# data[].attributes.body
1) Your society's context towards the topic (by levels of society), taking into account the relevant SG context: culture/values/mindsets etc.

# data[].attributes.body
"It's too late to apologise... It's too late.."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OneRepublic - Apologize (Official Music Video)

# data[].attributes.body
2) Identify possible tensions/contrasts if any: past vs present, generation gap, individual vs collective, ideal vs reality, minority vs majority, short-term vs long term, western world vs Asian societies etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Demi Lovato - Sorry Not Sorry (Official Video)

# data[].attributes.body
3) Match or use relevant arguments in the passage to apply the above ideas

# data[].attributes.body
4) How can I include my personal experience without being too example-driven etc.?

# data[].attributes.body
5) What is 1-2 distinctive evaluative points that I would want to emphasise on this topic?

# data[].attributes.body
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/brands-that-admitted-their-mistakes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are some people who just refuse to sincerely apologize. My favorite example of this phenomenon is taken from a U.S. television franchise called "The Real Housewives," in which the cast members have become notorious for doling out feigned apologies. Instead of simply apologizing for hurting someone's feelings, for example, it's more common for them to say something like, "I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt."

That, my friends, is not how you say, "Sorry."

I get it -- it's difficult to admit when you're wrong. There's been so much conflicting data around the word "sorry." While it's something that most parents of young children believe should be taught, there have also been claims that apologizing makes a person look weak. In fact, some companies' stock prices have fallen following an apology, depending on how it was delivered. There are even browser add-ons to prevent the use of apologetic language in emails.

But to little old me, a sincere apology goes a long way. When I sense genuine remorse, it means a lot to me -- perhaps because it's so rare, at least in my experience. Combined with my nerdy affection for all things marketing, that sentiment applies to brand apologies, too. It's not so much that I think, "Wow, that means a lot to me," but more like, "Wow, that company really nailed saying, 'Sorry.'"

So, who's done it best? We rounded up some of our favorite brand apologies to inspire you next time you make a mistake -- and need to admit your wrongdoing.

But First, Here's What Not to Do

When I was in business school and searching for an internship, a friend in a creative industry told me to try out a website that was created, supposedly, for people with my skills and background. But when I used the platform to create a profile and upload my credentials, I was turned away with no explanation. A few days later, I received the following email:

Let's outline what this apology is lacking:

Specificity. The message notes that I was turned away -- but it doesn't explain why. When you've made a mistake, acknowledge it in full, explaining exactly where you went wrong and why.

Remorse. While the email opens with some apology text, that accounts for a minute portion of the email. The majority of the copy is asking me to do something on behalf of the company that wronged me. Think about it -- if you immediately ask someone to do you a favor after you apologize for a mistake, how genuinely remorseful will you sound? Not very.

Next steps. When you've made a mistake, people want to be sure of two things:

1. That you're truly sorry for your wrongdoing.

2. That it's not going to happen again.

The above email does neither of those things, as per the "remorse point." It's also lacking any accountable language to address what it's going to do to prevent this issue from taking place again, using non-committal language like "I hope." And if you're not sure what to do to make it right -- ask.

We chose the examples below due to their inclusion of all of these factors and, in some cases, even more.

6 Brands That Brilliantly Apologized

1) Apple

Back in 2015, U.S. pop artist Taylor Swift announced a very public boycott of Apple Music. That was due to the service offering a one-month free trial of its streaming feature -- but not paying artists for any of their music that was played during the free period.

To right the situation, Apple enlisted the help of its SVP of Internet Software and Services, Eddy Cue, who went about a slightly unusual way of admitting to the brand's wrongdoing -- via Twitter.

#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer's free trial period
- Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple
- Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015

Not long after this unconventional apology was issued, Swift starred in an Apple commercial, which led some to speculate that the entire incident was an orchestrated publicity campaign. That said, it does illustrate some positive points of how big-name brands can apologize. With two tweets, Apple sent the message, "We hear your grievances, we get it, and here's what we're going to do about it."

2) ZocDoc

It seems like you can use the internet to procure anything these days. From buying specialty products to scheduling meetings, so much can be accomplished and taken care of online.

