Strangled? Or strangled to death?

I'll start today with that teaser yesterday about Mr Victor Pang, the 64-year-old trade unionist. He is reported by The Straits Times to have been born during the Japanese occupation of Singapore.

As we say in Singlish, how can?

The Japanese emperor went on radio on 15 Aug 1945 to declare Japan's surrender to the Allies, the formal surrender took place in Tokyo Bay on board the USS Missouri on 2 Sept 1945, and British troops re-entered Singapore and Malaya on 5 Sept 1945.

So, do your maths. Either Mr Pang's age is incorrectly reported or he was born after the Japanese occupation. A good journalist looks out for such discrepancies.

Moving on, good journalists avoid redundancies too. So when I saw a report in today's Straits Times ("US death row inmate executed with animal drug", 18 Dec, page A23) that used the phrase "strangled him to death", I deemed it a redundancy.

I had always thought that strangled is the act of choking to death. But an online check showed up differing views, and some of these are captured in this link:

http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2006/4/5/lifefocus/13723264&sec=lifefocus

I now accept that "strangled to death" is okay, if only for the sake of clarity.

My online check also threw up a link that described how one could fight off a strangler. Here it is:

http://www.stoptheabuseblog.com/stop_the_abuse/strangling_how_to_prevent_your_death/

The Internet is indeed a fascinating place. But once again, caveat emptor. I am sure no one will want to find himself or herself in that situation, and having to "test out" if the recommended survival tactic actually works!