Child bans popular trend for restaraunts in Singapore

[TheMightyFavog]

There is a popular saying that goes "Kids should be seen and not heard."

Some Singapore restaurants, not just the fine-dining eateries, aren't taking the chance that the little tykes will comply and are banning young children from their premises.

PS. Cafe at Ang Siang Hill boldly states on a sign at its front entrance that it's "adults and teenagers only" at its newest branch. However families with young children are welcomed to dine at their other three outlets.


http://www.cnngo.com/singapore/eat/sorry-kids-youre-not-welcomed-here-280860?pi=pi#ixzz1ANnIZAS4

Hope the trend catches on here.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. So many DU jokes

Not nearly enough time.

[kestrel91316]

2. Uh oh......

:popcorn:

Not that I don't agree with you, lol......

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Singapore also puts people to death for drug possession and gives public beatings for gum chewing.

Yay, Singapore!

:eyes:

Also, that crap about "children should be seen and not heard" is the sort of shit people used to say when I was kid, right after they would say something like "A woman's place is in the kitchen".

If you're really bothered by children in restaurants, eat in San Francisco. No one there can afford to have kids.

[Turborama]

9. Singapore, the city people like to exaggerate the laws of for their own peculiar reasons

Immediate results of ban
After the ban was announced, the import of chewing gum was immediately halted. However, a reasonable transition period was given to allow shops to clear their existing stocks. After that, the sale of chewing gum was completely terminated.

When first introduced, the ban caused much controversy and some open defiance. Some took the trouble of traveling to neighbouring Johor Bahru, Malaysia, to purchase chewing gum. Offenders were publicly "named and shamed" by the government, to serve as a deterrent to other would-be smugglers. No black market for chewing gum in Singapore ever emerged, though some Singaporeans occasionally still manage to smuggle some chewing gum from Johor Bahru for their own consumption. The ban has been partially lifted, as some types of gum are allowable, such as gum chewed for dental health. However, the government refuses to completely lift the ban for the risk of gum littering again.

International attention
In the mid 1990s, Singapore's laws began to receive international press coverage. The U.S. media paid great attention to the case of Michael P. Fay, an American teenager sentenced in 1994 to caning in Singapore for vandalism (spray paint, not chewing gum). They also drew attention to some of Singapore's other laws, including the "mandatory flushing of public toilets" rule. Confused reporting around these issues has led to worldwide propagation of the myth that the use or importation of chewing gum is itself punishable with caning. In fact, this has never been a caneable offence, and the only penalties provided under Chapter 57 are fines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Yes, I have peculiar reasons for exaggerating the laws of Singapore.

Unlike, say, the peculiar reasons of adults who like to imagine that they have a god-given right never to encounter children out in public, ever.

You're right. The laws of Singapore that outlaw chewing gum (they even have a medical exemption! Wow!) are totally reasonable.

As is a place that uses "caning" as a punishment for anything. :eyes:

[Statistical]

14. In public? I do believe a restaurant is private property.

[Kalyke]

22. Banning something means that it's in all restaurants.

Not by proprietor's choice.

In Tennessee, they gave restaurants the option of being smoke free or becoming 21 or older. Last I checked, restaurants were losing money and "bars" were fine.

[Hannah Bell]

27. it's a public accomodation, open to the public, a public place.

thus when public smoking bans are instituted they apply to businesses open to the public.

[Turborama]

16. You said Singapore "gives public beatings for gum chewing", that was wrong

I haven't said anything about how 'reasonable' it is to fine people for chewing gum, but if that's the sort of thing that you use to judge a country go for it.

You exaggerated again, no-one was saying anything about never encountering children out in public, ever.

By the way, have you ever been to Singapore?

I have several times and it's a great city, the melting pot of Asia. The people there are very content and patriotic. Also, everything is very efficient and there's no gum all over the streets, tables, chairs, walls etc etc.

[Hannah Bell]

28. sure, if you like tiny dictatorships it's great.

[Turborama]

30. Have you been there?

Happy New Year :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

32. yes, briefly. i find some people love it & others hate it with little in between.

i don't like fascist spectacle.


- Singapore’s level of inequality is the highest in the developed world, except possibly for Hong Kong’s. Its bottom quintile is the poorest in the developed world except for Portugal’s.

- Singapore’s per capita military spending is second only to Israel’s, even though Singapore is not at war nor will it ever be. That last fact doesn’t prevent the government from engaging in a propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the citizenry that it is.

- The combination of low wages, no social safety net, and a social security system that has no redistribution of wealth at all means that lower-class people often have to work into their 70s and 80s to survive.

