Mar 27, 2011
An Open Letter To Singaporeans
I found this video online, and while I would not use the word screwed, I think it does really highlight the disconnect between the powers that be and the ordinary citizen. Perspective is important when reading and watching everything online, but form a justified opinion for yourself.
I fondly remember the pre-election words and then the subsequent increase in GST...... will we see that this year?
They even brought out the carry-a-baby-photo arsenal, who knows what's next?
Mar 26, 2011
Letter to ST Forum: Request for explanation of your explanation to Mr. Wee
Dear Mr Yap,
I am not writing in to the forum but rather writing to you as the Forum Editor. In light of that, I sincerely hope you will not massacre my email by editing it to one that does not convey the meaning it is supposed to convey, and then reading it back to yourself thinking that this email is being written to praise you of your excellent work that you have done thus far. It is not.
Rather this letter is written by a very perplexed reader of The Straits Times, who is wondering about what really happens in the newsroom of our national broadsheet, and also about your education level, specifically in Mathematics and in understanding the semantics of what is being written. Correct me if I am wrong, but did you pass your PSLE Mathematics? And did you actually graduate? I'm asking because, I'm not sure about you, but most of my friends who read Mr. Samuel Wee's original letter knew full well what he was trying to say.
Which then really surprised us when we read your edited version (or whoever the editor was and since your title is the Forum Editor, I assume that to be you) of his letter to be diametrically opposite of the intended meaning. I can go on about educating you on semantics, but if many years of education by our excellent schools, which your paper brings glowing report on every now and then, cannot teach you, I sincerely doubt my one email will be able to do that.
I'm writing for an explanation of your explanation/justification to Mr. Wee. You pointed out that there was a "factual error" when Mr Wee claimed that 90% of children from one-to-three-room flats do not make it to university, and you then "corrected" it to 50% of these children made it to university AND POLYTECHNIC. A factual error means that the facts were wrong, and ironically, Mr. Wee was quoting a statistics that your paper wrote, and you "corrected" it while referring to the same statistic but using a different group (university VS university & polytechnic). So can you please explain where his factual error is? Unless you are implying that the statistic that Mr. Wee and yourself cited is wrong, in which case, aren't you repeating the so-called "factual error".
Also, you claim "sense" as a reason for this edit, because it did not made sense for Mr. Wee to be elated at this statistic. I suppose sarcasm and irony are difficult concepts to grasp, and your demonstration of your understanding of his letter, and of course your poor mathematical skills, underscores this. To explain this concept to you, I refer to the dictionary:
Sarcasm: the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment.
Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite.
Which suffice to say, Mr. Wee was trying to say that he was NEITHER elated, NOR was it heartwarming that 90% of children from one-to-three-room flats DID NOT make it to university. To write in a way that you would understand what he meant: "It is disappointing that only 10% of children from one-to-three-room flats make it to university".
"Factual errors" aside, which I believe readers of The Straits Times can pardon now that we know your level of intelligence, to rewrite a writer's opinion and substituting it with one of your own on the basis of "contextual error and sense" is really hard to understand. I mean, maybe your understanding of opinion differs from mine, but we have always been brought up to believe that forum was to allow Singaporeans to voice their opinions, not for you or your team to edit the meaning into your own, because then it would be your opinion, or your assumed understanding of the writers' intended opinion.
If you have felt that the author was making that much error, then as your auto-reply suggests, with more than 70 letters received a day, I am sure you can always choose to publish another letter.
