Dear Amos,

You do not suppose you have sufficient credibility left in you to be taken seriously those who do not belong to the groups of people you have mocked for believing your words, do you?

To be sure, you are entitled to whatever feelings you have of Mr. Vincent Law. You know best what went on between the two of you and no one should have insisted that you should have shown gratitude to him without knowing what had occurred. At the same time, it should be within your right to free speech to voice out your irritation towards him. Nevertheless, what you have essentially admitted to in your latest blog posting is that you had made the allegation of molest with the knowledge that it was going to be construed as sexual molestation, and it is precisely your reference to the other definition of “molest” that shows this. I hope you do see that to use “molest” in the other sense, there has to be sufficient context set up for people to see that you are referring to being annoyed rather than being sexually assaulted. If you did not know of the other definition of “molest” when you made the accusation, it is clear that you had intended to give the impression that you were molested in a sexual way. Even if you did know of the other definition, you had failed to contextualize your claim properly despite knowing the most common use of for the word “molest.”

Photo from The Straits Times
Screenshot from The Straits Times

It is also clear that you were deliberately sensationalizing the issue when you made the accusation instead of truly being driven to voice out your irritation with Mr. Law. This unfortunately discounts whatever claims of emotional abuse you are now making simply because you are open to exploiting any aspect of your personal experience for sensationalism and media attention. If emotional abuse had been a primary concern from the start, you would not have made a false accusation (or at least one that you knew would be interpreted in ways that did not tally with facts). Ironically, if you had replaced the word “molest” with “emotional abuse,” you would have gotten the attention of the media you simultaneously seem to despise and crave, and your claims to emotional abuse would have gained more credibility.

No matter how much you hated your interactions with Mr. Law, it does not justify the initial accusation of molest and you should apologize because of that accusation alone even if you wish to maintain and pursue your claim of how he had abused you emotionally (though anyone not wishing to be accused of being stupid should really not take your word for it where it comes to this new claim of emotional abuse). It pays to keep separate matters separate.

You do have a healthy dose of suspicion towards those who have been manipulated by media narratives to see Mr. Law as an almost saintly person. You do not, however, give enough credit to those who have remained sufficiently fair-minded from the start despite their objections to certain aspects of your behavior, preferring instead to classify everyone under the umbrella of stupidity you have held over their heads whilst remaining outside its confines yourself. You should have kept your accusations clear and straightforward from the start, and while there may indeed be stupid people urging you to apologize to Mr. Law because they are too easily taken in by media accounts of his character, there are those who have urged you to apologize to him because the accusation should not have been made regardless of his character unless he had indeed molested you in the sense that you clearly wanted people to get at the start. These are the people who will lend you support when you need and deserve it, not those who are egging you on or praising you for the brilliance you have not managed to show.

Face it: you have done something wrong. You are not always right.

Best wishes,
Molly Meek


Read the original thread from here.

Comments

comments

SHARE