Wednesday, July 28, 2010'♥
With love ♥
Making reference to one of the reading materials for Friday's English Current Affairs Discussion(How Dare He make the MRT look nicer?),I would like to express my opinions about the recent MRT vandalism case by the swiss national.
First of all,I like to thank the awesome blogger who posted this,the title was the best part,how he though up of it,perhaps I would never find out,but if it's one thing I know,it's that the title is extremely humourous and made me laugh till my stomach hurt,allow me a moment to get over the pain....
Ok,I'm ready now,so,for the benefit those of you who do not know read the newspapers/watch the news or are just plain oblivious to the what is happening around you,2 foreigners,Oliver Fricker and Lloyd Dane Alexander,broke into the Changi MRT depot and spray-painted MRT trains with graffiti.The incident was only reported by commuters who noticed the vandalised MRT 2 days later as most commuters just thought it was part of the MRT's decorations and already,there are multiple footage of the vandalised trains posted on the Internet.
So, what's the big deal about it anyway?It's just vandalism.You see it all the time and everywhere in other countries like in the US,and the government doesn't even seem to care,so what exactly is all the fuss over this incident,why would Singaporeans view it so differently?
It would seem that the most controversial part of this case is the unusually heavy sentence meted out to the arrested vandal.
For " voluntarilly decorating" the MRT trains,Oliver Fricker will be rewarded with the top prize of 3-8 strokes of the cane,3 years in jail and a 2000 dollar fine for the "commendable" service he has done for the citizens of Singapore.
Wait,did I hear correctly?3-8 Strokes of the cane?Are you kidding me?That's hardly considered a reward for he probably has to sit on a rubber float or a pillow for a very long time,all just because he had a little artistic flair.It is stated clearly in black and white on the law book of Singapore that any form of vandalism,regardless of severity,warrants caning as a punishment.In my opinion,it is far too harsh a punishment for a crime of this level.Besides,it's not like he placed any four-letter word on the train,and people actually liked his handiwork.All he did was placed his signature on the train,nothing offensive or obscene at all,no "f' word,no one-finger salute,so,why so harsh a punishment?
In my opinion, this is all a result of Singapore's old-fashioned thinking-the punishment was decided based on the Vandalism Act of 1966.1966!Think about it,it's been 44 years already,must we be so square?In the course of 4 and a half decades, human rights have already took a great leap of advancement and physical punishment is not used anymore and maybe even criticised by other democratic nations while here we are sticking to old ways and getting increasingly left behind.I feel Singapore should review its laws accordingly or run the risk of being criticised and ostracised by other nations just because of the caning of a foreigner.Already,angry comments have appeared online,this proves people are against this sentence meted out,this one is my favourite one:
"OKAY KIDS, DADDY'S GONNA CANCEL OUR TRIP TO SINGAPORE, THAT PLACE IS JUST TOO INAPPROPRIATE FOR U KIDS, JUZ LOOK AT THEIR ECCENTRIC ATTITUDE TO FOREIGNERS. BUT NVM, DADDY'S JUZ BOOK TICKETS TO ISRAEL...! MUCH MORE SAFER AND MODERNIZED! "
However,I do not attempt to deny that vandalism and trespassing of protected property are violation of the law,Fricker should however,been given a vastly different punishment than his current one,perhaps a heavier fine but slight reduction of his imprisonment and no caning at all as people feel it violates human rights.He should be commended,by breaking into the depot,he showed us just how easy it was for terrorist to attack it,would we rather have realised this when the depot blew up?
To conclude,I say that Fricker's punishment was too harsh and that I do not support it,however,I do not believe that he should be absolved completely as vandalism is still a violation of the law.
