hehe...you fellas are getting too hot under the collar. this enforcement is just to deter people from eating and drinking in the train. once the number of incidents drops significantly they will reduce active enforcement and maybe even stop. then you can go back to sipping your plain water, just don't get caught. :bsmilie:
Outright fines for commuters caught eating and drinking in MRT trains, stations
- Thread starter xtemujin
- Start date
- Status
sharkspin
Senior Member
People with heart conditions need not be physically unfit to travel but given their conditions, they have a very high risk of suffering a sudden heart attack. Angina medicine is taken when this happens. I am not a doctor but I do understand firehouse concern. I have a physically fit friend suffering a heart attack while golfing.
What is wrong with having a sip of water or a throat lozenges....:dunno:
you know and i know there is probably nothing wrong. but when other people see that they will say "if they can why can't i?", which will eventually lead back to the current situation where people eat ice cream, etc on the train. if you really need a sip of water, then just go ahead. if you get caught just explain why you need to. if you get fined, just pay up. after all what's a few hundred bucks compared to your health right?
sharkspin
Senior Member
SAF Rule No.8 (the unwritten one)....just do and don't get caught....
My friend was with other friends when she was fined. She had witnesses with her to say that she was only holding the cup, not drinking from it. Where lies the authorities' common sense here?
chuaboonkiat
New Member
how abt one of the carriage has a toilet, vendor machine, can eat on that carriage, the carriage are for handicap user, and in the carriage u can smoke also. and the carriage's seat are all priority seats? isn't thats a good idea?
V
vince123123
Guest
If I recall correctly, only the actual consumption or attempt to consume are criminal offences. Your friend should have challenged the MRT official; abuse of powers lolz.
V
vince123123
Guest
The law explicitly states "food and drink". I wonder if pills, lozenges count as "food"; I think any court which decides those as "food" will be laughed by the enire community.
V
vince123123
Guest
Just a cut and paste on the relevant laws: Note that it must be "food" or "drink" and the act must be "consume" or "attempt to consume".
Hence, saying "no eating and drinking" is wrong. You must consume "food" or "drink". If you are able to argue that lozenges are not "food", then you will fall outside of the provision.
I'll argue that the explicit stating of "bubble gum" in the subsection (2) means that the legislators have thought that bubble gum (falling under candy/sweets/lozenges etc) are expressly banned; in which case an argument can also be made that similar items not excluded are not intended to be included.
No consumption of food or drinks
14. No person shall —
(a) consume or attempt to consume any food or drinks while in or upon any part of the railway premises except in such places as are designated for this purpose by the Authority or its licensee; or
(b) consume or attempt to consume any chewing gum or bubble gum while in or upon any part of the railway premises.
Hence, saying "no eating and drinking" is wrong. You must consume "food" or "drink". If you are able to argue that lozenges are not "food", then you will fall outside of the provision.
I'll argue that the explicit stating of "bubble gum" in the subsection (2) means that the legislators have thought that bubble gum (falling under candy/sweets/lozenges etc) are expressly banned; in which case an argument can also be made that similar items not excluded are not intended to be included.
No consumption of food or drinks
14. No person shall —
(a) consume or attempt to consume any food or drinks while in or upon any part of the railway premises except in such places as are designated for this purpose by the Authority or its licensee; or
(b) consume or attempt to consume any chewing gum or bubble gum while in or upon any part of the railway premises.
Cartman2000
Senior Member
Those enforcers may assume that one is "attempting" to consume food or drinks just by holding it in his hand:dunno:
V
vince123123
Guest
In that case, the victims can go to court and appeal against it lor 
.
But I'll suggest they get a commitment from the enforcers first by recording either on tape or in writing that they are being fined by merely holding it. Dont wait the enforcer change their story in court then not so good liaoz.
.But I'll suggest they get a commitment from the enforcers first by recording either on tape or in writing that they are being fined by merely holding it. Dont wait the enforcer change their story in court then not so good liaoz.
....carrying a cup without a lid is probably as bad as drinking as one is liable to spill the contents when the train stop/move abruptly of one is knocked by someone....for the matter even if a cup with lid on. Why would one carry a cup from one station to another in the first place? Singapore is not a desert and water is probably available at the next station anyway.
No rule so far for farting at the poeple who sit at MRT train floor near door and block people, so I can fart as much as I can to these people
:lovegrin:
V
vince123123
Guest
It doesn't matter if it is as bad or not as bad as drinking; it is whether there is criminal liability or not for doing so. The people being fined recently are all fined not because it is bad or not bad, but because they fell within the strict letter of the law. As such, I reckon the strict letter of the law must be applied consistently.
:thumbsup:
if want to protest then protest to change the law to make exclusion
the problem with exlusion is that people will quickly fall in and demand to be in the exclusion
.....true what you say Vince, but I still maintain that it is silly and inconsiderate to bring a cup of drinks onto the train even if one has no intention of drinking.
....by the way could they be charged with littering if they spill the drinks, intentionally or unintentionally, unless they clean it up? I have not seen anyone actually cleaning up the mess when they spill their food or drinks in public places....can they be charged for littering?
...also if one light up a cigarette but do not smoke it, just hold it in one's fingers......is it still consider as smoking?
....by the way could they be charged with littering if they spill the drinks, intentionally or unintentionally, unless they clean it up? I have not seen anyone actually cleaning up the mess when they spill their food or drinks in public places....can they be charged for littering?
...also if one light up a cigarette but do not smoke it, just hold it in one's fingers......is it still consider as smoking?
Last edited:
V
vince123123
Guest
Yes they can be charged with littering.
And yes, they will be charged under the Smoking Act too for holding a lighted cigarette.
And yes, they will be charged under the Smoking Act too for holding a lighted cigarette.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cartman2000
Senior Member
On the other hand, how many times have we actually seen drinks(covered, probably) being spilled on trains?
Even if they spill drinks, they have no means to clean it up. As I have no clue as to what would transpire, I won't comment too much on this.
However, I feel that lighting a cigarette does indeed convey that the person intends to smoke(or is attempting to). It is probably also illegal to start naked lights in the trains.
....just as holding a cup? ...of course the naked light thing is another issue.
- Status
Similar threads
