I refer to Woo Jia Wei, Jayern's letter "Why just fine us but not give advice?" published on p22 pf The New Paper on 7 Apr 2008.
I read the letter in disbelief as Jayern contrived to view jaywalking advice as something the police officers were compelled to do. Going by his logic, police officers should stop every passer-by holding a drink can in case he litters. I've not heard such fanciful nonsense in quite a while.
He makes several assumptions:
Firstly, that the officer knew he was going to cross the road illegally. We are well aware of the adage "innocent until proven guilty". I have little idea why Jayern prefers to be proven guilty in the first place.
Secondly, he assumes he is not aware of jaywalking as an offence. If primary school children can raise their hands at zebra crossings without their parents, I think we can expect the same if not more of our dear jaywalker. It is common knowledge that you have to use a pedestrian crossing if you are within 50m of it. For him to claim ignorance is blatantly pretentious.
Thirdly, he claims that the officer was "merely concerned about noting down" his particulars and informing him "about the fine". Assuming that Jayern is longer a primary school student since he knows how to write a letter to the press, this represents the third time in this sorry issue that he has claimed that he needs hand-holding in crossing the road.
He claims he's not asking for leniency and that may be true. In writing this ill-advised letter though, I think he has contrived to make himself a veritable laughing stock.