After years of discussion, debates and all sorts of measures to try to ensure civility, priority seating on public transportation remains a contentious issue.
It exploded again on Monday after a video of a woman pulling a younger woman’s hair as she dragged her off a priority seat and assaulted her went viral, the third such spat to make the news in the past month.
In the video, the assailant asks the younger woman to yield her seat to an elderly man, but is rebuffed, whereupon she pulls out what appears to be a pink disability card and launches her attack.
As usual, Taiwan’s industrious netizens located the woman in the viral video on Facebook and flooded her Facebook page with angry posts, leading her to defend her actions by saying that she could not bear to watch someone who “did not appear to be feeling unwell” sit when there was an elderly man on the train, and that the young woman accused her of being a “morality crusader” (正義魔人).
It turns out that the young woman was suffering from tendinitis and needed the seat.
In another incident last week, a woman who was having her menstrual period sat in a priority seat, leading an elderly man sitting next to her to question her right to use the seat, even though there was reportedly no one else in need nearby.
The man continued to harangue the woman even after she explained why she took the seat.
Condemning such violence aside, people need to stop such vigilante behavior on public transportation.
Such actions have already turned a simple, well-intentioned concept into a system of fear and intimidation, where no healthy person — even older ones — would consider sitting in a priority seat without a good, visible reason, even if they are feeling ill or are simply tired, which defeats the purpose of having priority seats in the first place.
The fear and inhibitions about using such seats is clear, as they often remain empty even when a Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) train or a bus is packed.
Anyone not of the designated categories who dares sit in a priority seat is often at the very least glared at, and if someone who looks slightly in need gets on board, the situation can easily escalate into a confrontation.
Such vigilante behavior is unnecessary in a civil place like Taipei — anyone who has ridden the MRT knows that there are far more people willing to yield their seats than those who refuse to, often giving up their non-priority seats.
Those who do not often fail to notice because they are absorbed by their cellphones and a gentle reminder would suffice.
Users on Professional Technology Temple, the nation’s largest online bulletin board system, were eager to offer their thoughts when a post asked whether priority seating should be abolished.
The nation already went through this debate in 2016, when an online petition to abolish the seats within six days reached the threshold of 5,000 signatures required for the government to consider the appeal.
Eliminating priority seating is unnecessary as well as impractical, as it would require amending laws and replacing the seats.
The government has far more important problems, and it is not the authorities’ fault that the system has ended up like this.
The entire culture behind priority seating needs to change — on both sides. To break this absurd cycle of fear, people not in need should try sitting in the priority seats when there is no one in need around, while would-be vigilantes should try to assess the situation first, instead of lashing out. It is simply about being civil, which is the whole purpose of these seats.
This is one case where it is ridiculous to turn to the government for a solution.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations