The Importance of being Shallow

So its two days after the night before. Tan Kin Lian very bravely asked for feedback regarding his performance. The results were …ahem… quite embarrassing.

Amongst the negative pointers were: his giving high fives, and using that as a logo;  his poor enunciation and his frequent blinks. Shallow? But these were frank, genuine feedback. On the net, you can see inflamed netizens crying foul, and declaring this as rubbish. Who would look for these? Isn’t the mandate, the sincerity and the ability of the candidate more important?

 

The elections are not just about vocal netizens. Hence shallow details do matter. For one thing, do you really expect Mr Tan Kin Lian to give Obamasan a high five at a presidential meeting? In fact it was already kinda cringelogical to watch him giving high fives to pot-bellied, grey haired supporters. In case you think I am being discriminating, these are the sort of people I associate with – the graying pot bellied group.

 

You see, we are paying $4million dollars for the supremo presidente with hardly any powers. So the least we want is for that person to look the part. The person in my mind’s eye, for some strange reason, is Morgan Freeman.

 

Dinner conversation with a friend was also quite interesting. When the discussion turned to Tan Jee Say, she sort of shuddered and said her entire office was put off by Mrs Tan’s choice of clothes.

“She’s going to be a First Lady, you know what I mean? How to meet foreign dignitaries in a multi-coloured, loudly patterned cheongsam?”

 

Indeed. You might say the Queen occasionally looks totally frumpy. Yes, but then again, she is the Queen. Royalty is in her blood. For us, we are paying for a model First Lady. Hmm. Come to think of it, Mrs Nathan is not usually preened from head to toe either. But then again, there was no competition for Mr Nathan.

 

I am not laughing at anyone – the judge or the judged. I am just saying that it matters. When we are looking for votes, it is important to sell ourselves into that role. It is not about designer togs. It is about demeanour, carriage and poise. Clean simple lines in clothes will bode better than fussy details and flashy colours.

 

We like to think its all about substance. Consumer behaviour tells us that packaging counts much more than we like to give it credit for. It is important for our president to look and sound good, more so than for our ministers and mps. That is the role of the first couple – to exude the looks that accompany million dollar smiles and waves.

 

So back to our candidates. Dr Tony Tan looked the best for the part, waxed back white hair notwithstanding. His beatific smile is a stunner. Furthermore Mrs Mary Tan looks every inch the regal, benevolent First Lady.

 

Historically, Mr and Mrs Wee Kim Wee were the best looking first couple. It is even more significant that the benevolence that shone through, the compassion and warmth did not cost the country millions.

 

Shallowness aside, there is something that touched me this election. I appreciated the tributes each man paid to his wife. Whether it’s a show or it’s genuine, there is something touching about a man who honours his wife with kind words. I am also touched by the family backing each man had. I liked how Mr Tan Kin Lian’s daughter handled the interviewer after Mr Tan had conceded defeat – the poise and the pride in her father. I liked how when each family’s children were interviewed, there is evidence of family unity and strength.

 

Even in defeat, I appreciate the graciousness of each candidate. For instance, I appreciate Mr Tan Kin Lian asking for feedback, and posting the pointers, no matter how embarrassing, on his FB page.

 

So congratulations Dr and Mrs Tony Tan. May you both make us proud as the First Couple. May the competition and interaction with the other candidates open your eyes, heart and mind to issues that the people are concerned about. May you have the courage to do what is within your power and ability to make this a better Singapore for all.

 

I CHOPE first – na nani boo boo

Singaporeans love to chope. During lunch hour, and all tables look full, your heart might skip a beat when you see an empty table. You approach the table, and just as you are ready to put your tray down, you notice a packet of tissue. Aiya, somebody choped the table already. (chope = local parlance for reserving a place)

Maybe that was what motivated Cynthia Phua and her colleagues, oops…sorry not them, but the People’s Association to chope choice sites in the Aljunied Constituency. Cannot be helped, it is in our national DNA. WP and use of public sites

It’s not just sites that get choped. The whole of People’s Association is choped by the ruling party. Go explore the pa website. Scan through their objectives, the network it controls. It is interesting to see the lofty ideals as encapsulated in its tagline – bringing people together. They forgot to mention that the people exclude opposition mps or candidates. It is even more interesting to see who is in charge.

