Put aside the sympathy clause for a moment.
Let's look at the underlying reasons why she wrote that
letter.
1: She wanted to finger the degrading standards of courtesy in
Singapore Society.
2: She experienced first hand the problem faced and therefore duly
suffered what others have perhaps suffered before her.
For item 1, there is no doubt that our standards have dropped. The
point of contention is: is this a new wake-up call or is it a
prevalent issue transparent to our society despite its obvious
signs?
We are fully aware of it but change and ethical improvement is not
something that can be achieved overnight. What she has written is
nothing new and was published as a gradual tool in the hopes that
we as a people would be nudged in the right direction. Again i
stress, it is a slow and painful process.
Item 2: It is always difficult when you experience it personally.
It might sound disbelieving when you hear it from someone else but
experencing the difficulty is always the alarm bell. There is a lot
of anger and resentment in the manner in which she was treated by
strangers and therefore, her letter lambasting the undergrads who
failed to deliver on her expectations is somewhat concealing the
fact that it would all have been avoided had she or her husband
simply asked.
You DO not need to ask for courtesy?
Perhaps the correct statement is : You SHOULD NOT have to ask for
courtesy.
But then again, we are all humans, some selfish and unkind, others
gracious and polite.
