Sonntag, November 06, 2005

Straits Times update


Following the Sunday Times' story last week, Jeremy Au Yong has followed up with an update on the story--this time to reflect the opinions of Wendy's critics, as well as the stand taken by the Society for the Physically Disabled as well as the Handicaps Welfare Aossciation.

As expected, indignant readers--including filmaker Bertrand Lee, who sadly lost his left leg while filming in Mumbai-- wrote to the paper and the charities, prompting the two charities to respond (read article).

The SPD's stand was also echoed by Handicaps Welfare Association president Tam Ah Hock: "The bottom line is that due consideration and priority be given to the disabled users whenever they need to use it. These toilets should not be used simply because they are bigger and better equipped."

A part of Wendy's entry was also quoted in the article (the one about disabled people's bladders), as well as her written reply to Bertrand Lee.

In reply to Bertrand Lee's five-page letter to her, Wendy apparently shrugged him off with a one-liner: "Eh, I disagree".

So, both sides of the argument have now been presented by the press, Jeremy Au Yong and the Straits Times has redeemed themselves by doing a follow-up, the two charitable organisations have clarified their stand, and the public now have a clearer picture of what sort of person Wendy is.

Now, maybe we can finally get closure on this toilet issue and move on?

And perhaps, Wendy will learn something from this fallout and start behaving more responsibly. Little old cynical me, but that's a very big perhaps. =)

18 Comments:

  • At Sonntag, November 06, 2005 1:23:00 nachm., Anonymous 小太妹 said…

    whats with the photog's obssession of photographing her in the handicap toilet. the point is?

     
  • At Sonntag, November 06, 2005 3:33:00 nachm., Anonymous Someone said…

    For someone like her to learn something out of this? I think the probability of ET visiting the earth is higher than that.

     
  • At Sonntag, November 06, 2005 5:24:00 nachm., Anonymous gesundheit said…

    Hello, Bertrand Lee personally wrote her a 5-page-long email to explain painstakingly to her how disabled people feel. And all she does is dismiss him with an "I don't agree". Obviously she hasn't learnt anything, and what's worse, she REFUSES to learn anything and chooses to continue thinking that the world revolves around her and that everyone else must conform to her.

     
  • At Sonntag, November 06, 2005 6:02:00 nachm., Blogger SuperOreoGirl said…

    kinda figured that a 2nd article would be published in the sunday times, not as well circulated as the daily straits times! among the big hoo-ha, someone commented somewhere that 'write to ST forum to make your point'. well i did and no it didn't get published (blame the gatekeepers?).

    i think this article made her look dumb, which is cool by me. although, it was not mentioned anywhere that the societies were quoted out of context in the first article. covering their asses at work again i see! ah well, another day in sunny blogosphere. cheers :)

     
  • At Sonntag, November 06, 2005 8:49:00 nachm., Blogger Kimberlycun said…

    they didn't address the lousy journalism, but at least this article paints a clearer picture. thanks for scanning the article sandra

     
  • At Sonntag, November 06, 2005 9:32:00 nachm., Anonymous insens said…

    The article does not really paint the other side of the story. If you read between the lines, it's obvious that Mr Jeremy only wrote this piece because he was forced to. If you read his original piece, you can tell that he sided with XX on this issue, and she may even be his friend and he wrote the column to point out the fallacy of the critism towards XX. But this second piece reeks of disregard and disinterest. The whole piece is based on quotes that have apparently surfaced since his previous article. There isn't even a retraction that the two handicapped associations were misquoted and misrepresented. For those who are not wired in, they would have no clue (unless they read the forum letter) that the handicapped associations did not support XX.
    In my opinion, this article is just as bad as the first. No doubt it hints at painting XX in a bad light, but it does not show how insensitive and inconsiderate her comments were.

     
  • At Sonntag, November 06, 2005 10:09:00 nachm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    BOYCOTT www.yourgifts.com.sg endorse by XX

    Send your feedback to

    http://www.yourgifts.com.sg/feedback.php
    Email: info@yourgifts.com.sg
    Phone/Fax: (65)6536-4031

     
  • At Montag, November 07, 2005 12:14:00 vorm., Blogger simplesandra said…

    The article didn't mention anything about misrepresentation, but knowing ST, just be thankful they ran this story. =)

    I wonder if the letters from the two charities made the difference, hmm....

    Oh, and you just have to love Wendy's response to Bertrand Lee: a one-line reply for a five-page letter... *shakes head*

    Guess she should've sent him her Podcast instead. =)

     
  • At Montag, November 07, 2005 12:52:00 vorm., Blogger mooiness said…

    Yes a follow-up story as opposed to outright show of contrition on the part of the reporter is better than nothing at all.

