Letter to the Editor – Priority Seats
Dear Editor,
I am writing to express my opinion on the issue of priority seats. The introduction of priority seats has the original aim of yielding seats to those people in need, especially for the elderly, the disabled and pregnant women. Recently, there has been an increasing number of conflicts over the use of priority seats; and it has been suggested that the seats should be abolished because of the controversies of their use. I am convinced that these seats should be abolished. There are several supporting arguments.
To commerce with, the meaning for having ‘priority seats campaign’ has been lost or even distorted. Recently, abled-bodies who occupied those seats have been condemned online. Even they did not mean to do harm, they were seriously criticized. In a serious case, such criticisms have become cyberbullying or public trials. However, those “accused” might have simply been focusing too much on their mobile phones or were unable to identify the needy from their appearances. Public trials have serious effects and are improper. Some people may judge the alleged “offenders” merely from the video clips or pictures online and without thorough understanding of the complete story. So, they could be deeply disturbed in their real life, too. The public might consider them as immoral or cold-blooded, for their failing to give up the priority seats.
So it seems abolishing the priority seats could help alleviate this problem and decrease instances of these unnecessary disputes. According to a survey, nearly 80 per cent of secondary school students are under pressure not to use priority sears on public transports for fear that they would be subjected to discrimination if they fail to offer them to those in need. However, secondary students can be tired too, after they have gone through the various classes in schools. They may want to have a seat and take a rest, but now they are barred from taking the “priority seats” because of public pressure. Nevertheless, is the aim of introducing priority seats not to encourage people to care for the needy and to cultivate a virtue?
Thirdly, as I am suggesting above, yielding a seat is a good deed, a virtue. It should not be taken merely as an externally imposed social sanction. An online poll in Taiwan, in which 700 people responded, is in favor of scrapping the practice of priority or courtesy seats. People will offer their seats, if they are genuinely kind and considerate. Therefore, the best way to cultivate a virtue is education. This may take a long time, but it would be worth doing so. People offering their seats voluntarily is better than being forced to yield a seat under social pressure or being afraid of public trials.
In short, priority seats are assigned as part of the social effort to encourage the culture of offering help to the needy. When members of the community are willing to offer their seats, the need to designate priority seats will no long exist.
Yours faithfully
Pat Chan