ZocDoc is one such provider of these services, and provides a platform that connects users with doctors for almost every speciaity in their respective areas. There's just one problem -- sometimes, the doctors don't accurately update their schedules within ZocDoc, causing users to make appointments for times that aren't actually available, leading to their subsequent cancellation.

But ZocDoc isn't one to say, "Not our fault, not our problem." Instead, it's constantly striving to gain and use customer feedback to enhance the user experience, like it does with this email:

Here's the thing -- ZocDoc wasn't really the one responsible for the cancellation. The doctor's office was, but despite that, it still negatively impacts the user experience, which ZocDoc acknowledged and offered to make right, by not only asking what went wrong, but offering a gift in exchange for the feedback.

3) Netflix

When Netflix was looking to transition from DVD delivery to a streaming service (yes, we almost forgot about that, too), it had a few missteps along the way.

At first, the company built a system in which its streaming and DVD delivery services would become different entities with separate billing agreements. Before, members had the option of subscribing to both for $10 per month. But the split meant a 60% price increase for current members who wanted both -- the new system's fees were $8 each month solely for the DVD service, plus another $8 per month for streaming. What's worse, the company didn't really provide a clear explanation.

But CEO Reed Hastings wanted to shed light on the situation, and did so in an open letter on the company's blog. He explained why the changes came to be, and noted that Netflix was "done" with pricing changes. But there was a problem -- the company wasn't doing anything to reverse the issue affecting most customers, which was the separation of subscriptions. People enjoyed having the option of signing up for multiple services with one bill. But Hastings didn't fix that. Instead, he noted that the DVD service would not only remain separate, but would be renamed Qwikster.

Qwikster was short-lived, to say the least. Three weeks later, Hastings issued yet another apology. This time, he kept it short and sweet, and essentially sent the message, "Okay, you're right. Having two billing systems was a bad idea, and we're doing away with that." Netflix did suffer some initial damage, with a loss of 800,000 members and a falling stock price. However, the brand has since recovered and currently enjoys healthy financials.

4) Naked Wines

I've discovered a pattern to my email-unsubscribing behavior. It typically happens when I'm generally stressed out or overwhelmed, and might snap if I get just one more notification on my phone. The easy answer, of course, would be to turn off my notifications. Instead, I angrily unsubscribe from the well-meaning brand's newsletters, for which I happily signed up, but didn't really engage with.

In my case, at least, it's not the brand's fault. So if that company sent me a witty, thoughtful email in response to my cancelled subscription, asking what went wrong and what could be done to fix it, I might happily oblige -- after I calmed down, of course. And that's exactly what Naked Wines did with the apologetic email below:

The company openly leads with "sorry," and acknowledges that the canceled subscription was likely due to something it did. So it asked, "What was it? Let us know, so we can fix it."

5) Toronto Maple Leafs

If there's one thing that truly dedicated sports fan would be happy to never hear again, it's the phrase, "It's just a game." And no one, it seems, understood that more than Lawrence M. Tanenbaum -- chairman of Maple Leaf Sports -- after a devastating loss by the National Hockey League's Toronto Maple Leafs in 2012.

As a somewhat diehard sports fan myself -- go Red Sox -- I can understand the desire for accountability from a team's front office management after a bad season. And with this long, apologetic letter, that's exactly what Tanenbaum accomplished, with the recognition of not only his team's poor performance, but also, a public commitment on behalf of ownership to improve things.

6) Airbnb

In December 2015, home-sharing platform Airbnb began to come under fire for racial profiling and discrimination taking place on its site. That month, Harvard researchers released a working paper, which indicated that travelers with "distinctively African-American names are 16% less likely to be accepted relative to identical guests with distinctively White names." That data was only compounded by reports on social media from travelers who experienced that discrimination first-hand, as well as a lawsuit over such actions.

