Seeking clarification of facts published in The New Paper dated 15 Dec2012
Dear Sir / Madam
Referring to the article submitted by me dated 15 Dec 2012: “Consider automated tray-return system”- The Government should fully fund an automation project if the tray-return initiative is to be more successful. -TNP
I am concerned that the re-writing of my article actually changes the meaning of my original intentions. I am also worried that some facts might be misconstrued by the public.
For example, it is published in THE NEW PAPER that “the recent pilot project to get hawker-centre customers to return their trays was only a partial success, with reportedly a maximum of 80 per cent doing so.”
However, my submission clearly stated the success rate of people returning the tray is a paltry 60-70% and it can infer a very different meaning to readers from the “maximum rate of 80%” as published.
Another example, your published article stated “I observed at Clementi that an elderly cleaner was handling the trays….”
This might lead to the readers to think that the pilot tray returning scheme is implemented in Clementi Food Centre Market.
However, in my article it is stated clearly CLEMENTI WEST STREET 2 Food Centre Market. It is actually located in West Coast area.
For your information this market is commonly or affectionately known as the WEST COAST Market. It is different from CLEMENTI FOOD CENTRE MARKET where readers might have the mistaken notion this is where the pilot tray returning initiative is held.
I have lived in the vicinity for over 30 years and hence I am quite familiar with all the nearby hawker centre or food centre in that area.
Hopefully you can clarify these misleading facts in THE NEW PAPER in order bring to attention of the public and governmental authorities alike. Hopefully this will set things right and avoid any misrepresentation of information and facts.
Thank you
Referring to the article submitted by me dated 15 Dec 2012: “Consider automated tray-return system”- The Government should fully fund an automation project if the tray-return initiative is to be more successful. -TNP
I am concerned that the re-writing of my article actually changes the meaning of my original intentions. I am also worried that some facts might be misconstrued by the public.
For example, it is published in THE NEW PAPER that “the recent pilot project to get hawker-centre customers to return their trays was only a partial success, with reportedly a maximum of 80 per cent doing so.”
However, my submission clearly stated the success rate of people returning the tray is a paltry 60-70% and it can infer a very different meaning to readers from the “maximum rate of 80%” as published.
Another example, your published article stated “I observed at Clementi that an elderly cleaner was handling the trays….”
This might lead to the readers to think that the pilot tray returning scheme is implemented in Clementi Food Centre Market.
However, in my article it is stated clearly CLEMENTI WEST STREET 2 Food Centre Market. It is actually located in West Coast area.
For your information this market is commonly or affectionately known as the WEST COAST Market. It is different from CLEMENTI FOOD CENTRE MARKET where readers might have the mistaken notion this is where the pilot tray returning initiative is held.
I have lived in the vicinity for over 30 years and hence I am quite familiar with all the nearby hawker centre or food centre in that area.
Hopefully you can clarify these misleading facts in THE NEW PAPER in order bring to attention of the public and governmental authorities alike. Hopefully this will set things right and avoid any misrepresentation of information and facts.
Thank you
Comments