On
language, xtreyier,
is it not a little ironic that you would denounce the
"Queen's English" and preach on the merits of "finding a common
lingo" (using a postmodernist rant on the use of English and the
subjective nature of its interpretation), all the while using
words that lionnoisy would be confounded by and which in Singapore
at least, would certainly be considered obscure?
I know, I know, Socrates
relied heavily on the use irony in his Apology, but you're no
Socrates.
All of which is moot anyway,
as all you did was commit the fallacy of attacking a straw man;
soul_rage was clearly referring to the need for functional English.
Would Hokkien have been used if the intent were to
be condescending and an appeal for the use of the "Queen's
English"? I might be wrong, but I think not.
The argument that, "To
challenge a public institution is to challenge our society itself"
is a Non Sequitur, yet another fallacy. Even if it were to be true,
is it so bad that we should challenge ourselves? Are we better off
not examining the consequence of our actions?
Should Singapore have clear
and transparent institutions then the argument that they are the
extension of our collective conscience might have some merit.
However, this is clearly not the case. Singapore is a place
where the political system is heavily biased towards the ruling
party, members of the opposition are harried and free speech is
something to be feared and suppressed.
If one is unable to peek under
the veil of public institutions, how can one make an informed
decision? Although it is true that free will is a theoretical
notion, any real will one possess in Singapore is
clearly severely curtailed.
Institutions are run by people
and people make mistakes, this is why we need accountable
oversight. Without transparency how can we make informed
decisions? Without real choice, how can we be responsible for the
actions of said institutions?
As we reflect upon our system
of bonded employment for scholarships, we need not throw the baby
out with the bath water, as xtreyier would
have us believe. Would it not serve us well to exercise some
flexibility and at least explore the prospect of
improvement? Who is to say that society is best benefited with
our best and brightest serving as indentured public servants
anyway (especially as Singapore has such a rich tradition of
innovation and entrepreneurship)?
On depression, science has of
late taught us so much about brain function; about how stress and
trauma (both short and long term) affect our ability to make
considered, logical and rational decisions. Suffering from
depression and in this case the unfortunate completion of a suicide
is not an attitude but an illness. It is such ignorance that leads
to so much needless suffering and possibly a lack of support
that could have been all the difference for the late Doctor and so
many others.
The reasons I've directed my
reply at you xtreyier is
because you are clearly an intelligent mind and that find I found
lionnoisy's arguments to be infantile- an appeal
to the most base of morbid voyeuristic tendencies. It is because
you appear to be a considered individual that you warrant a reply,
this doesn't detract from the fact that I find your arguments
odious and you most insensitive.
There has been a very real
human tragedy here. Get off your high horse. You've just been
caught out being too smart by half!
To anyone else reading this
post- I apologize for it's length and appeal to your
sense of decency, that we may lay this matter to rest. We all have
to reflect. The family has to grieve in peace, to cherish the
memory of one who has left all too soon and all too
tragically.
I thank you for your criticism of my post. It is fully within
your right and perception, as well as your personal beliefs ( as
the manner and thoughts per written in your post) to do so.
Despite my usual reluctance to reply which may foolishly or self
perceptively presumed by others as an egoistical counter to
your arguments, I would only comment on 3 flaws which
is more critical in your rebuttal to me, and let your
other comments stand on its own merits, or the lack of it.
1. Language - this is a forum, and i fully agree with you
on 'functional' english. But what is 'functional' english and to
what degree is its yardstick?
No. The common man must be allowed to have a voice, the
most basic of freedom whom everyone seem to preach here. The onus
for 'functional' english thus lies on the person whom post, as
best as he can, and up to any reader to attempt to
comprehend or seek clarification.
Failure or demand for better 'english' would only create
fear and stifle more voices that may necessary to be
heard. I would encourage better english spoken and written,
even for myself, but at the same time, it must not and never be a
hindrance for anyone to have his/her voice heard.
2. Suicide is not an illness. There is no scientific basis for
it as you would have led others to believe. Many do suffer from
depression but it does not entail a final solution of suicide. To
commit suicide is pyschological disorder that can remedy by
medicine and counselling. This is VITAL AND CRITICAL, and must
be opposed by those such as you that uphold suicide as a medical
condition.
3. I had never claimed intelligence. Any such claims are
bestowed upon me by your kindself, but i must refuse such merit,
for i am only a simple person.
Again, i apologise for posting here which may seem as disrepect
to our fellow citizen, the late Dr. Ooi. I only do so in the hope
that with my clarifications or anyone who share their personal
thoughts, it may somehow avert another tragic incident and thereby
his death would not be in vain in the least, for it would
have serve a noble and higher purpose if it had open another's
mind, even just one.
Regards.
