By: B Goode
I am sure I will get cancer by writing this article. But being PC (Politically Correct) is not my virtue.
If I saw a man who couldn’t see, I’d call him a blind man. All this seeing-impaired, hearing-impaired, and all that PC bullcrap is not only an uneconomical use of words, it is downright condescending.
What’s wrong with calling someone deaf rather than hearing-impaired? That’s a saving of 12 letters! And since that person is already deaf, does it really matter what we call him?
I am already feeling something growing on my tongue.
It was alright to call a spade a spade in the past until some PC warriors decided that words such as deaf, blind, handicapped, insane and dumb needed to be changed to more patronising forms. And almost overnight, those words became the unmentionables.
The cause of my rant is when the bus service that I take every day to work has suddenly started to use wheel-chair friendly buses instead of the usual bendy buses. The problem is that the wheelchair friendly buses are half the length of bendy buses. It would have been alright if the bus operator was to double the bus schedule but nope. It remains the same and so you can imagine what has happened. The buses are packed like sardines and on most days, I would have to miss a few buses.
It is like as if the bus operator is saying: `Hey! Sorry for the inconvenience caused but it is for the sake of the paraplegics (err I mean, the walking-impaired). We hope that the good deed will compensate for the sin of unnecessarily raising the fares despite our sucky service.’
Who cares about the paraplegics? I am late for work!
In the years that I have taken the service, I have never come across any wheelchair bound person who had wanted to take the bus. Maybe they did a Schrödinger cat on me and only took the bus when I wasn’t on it. If that was the case, why must all the buses be changed to the shorter wheelchair friendly version?
Why not only two or three with their schedule publicised so that a wheelchair bound person would know when to wait for the bus? Why should the majority of us suffer for the sake of a few?
And then there was that case of the blind woman with her seeing-eye dog. Sorry I am late to the party but why would a blind person go shopping for a dress with a dog when dogs are said to be colour blind? Wouldn’t it be better if she was to bring along a human companion instead who could help her choose?
If she doesn’t have any friends or family members to bring along, then she should reflect on why is this so? Did she incessantly whine and wallow in self-pity that all her friends deserted her?
Why should a shop, any shop for that matter, bend over backwards just to compensate for one lonely blind woman with her dog? There is a reason why shops and eating places have `no-pets allowed’ policy. It’s for hygiene reason and most importantly, not everyone loves dogs.
And don’t get me started on the animal-lovers (socially-impaired) who would rather bond with animals than fellow humans whom the AVA in compensating them, had allowed pigeons to actually shit in my mee rebus whilst I was having lunch at ABC Hawker Centre, Brickworks the other day.
Just kill the pigeons already!
The point of this article is; are we over-compensating the needs of the disabled? Does this over-compensation somehow make us a better person? A better society?
Why are we feeling guilty for being normal?
I am all for things that do not affect the majority. Things such as having lifts in the MRT stations and overhead bridges, and having sloping pavements and ramps because they do not adversely affect anyone.
But not to have things and policies that frustrate people like me so much so that I have to rant and possibly getting cancer (karma is a bitch!) as a result of having to write an article such as this.
There! I’ve said it. I hope Kuan Im Temple is not crowded today.