In monitoring the social media dialogue, it seems like the issue isn't quite completely resolved. However, Airbnb isn't trying to dodge it, and is actually quite proactively addressing this (big) problem. It began with this email from CEO and co-founder Brian Chesky:

Chesky addresses the fault of Airbnb early in the message, acknowledging that the brand was far too slow to respond to the issue of discrimination, and apologized for it. Since then, the company has taken several actions to prevent and put an end to it on the platform, which it outlined in a 32-page report authored by Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. The report documented an audit conducted to evaluate where Airbnb was falling short on preventing discrimination, and the resulting measures that would be put in place. Since the report was released, the brand has very publicly campaigned on a platform of inclusion, capped with an ad that aired during the 2017 Super Bowl.

Of course, this series of events presents a much larger issue that isn't limited to Airbnb and does raise the question, "How much can a corporation really do?" And while that is far from an easy question to answer, Airbnb seems to be continuing to do its part, and acknowledging its role within this landscape.

So, Next Time You Mess Up...

...you know what to do.

Granted, admitting when you're wrong is still anything but a simple task. And figuring out how you're going to make it right isn't a process that can take place overnight. But one thing you can do immediately is to admit your mistake. Ask for feedback. Be transparent. And remember -- "I'm sorry" can go a long way.
How does your brand address mistakes? Let us know in the comments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Public Apology Letter: 6 Brands That Nailed It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are some people who just refuse to sincerely apologize. My favorite example of this phenomenon is taken from a U.S. television franchise called "The Real Housewives," in which the cast members have become notorious for doling out feigned apologies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a working list of major political apologies and related events. The selection criteria for compiling the list are somewhat loose, but the intent is to include any and all apologies that involve states, nations, or major political groups and actors, generally for significant public wrongs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When we needlessly apologize, we end up making ourselves small and diminish what we're trying to express, says sociologist Maja Jovanovic.

Think about all the times you use the word "sorry" in a typical day. There are the necessary "sorry"s - when you bump into someone, when you need to cancel plans with a friend. But what about the unnecessary "sorry"s? The "sorry, this may be an obvious idea" at a meeting, the "sorry to cause trouble" when rescheduling a haircut, the "sorry, there's a spill in the dairy aisle" at the supermarket.

Canadian sociologist Maja Jovanovic believes the "sorry"s we sprinkle through our days hurt us. They make us appear smaller and more timid than we really are, and they can undercut our confidence.

Jovanovic, who teaches at McMaster University and Mohawk College in Hamilton, Ontario, became interested in this topic when she attended a conference four years ago. The four women on a panel were, she says, "experts in their chosen fields. Among them, they had published hundreds of academic articles, dozens of books. All they had to do was introduce themselves. The first woman takes a microphone and she goes, 'I don't know what I could possibly add to this discussion' ... The second woman takes the microphone and says, 'Oh my gosh, I thought they sent the email to the wrong person. I'm just so humbled to be here.'" The third and fourth women did the same thing.

During the 25 panels at that week-long conference, recalls Jovanovic, "not once did I hear a man take that microphone and discount his accomplishments or minimize his experience. Yet every single time a woman took a microphone, an apologetic tone was sure to follow." She adds, "I found it enraging; I also found it heartbreaking."

Jovanovic found the outside world not so different: "Apologies have become our habitual way of communicating," she says. Since then, she's collected needless apologies from her colleagues and students. One stand-out? "My research assistant said 'Sorry' to the pizza delivery guy for his being late to her house," says Jovanovic. "She said, 'Oh my gosh, we live in a new subdevelopment. I'm so sorry. Did you have trouble finding this place?'"

We can eliminate the "sorry"s from our sentences - and still be considerate. "The next time you bump into someone," Jovanovic says, "you could say, 'Go ahead,' 'After you' or 'Pardon me.'" Similarly, during a meeting, Jovanovic says, "instead of saying, 'Sorry to interrupt you,' why not try 'How about,' 'I have an idea,' 'I'd like to add' or 'Why don't we try this?'" The idea is to be polite while not minimizing yourself.

