Give me a break will y'all?
There is one thing that really REALLY irritates. It is not about your phone ringing while you are in the bathroom. It is not about the sick idiot who cough right into your face. Nor is it your wife telling you how you should fold your clothes.
It is about manipulative reporters giving their slant of the story to justify whatever bias they have.
Take for example this recent news event in Singapore.
Officer Cadet Clifton Lam Jia Hao was involved in a 'navigation excercise' in Brunei while serving his (Singapore) National Service. He never made it home. He collapsed and died towards the end of the day.
This sad event was reported in the major newspapers and there were speculation of what could have gone wrong.
When something like this happen, family and friends as well as fellow Singaporeans will ask for an explanation of how this could have happened. We know that there will never be an answer. But c'mon! We are grieving! We are shocked! How could a healthy young man just collapse and die while training in the SAF? Although we may share in the grief of the family, we are not unreasonable as to think that 'SAF killed him'. Sudden death can and will happen to anyone, even apparently healthy individuals. So there is no need to tell us what to think.
So although no one is pointing a finger (or any finger) at SAF yet, our ever efficient and government-friendly newspaper, the straits times in Singapore is quick to give the impression that SAF did everything right, and this event, although tragic, is not a failure on the part of the SAF.
Just consider some of the completely irrelevant phrases it used in one article.
'...Clifton Lam ...started his trek into the thick jungles of Brunei at 8.45am on Wednesday, fortified after breakfast and a hot drink.'
(Yes yes ..we know that SAF takes care of all its soldiers and they are never hungry when they set off for their training. Is there a need to report that poor Clifton has been 'fortified' before setting off? Or is the reporter just trying to give it a bias slant, just in case the public think that the SAF torture its trainees? Why dont she also add that it was a 'nutritious' breakfast too? )
and then the reporter continued.
'...they also carried backpacks with rations and bottles of water for the trek ...'
(ok we get your point...they were never in any real danger of starving weren't they?)
' It was at this point that he collapsed. His buddy immediately gave him first aid while the group radioed for help. A senior medic stationed at the final checkpoint rushed to him, followed closely by a doctor from the camp.'
(Now we get the idea. Readers, do not think otherwise. There were NO delays at all. Everything was done IMMEDIATELY. Precious time was not lost...)
'..he was evacuated ... he was in a hospital 10 minutes after that, but despite best efforts, he was pronounced dead...'
Thanks dear reporter. We are so clear now. Let me summarise:
1. The cadet set off for training only after being fortified at breakfast, not to mention a hot drink.
2. The cadet was never in any real danger of starving because his backpack was choked full of food.
3. When he collapsed, there were NO DELAYs in getting help.
Come on GIVE ME A BREAK! WE ARE INTELLIGENT READERS - LET US DRAW OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.
Add to Technorati Favorites
