Singlish must not be allowed to displace Standard English

MAY 25, 2016

I agree that the Government cannot afford to ease up on its strict stance on Singlish ("PM's press secretary rebuts NYT op-ed on Singlish"; yesterday).

Singlish has indeed taken on a life of its own, and has flourished as a vernacular with a distinctly Singaporean heritage. We use and flaunt it like a badge of national pride.

While poet and literary critic Gwee Li Sui, in his opinion piece on Singlish published in the International New York Times, said that even politicians and officials use Singlish, I believe most do so with an awareness of the specific context and register that Singlish should be used in.

It is often used to establish an instant rapport with the audience, as it transcends barriers of race and social class.

Does ethical consumption have to cost so much?

[This was not a forum page letter. But it is silly enough to get my dander up. So here it is and here I go.]

TODAY

VAIDEHI SHAH

MAY 13, 2016

Eat organic food. Drive an electric car, not a gas-guzzler. Buy clothes made by fairly paid workers: Such calls have grown louder and more frequent in recent years.

While responsible consumption advocates mean well, they often overlook the fact that not everyone can afford these sustainable goods, which are usually more expensive than mass-market products.

The poor are being priced out of sustainable and ethical consumer options, and this is wrong for many reasons.

[But not as wrong as your inability to see that arguing for the right of the poor to drive electric cars instead of gas guzzlers, presumably to reduce carbon emission, in order to save the planet, is the WRONG solution to saving the planet. We should move towards aggregated transport, i.e. public transport. But a great start to a blinkered, ill-informed, unthinking essay.]

Recast the S’porean identity based on inclusivity, fairness — not materialism

[I clip and pasted this article to this blog because I thought it was a reader's letter. Only at the end, did I realise that it was supposed to be a commentary or opinion piece. But seriously, I found the quality of thought to be no better than some forum letters. And the verbosity hinted at some insecurities or immaturity.

Maybe I am being too harsh... NAAAAHHHH! 

Or, rather, why don't you decide. I found his writing rather pompous.]