The "sorry"s that fill our written interactions also need to be noticed - and banished. For emails, Jovanovic says, "There's a Google Chrome plug-in called 'just not sorry' that will alert you to all the needless apologies." With texts, she points out, "Every single one of us has responded to a text you got when you weren't able to respond right away. What did you say? 'Sorry.'" She says, "Don't apologize - say, 'I was working,' 'I was reading,' 'I was driving, 'I was trying to put on Spanx.' Whatever it is, it's all good. You don't have to apologize."
And, in some of the instances when we'd typically throw in a "sorry," we could just use the two magic words: "thank you."
Jovanovic tells of the moment when she realized the effectiveness of gratitude. She says, "Four of us were at a restaurant for a work meeting, and we're waiting for number five to arrive ... I put my sociological cap on, and I thought, 'What would he say? How many apologies will he give?' I could barely stand the anticipation. He arrives at the restaurant, and you know what he says? 'Hey, thanks for waiting.' ... The rest of us said, "Yeah, you're welcome," and we all just opened our menus and ordered. Life went on, and everything was fine."

Another time when "thank you" can work better than "sorry"? When you're with a friend and you realize you've been doing all the talking. Jovanovic says, "instead of saying, 'Sorry for complaining' or 'Sorry for venting,' you could just say, 'Thank you for listening,' 'Thank you for being there' or 'Thank you for being my friend.'"

Besides removing them from our own communications, we should tell other people when they're overdoing their "sorry"s, suggests Jovanovic.You can start with your family and friends - and if you'd like, go beyond them. She says, "I have been interrupting these apologies for three years now. I'll do it everywhere. I'll do it in the parking lot, I'll do it to total strangers at the grocery store, in line somewhere. One hundred percent of the time when I interrupt another woman and I say, 'Why did you just say 'sorry' for that?' she'll say to me, 'I don't know.'"

Watch her TEDxTrinityBellwoodsWomen talk here:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Daniella Balarezo is a Media Fellow at TEDx. She is also a writer and comedian based in NYC.
This post was originally published on TED Ideas. It's part of the "How to Be a Better Human" series, each of which contains a piece of helpful advice from someone in the TED community; browse through all the posts here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do you say "sorry" too much? Here's what to say instead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Think about all the times you use the word "sorry" in a typical day. There are the necessary "sorry"s - when you bump into someone, when you need to cancel plans with a friend. But what about the unnecessary "sorry"s?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
report this ad
Update, 09/05/21: Founder of 1880 Singapore, Marc Nicholson, has posted a full apology note on his LinkedIn page. You can find the apology here.
The question (allegedly) posed by private members' club 1880 Singapore as part of a pub quiz was: How long did Derek Chauvin have his knee on George Floyd's neck?

The background to this ill-timed question was, of course, in the wake of the case in America involving Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin who was found guilty for the murder of African-American, George Floyd. The incident, which was filmed extensively by passersby, saw Chauvin pinning George Floyd to the pavement with his knee for more than nine minutes, causing the accused to die of asphyxiation. Flloyd was arrested after being accused of trying to pass a counterfeit US$20 bill at a neighbourhood market.

It was a case that gripped a nation in protest of a police department perceived to be racially biased against African-American citizens. That an issue such as this somehow manages to find its way to the shores of Singapore is unsurprising, given how globalised and connected the citizenry is to events happening around the world.

But to have such racial insensitivity manifest itself at 1880 Singapore, founded by Marc Nicholson at 1 Nanson Road was something no one saw coming.

In an apology on Instagram, CEO, Jean Low, crafted a post where she 'apologised unreservedly to each and every one of you' and is 'very sorry that you had to experience this at all'.

She went on to say that 'this is not a reflection of our values' and that 1880 is 'about creating connections and inspiring conversations that helped us understand one another better, united by a shared willingness to end dogma'.

The apology ended with an assurance that 1880 will 'work hard to learn from this and commit to taking all necessary steps to re-establish your trust in us'.

Online commentators were not too quick or keen to forgive with many wondering how not one person in the organisation flagged the utter insensitivity of this question and why 1880 treated anti-African American trauma and violence as entertainment fodder. Others mentioned that the management should consider 'educating your staff and yourselves to not reduce someone's life to a fun drinking game'.

