Jan 21st, 2008
Contradiction by Tharman?
Email This Post
Print This Post
I was quite, to put things very mildly, surprised to read the headline of this particular ST story: Govt to take ‘hands off’ approach on state funds: Tharman
Well, if it is a state fund we are talking about and that the government decides to leave their ‘hands off’ the fund, who should be responsible for the fund?
Actually, I suspect that Tharman didn’t actually mean to make this contradiction. If you read further down the story, Tharman was was actually saying that the government does not interfere with investment policies, not that it is washing its hand completely off state funds. The headline gave a totally wrong impression.
It would have been clearer if the headline was “Govt to take ‘hands off’ approach on state funds investments: Tharman”. One missing word can change the meaning of the headline completely.
I wonder if the editors are already red-faced.
Loading ...
i think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. and it’s not as if the title of your post isn’t misleading either.
I think ST editors need to be more careful with their headlines. This isn’t the first time it has happened.
The key here is the target audience for this news article or the headline. I think that ST is using the headline to cast aside doubts about the investments. The majority of the readers who do not go into details of the recent investments. Of course, the few like you will question the meaning of the headline. The target readers will just speed read the headline and form a favourable conclusion.
.
“OK, the government said they are not making those investment decisions, so they are not using our money. Our money is safe …”
.
When dealing with the economical issues, I believe that ST is under “strict guidances” on how to publish this type of news. Those who are in the know do not think that things are so simple. We, of course, know that everyone has their KPIs.
.
When I saw that headline, I was thinking “huh?”.
jonathan,
I think you are taking the post too seriously. It was just a ramble on my part and I’m not hammering ST. I’m just musing about it. If I had meant for it to be serious, I would have done a much longer piece and filed it under perspective.
Gerald,
Well, you will find funny mistakes in other newspapers too, not just ST. Perks up the morning when you see such stuff.
spyer,
It’s an occupational hazard of doing writing day in day out. Mistakes are inevitable for anyone, including myself. It’s just that with several editors between the journalist and the final publication, it always amazes me how such mistakes are missed. Writers usually have difficulties picking up their own mistakes, which is why writing organisations place several levels of editing between the writer and the final product. But I suppose some fishes do slip out of the net.
How can the GOVERNMENT not ‘be incharge’ of STATE FUNDS?
Actually, I thought you brought up a good point. That headline practically means “Gov’t bochap about state funds” - not true and not the right message to send out.
How oxymoron can the current PAP be? As one of my good friend highlighted to me:
“On one hand, the government pumped in billions into commercial organizations overseas.At the same time, we debate about how much subsidies to give citizens when they need medical care.
Hello??? Billions of Singapore citizens’ money go to investments in foreign companies, then why can’t you err on the generous side and give every citizen more subsidies for medical care? Or better still, why not provide free medical care for your own citizens who loyally served the country, paid taxes and CPF which eventually made up your investment money?”
I rest my case.
Kaffein
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUSWLB628120080125
.
I just loved the way he said it.
.
****
He brushed off suggestions that sovereign wealth funds lacked transparency, saying Singapore’s sovereign wealth funds the GIC and Temasek were transparent in their disclosures.
.
“We are quite open about what we do,” he said.
******