TO DEVELOP public transport graciousness where commuters willingly give up their seats, I suggest that reserved seats be done away with.
While campaigns exhorting commuters to give up their seats have not been ineffectual, having reserved seats on our public transport does not promote a genuine sense of graciousness in individuals. Instead, such a configuration tends to oblige able-bodied occupants of only reserved seats to give them up.
Counter-intuitive as it may seem, removing this designation could lead to more commuters offering their seats to those presumed to need the seats more.
By reserving particular seats for the more needy, it is natural for commuters sitting on the non-reserved seats to think that they are not obliged to give up their seats, as the responsibility for such altruism is presumably borne solely by those occupying reserved seats.
Thus, it is not uncommon to see needy commuters having to stand, only because other needy commuters have occupied all the reserved seats.
I have observed on countless occasions commuters, who were initially on reserved seats, moving to the non-reserved ones the moment these seats became available.
This is telling of an attitude that presumes acts of social altruism need to be performed by occupants of only reserved seats.
Conversely, in the absence of reserved seats, the obligation is shared equally among everyone seated.
Ultimately, social graciousness cannot be nurtured if all we do is to attach a stigma to non-conformists of socially acceptable etiquette.
Behavioural change can be influenced more effectively through positive encouragement, where individuals appreciate the inherent value in being gracious. Hence, even if reserved seats are here to stay, public graciousness campaigns should be stepped up and their reach widened.
Lin Weizhong
While campaigns exhorting commuters to give up their seats have not been ineffectual, having reserved seats on our public transport does not promote a genuine sense of graciousness in individuals. Instead, such a configuration tends to oblige able-bodied occupants of only reserved seats to give them up.
Counter-intuitive as it may seem, removing this designation could lead to more commuters offering their seats to those presumed to need the seats more.
By reserving particular seats for the more needy, it is natural for commuters sitting on the non-reserved seats to think that they are not obliged to give up their seats, as the responsibility for such altruism is presumably borne solely by those occupying reserved seats.
Thus, it is not uncommon to see needy commuters having to stand, only because other needy commuters have occupied all the reserved seats.
I have observed on countless occasions commuters, who were initially on reserved seats, moving to the non-reserved ones the moment these seats became available.
This is telling of an attitude that presumes acts of social altruism need to be performed by occupants of only reserved seats.
Conversely, in the absence of reserved seats, the obligation is shared equally among everyone seated.
Ultimately, social graciousness cannot be nurtured if all we do is to attach a stigma to non-conformists of socially acceptable etiquette.
Behavioural change can be influenced more effectively through positive encouragement, where individuals appreciate the inherent value in being gracious. Hence, even if reserved seats are here to stay, public graciousness campaigns should be stepped up and their reach widened.
Lin Weizhong