It has been two days since the Instagram apology by CEO Jean Low. 1880 Singapore has not promised any further follow-up actions arising from this unfortunate and insensitive faux pas.

We'll keep you posted if there are any updates to the situation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1880 Singapore apologises on IG for racially insensitive question asked in pub quiz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
report this ad Update, 09/05/21: Founder of 1880 Singapore, Marc Nicholson, has posted a full apology note on his LinkedIn page. You can find the apology here. The question (allegedly) posed by private members' club 1880 Singapore as part of a pub quiz was: How long did Derek Chauvin have his knee on George Floyd's neck?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has irked netizens in Singapore who have called him out for claiming that a "very dangerous" strain of the COVID-19 was prevalent in the city state, accusing him of "spreading misinformation" while seeking an apology and recommending a fact checking.

Kejriwal's tweet in which he said that the new strain of coronavirus found in Singapore could invade India in the form of a third wave has attracted angry reactions from Singaporeans on social media.

"The new form of coronavirus in Singapore is said to be very dangerous for children. It could reach Delhi in the form of a third wave. My appeal to the Central government: 1. Cancel all air services with Singapore with immediate effect 2. Work on vaccine alternatives for children on a priority basis," the Delhi chief minister said in a tweet in Hindi on Tuesday.

à¤¸à¤¿à¤ÂÂ‚à¤ÂÂ—à¤¾à¤ªà¥ÂÂà¤° à¤®à¥ÂÂ‡à¤ÂÂ‚ à¤ÂÂ†à¤¯à¤¾ à¤ÂÂ*à¥ÂÂ‹à¤°à¥ÂÂ‹à¤¨à¤¾ à¤ÂÂ*à¤¾ à¤¨à¤¯à¤¾ à¤°à¥ÂÂ‚à¤ª à¤¬à¤ÂÂšà¥ÂÂà¤ÂÂšà¥ÂÂ‹à¤ÂÂ‚ à¤ÂÂ*à¥ÂÂ‡ à¤²à¤¿à¤ÂÂ à¤¬à¥ÂÂ‡à¤¹à¤¦ à¤ÂÂ–à¤¼à¤¤à¤°à¤¨à¤¾à¤ÂÂ* à¤¬à¤¤à¤¾à¤¯à¤¾ à¤ÂÂœà¤¾ à¤°à¤¹à¤¾ à¤¹à¥ÂÂˆ, à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤ à¤®à¥ÂÂ‡à¤ÂÂ‚ à¤¯à¥ÂÂ‡ à¤¤à¥ÂÂ€à¤¸à¤°à¥ÂÂ€ à¤²à¤¹à¤° à¤ÂÂ*à¥ÂÂ‡ à¤°à¥ÂÂ‚à¤ª à¤®à¥ÂÂ‡à¤ÂÂ‚ à¤ÂÂ† à¤¸à¤ÂÂ*à¤¤à¤¾ à¤¹à¥ÂÂˆà¥¤

à¤ÂÂ*à¥ÂÂ‡à¤ÂÂ‚à¤¦à¥ÂÂà¤° à¤¸à¤°à¤ÂÂ*à¤¾à¤° à¤¸à¥ÂÂ‡ à¤®à¥ÂÂ‡à¤°à¥ÂÂ€ à¤ÂÂ...à¤ªà¥ÂÂ€à¤²:
1. à¤¸à¤¿à¤ÂÂ‚à¤ÂÂ—à¤¾à¤ªà¥ÂÂà¤° à¤ÂÂ*à¥ÂÂ‡ à¤¸à¤¾à¤¥ à¤¹à¤µà¤¾à¤ÂÂˆ à¤¸à¥ÂÂ‡à¤µà¤¾à¤ÂÂà¤ÂÂ‚ à¤¤à¤¤à¥ÂÂà¤ÂÂ*à¤¾à¤² à¤ªà¥ÂÂà¤°à¤à¤¾à¤µ à¤¸à¥ÂÂ‡ à¤°à¤¦à¥ÂÂà¤¦ à¤¹à¥ÂÂ‹à¤ÂÂ‚
2. à¤¬à¤ÂÂšà¥ÂÂà¤ÂÂšà¥ÂÂ‹à¤ÂÂ‚ à¤ÂÂ*à¥ÂÂ‡ à¤²à¤¿à¤ÂÂ à¤à¥ÂÂ€ à¤µà¥ÂÂˆà¤ÂÂ*à¥ÂÂà¤¸à¥ÂÂ€à¤¨ à¤ÂÂ*à¥ÂÂ‡ à¤µà¤¿à¤ÂÂ*à¤²à¥ÂÂà¤ªà¥ÂÂ‹à¤ÂÂ‚ à¤ªà¤° à¤ªà¥ÂÂà¤°à¤¾à¤¥à¤®à¤¿à¤ÂÂ*à¤¤à¤¾ à¤ÂÂ*à¥ÂÂ‡ à¤ÂÂ†à¤§à¤¾à¤° à¤ªà¤° à¤ÂÂ*à¤¾à¤® à¤¹à¥ÂÂ‹
- Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) May 18, 2021