- Despite draconian sentencing laws for violent crime, Singapore’s crime rate remains far higher than Japan’s.


http://abstractnonsense.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/the-fascism-of-singapore/.

[mike_c]

11. I think a public flogging for bringing unruly children to dinner is entirely appropriate....

That's what dark closets and dank basements are for, you know. :rofl:

[BlueJazz]

19. When I went to Australia, the entire cache of passengers had the pleasure of...

...hearing a Baby scream for hours. The baby would fall asleep every so often for awhile and then, like
some noisy Phoenix Monster, rise up and serenade us for 3 more hours.
We passengers finally signed a petition to place the baby were it might be more comortable..
..like on the wing...I'm kidding..I'm kidding (about the wing thing.) :)

[liberal N proud]

4. Hmm?

[Submariner]

5. How about the same thing for airplanes? ....please

[sharp_stick]

6. Only after they ban

drunken assholes and people that recline into my knees.

[diane in sf]

7. The upper image reminds me of my younger brother. He hammered a nail

into the socket. When he got shocked trying to pull it out with his bare hand he took off his pajama bottoms, tied the legs in a knot and beat on the nail until it fell out of the socket. He also used to take apart his Tonka trucks with his teeth (this is back in the 50s when they were made of metal!). These are not the kind of creatures you want next to you in a restaurant.

[Turborama]

8. I was going to say, no screaming babies stinking up the plane with their poop and puke would be nice

I wouldn't be too tough, just nothing under 1. Taking a baby under 1 year old on vacation is selfish and mean.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Right. You can't imagine a situation with a terminally ill grandparent wanting to see their only

grandchild, once before they die.

Believe me, I don't know any parent who looks forward to bringing a baby on an airplane. But babies are part of the human race, and like it or not, they are going to be encountered in public, including on airplanes.

[U4ikLefty]

15. Yeah, THAT'S the reason.

ALL babaies on planes are there to see terminally ill people...yeah right!

[Warren DeMontague]

26. No. They're there to deliberately disturb what otherwise would be for you, a perfect, transcendent

pristine experience of class, sophistication, enjoyment, pleasure, bliss, and serenity.



Here's an idea, Jack. If it offends you so much, next time you're forced to be on an airplane with one of those horrid diaper-clad things, why don't you throw a giant screaming temper tantrum yourself, and demand that the offending creature be removed henceforth from your personal enclosed flying tube of zen-like perfection.

And yes, people often to take their babies to see their elderly parents, who can't travel and otherwise might not have a chance to see their grandchildren. But honestly, it doesn't matter what the reason is, they have just as much right to be on that plane as you do.

[Hannah Bell]

29. who the hell cares why they're on an airplane? they have as much right to be on one as you.

and no one guaranteed you a hassle-free life.

jesus christ, what is wrong with people.

i think people who are so bothered by perfectly normal life events should go live in a monastery or something.

i know people like this, that go into spasms if anything -- literally anything -- disturbs their sense of what "should" be.

they're completely dysfunctional, and horrible to be around. and it seems like there are more of them every day.

[Turborama]

31. Sure I can

And I think that would go under the "exceptional circumstances" clause.

[Dappleganger]

10. .

:beer: :popcorn:

[Nye Bevan]

17. Disney does that in the US for their most expensive restaurant

Guest Policies

* Guests ages 10 and above are invited to dine at this establishment.


In other words, children under 10 are not allowed.

http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/dining/victoria-and-alberts/

which is absolutely fine. The rule I follow is if a restaurant has high chairs and a kids' menu, I will take my kids there. If it doesn't, I won't. Pretty simple.

[BlueJazz]

18. Question for DU'ers: Can you take a baby on a plane in first Class??

just curious

[petronius]

20. That's a bit surprising - seems like they eat pretty much everything else in Singapore

:shrug:

[Kalyke]

21. When are they gonna pan pompus asses who can't deal with some normal noise?

I'd go to that restaurant.

[madinmaryland]

23. Wonder what their thoughts are about breast feeding in restaurants.

:hide:

[tammywammy]

24. Only if you're smoking. n/t

[AsahinaKimi]

25. self delete n/t

[MicaelS]

33. More child hate, and then Progressives wonder why

They have trouble "winning over people" to their POV. :wow:

[Bunny]

34. What's the big deal?

If a restaurant wants to be adults and older children only, I have no problem with that. There are plenty of places left for people to take their small children to. :shrug:

[Lucian]

35. That would be awesome if we did that here.

Nothing worse than trying to enjoy an expensive meal than some little junior son of a bitch screaming his head off three tables over, while the parents sit there an allow him to do it.