What I read today (part 2).

I'm glad ST ran a story today (June 20) on Singapore companies making the effort to use plain English in their product or service write-ups. These vivid examples were cited:

_____________________________________________________

There are drills and there are drills. Drills like these will upset the Chinese:

And when this rig goes a-drilling, Vietnam will get upset!...

__________________________________________________________________

Incuriousity meets unhelpful government agencies...

All we are told is that it was a war relic. Wasn't the reporter curious enough to ask what kind of war relic? And why can't the police or the SAF have given out the information (as they did previously). Such incuriousity reflects poorly on today's journalistic standards.
___________________________________________________________  

A strange story...

Singapore is less peaceful because of the presence of more security personnel and policemen? Hello? It seems so, as the story unfolds...

Fortunately, the Ministry of Home Affairs set the record straight...

Whew!
____________________________________________________

It looks like Dr Tan Cheng Bock did not have the last word (but of course)...

The writer, ironically, hit the nail on its head with this admission in the first part of the paragraph below...

_______________________________________________________________

I found this ad in TODAY (June 20) intriguing...

Why was the ad placed here in Singapore, and also why not in ST which has a wider readership base? And it has bad English to boot... "base on separation". It should be: "based on separation".
______________________________________________________

Finally, my England not so powderful after all... they lost 1-2 to Uruguay. :-(