Misinterpretation, Misquote and Ministerial Salaries

Dr. Lim Wee Kiak has come forward to clarify that his remarks have been taken out of context. Which brings us to the question of what the context was. Let me quote from his clarification (though perhaps I am quoting out of context again):

I have mentioned that the responsibilities of our ministers are not any less than that of our corporate heads. Although their pay should not be equal to corporates [sic] as there is the element of service to country and it is not a job, it should not be too low. So in concluding [sic] , I told the reporter jokingly, that there will be at least some “face” when the minister meet [sic] the corporate chief.

I admit it is a bad example that is [sic] quoted out of context.

Huh? Are you admitting that it is a bad example or are you claiming (or, as your sentence goes, admitting) that you have been quoted out of context? What is “it” a bad example of and what exactly is “it”?

In saying that you have been quoted out of context, you are suggesting that your words have been twisted to mean what they do not mean. However, when you claim to have been joking, it would seem more like you are saying you have been misinterpreted and people are taking your words too seriously when they are not meant to be taken seriously. That is not taking you out of context.

Assuming that you have indeed been quoted out of context or misinterpreted, why are you admitting that “it is a bad example”? If you have given a bad example, then perhaps you have not been misinterpreted or misquoted. Rather, it would simply be that you have not communicated the intended point to the intended audience well and it would be a matter of you not representing yourself properly instead of others getting you wrong. Your clarification contradictorily combines self-exoneration and self-blame.

Based on your clarification, it seems that you do still hold the belief that a salary of $500,000 per annum is too low for a minister even though it is an amount that some of the most impoverished citizens under your care will take decades to earn (without even factoring in inflation? You still seem to be implying that “low” salaries will affect the dignity of ministers even though it is perfectly reasonable to say (without asserting that ministers should be lowly paid) that any lowly paid person, minister or not, can be dignified in the face of anyone in the world. Because even the most lowly paid person is earning an honest living. On the other hand, one wonders how dignified a group of people, with an illustrious history of helping themselves to million-dollar salaries because they have the power to decide, can be.

Advertisements

11 Responses

  1. Best response so far in the bloggers’ world. Keep it up. Either you are a lawyer or someone who loved the English language very much. Keep it up. The ‘good’ doctor just can’t help himself. Any toes left after shooting himself?
    Luv it!!!!

    • Thanks. Not a lawyer. Otherwise I would have enough “dignity” to talk to the doctor directly.

  2. […] more here: Misinterpretation, Misquote and Ministerial Salaries « Molitics This entry was posted in World and tagged clarification, context, his-clarification, […]

  3. 这家伙想自言其说,却愈描愈黑,搞得焦头烂额!哀哉!

  4. My suspicion is that this is all intentional. I guess Lim is the man who is supposed to put the thought bubble into the discussion world that $500k is the floor price for ministers. The justifications or “non-justifications thereof” is the red herring. So, instead of discussing why we should set $500 as the floor, we are now discussing misquotes, misinterpretations, etc…haha

  5. […] Salaries + Pension – Molitics: Misinterpretation, Misquote and Ministerial Salaries – Mr Wang Says So: Possible Formulae for Determining Ministers’ Salaries – Leong Sze Hian: 10 […]

  6. digging further deeper into the cesspit?? haha..

  7. I think people should give Dr. Lim a break — perhaps he is just speaking the hard truths of PAP’s believes and values!

  8. If the hardtruths of PAP’s believes and values are what has been depicted and/or represented by Dr Lim Wee Kiak, that high salary equates to dignity, then we can conclude that the PAP MPs and Ministers are therefore living in their own world of make-belief and value system – NOT in touch with the real world.

    Therefore, we shall in the next GE give Dr Lim Wee Kiak are real break – let him be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

    • They never fail to claim that they would make a lot more money outside although nobody really believe them. I can’t imagine how such a money-face person would be willing to forgo any opportunity to make more money. The voters should have kicked him out so that he can fantasize himself dreaming about making more money all day and buy more money-dignity for himself!

  9. Having been caught out, the dim-wit then claims that it’s out of context!

    Anyway, does anyone see ministerial pay slashed by 50%? Yawn …..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: