I thought this deserved a post of its own!

For those who need some background information, Abrams’s A Glossary of Literary Terms (7th ed.) says that a “mixed metaphor conjoins two or more obviously diverse metaphorical vehicles. When used inadvertently, without sensitivity to the possible incongruity of the vehicles, the effect can be ludicrous” (98; author’s emphasis).

And that concludes our Sensitivity to the Nuances in Language lessons for today. Lim Swee Say’s sweesayisms, unfortunately, are in a class of their own, and will have to be discussed another day.

Created by The Oatmeal

(via)

Just watched OTOT and I thought it was wonderful. Each of the four characters in Full Tank! remind me of someone I know from my NS days. Thank you for a good night.

“Who is Aunty Janki’s son??” I asked.

“The… Kamal,” she said.

“Who’s Kamal???”

Turns out ‘Kamal’ was none other than Kishore Mahbubani, who had come to watch OTOT with his missus, because both their sons were in NS and Mrs M felt that the Ms had to watch OTOT to better understand NS and what their sons were going through.

That’s what I gathered from the Sindhi side of my family who were huddled around me, as they’d also come to watch OTOT as well. Just then, ‘Kamal’ walked by and we talked for a minute or so – I told him that there was going to be “some strong language” in the play; he joked that he was going to leave then.

During the intermission, I joined my family where they were seated, in the middle of the theatre. Coincidentally, Kishore was sitting one row behind us.

He jokingly said that he thought the language wasn’t strong enough. He also added that the French ambassador was around, and was asking what one word in particular meant. No one dared to tell him what it meant in English, but a clever soul told him that the word translated to ‘la chatte’ in French. Nice work, diplomats.

I’ve never been a valedictorian myself, so it might seem quite impetuous of me to be sharing my views. But take it from the perspective of someone who has studied the craft of writing and has sat as an audience member long enough to at least have some valid views on the matter.

Also, I am usually right, most of the time, so it makes sense to trust me. LOL.

1. Keep it succinct. Use the recommended rate of 150 words per minute to help you keep track of what you have to say e.g. if you have 5 mins to speak, your speech should be 750 words long. Conversely, if your speech is 1500 words long, you’re gonna take 10 mins to speak; more if you consider all those pauses for breath that you’re gonna have to make.
2. Keep it sweet. All the speeches which I’ve heard from valedictorians seem to border on nostalgic, mushy, unfocused drivel. Try something different this time: try speaking from the heart about an issue that should matter to the group of people you’re talking to. Think about it in terms of extrapolation: the group of people are at x point in time; paint a picture of what they might be in x + y years’ time if they take your advice to be socially responsible and stop STOMP-ing, for example.

   I want to cheat a bit and use Daren Shiau’s USP Commencement Address 2008 to illustrate my point, but I can’t find it online, so I’ll settle for second-best and ask you to read J. K. Rowling’s “The Fringe Benefits of Failure, and the Importance of Imagination” instead.

That’s all. I’m rather succinct and sweet myself, you know. LOL.

From: Laremy Lee
Date: May 26, 2009 3:18:07 PM GMT+08:00
To: stforum@sph.com.sg
Subject: Let’s stand together and stop the name-calling.

Dear Madam/Sir,

I REFER to Mr Tan Keng Soon’s letter (‘’Sexually challenged’ isn’t an offensive term referring to gays’, May 26).

I acknowledge that there will always be some people in Singapore who might not readily accept our fellow Singaporeans for who they are. However, I feel we should not be calling them names.

It is unclear whether using labels like ‘sexually challenged’ may make a difference to the sexual orientation of Singaporeans. What we do know is that using negative labels are hurtful, and are tantamount to a form of hate speech.

If we persist in using such terms, we are only persisting in being divisive, which is socially and economically unviable for Singapore. Divisiveness in society, as history has shown, is fertile ground for external elements to bring a country to its knees.

At the same time, I have had enough of seeing Singapore divided over this matter, especially in fragile times like these.

I think it is time we stand together and stop the name-calling. All of us have our differences, but the one thing we share in common, besides being Singaporean, is being human.

Let’s try to work on that, shall we?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
Laremy LEE (Mr)