I am actually not hoping for a good explanation from you, having seen your weak and feeble attempt to Mr. Wee, but I am sincerely hoping that you will try, and perhaps let me know in the process that you have sufficient educational qualification to be a forum editor. If not, I surely hope that you will stay only as a forum editor and not move on to any other position because really, I only read The Strait Times for the Regional and World news (most of which are syndicated anyway) and I want to continue to perform my patriotic duty and support The Strait Times. Now that's irony for you
Sincerely,
Scott Teng
######
For those who needs background and context:
1. http://visaisahero.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/more-straits-times-wizardry/
2. http://visaisahero.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/sts-justification-of-its-liberal-editing-of-forum-opinions/
I am not writing in to the forum but rather writing to you as the Forum Editor. In light of that, I sincerely hope you will not massacre my email by editing it to one that does not convey the meaning it is supposed to convey, and then reading it back to yourself thinking that this email is being written to praise you of your excellent work that you have done thus far. It is not.
Rather this letter is written by a very perplexed reader of The Straits Times, who is wondering about what really happens in the newsroom of our national broadsheet, and also about your education level, specifically in Mathematics and in understanding the semantics of what is being written. Correct me if I am wrong, but did you pass your PSLE Mathematics? And did you actually graduate? I'm asking because, I'm not sure about you, but most of my friends who read Mr. Samuel Wee's original letter knew full well what he was trying to say.
Which then really surprised us when we read your edited version (or whoever the editor was and since your title is the Forum Editor, I assume that to be you) of his letter to be diametrically opposite of the intended meaning. I can go on about educating you on semantics, but if many years of education by our excellent schools, which your paper brings glowing report on every now and then, cannot teach you, I sincerely doubt my one email will be able to do that.
I'm writing for an explanation of your explanation/justification to Mr. Wee. You pointed out that there was a "factual error" when Mr Wee claimed that 90% of children from one-to-three-room flats do not make it to university, and you then "corrected" it to 50% of these children made it to university AND POLYTECHNIC. A factual error means that the facts were wrong, and ironically, Mr. Wee was quoting a statistics that your paper wrote, and you "corrected" it while referring to the same statistic but using a different group (university VS university & polytechnic). So can you please explain where his factual error is? Unless you are implying that the statistic that Mr. Wee and yourself cited is wrong, in which case, aren't you repeating the so-called "factual error".
Also, you claim "sense" as a reason for this edit, because it did not made sense for Mr. Wee to be elated at this statistic. I suppose sarcasm and irony are difficult concepts to grasp, and your demonstration of your understanding of his letter, and of course your poor mathematical skills, underscores this. To explain this concept to you, I refer to the dictionary:
Sarcasm: the use of irony to mock or convey contempt : his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment.
Irony: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite.
Which suffice to say, Mr. Wee was trying to say that he was NEITHER elated, NOR was it heartwarming that 90% of children from one-to-three-room flats DID NOT make it to university. To write in a way that you would understand what he meant: "It is disappointing that only 10% of children from one-to-three-room flats make it to university".
"Factual errors" aside, which I believe readers of The Straits Times can pardon now that we know your level of intelligence, to rewrite a writer's opinion and substituting it with one of your own on the basis of "contextual error and sense" is really hard to understand. I mean, maybe your understanding of opinion differs from mine, but we have always been brought up to believe that forum was to allow Singaporeans to voice their opinions, not for you or your team to edit the meaning into your own, because then it would be your opinion, or your assumed understanding of the writers' intended opinion.
If you have felt that the author was making that much error, then as your auto-reply suggests, with more than 70 letters received a day, I am sure you can always choose to publish another letter.
I am actually not hoping for a good explanation from you, having seen your weak and feeble attempt to Mr. Wee, but I am sincerely hoping that you will try, and perhaps let me know in the process that you have sufficient educational qualification to be a forum editor. If not, I surely hope that you will stay only as a forum editor and not move on to any other position because really, I only read The Strait Times for the Regional and World news (most of which are syndicated anyway) and I want to continue to perform my patriotic duty and support The Strait Times. Now that's irony for you
Sincerely,
Scott Teng
######
For those who needs background and context:
1. http://visaisahero.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/more-straits-times-wizardry/
2. http://visaisahero.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/sts-justification-of-its-liberal-editing-of-forum-opinions/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)