Responding to Kejriwal's tweet, Singapore's health ministry on Tuesday night said: "There is no truth whatsoever in the assertions found within the reports".

"There is no Singapore variant. The strain that is prevalent in many of the COVID-19 cases in recent weeks is the B.1.617.2 variant, which originated in India. Phylogenetic testing has shown this B.1.617.2 variant to be associated with several clusters in Singapore," it said in a statement.

There is no truth in the assertion that there is a new COVID strain in Singapore. Phylogenetic testing has shown that the B.1.617.2 variant is the prevalent strain in many of the COVID cases, including in children, in recent weeks in Singapore. https://t.co/uz0mNPNxlE https://t.co/Vyj7gyyzvJ
- Singapore in India (@SGinIndia) May 18, 2021

Prominent Singapore blogger mrbrown wrote: "Hey, Delhi chief minister! The B1617 strain came from your country."

A Twitter user with the handle 'Antaraaneja' said that Singapore schools are closed because of the B.1.617.2 strain, "Perhaps fact checking and an apology are in order for spreading misinformation."

Singapore's Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan on Wednesday tweeted that "Politicians should stick to facts! There is no "Singapore variant"."

Politicians should stick to facts!
There is no "Singapore variant". https://t.co/SNJaF7wkwC https://t.co/pNgw4bkV4H
- Vivian Balakrishnan (@VivianBala) May 19, 2021

He also thanked External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar for clearing the air after Kejriwal tweeted.

"Thanks @DrSJaishankar let's focus on resolving the situation in our respective countries and helping one another. Nobody is safe until everyone is safe," he said in another tweet.

Earlier, the Singapore government on Wednesday conveyed to the Indian High Commissioner its strong objection to Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal's comments about a "Singapore variant" of COVID-19, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said in New Delhi.

MEA Spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said the Indian High Commissioner conveyed to the Singapore government that the Delhi chief minister has no competence to comment on COVID variants.

External Affairs Minister Jaishankar said the Delhi Chief Minister does not speak for India.

"Singapore Government called in our High Commissioner today to convey strong objection to Delhi CM's tweet on "Singapore variant". High Commissioner clarified that Delhi CM had no competence to pronounce on Covid variants or civil aviation policy," Bagchi tweeted.

Singapore Government called in our High Commissioner today to convey strong objection to Delhi CM's tweet on "Singapore variant". High Commissioner clarified that Delhi CM had no competence to pronounce on Covid variants or civil aviation policy.
- Arindam Bagchi (@MEAIndia) May 19, 2021

Meanwhile, Singapore has closed all schools from Wednesday and switched to home-based learning.

The authorities also decided to vaccinate students aged between 12-15 as the number of infections in schools has increased recently.

Singapore's health ministry further said that phylogenetic testing has shown this B.1.617.2 variant to be associated with several clusters in Singapore.

Two COVID-19 sub-variants from India have been detected among imported and community (local) cases in Singapore, including those who have been linked to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital and Changi Airport clusters, it said.

Singapore has stopped allowing entry for long-term pass holders and short-term pass holders with recent travel from India from April 24.

