Another day, another disgruntled letter to The Straits Times.

You know the drill: Someone, presumably Singaporean, felt inspired and whipped out his favourite word processor and pounded out a letter to the press.

The topic this time? Fine those who reserve tables at public eating places.

Here's the entirety of the letter:

Fine those who reserve tables

There has been so much debate over the practice of "choping" but going by anecdotal evidence, more people seem to be against it.

As I see it, the only way to stop the practice is to impose a fine of, say, $1,000 on people who reserve big tables when their group is small - for example, two people choping a table meant for five.

Tables should be shared, and no one should be allowed to claim the whole table for themselves.

Tissues, umbrellas, office tags or other objects cannot be used to reserve tables. There has to be a person physically there while the rest of the group buys their food.

Signs can be put up at hawker centres to warn customers. Cameras should also be installed to monitor the situation and as a deterrence.

Wee Gim Leong

The title might sound ridiculous at first glance as it is pretty contentious.

There is a point, however, when the letter said a small group should not chope a table meant for more people. (e.g. two people choping a table meant for five.)

The other points, however, are less well-thought out -- even at the third or fourth glance.

Those who eat alone

Not wanting someone to chope a table with random objects such as tissue paper is understandable.

However, while a blanket ban on using items to chope tables might not be an issue with a group of people, it would prove vastly unfair to solo eaters who need a place to eat during peak hours.

As Facebook user Luke Phang has illustrated, some possible alternatives besides eating at a hawker centre alone can prove to be unfeasible as well.

For example, bringing lunch to the office would be inconvenient and rather uncomfortable if there is not much table space or a proper pantry.

Costly enforcement

Moreover, how should enforcement be carried out at hawker centres?

Signs and cameras are all costly to install. And then there's the question of who is going to enforce and monitor footage recorded.

Combined with the fine, it will form a mighty deterrence, but it will not teach people about their lack of courtesy.

Rather, it'll just teach them to fear the law for the sake of it.

Utilising surveillance will also worsen the recent trend of Singaporeans adopting a lynch-mob mentality.

Most comments on the ST forum letter agreed that education was the better way forward, along with proactively reinforcing positive social norms.

So, at the end of the day, it is about fining those who write inane letters to the press.

Kidding.

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.