It is amusing to me that this “chope-ing” is finally getting its come-uppance. As a resident of Potong Pasir, I have seen it firsthand for years. For instance, in the days when Chiam See Tong was our MP, at all lift lobbies and noticeboards, you will be greeted by two smiling faces. One of course was Mr Chiam, the other, Mr Sitoh. He was, and still is, the appointed Advisor. Chope –ing this position ensured no one can forget what the potential pap candidate looks like!

That is not all. For grassroots organized events, usually Mr Sitoh would be the guest-of-honour. I was certainly a beneficiary of taxpayers’ money when, together with some neighbours, I went on a subsidised trip to the Marina Bay Sands roof garden. Mr Sitoh was unable to join us, as we were carefully informed by the lady in charge of the excursion.

Then there was another event to get our residents to do morning exercise and walk. For $2, if I remember correctly, apart from exercising with Mr Sitoh, our advisor, we also get a pack of goodies that included a small tin of milo, some noodles and biscuits. On reflection, I really should have bought up more coupons and asked Meal on Wheels volunteers to give them to the needy in Potong Pasir.

These events that I mentioned took place about a month or so before GE 2011. How fortuitous for our advisor. Don’t get me wrong, there are still events going on post GE2011. After all, the PA is all about bringing people together.

We must not forget that PA is NOT political. They were not promoting Sitoh in any way, even though he was allowed to use the community club facilities for his meetings. That was in his capacity as advisor – not political at all.

The first time I remember being told that PA is not political was in response to complaints by an NSP supporter who was not allowed to use the toilet in a community centre. You can read Mr Brown’s version here. Hence we understand that even waste products of opposition party members are deemed political.

The other day we read about Mr Chen Show Mao’s disappointment. PA’s response – their grounds cannot be used for political purposes. Hmm – I did not realize that Mr Chen Show Mao was attending seventh month events to politicize. Maybe he was trying to reach out to the Hungry Ghosts! Almost immediately, Madam Cynthia Phua was alleged to have accused Mr Chen of politicizing the situation. Err – he is a politician right? You gave him a knife, and then you accuse him of trying to cut the piece of meat before him? I mean, did anyone see Obama cutting good old Donald Trump to size over his birth certificate controversy? I would be disappointed if he had not done so!

So you see the power of chope – ing? By chope-ing the board of management, you can appoint any one to be advisors, without it being a political affair, not even if the said advisors are MPs and likely candidates fielded by the ruling party in the next election. By chope-ing choice sites, you can throw the political card down, and forbid anyone associated with political parties from attending events or even using the toilets, if you happen to wear clothes associated with the parties.

I wonder why stop at politics? Maybe they should also ensure non-religious bias by insisting people wearing amulets or crosses be banned from the sites!

When I first read Mr Chen’s note, I posted the link on my fb page, and asked the question – wise or foolish. To me, this is one of the most foolish things to do since it puts the ruling party in such a childishly bad light. It’s almost like you can hear Mdm Cynthia Phua sticking out her tongue and saying, “Na nani boo boo! I don’t friend you!” to Mr Chen.

This next thought is totally random and not connected to the above post. I think Mr Chen Show Mao, who is also a “Tan” I believe, would have made a great president. Aiya…don’t scold me lah. I did not chope enough brains to be too coherent.

 

WP rebuttal: http://wp.sg/2011/08/media-release-on-untrue-claims-of-curtailment-of-pap-grassroots-activities-in%E2%80%A8-hougang-smc/

desmond choo, cynthia phua … further comments??

Curry On

 

Curry for the inaugural National Cook a Curry day, Singapore

What a fantastic Sunday Aug 21 proved to be.

 

Sunday dinners are always held at mum-in-law’s home. She has been less mobile lately, and her appetite is not so good. Seeing as how she has aged, we agreed to meet for dinner with her once a week. It has always been potluck dinner so that Lina can take a break. This Sunday my contribution, naturally, was curry. Hence, even though I was the only member of the family to join the facebook page, Cook and Share a pot of Curry, in actual fact, 14 people took part, including a Filipina and a family friend. To my delight, everyone loved the dish, mopping up all gravy with bread.

 

More than just a meal however, this event has made Singaporeans feel like Singaporeans. There is something deliciously simple to do together, and still make a statement. It gives me hope that we are more similar than we think and that given the right stimulus, we can come together and fight a cause, civilly and creatively.

