mr brown's views on all these issues distort the truth. They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the Government for all that he is unhappy with. He offers no alternatives or solutions. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worse, not better, for those he professes to sympathise with
Singaporeangle feels that the tone of reply could have been softer
Even if the intention was not, the perception from the reply is that the government is less willing to receive feedback, especially it they are not positive. We should ideally offer constructive criticism and alternatives for issues raised, but it may be challenging for ordinary citizens, even journalist such as Mr. Brown, who often does not have sufficient information to always do so.
The protest letter also stated
If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics.
Ridzal questions this claim that mr. brown is exploiting his access to the mainstream media
mr brown’s column is published in the Voices section of the newspaper, a section that is dedicated to the expression of the opinions, thoughts and concerns of its columnists, as well as its readers who, should they choose to write in to the newspaper, have as much access to the mass media as mr brown. Therefore, I do not see how mr brown could be seen to have exploited his position as a columnist to sway opinion one way or another towards the Government.
Blogger Heavenly Sword thinks that the officials misunderstood Mr. Brown's column and tries to interpret what mr brown was really talking about.
The response from MICA, nonetheless, did not surprise me. (You mean you're surprised?) :) I can see where it's coming from, and I respectfully acknowledge what it's saying. But the purpose of this short post has been to argue that MICA's interpretation of Mr Brown's original article is wrong, hence triggering an overly harsh reply to an actually-innocent Singaporean.