    Ppl power works. Cheers to everyone who wrote in to the societies and/or ST to voice their opinion.

     
  • At Montag, November 07, 2005 7:05:00 vorm., Anonymous Fucking Rebel said…

    Yup, simply love the way Jeremy end his report in the second article, superb journalism! Wonder where he learnt from, will make sure I will NEVER send my future childrebn to the same schools as both Jeremy and XX came from!! Nabeh!!!

    To me, though it does 'seem' tp paint a not so nice picture for XX but I don't feel that it can do much harm to XX nor she will ever learn anything out of it, just look at the way the article was ended. It ended just as bad as the first one.

     
  • At Montag, November 07, 2005 10:32:00 vorm., Anonymous Darth BiRdYz said…

    "There are a million views out there. Why do they want to change my one view to fit theirs?"

    Obviously that xiasuay woman isn't repentant and hasn't got enough neurons to make a synapse to actually understand that not every view gets a viewership like hers.

    This 'war' should continue until she apologises

     
  • At Montag, November 07, 2005 11:30:00 vorm., Anonymous jim said…

    some notes fr my media fren. not sph :)

    1) let's not presume that au yong is a friend of this what's-her-name.

    2) there're probably hundreds of letters to the forum everyday. so if yours is not so immediate and/or says the same thing in a not-so-interesting manner, don't expect it to have priority.

    3) last sunday's story's just an update, mind u. it really doesn't deserve more space than what was given. the controversy had been broken and the follow-up is boring to say the least.

    st is just being "responsible" by giving both parties another go at a sensitive and potentially explosive issue.

    4) this woman is just a media whore. if we don't read her, she wouldnt have a column in new paper.

    5) it seems the two welfare organisations agreed on a deal to be quoted in the story. this is to avoid a proper what-it-should-have-been or an accompanying short clarification story that would have been in order.

     
  • At Montag, November 07, 2005 1:07:00 nachm., Blogger simplesandra said…

    jim wrote: "4) this woman is just a media whore. if we don't read her, she wouldnt have a column in new paper."

    Problem though is youngsters (and even some young "intelligent" working adults) do read--and idolise--her. She's also seeking publicity beyond her blog--and sponsors, organisations, and the media are giving it to her.

    Hard for someone to just disappear back into her hole under these circumstances, even if her critics agree to ignore her. =)

     
  • At Montag, November 07, 2005 1:27:00 nachm., Blogger simplesandra said…

    jim wrote: "3) last sunday's story's just an update, mind u. it really doesn't deserve more space than what was given. the controversy had been broken and the follow-up is boring to say the least."

    Hardly, if you ask me. Wendy's quote in the article was controversial itself, and it always more engaging and interesting when someone makes a controversial statement and then get rebutted. The first article, in contrast, was a one-sided affair--and that's boring.

    jim wrote: "5) this is to avoid a proper what-it-should-have-been or an accompanying short clarification story that would have been in order."

    A "what-it-should-have-been" clarification wouldn't have addressed the heart of the issue--that is, Wendy's tone in her blog entry. Not to mention, it wouldn't be fair to people like Bertrand Lee who wrote a five-page letter on the matter and only got a one-line reply for his trouble. =)

    I was expecting something in the forum pages, but this was better. I've got nothing against it appearing in the weekend papers; the first story was also in the Sunday Times anyway.

     
  • At Montag, November 07, 2005 2:26:00 nachm., Anonymous jim said…

    the wishb that wasn't:
    her tone doesn't matter. the ogranisations reiterating their stand doesn't matter; they still appear to be in her corner.

    above all, their name should have been "cleared". for the first story has portrayed them as betraying the very people they represent and they have thus lost some moral authority.

     
  • At Montag, November 07, 2005 9:58:00 nachm., Blogger finah said…

    goddamn!

    wendy really thick skin huh?

    and the "eh, i disagree" line is too far man. lucky the papers published that out. it shows how heartless she is.

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 09, 2005 1:13:00 vorm., Anonymous Anonym said…

    No one noticed there is another article on the talk page(last page) of ST at the bottom right hand corner?

    The article by a reader with the title "Much ado about use of loo".

    Quoted "The response to the blog seems to me a case of self-righteous overreaction."

    No one?

     
  • At Mittwoch, November 09, 2005 2:21:00 nachm., Anonymous Darth BiRdYz said…

    Obviously, everyone was smart enough to keep their mouths shut and not response to the troll who said that. After all, the troll might consider any response a case of self righteous over-reaction to an 'innocent' comment. Hahahaha. Let the fools side with xiasuay and let us do the right things.

     

Kommentar veröffentlichen

<< Home