 

When I first read the article in Today, I was concerned that it would lead to aggressive xenophobic actions. For a while, the postings online showed such wrath and venom, I was getting quite worried. It did not help when the Prime Minister told us not to be negative towards foreigners, law ministry denied that the mediator proposed the solution and the law minister himself, on national television, denying any wrongdoing on the part of CMC, and telling us not to be xenophobic.

 

The powers that be still don’t get it. Singaporeans are not natural xenophobes. However, when one is surrounded by so many foreigners (some countries call them aliens…just saying, tongew in chee ker), we naturally need to push and shove. It is like trying to get into a very crowded MRT carriage during peak hours.

 

Hence, when the law ministry is so defensive, it only serves to anger the people. It does not matter if the two parties came to a compromise themselves. It matters that the people involved could not see how ridiculous the case was and what a mockery that agreement made of integration and tolerance.

 

This is why there is now a new word inSingapore– papology. Mr Shanmugam would have done better if he had acknowledged that while there was no wrongdoing, it was a poorly executed case. The defensive, protective stance he took aggravates. What we want to see is our leaders taking responsibility. To keep telling us to be tolerant seems to lay all blame at our feet.

 

Many netizens are looking at 2016 to make more changes. I am too impatient for that. The ruling party is the only one who can address the issues on the ground with authority. The opposition party can only slap the driver, to wake him up.

 

Hence it is the ruling party that needs to show it hears, and has the courage to act. It is not about bending to the frivolous wants of the people. It is about the boldness to rewrite policies that are non-populist because they do not work.

 

Xenophobia is threatening to take on a scale that has not been seen before. To vent our frustrations on foreigners is not being fair. They are here to make a better living for themselves. If they take our jobs, it is because we let them. Hence we need to look at the gatekeeper – the bouncer at the club door.

 

In the meantime – let’s curry on. Let the music begin. Curry Curry Night, Curry Song and salivate with these curry photos

 

 

 

 

 

We say…you say

We say we want integration, you say you did not ask them not to cook curry.

 

We say we cannot afford any increases, you say they are running a business, and they need to ensure they have a profit, even though they have not incurred any losses.

 

We say we want to have our house before we have children, you say we want to enjoy our lives first

 

We say we cannot afford more children, you say in that case, bring in the foreigners.

 

We say we are financially so stretched, it’s not funny, you say we need to save money as we are likely to face a downturn

 

We say hdb is expensive, you say it is affordable

 

We say there are too many foreigners, you say don’t be negative towards them, they are good for us.

 

We say it is disrespectful to play with your mobile phone during the singing of the national anthem, you say its enthusiasm, and lets not be divisive.

 

We say the poor does not have the dignity of an income that will keep body and soul together, you say unless the ministers are paid handsomely, they will have no dignity.

 

We say that foreigners are competing for jobs and locals are disadvantaged, you say sme s need their labour, but we find it is GLCs and big companies that employ foreigners in big numbers

 

We say healthcare is expensive, you give us an example that $8 was all the cash paid for a major operation

 

We voice our unhappiness, you say we are making noise

 

We say we are disadvantaged when competing with foreigners, you say competition is good for us.

 

We give you feedback, you say we are critical and we do not offer solutions.

 

We give you suggestions, you say you cannot give in to populist policies.

 

We do not give you feedback, you say we are apathetic.

 

Aiya – this is a biased, not substantiated rant, and I am a cowgirl in this cowboy town called the internet. Of course some of the things said are historical…but then like many others I have selective memory retention…so let me apologise if my memory retention has offended you.

 

And there are good things that have happened also lah – but that is not the subject of this rant.

 

You can add on more we say … you say…  in your comments. Bear in mind this is an old auntie – and I do not like expletives, swearing and cursing. So be civil, and I offer no one any explanations why your comment is not approved. Sometimes I just did not see them!

 

My hope in all of this is that someone out there really hears what is being said and addresses it appropriately.

 

Majulah Singapura.

It’s not just about Curry

A young friend of mine was in my house on the day we bought durians. He has a great appetite so I was surprised he declined the offer to have some. He laughed and explained that once, his father brought home a whole basket of durians. He ate and ate so much that he got quite sick the next day. While he does not hate durians, he does not eat them any more.

I am no Tan Ah Teck, but there is a moral to this story. Most Singaporeans do not dislike foreigners. But to have so many in our highly populated city state, and in our faces, just like my young friend in the story above, we are suffering indigestion. While we do not hate them, we prefer not to have more of them.

