Opinions

The seemingly racist behaviour of a local Chinese car-salesgirl triggered a prospective customer, a young Malay couple.

They went to the JDM Collection roadshow in Yishun as they were interested to look at a suitable car for themselves.

As the other sales representatives were occupied, they approached the salesgirl. However, she had a lazy attitude. She had an even worse EQ - she questioned the couple's ability to pay the downpayments and fulfil their loan. 

According to the husband, they were not the only ones who received this treatment from the girl. The salesgirl in question had similarly ignored other Malay families or couples, choosing to, instead, play with her handphone.

She however proactively approached Chinese families that walked past.

The livid husband questioned her suitability to work for such a reputable company. He sincerely believes that she is spoiling the company's image if she continues to be arrogant and choose her customers based on their skin colour.

Racism exists in Singapore. Just because we come from the majority community does not mean that it does not exist. There is just less of a possibility of you becoming the subject of a racist act. That's majority privilege for you.  

The aggrieved couple could have approached her superiors or her colleagues to convey their dissatisfaction. 

As human beings, we need to learn stop judging people based on their skin colour but on their abilities and merit. 

It's the school holidays and you are thinking of letting your children play at the attractions at Jewel on their own? Think again.

A netizen, who wants to be known only as 'Ms Goh', shared a disconcerting photo of her niece. She claimed that the niece had suffered the deep gash while playing at the Mirror Maze.

Concerned with the extent of the injury, the aunt urged parents to be extra careful.

The Jewel attractions' management should conduct a thorough safety risk review of all their play areas to ensure that such injuries do not repeat.

Injuries are a common occurence when it comes to children at play areas. They get bruised when they bump into the fixtures or other children. 

However, parents don't expect their child to suffer such a deep cut while playing. It is on the management to ensure the safety of the their customers.

Many have voiced their concerns with the expected increase in road-toll charges in Singapore with the implementation of the new GPS and distance-based, ERP fare system.

Not many have discussed the privacy concerns that such a system can bring about. However, an alternative page calling itself 'NUSSU - NUS Students United' (no relation to the actual NUS Students' Union) has brought to light some of the issues that drivers and commuters might face. 

In fact, it views the new system as a very serious privacy risk.

Imagine this: the LTA will be able to track EVERY vehicle by satellite in Singapore on a real time basis, 24 hours 7 days a week. This means that it can both know the actual macro traffic patterns on a much better resolution AND every individual vehicle’s travel and usage patterns. And you can’t switch it off or opt out, unlike Grab or Go-Jek.

Netizens (who wished to remain anonymous) have bound together to step in to help the needy who fall through the social safety nets in Singapore.

In this case, they are helping an elderly grandmother who has fallen back on the service and conservancy fees owed to the Tanjong Pagar Town Council. 

While refusing the publicity, they nontheless urged all Singaporeans to step up and do likewise, to do what they can for the needy. 

The group rationalises that while there is little they can do to change or affect government policies, they can take more proactive measures to help the needy, instead of merely complaining.

This is a fantastic initiative that should be replicated among Singaporeans. However, while they are preaching compassion, they seem to feel hopeless over a Singaporean's ability to change government policies.

We should not lose hope.

As much as we help the needy, we need to lobby the government to bring the plight of the needy to their attention. Only then can we find more sustainable, longer-term solutions that can help a broader segment of the needy. 

Singapore and Malaysia have a love-hate relationship. Most of the time, it can be harmless. Sometimes, the people become victims.

A netizen shared how a Malaysian immigration officer had wrote "do not live in msia" in blue ink, on a page in the uncle's passport. The uncle is a Singaporean who has a house in Johor and lives there. He has to commute daily between the two countrie due to work.

The officer had questioned the latter's frequent trips in and out of Johor. The uncle responded truthfully but was shocked to hear the officer telling him to sell his house in Malaysia and to go back to Singapore instead.

What the immigration officer allegedly did is unprofessional. Unless the uncle committed crimes in Malaysia, they have no authority to tell you not to live in their country.

This may be an isolated case but it is a good reminder for Singaporeans to be more mindful to check their passports for any irregularities.

When faced with similar circumstances overseas, it may be best not to confront the officer on duty. Instead, what you can do is to lodge a formal complain when you return to Singapore.

Former Singapore diplomat, Bilahari Kausikan, is not one who holds back on giving his unsolicited opinions on issues related to foreign policy and diplomacy.

This time, he criticised the protestors in Hong Kong for being delusional.

Bilahari thinks that objective of the Hong Kong people to "separate Hong Kong from PRC domestic law" is an impossibility.

He was also less optimistic on the outcome of any intervention by PRC President Xi Jinping, should Xi's hand be forced.

What does Bilahari know about what's possible and impossible in Hong Kong?

He is a foreigner who has no say on what the Hong Kong people can, or cannot do. If Roy Ngerng's support for the pro-democracy protesters is seen as foreign intervention, what do you make of Bilahari and his take on the group? Does Bilahari not support democracy?

Apart from his brashness, Bilahari is like all other PAP-type bureacrats who are smart, but whose imagination is limited, and whose thoughts are restricted by PAP groupthink.

The Hong Kong people knows what's best for themselves. It is their lives and their futures that are at stake. They are taking ownership of it. 

It is certainly not Bilahari's place to tell them what to do about their future.