The MH370 incident is being watched by the whole world. Being under the spotlight, I assume that Malaysia Airlines writes each statement very intentionally with every sentence being carefully calibrated.

On Monday, 24 March 2014, Malaysia Airlines sent this SMS to the family members of those missing on MH370:

“Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume beyond any reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived. As you will hear in the next hour from Malaysia’s prime minister, we must now accept all evidence suggests the plane went down in the southern Indian Ocean.”

(Source: Financial Times)

Now, here is the exact same statement with emphasis placed by me:

“Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume beyond any reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and that none of those on board survived. As you will hear in the next hour from Malaysia’s prime minister, we must now accept all evidence suggests the plane went down in the southern Indian Ocean.”

If I had a daughter on that plane (I do not), how would I react to this?

Let me re-write the statement with the emphasis that me, as a fictional father, would react to:

“Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have to assume beyond any reasonable doubt that MH370 has been lost and your daughter is dead. As you will hear in the next hour from Malaysia’s prime minister, we must now accept all evidence suggests the plane went down in the southern Indian Ocean.”

No matter how “beyond reasonable doubt” it is, the statement admits to being an assumption.

This is not going to give the fictional me (as a father) any closure.

If the findings were conclusive, what would have given me closure (though not comfort) is a statement of this nature:

“Malaysia Airlines deeply regrets that we have conclusive evidence that MH370 has crashed and that none of those on board survived. As you will hear in the next hour from Malaysia’s prime minister, we have evidence that the plane went down in the southern Indian Ocean.”

But that’s not what they wrote.

 

Advertisements

Friday Cocktail – unfortunately it was a molotov.

Patience before action is underrated in my humble opinion.

Read on.

By Terence Toh
The Star/Asia News Network
Friday, Nov 09, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR – A feud between two neighbours over a tree took a nasty turn when one of them was charged in court for attempting to burn the other’s house down.

Law Chee Wai, 47, pleaded guilty in a magistrate’s court here to throwing a bottle filled with diesel into the house compound of trader Chia Weng Tze, 26.

The offence occurred in their neighbourhood in Taman Tyton View, Cheras, here at about 11pm on Nov 5.

The quarrel occurred as Law’s trees had encroached into Chia’s property.

Court documents also revealed Law had often thrown bottles and glass into Chia’s house, and had previously threatened him.

Law was arrested on Nov 6 and charged with criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Penal Code.

DPP Kee Wei Lon asked for a deterrent punishment so Law could learn from his mistake.

Law’s counsel Khairul Amin Abdullah, however, asked for a light sentence, saying this was his client’s first offence and he had repented.

Magistrate Nur Azura Murah fined Law RM1,100(S$440) and said he would be jailed for one month if he failed to pay.

Law’s mother paid the fine.