With the ever increasing no. of foreigners, those in authority must understand the ever increasing tension that follows. Perhaps they are more sheltered than others – their work environment is different from most others. They need to be more aware of the real situation on the ground. I have been told by friends that entire departments are staffed by “foreigners”. I use inverted commas because if these “foreigners” gain PR status, they will be listed in official data as residents and by implication, be regarded as “locals”. On the flip side, we hear stories of how, these very same departments, retrenched true-blue locals – ie Singaporeans and/or long term PRs with firm roots here.

We keep hearing from official sources how much we need them, and not to turn negative towards them. We hear how we need foreign talents, or how or our talent pool is not good enough. Talk like this does not just deflate our morale. It gives foreigners fodder to lash out at us. Just yesterday, a foreign worker – a clerk, said that if foreigners can ‘snatch’ our jobs, it shows how incompetent we are. Maybe she is right after all. Imagine even for clerical work we depend on foreign talents. She works in a government owned hospital. Double confirm leow – talent not enough.

Then there are the issues of social etiquette and behaviour patterns that took us years to learn. Take for instance littering. It took years of fining recalcitrant litter bugs to get that habit out of us. Spitting in public places is something the younger Singaporeans have never even seen. The once ubiquitous spittoons are now a thing of the past.  We have been so trained and law abiding that I remember times when I forgot my wallet, and was still able to retrieve it half a day later, either still at the same table or it might be with the hawker nearest to the table where I had left it..

Currently we have hordes of newcomers who have not been so indoctrinated. I am not trying to insult anyone. It took us years of disciplined training. So who are we to judge them? But we have come to expect a certain standard of living. Are we expected to bend over backwards, to go backward in time for their sakes?

We can accept that they are new to our lifestyle and protocol. We can give them time. But we must also see that they are trying to assimilate. There must be some place where they are taught the way of life here and to abide by it. They need to understand our brand of civic consciousness and yes – bring on the four letter word – accept a FINE for not complying – if that is what it takes.

Now back to this curry incident. I have no idea how a “newly arrived” PRC family is so effective in getting their case heard. They are certainly more “talented” than many locals in getting their grievances heard and addressed!

I checked the website. Types of disputes CMC handles. The concluding sentence is ….  can approach the Community Mediation Centres. Staff will evaluate the suitability of each case for mediation.

An alert staff should be able to see this is a case of non-integration. After all this talk about spending a small fortune to help foreigners to assimilate, this frontline staff must be taught to see this as an opportunity to counsel integration, and is not the normal neighbour to neighbour dispute.

With all due respect to Madam Giam for her years of service as a mediator out of her good intention, this case should never have been cited to the press. To cite this case in an interview just shows one thing – a lack of understanding of the potentially explosive nature of such a report. In reporting this, Today has also failed to realize the impact of such news.

This incident is symptomatic of what is wrong with various people in authority. They have heard but not listened. They have looked and not seen. Their various attempts sound patronizing. If the intention here is to show how good Singaporeans should behave as hosts, they cannot be further wrong. What it has shown is that the milder, more accommodating party is the one who can be bullied. The aggressor wins. Take it a step further, given the anti foreigner sentiment on the ground, it shows that locals lose, foreigner wins.

I am very concerned at the increasingly explosive anti foreigner comments. I am also concerned at the responses of the foreigners. If authorities brush these issues aside, trouble will not be far from our door.

This was MinLaw reply re curry incident.

This is the sort of reply I have come to expect. A defensive one, which does not address the bigger question.

Is anyone listening out there?

Coincidentally, my friend Andrew Loh posted this morning that it goes deeper than just aroma. His concluding statements sum up how I feel

The government, and its officers, need to not only be sensitive to the needs of foreigners, but especially more so towards the needs and feelings of Singaporeans.

It is my sincere hope that the government will take these minor incidences seriously and address them – before they accumulate into something more serious.

Anyone who has his ears to the ground will know that this “curry cooking” incident is more than just about the aroma of a dish.

 

PS – I do screen comments. Please understand that I am conservative and old school in many ways

Please Sir, Can you not cook curry Sir?

I did not want to write anything today.  Really not in the mood. But this news report caught my eye and ire. Todayonline – community disputes So here is my rant.

I mean we all know that some disputes can be really petty. But surely this takes the cake?

You know how we used to hear racial jokes about smells? We are all convinced that we don’t smell? In actual fact we do. Chinese can have a “porky” smell or smell of garlic. Indians can smell of coconut oil. It is just that we are not aware of it. What do we do? We can laugh at ourselves and tolerate our neighbours. I mean what do we expect? Tell the Chinese to eat less pork, use less garlic? Or the Indian neighbours not to use coconut oil?

