Anyway, I have digressed. For curious souls, this is the article. Buy the newspaper for the full impact. The impact after I read the article is as follows:
Manglish Alert
YOU NOW ONLY KNOW AH?!?!?!
Manglish Alert End
*shakes head*
There's nothing like the first time, eh?
We humble denizens have long been desensitized to pushing and shoving and clinging and trying-not-to-breathe-in-that-aroma-ing. We are used to automatic doors closing into our tired faces - it is just yet another disappointment in a long series of disappointments. We are used to being crammed into compact tubes of bodies - subhuman in our emotional separation from each other. We are used to being alone amidst crowds of lonely people. We are used to traveling by KTM.
So, I was thinking, what would happen if I was on that particular train-ride? How would I have reacted to a benign old man who keeps asking me questions about the transport system? Hmmmm..... Interesting......
Anyway (again), this particular paragraph was particularly hard for me to understand:
In both trains, the prime minister, dressed in a red batik shirt with golden print, had to stand although passengers offered him their seats.Why did he HAVE to stand when people are offering him their seats? I'm sure it's not because he can't get to the seat - everyone would be scrambling to let the poor guy sit. So why is he standing? Don't tell me it's chivalry. Then it would have been CHOSE to stand.
So, back to my question: why did he have to stand? Lunch on me, for the answer I find most rational.