Or, why I’m now seriously scared of Tony Tan, just like how George Yeo scared the bejesus out of me with his “Christians are less likely to riot” comment.

Why?

1. Watch this video once.
2. Watch the video again from 1:35 onwards, this time paying close attention to the parts of the transcript in bold:
   

   (Transcript from 1:35)

   “T-t-t-terrorism [1] is a fact of life today, and, er, you know, it is with us and I don’t think there is any point in trying to (pause) disguise ah, and it comes in many forms, not only with regard to one sector of… (longer pause) society [2], (pause) but from sectors of society or countries which you never thought this could happen – look at Norway.

   (longer pause)

   Somebody – Anders Breivik, I think – from the Christian far-right, (pause) set off a series of bombs, took a gun, killed over 90 people.

   Would you believe that could happen in Norway? From the Christian far-right [3]?“

3. Refer to the video once more, and answer the corresponding questions that follow:
   1. Based on the earlier portion of Tony Tan’s reply, why does Tony Tan stutter when pronouncing the word “terrorism”? Refer to Yawning Bread if you need assistance.
   2. Which “sector of society” is Tony Tan referring to? What is the significance of his longer pause i.e. what does it reveal about his thoughts and feelings with regard to that “sector of society”?
   3. Why is it hard to “believe” that “the Christian far-right” is not capable of carrying out violence? What is the significance of his use of rhetorical questions?

BONUS: One arbitrarily-chosen winner will win one arbitrarily-chosen prize based on the accuracy of your answers.

(NOTE: For the young ‘uns, the title of this post and the image is a reference to a song by the Sex Pistols.)

I’m quite tired of people hijacking the event popularly known as the London ‘riots’ for their own agenda.

Some examples:

• “This justifies the strict laws against rioting and protesting we have in Singapore”.
• “This is why we need to love our government, regardless of whoever is in the government”.

I don’t think those two claims are relevant or appropriate to the situation.

The first misses the larger point – this is not a riot, but simply a case of looting and theft carried out by opportunists who have purposefully disregarded social mores and notions of prop(ri)erty.

The second claim entails a blind subservience without moderation or calibration; a one or the other approach seldom makes sense, especially in contexts like these.

In my opinion, the most pertinent issues that seem to have conveniently been forgotten are:

1. How this scumbaggery has been wrongly labelled a ‘riot’ or a ‘protest.
   This merely legitimises the actions of the looters and thefts and encourages them to be bolder in their impunity.
2. How everything including the kitchen sink is wrongful fodder for blame with regard to these acts of “feral” scumbaggery.
   When in actual fact, the adage of “Those who criticise [the younger] generation forget who raised it” has never rung truer.

These articles may flesh out my arguments better:

1. The UK riots and language: ‘rioter’, ‘protester’ or ‘scum’?
   (via Yu-Mei)

2. Britain’s liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value.
   (via Andrew)

BTW with regard to the second article, I disagree with the portion on the “destr[uction of] the traditional nuclear family”.

I think the traditional nuclear family is ONE of the ways in which the problem of “a world where the parent is unwilling or incapable of providing the loving and disciplined framework that a child needs in order to thrive” can be resolved.

Also, I’m advocating a moderate approach to parenting/discipline – it’s okay to ‘let children be’, but at times you really have to rein them in.

I was on the subway on Friday when I saw the advertisement displayed above.

For readers without image support, the tagline is as follows:

Today’s engineers are solving tomorrow’s problems. Are you ready to be one of them?

I took a picture of it and uploaded it to Facebook and Twitpic with the caption “Bet all you B.Eng grads feel pretty proud of yourselves now, huh”, for I thought such a gloriously humorous error had to be shared with everyone.

Unfortunately, some people didn’t get it. What’s worse, some of the people who didn’t get it immediately thought I was mocking engineers.

Let’s look at the tagline of the ad once more:

Today’s engineers are solving tomorrow’s problems. Are you ready to be one of them?

Explanation:

• We know the ad producer’s intention was to ask “Are you ready to be one of [the engineers]?”.
• However, “problems” in the first sentence is also a plural noun.
• Because the word “them” could also refer to “problems”, it’s possible for the second sentence to be read as “Are you ready to be one of [the problems]?”.

In that case, the ad becomes somewhat humorous: is this educational institute actually recruiting people to train them to become problems for engineers to solve?

So I’d rate the copywriting as having failed on this count. However, in terms of advertising, there’s no discernible loss.

Based on the comments I received, only one person made it clear that he understood what I was referring to.

However, the ad isn’t targeting people like us i.e. arts/humanities graduates with little inclination toward an education or a career in engineering or the sciences.

The rest of the comments came from people who majored in engineering, math or science subjects and are also working in related industries.

Their concerns were either to joke about how engineers are in fact ‘fighting fires’ instead of preventing them, or to be defensive about the perceived slight.