Atul Temurnikar, Chairman of the Global Indian International School, said that there are comprehensive COVID-19 measures in place in Singapore to protect young, school-going students and they have proven to be very effective.

School life is unaffected and exams are conducted normally. In fact, cases of infections among children are less than 20, all of which have been linked to adult sources outside of schools, he said.

"The situation in Singapore is normal, and not at all alarming as it is made out to be. There are strict control mechanisms in place which are adjusted on a regular basis to deal with the developing situation around us," he said in reaction to the reports in Indian media.

Earlier, India's Aviation Minister Hardeep Singh Puri replied to the Delhi CM's tweet, saying, "Kejriwal ji, all international flights have been stopped since March 2020. We have no air bubble with Singapore either."

Only a few flights are being operated between the two countries under Vande Bharat Mission to bring back Indians stuck there, he added.

"We are still keeping an eye on the situation. All precautions are being taken," Puri noted.

According to the Union Health Ministry data updated on Wednesday, India saw a record 4,529 fatalities due to coronavirus in a single day, pushing the COVID-19 death toll to 2,83,248, while 2,67,334 fresh infections were recorded, taking the total tally of cases to 2,54,96,330.

The active cases have further reduced to 32,26,719 comprising 12.66 per cent of the total infections, while the national COVID-19 recovery rate has improved to 86.23 per cent.

(With PTI inputs.)

For in-depth, objective and more importantly balanced journalism, Click here to subscribe to Outlook Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Netizens In Singapore Want Arvind Kejriwal To Apologise For 'Spreading Misinformation' About Covid-19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has irked netizens in Singapore who have called him out for claiming that a "very dangerous" strain of the COVID-19 was prevalent in the city state, accusing him of "spreading misinformation" while seeking an apology and recommending a fact checking.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.distractify.com/p/instant-influencer-apology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Kate Brierley

But 'Instant Influencer' is in trouble for the apology episode.

Yes, you read that right - it's possible to get in trouble for apologizing. James gets a lot of things right, according to his fans - one of which is owning up to his mistakes in the form of public video apologies.

Great, right? Yes! But now, in Season 1, Episode 3 of his current competition challenge, he's teaching contestants - along with fellow YouTubers - how to create apology videos of their own.

The episode is called "I have to apologize for this..." and it already has 12.7 million views and counting. And to many, this is coming off as insincere, as are any of the public apologies he has issued in the past using the techniques he introduces on the show.

He says apologies are part of influencer life.

James opens the episode by scolding the contestants for "what they did last week," without saying what it was, and saying that they owe him an apology. The group is confused and concerned, until James tells them he's just kidding.

From there, he segues into the episode's apology challenge.

"Take this from me because I've had to deal with this," James says in the episode. "As an influencer, when you grow a following, you will either say or do something that people might not like and might not agree with, and eventually, you might have to apologize."

Here are James' top tips for apologizing.

The advice James has for his contestants is to address the issue ASAP, ditch the makeup, and make sure that your expression is somber.

Not surprisingly, this is the technique he uses in his own apology videos. The most famous was an emotional eight-minute video to fellow beauty YouTuber Tati and her husband, James Westbrook, for his half of their ongoing drama.

Social media is going nuts on the subject.

As expected, there's the "how could he" camp and, in the opposing corner, the "chill out" gang. As they battle it out, the enraged group is really, really angry, pointing out how it highlights the disingenuous nature of James and other influencers in general.

On the other hand, some fans are calling the apology episode a smart move and loving the entertainment factor. They say it shows what a professional James is, and are loving the irony. Some fans aren't left feeling like it has any bearing on James' own apologies.

James is clapping back at the haters.

For one thing, James is more popular than ever due to this recent controversy. And of course he's loving it for that exact reason.

But he also addresses the challenge, group shaming, and accusations that his apologies were fake - even on serious subjects including bigotry and ebola, for which he's offered a mea culpa.

"This challenge was a lighthearted way to poke fun at cancel culture (hence the stupid scandals) and was in no way meant to invalidate actual bigotry," .

