Set an example
The quality of local drivers does not really suit the rather shifty road conditions in many places in this country. I mean shifty literally, because the roads in cities are often "shifted" for reconstruction purposes almost every other month. They shift so much that it has become an almost inevitable plague to the already congested road conditions. It still summons much grip on my sanity when I have to ponder the reasons behind their having to redo their own work. Furthermore, the reconstruction often occurs on the exact same spot. How profoundly ludicrous does that seem?
Just around a week ago, the new channels around the country broadcast that the government was going to reduced speed limits on certain roads during the festive season. I think that the officials produced a very unrelated explaination for their actions. The move to reduce speed limits is a considerable move by itself, but the part that annoyed me was the clip of an official giving the "reasons" behind the action.
Firstly, if one were to implement speed reduction sanctions, one should provide reasons for taking that sort of action. In our minds, we can already deduce a very plausible cause for that: festive season means more cars on the road and more accidents (local driving scene, especially). Thus, it would be a good call to reduce road accidents. However, the clip that followed did nothing to explain in such a manner. Instead, the official-on-screen was talking about, "you know actually, 90 is already very fast. If we were to reduce the speed limit to 80 it would still be considered fast..."
While listening to the words that just protruded from the official's mouth, I began to think that is this incoherent thought happening everywhere around this country? The official in that clip was talking about the speed and insisting that 90 km/h is fast. I have no qualms with that, but it irritates me that the official was explaining the speed instead of giving reasons to reduce the speed limit. There is a big difference between talking about speed and giving reasons to reduce the speed limit.
Another matter that irritates me is the warning signs placed in KL Sentral train tracks. There is a warning sign there that tells you not to cross the tracks, and that the trains might hit you. On the bottom of those pictorials, there it spells "Tresspassers will be prosecuted." Can you spot what is wrong here?
1: How can you tresspass for a service you already paid for?
2: Crossing the rails is considered tresspassing?
3. Tresspass is not even the correct term to use.
Instead of "tresspassers", it should have been "violaters". You're already on their property so you can't tresspass any further. If the sign were followed correctly, anyone who were to step onto the platform could be arrested and prosecuted. Secondly, the act of crossing the rails and breaking the rule is not a tresspass, it is a violation. Terms need to be correctly used.
If there is incoherence everywhere, how do you expect citizens to act coherently? This is not a voice of defiance, it is a voice of kindly-put-criticism. Like the saying goes, "If you want people to follow, set an example."
No comments:
Post a Comment