I had some comments saying that my analogy of SFD to “drunken teenagers” is way off the mark and does my argument no favours.

Of course it is.

How on earth is SFD comparable to teenagers? The problem with people that comment based on knee-jerk reaction is that more often than not, they see only the bits and pieces that fit into their way of thinking. This is actually what I said, let me reproduce the para in question:

Maybe a simple analogy will help. Let’s say I own a restaurant that serves casual diners and you come in and want to book my restaurant to throw a party. I ask you what kind of party it is but you give a vague reply, saying it’s a dinner, and I accept the booking. Later on, I find out (through my own means no less!) that you’ve intended to throw a party that involves drunken teeangers and loud music which clearly goes beyond the type of occasion my restaurant is suited for, do I have the right to refuse your request even though I’ve accepted your booking beforehand? I think I do.

Instead of focussing on those few words, if these commentators had bothered to read and digest the whole para, they would have figured out that it was a harsh analogy making a simple point:

If there is a square peg and you try to force a round hole in it, of course it won’t fit. You wouldn’t blame either the hole nor the peg.

Now there is only blame to be approportioned if the peg or the hole misrepresents itself. Based on the facts presented in TOC’s article, I can only surmise that:

1) SFD did not fully disclose the nature of their function nor check if the operator was agreeable to such a function of such nature.

2) SHRI rescinded the booking without prior notice on grounds of it being incompatible with its constitution.

Note also that SHRI did notify their client in advance of the cancellation (albeit it being a short 1 day notice).

The whole problem is that SFD never cleared that the training room booked was a suitable venue for their purposes and this is where the TOC spin on the incident takes a slippery slope- If SFD has gone through the contract with a fine-tooth comb to show that nowhere in the contract did it state that the booked venue was not to be used for non-commericial or non-political purposes instead of all the ‘noise and fury signifying nothing’ that James Gomez generated, it might have helped their cause. (Curiously, didn’t he learn that the hard way when a CCTV caught him out?)

Right now, I call a spade a spade, and it seems to me that SFD’s  version and TOC’s coverage of the events doesn’t paint them in a good light (unless it was their intention to pander to the hardcore anti-PAP crowd, then I’d say that it certainly worked.) They would have done better to learn from Publichouse.sg’s coverage of the same event.

PS: One commentator had me laughing by referring to The Verge as a hotel. Talk about delusion.

PPS: Those commentators that suggest that David Ang of SHRI is a PAP lap-dog are free to do so if it acts as stress relief for you. I don’t know the man so unless there’s damning evidence of that, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt. However, just note that groundless accusations do the rest of the socio-political netizenery more harm than good.

Advertisements