Nevertheless, since they didn’t spot the error (or perhaps the error is only a concern to people who are interested in linguistics), I guess the ad will still manage to reach out to its target audience.

Post-script: On hindsight, actually, the biggest failure in terms of communication and humour are actually mine alone.

Sigh. In the future, I shall just stick at doing what I do best i.e. re-tweeting what people are saying about The Weight of Silk on Skin.

Post-post-script: I misread a comment!

A math graduate/teacher just texted me to clarify this interpretation he provided:

This is an ad for BSs and BSc, not BEng. The alternate reading [that B.Ss. and B.Sc. graduates are/will be the bane of engineers] actually makes more sense in light of that fact.

My latest article on POSKOD.SG, the latest big thing to hit our shores.

Ten Steps to Communicating Effectively.
A guide to winning over friends and contacts in Singapore. (Mostly contacts.)

Besides playing good football and making babies, there is nothing else that we on the Little Red Dot are better at than communicating effectively.

And for good reason too: what in the world could be more Merlion-esque than saying something that one means?

In any case, here are ten steps to effective communication, the Singaporean way.

1. When conversing, the first thing you want to do is to include people in the conversation. Hence, name-drop or insert as many obscure allusions as you can into your speech:
   
   “Yes, Delia said the same thing about the Blue Paper. In fact, she said it was similar to the Green Grass Policy implemented back in ’08.”
2. If people don’t get it, show amusement. The is best displayed through subtle upward spasms of the muscles between the upper lip and the cheek:
   
   “You… don’t know Delia?” *twitch* “Oh, right – you weren’t on the Remaking WLB committee with us.”
3. Use acronyms. They are the PIE to life in the fast lane during AM rush-hour traffic, just before SUVs go past the ERP gantry:
   
   “WLB, WLB! What part of WLB do you not understand?”

(continued…)

Today, before you open the newspaper, turn on the radio or switch on the television, I’d like you to take the time to plough through these two articles:

1. Critical Discourse Analysis
2. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis

If you are of the TL;DR ilk, here is a quick primer:

• What is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)?
  From the first article, CDA is a way of looking at things to “stud[y] the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context”.
• Why is a knowledge of CDA necessary?
  Unbeknownst to many, language IS power. He or she who controls the words, controls the minds of they who read what is written, watch what is shown or hear what is said.

  CDA is thus necessary “to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality”.

• What are some examples of an application of CDA?
  • Looking at how pictures are used in, say, a newspaper. Are some pictures of certain people unflattering to them? Why is this so? Was there a larger intention in portraying them as such?
  • Comparing how words are used to describe people e.g. when comparing three people of the same standing, Person X is called “fresh-faced”, Person Y is called “innocent”, while Person Z is called “naive”. All three words are synonyms. However, has Person X been given a more positive image? Why?
  • Assessing coverage, or the quantity of information reporting done on a particular topic or subject. Is one topic or subject given more ‘air-time’ than another? Why?

For those of you who have the time, you may want to, say, practice analysing and evaluating information from articles, reports, etc. that have been published – in print or otherwise – over the last one week or so.

With this knowledge, I hope you are more equipped to deal with any new information that might come your way, today or in the future.

I thought this deserved a post of its own!

For those who need some background information, Abrams’s A Glossary of Literary Terms (7th ed.) says that a “mixed metaphor conjoins two or more obviously diverse metaphorical vehicles. When used inadvertently, without sensitivity to the possible incongruity of the vehicles, the effect can be ludicrous” (98; author’s emphasis).

And that concludes our Sensitivity to the Nuances in Language lessons for today. Lim Swee Say’s sweesayisms, unfortunately, are in a class of their own, and will have to be discussed another day.

Created by The Oatmeal

(via)

Just watched OTOT and I thought it was wonderful. Each of the four characters in Full Tank! remind me of someone I know from my NS days. Thank you for a good night.

“Who is Aunty Janki’s son??” I asked.

“The… Kamal,” she said.

“Who’s Kamal???”

Turns out ‘Kamal’ was none other than Kishore Mahbubani, who had come to watch OTOT with his missus, because both their sons were in NS and Mrs M felt that the Ms had to watch OTOT to better understand NS and what their sons were going through.

That’s what I gathered from the Sindhi side of my family who were huddled around me, as they’d also come to watch OTOT as well. Just then, ‘Kamal’ walked by and we talked for a minute or so – I told him that there was going to be “some strong language” in the play; he joked that he was going to leave then.

During the intermission, I joined my family where they were seated, in the middle of the theatre. Coincidentally, Kishore was sitting one row behind us.

He jokingly said that he thought the language wasn’t strong enough. He also added that the French ambassador was around, and was asking what one word in particular meant. No one dared to tell him what it meant in English, but a clever soul told him that the word translated to ‘la chatte’ in French. Nice work, diplomats.