Hygiene is a different matter. If the smells that exude from our neighbour’s flat is a result of a lack of hygiene, then yes, we can complain and expect some improvement. Lack of hygiene can bring pests, or in extreme cases present a fire hazard.

Coming back to this case, I take issue not just with the complaint. I take issue with the highlighting of this specific case. In the first place, I think this is NOT a common example. In highlighting this case, it makes this particular PRC family look bad, probably deservedly so. The bigger problem is that it shows that our foreign guests are not integrating. Worse still, they know how to make their complaints heard and addressed. It spoils the market for other, more sensitive foreign guests.

Furthermore this is the sort of story that promotes xenophobia. Just read the rapidly increasing no. of comments on facebook links and the content of the comments.

Next I take issue with the resolution by the community mediation centre. Is this a triumphant solution or what? I take my hat off to the Indian family for tolerating this resolution. Cooking curry only when the neighbour is not in? Gosh how is that wisdom? Or is that really being totally insensitive? So if the Chinese family is home by six every evening, the Indian family must cook dinner before 6 even if they eat at 8?

Tolerance of each other’s culture is the basis of harmony. Imagine muslims tolerating the Seventh month festivities that are coming up, the smoke from the joss sticks and the very loud noise of the performances of the getaior the Chinese tolerating the call to prayers from the mosques. In this society, there are many examples of such tolerance. Now we have guests who come to our country who tell our own people what not to cook? I mean…

By coming up with this sort of solution, CMC is almost sending a message that we need to be gracious hosts and be mindful of our guests. Our guests on the other hand, have every right to complain against us. Why not advice the PRC family about culture and integration instead?

The request of the Indian family is for them to give the dish a try! It is nice of them. However, the Chinese family is entitled not to like curry. Offer them some dishes as good neighbours should. But if they don’t want to, no need to try. Just like I don’t like smelly tofu, or my future daughter-in-law does not like durians. No need for either of us to try. Live and let live.

Taking this a step further, next thing I know, durians are disallowed in all hdb flats, because some neighbours, especially those who just moved toSingaporethink they smell foul. Or worse, the sale of durians is banned because we need to be sensitive to those who think it smelly beyond reason.

Sheesh!

Rudimentary Mind Map Skills

Enough socio-political posts. Back to work.

This week Jay’s  (6yrs) comprehension passage was about having pets. Owning pets seem to be universally something that most children aspire to. Hence, though he was feeling unwell, he was fairly attentive.

However, his concentration and focus left much to be desired – mainly because he seemed to be dozy from his medication. In times like these, just talking will not cut it. I decided he needed a spot of colour on top of actual images from the net to explain what he was reading. In times like these, I am so grateful to the internet. It has made available otherwise difficult to source for pictures, (such as a hamster’s burrow),  instantly available.

There was a lot of information about hamsters in the passage. For a child his age, and given the constraint of feeling ill, I decided he was not too young to be introduced to the mind map technique of note taking. It certainly helped him with the questions asked later.

By the way, taking note of information is an important skill and is what most comprehension passages are testing. For some, a mental picture is all that is required. For others, it is just a matter of highlighting information. Mind map is a good start for young readers in particular because it is colourful, and involves action as well. Eventually, as the child grows older, he should find his own preferred mode.

We discussed various facts about the hamster that are found in the passage. Quickly I sourced the net for appropriate pictures. Then we opened the box of colour pencils and began with our art work. The following is the result.

Mind Map - All about the hamster

Different Wavelengths?

 

I was reading the exchanges that were sparked off by Stephanie Chok’s letter to Today. Spark is the right word – for sparks definitely flew.

When Stephanie Chok wrote in to Today, her primary objective was to point out inaccurate reporting. She took objection to the article’s claim that the foreign worker, Yang Wei, had not approached MOM when, in actuality, he did.

It claimed that Yang Wei could have lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for his unpaid wages but instead “took matters into his own hands” by climbing up a crane at a worksite.

 Stephanie’s objection to this inaccuracy is that it

serve(s) to further criminalize a worker who resorted to an act of desperation after having been denied his rightful salary payments.

 She then went on to discuss issues regarding errant employers, asking MOM for

harsher measures meted out to recalcitrant employers who remain non-compliant despite official intervention

I am going to post this link Letter to Today- two versions – as this has both letters side by side.

