I want to make one more point about heroes/hooligans at Hong Lim and then I am gonna move on...hopefully to something funny. Theres this implication that if you werent there, then you shudnt say anything. If this position is applied rigorously, then most people would be mute because they cant be everywhere for everything. To pass a comment, people need facts. While it is best to be an eye-witness, most of us would need the media to present the facts. From what I have seen in MSM as well as online, there was heckling and Ms Han behaved like a harridan. If there was something else that happened that turned the tables around or makes the situation less black and white than it is, then I hope to see more facts. I said Mr Teos comments were lame because set in the context of the ST report on chaos ecetera, they were. Maybe I should have said tame/restrained, but that wouldnt reflect my feelings on the subject. I object strongly to bad behaviour. I asked Mr Teo to give his side of the story if he thought I was being unfair because I seriously want to give people a platform to engage each other in a civilised manner. I will do my best to uphold the rules of engagement. Politicians may have a listening ear and so forth, but they shouldnt be mute if they feel they have been hard done by or the facts have been presented wrongly. Of course, they can choose to use official channels which are one-way, its up to them. That would be a pity because I happen to think there are plenty of reasonable people online, not just the insane and inane. I may have an opinion, one which based on facts presented (hopefully) and reflecting my sentiments, but this is not to say that opinions cannot be changed through engagement. I may be opinionated but Im not THAT opinionated. Just wanted to get that point out of the way...
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 06:20:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015