With 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.

First of all, kudos to the writer who wrote the article on his blog and the witty title. Sarcasm never gets old. It made me laugh for quite a while, so thanks. :D

So, for those of you who do not know already, 2 foreigners, Oliver Fricker and Lloyd Dane Alexander, broke into the Changi MRT depot and sprayed MRT trains with graffiti. The incident was reported by commuters who noticed the vandalised MRT and already, there are footage of it posted on the Internet.



So, what's the big deal about it? It's just vandalism. Happens all the time. Exactly, so what is all the fuss over this incident?

The sentence.

For decorating the MRT, Oliver Fricker would receive a sentence of 3-8 strokes of the cane, 3 years in jail and a 2000 dollar fine.

What? 3-8 Strokes of the cane? Are you kidding? I totally agree with what the post mentioned-for having an artistic flair and painting the MRT, he has to sit on a rubber float a pillow for the rest of his life. However, that is the truth, sadly. It is written in black and white on the law book of Singapore that vandalism warrants caning. In my opinion, it is a far too harsh and barbaric of a punishment. Besides, he did not even paint anything offensive on the train. I mean I would have understood if he was given a slightly harsher treatment if he printed out the "f" word and a one-finger-salute on the train but all he wrote was "McKoy Banos", the artists' signatures on the train in an intricate, artistic manner. The colorful MRT trains was seen by many commuters and many of them thought that it was a publicity stunt my SMRT and thought that it was a refreshing change from the dull, ordinary trains.

Then, why is he being persecuted if his actions had done potentially no harm and given such a harsh punishment? In my opinion, this is all due to Singapore's old-fashioned ways - the punishment act was based on the Vandalism Act of 1966. 1966! Think about it, the punishment is 44 years old! 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. Singapore should update its laws accordingly instead of risk being criticised by other nations just because they caned a foreigner. Already, angry netizens are commenting about this incident and how barbaric Singapore is:

"YES Singapore DOES impose FLOGGINGS (which is mandatory) for vandalism. Two different considerations here. Fricker sentenced to be FLOGGED FOR VANDALISM--which is written into Singapores violent laws. He was also convicted for trespassing, which is a security breach, but NO beating for that. Beating anyone to inflict bodily harm and or injury IS VIOLENT, SADISTIC, and BARBARIC! Oliver Fricker is no terrorist and the judge knew it acknowledging there was no sinister agenda"

"Many countries have strict laws but only a few in the world (SINGAPORE IS ONE OF THEM) has sadistic MANDATORY FLOGGINGs for minor things such as illegals overstaying a visa must be beaten at least three lashes with a wood rattan stick, vandalism is mandatory beating of 3 lashes, selling fireworks etc. This country is fanatical with beating people namely the male population. Brutality is a sad way of life here. Look at youtube Malaysia whip -More of the same type VIOLENCE. "

"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, it is still true that vandalism and trespassing of protected property are offences and maybe some of the comment above are a little over exaggerated but Fricker should have been given a lighter punishment, maybe a heavier fine but slight reduction of his imprisonment and no caning. Furthermore, he trespassed protected property and should be lawfully punished for that offence as that breach in security could lead to terrorists realizing how easy it was to break in to the depots and perhaps target them.

To conclude, I would just like to say that graffiti can be viewed as a form of contemporary art that should be appreciated or as a sign of rebellion and an offence punishable by law. Singapore simply views it as the latter.


Bibliography:

• http://kixes.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/how-dare-he-make-the-mrt-look-nicer/
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CV4JYKBEQo
  

In my opinion, foreign talents are more of a boon to Singapore in some areas while less of so in others.

Firstly, I feel that foreign talents are more of a bane than a boon to Singapore in the workforce. In the workforce, foreign talents deprive locals of their jobs as they are usually more capable and talented than the latter, and expect lower incomes than the locals as the cost of living at their homes are usually less and they would therefore expect and require less. These factors coupled with the fact that the society we live in today is extremely mercenary and competitive would mean that bosses would be more inclined to hire foreign talents than to hire locals. While some may say that one's success is measured by his capability and that Singapore has many capable, talented people too, we have to accept the fact that everything is based on money and with foreign talents available at a much lower cost, which boss would not want to hire foreigners instead of locals if given the option? Furthermore, with the limited amount of jobs available in Singapore and the influx of foreign talents, there is a very low chance of finding enough jobs for both foreigners and locals. As a result, social problems might arise in the long run from the unemployed locals.

Secondly, I feel that Foreign talents are more of a boon than of a bane in the education system. Here, the competition is not so intense and the consequences are not as severe as compared to the workforce. In fact, the presence of foreign talents would encourage locals to perform better in order to catch up with them. However, problems would still arise; due to their cultural and other differences, locals and foreigners might find it hard to socialize with each other and lead to isolation or maybe even bullying of foreigners or locals, whichever is the minority.

To conclude, I feel that foreign talents are more advantageous to Singapore in some areas than in others.