Heartlander said:

This loophole for separate tables for extended family really should no surprise anyone who has been eating out lah. Different restaurant handle it differently despite it being the law of the day.

I still remember end of last year being rejected flatly by front desk staff from Swee Choon. Upon seeing myself, my wife, 4 kids, the first words were that we were not allowed to eat there as we were more than 5 people. Short and simple, and very firm, leaving no room for negotiation. And no need for any SDA to step in.

But the same cannot be said of another restaurant which I do not want to name as it was definitely guilty of this loophole just by looking at the composition and behaviour of the people. If you look hard enough, once in awhile there would be interactions with dis-approving looks thrown by some more elderly figures among the groups. Really obvious. I talked about this with the boss also said they closed one eyes for long term customers but reminded everyone to do their parts by reducing interactions among the tables which most would obey lah. 

To me this kind of thing very difficult to eradicate lah. Not everyone will play their part especially under this bad economy situastion.

 

I encountered one incident when a family of 11 trying to go into a restaurant, the front desk say no, the auntie die die say we split into 2 table why cannot. The person replied "if you dun tell me upfront that you have 11 pax, split among yourself and quietly come in 2 separate group, I won't know and let you in" immediately you can see the auntie start scolding all her high ses language and the younger gen has to calm her down.

  • Praise 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged
6 minutes ago, Sturtles said:

@Macrosszero 

With so many replies, I have never mentioned the aggressor, nor his willing participants in the sideshow should get away scot-free if indeed they were rowdy and rude from the start.

In fact, I will be happy to hear they if all offenders are thrown the rule book and fined or punished accordingly, regardless of circumstance in the name of fairness.

However, I am more interested to know what triggered the aggression, as it is indeed unfortunate the restrictions have tightened, putting a sour note to what is a festive occasion.

My main peeve is always with the people at the top. 

Their repeated ineptitude caused increased confusion, social tension, uncertainty, and definitely tarnished Singapore as a state that is ready to meet challenges. 

Members of the public, the boots on the ground (SDA) are merely the powder keg and ignitor, while ill-trained/ ignorant planners just put them together, patting themselves on the back, calling it a job well done.

If i were made clear that my group size is flouting the law when at a dining place, i definitely would leave the place quietly and start looking for another place knowing that i am at fault for doing that in the first place. This should be the first reaction and it will produce a better outcome to a large extent. There is no point arguing the logic in setting the rule and whether it considers the sensitivities wrt race religion etc as it is there for a purpose. It is like we should not argue killing people would be hanged only after we are caught after killing someone. And learn to respect the law of the place and not try to argue our way across. Imagine if everyone think they are special and should not be covered by tbe law, then how do you think we could overcome this pandermic? By whoever talking louder and more aggressive? There should not be any exception, especially in difficult times.

 

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6th Gear
4 minutes ago, Heartlander said:

If i were made clear that my group size is flouting the law when at a dining place, i definitely would leave the place quietly and start looking for another place knowing that i am at fault for doing that in the first place. This should be the first reaction and it will produce a better outcome to a large extent. There is no point arguing the logic in setting the rule and whether it considers the sensitivities wrt race religion etc as it is there for a purpose. It is like we should not argue killing people would be hanged only after we are caught after killing someone. And learn to respect the law of the place and not try to argue our way across. Imagine if everyone think they are special and should not be covered by tbe law, then how do you think we could overcome this pandermic? By whoever talking louder and more aggressive? There should not be any exception, especially in difficult times.

 

As I have shared, and reiterated, what is the law's stance on this gathering of greater than prescribed group size when coming up with this rule by the decision maker?

The second they are spotted together; an hour or a full day's party at St John's island? A Question of length of time

Pre-arranged gathering with time and place? A Question of intention.

Now, would all flouters be summoned on first detection or given 1st warning? A Question of equality in enforcement.

Lastly, the trigger that caused the conniption. An important mitigating factor, and due considerations should be given

For your predicate where killing people would be certainly be hanged, it is not true, and plenty of preconditions have to be met.

Judging a person because of their loutish behaviour and condemning them to be 100% at fault is not a fair perception, just like the appointment of CDF and CEO posts because of their excellent A-level results 

 

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twincharged
9 hours ago, Macrosszero said:

I didn’t say it was bike attire, middle aged man in leotards/Lycra could be anything including this:

_77658920_92a9b88a-f42a-4e9c-afb6-4a3746

 

Cat man? 🤮 🤢

 

  • Haha! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged
8 hours ago, Heartlander said:

If i were made clear that my group size is flouting the law when at a dining place, i definitely would leave the place quietly and start looking for another place knowing that i am at fault for doing that in the first place. This should be the first reaction and it will produce a better outcome to a large extent. There is no point arguing the logic in setting the rule and whether it considers the sensitivities wrt race religion etc as it is there for a purpose. It is like we should not argue killing people would be hanged only after we are caught after killing someone. And learn to respect the law of the place and not try to argue our way across. Imagine if everyone think they are special and should not be covered by tbe law, then how do you think we could overcome this pandermic? By whoever talking louder and more aggressive? There should not be any exception, especially in difficult times.

 

gangsters are like that one mah

talk loud, threaten, scold vulgarities... win 90% of the battle already

until they meet a bigger force than them, such as mata

  • Praise 1
  • Haha! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged

Who here prefers a 5-10 day lockdown to dig out all these community cases? Rather than a half ass restriction which could be never ending of community cases and in the end, after May, still have to lockdown?

  • Praise 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twincharged
12 minutes ago, Beanoyip said:

Who here prefers a 5-10 day lockdown to dig out all these community cases? Rather than a half ass restriction which could be never ending of community cases and in the end, after May, still have to lockdown?

Key question is 

Are majority of those recent cases been vaccinated? 

TTSH, ICA, cleaner, Airport staff... Likely most are vaccinated... 

Are most of them Asymptomatic? 

Unless we do a large scale swab testing.... many of those infected who could be vaccinated also doesn't know they are infected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbocharged
7 hours ago, Sturtles said:

As I have shared, and reiterated, what is the law's stance on this gathering of greater than prescribed group size when coming up with this rule by the decision maker?

The second they are spotted together; an hour or a full day's party at St John's island? A Question of length of time

Pre-arranged gathering with time and place? A Question of intention.

Now, would all flouters be summoned on first detection or given 1st warning? A Question of equality in enforcement.

Lastly, the trigger that caused the conniption. An important mitigating factor, and due considerations should be given

For your predicate where killing people would be certainly be hanged, it is not true, and plenty of preconditions have to be met.

Judging a person because of their loutish behaviour and condemning them to be 100% at fault is not a fair perception, just like the appointment of CDF and CEO posts because of their excellent A-level results 

 

Anyway, let’s see how the law makes an example of this monkey.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/police-investigating-verbal-abuse-of-safe-distancing-ambassador

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×