I am not here to judge Stephanie’s claims re foreign workers. However, I do agree that this inaccurate reporting on the part of Today does taint Yang Wei’s character.

Today apparently called to check with Stephanie whether Yang Wei actually made a report to MOM. Beats me why they did not check with MOM directly. Then it published her letter after editing. The edition of note is this:

Stephanie’s version:

 It is also important to point out that the employer had committed an offence by violating labour laws yet refused to pay the correct settlement amount during mediations at the Ministry of Manpower.

 Today’s version

It is important to note that his employer later paid him S$5,000, a settlement amount that is now with the authorities, and which will be returned to him after his release.

Stephanie then cried foul at this insertion that was not in her original letter.

Worthy point to note – There were 27 comments on TOC webpage, and 31 comments on the FB page at this point. Quite a lukewarm response really. The main target of the comments were against Today in particular, and mainstream media in general.

Then the real action started. MOM made it a point to clarify inaccuracy in Stephanie’s letter, defending their own stands. MOM’s response. Of course it is has every right to defend itself. What is interesting is this statement:

On July 4, Yang trespassed into a worksite at Changi South and refused to get down from the crane unless S$5,000 was paid to him. The main contractor of the site gave him the money so as not to “prolong the stand-off or provoke an accident”, said the MOM. The payment that day was “unrelated to any of his salary or other claims”, the ministry added.

This is very different from the edition Today inserted into Stephanie’s original letter.

MOS Tan Chuan-Jin then jumped into the fray, and mentioned he was “disappointed” with Stephanie. Protecting Foreign Workers? Just because FWs cry foul doesn’t mean that they are always in the right…

When Stephanie replied, he said, amongst other things

While it may not be your intent, some do try and stir sentiments on this matter. While emotive, I am not sure if it is helpful in our efforts to do what is necessary to safeguard the interests of our workers, and might I add, from time to time, the employers as well.

This exchange between Stephanie and MOS Tan was also published in TOC Facebook page, and drew 35 comments.

More exchanges ensued, with netizens taking sides. MOS Tan’s facebook note drew 58 responses. The latest comment from MOS Tan includes this

 This is not personal in any way. Reading your comments here, especially by Ms Chok, I accept that my stating I was disappointed with her actions may have seemed rather harsh. I actually fully recognise the work that she has done and continues to do. I think I was probably more disapppointed with how the situation unfolded especially as I have asked my colleagues to step up our interaction and to strengthen the working relationship with our NGOs. 

I apologise for the extremely long summary. Reading the back and forth, I cannot help but feel that there are different wavelengths operating here.

Stephanie was concerned with inaccurate reporting and its effects on Yang Wei. She also pleaded for harsher deterrent measures to be taken against recalcitrant employers. In other words, she was speaking in her capacity as a social activist.

MOM was concerned about the possible slur on their work.

MOS  Tan was concerned about the inaccuracy of Stephanie’s letter, and its emotive effect.

Guess what? MOS Tan can lay his fear at rest. Frankly, given the many issues Singaporeans are grappling with today, foreign workers’ rights, though passionately defended by a noble few, are transparent to most. This is not where the emotions, even if wrongly displayed, are likely to cause upheaval. In fact, being “emotive” may spur more to good works.

MOM defending itself is justifiable. Employees, not necessarily foreign workers have often wished for more protection and may get upset with them whenever they see a “negative” report.  However, Stephanie’s plea for harsher deterrent measures for errant employers is exactly what it is – a plea. In other words, whatever MOM has been doing, can it do more. In explaining Yang Wei’s case specifically, perhaps MOM was right, and Stephanie was wrong. However, she was appealing for this in general, and the question that remains is whether there were other cases of abuse that went undetected, undeterred, and whether more can be done.

With the exception of activists and those with an axe to grind, the main ire of netizens on the whole is against biased and inaccurate reporting by main stream media. This is not addressed by either MOS Tan or MOM. Today was not called to task for its inaccuracy. Instead, Stephanie’s allegedly one-sided view is highlighted and discussed at length.

This is where emotions can get highly charged, yet this is where silence is maintained. So perplexing.

I am not here to defend Stephanie – I do not know her. I have not checked the accuracy of her claims.

In this exchange, it seems that everybody is right, and everybody is wrong at some point. And everybody is talking at the same time, but not really about the same thing.

And netizens’ real concern remains unaddressed