A new invention by Ngee Ann Polytechnic students serves to prevent conflict from taking place over the use of priority seats on MRT trains, and to allow those who truly need the seat to gain access to it. The seat, in its original form, is folded. Once a user is in need of it, they would tap their ez-link card onto the sensor and the seat can be pulled down.
For priority passengers other than senior citizens such as the pregnant and the ill, the students suggested that a doctor's note be used to support their need for the seat. Their ez-link cards can be activated for a limited period of time.
First off, I would like to commend the students for coming up with such an idea, no doubt with some help and guidance from their lecturer. But they have made this invention their own, and it is worth something. I encourage more students to follow their example to step up and innovate to create a better society.
From the usage policy point of view, it is worth a closer look at the human behaviour that might result from such an invention.
If the purpose is solely for the passengers in need of a seat, then it will fulfill its purpose. However, the students created this invention after viewing videos on passengers fighting over the use of the seat. Assigning the seat to needy passengers was secondary (http://www.asianewsnet.net/Smart-seat-to-prevent-train-rows-41097.html)
Influencing change in human behaviour is one of the most difficult things to master. There are no set rules; the rules keep changing; the rules is often difficult to replicate across borders; and measures that work now may not work in the future.
One of the giants in the field of psychology, BF Skinner, introduced the Reinforcement Theory of Motivation, in that an individual's behaviour is a function of its consequences.Simply said, if we receive positive consequences, it is likely we will continue in that behaviour. The converse is then also true.
To apply Skinner's theory to the Priority Seat invention, we are simply removing the right of able bodied passengers to use the Priority Seat (Extinction); and we are 'rewarding' needy passengers with a specially activated ez-link card so that they gain the right to use the seat (Positive reinforcement).
On the surface, it looks like the problem is solved. However, humans can be strange creatures. What happens when there is more than 1 needy passenger in the train carriage? My take? The conflict over seats will be shifted from the Priority Seat to the regular seats.
Furthermore, remember that the Extinction of rights of able bodied passengers from the Priority Seats will generally be perceived as a punitive measure (meaning: we cannot trust able bodied passengers to give up priority seats to the needy, so their rights to the seats must be removed). Able bodied passengers might then perceive that it is then now their sovereign right to the remaining seats and thus result in more competitive and aggressive skirmishes.
At the other end of the spectrum, giving needy passengers the access to Priority Seats will be perceived as a reward to those who are senior citizens, pregnant or ill. As such, if the Priority Seats are already taken by another needy passenger, other needy passengers might see it as an automatic right to gain access to another seat, no matter the cost, resulting in possible conflict.
My view - passenger behaviour may end up more aggressive and at worst, resentment against needy passengers will rise.
One might counter that society has always expected senior citizens, the pregnant or ill to naturally receive special treatment. Such an invention is no different from other benefits made available to them by the state.
True.
But if I may - if we as a society truly value the needs of needy passengers, then why have the students created the Priority Seat invention in the first place?