"I've had scandals that I have taken very seriously and addressed, such as the ebola joke, but I've also been involved with stupid 'scandals' due to cancel culture where I've had to laugh it off."

Feb. 8 2021, Updated 4:01 p.m. ET

Article continues below advertisement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beauty YouTuber James Charles Is in Trouble for Apologizing - Here's Why

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Kate Brierley Yes, you read that right - it's possible to get in trouble for apologizing. James gets a lot of things right, according to his fans - one of which is owning up to his mistakes in the form of public video apologies. Great, right? Yes!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Moments after the worst lost in his country's history, Brazil captain David Luiz did a TV interview on the field.

Luiz, who was filling in for suspended captain Thiago Silva, has been one of the stars of the World Cup.

After the 7-1 loss, he was distraught. He apologized to his country and said he just wanted to put smiles on people's faces ( via O Globo):

"I just wanted to give joy to the people who suffer so much. Unfortunately we could not, sorry everyone, all Brazilians. I just wanted to see people smiling. Everyone knows how important it was for me. I wanted to see everyone happy. [Germany] were better prepared. It is a day of great sadness and a lot of learning too."

This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Brazil to win a World Cup at home, and they just couldn't do it.

Brazil's coach Luiz Felipe Scolari was just as crushed:

Scolari: "If I were to think of my life ... I think it was the worst day of my life."
- Sam Borden (@SamBorden) July 8, 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brazil Player Makes A Crushing, Heartfelt Apology To His Country After 7-1 Loss

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Moments after the worst lost in his country's history, Brazil captain David Luiz did a TV interview on the field. Luiz, who was filling in for suspended captain Thiago Silva, has been one of the stars of the World Cup. After the 7-1 loss, he was distraught.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/world/africa/31libya.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Italy agreed to pay Libya $5 billion in compensation for its 32-year occupation of the country ending in 1943, the Libyan foreign minister said on Saturday.

The foreign minister, Abdal-Rahman Muhammad Shalgham, said the visiting Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was set to sign a memorandum pledging a $5 billion compensation package.

The deal includes construction projects, student grants and pensions for Libyans who served with the Italians during World War II.

"It is a material and emotional recognition of the mistakes that our country has done to yours during the colonial era," Mr. Berlusconi told reporters. "This agreement opens the path to further cooperation."

In return, Italy wants Libya to crack down on illegal migrants turning up on Italian shores and will finance $500 million worth of electronic monitoring devices on the Libyan coast, Mr. Berlusconi said.

The Italian leader said $200 million of the compensation package would be for infrastructure projects over the next 25 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Italy Agrees to $5 Billion Libya Reparations (Published 2008)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) - Italy agreed to pay Libya $5 billion in compensation for its 32-year occupation of the country ending in 1943, the Libyan foreign minister said on Saturday. The foreign minister, Abdal-Rahman Muhammad Shalgham, said the visiting Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was set to sign a memorandum pledging a $5 billion compensation package.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/07/25/sports/olympics/mbc-broadcaster-apology-olympics-opening-ceremony.amp.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The South Korean broadcaster MBC showed photographs associating pizza with Italy, Chernobyl with Ukraine and Count Dracula with Romania in its coverage of the opening ceremony.

When the contingent of Olympic athletes from Italy entered Tokyo's Olympic Stadium for the parade of nations, the broadcaster MBC aired a photo of a pizza.

For television broadcasters worldwide, the parade of nations during the opening of the Olympics can be an exercise in diplomacy and global awareness, with media outlets resorting to trivia nuggets, athlete profiles and geopolitical musings to fill airtime.

But one South Korean broadcaster has apologized for its choice of "inappropriate" images that appeared next to the names of several countries on Friday during its coverage of the opening ceremony.

The images drew criticism from viewers, who said they were offensive or had perpetuated stereotypes.

As the contingent of Olympic athletes from Italy entered Tokyo's Olympic Stadium for the parade of nations, the broadcaster, MBC, aired a photo of a pizza.

For Norway? A piece of salmon.

Then there was Ukraine, which the broadcaster reminded viewers was where the Chernobyl nuclear disaster happened in 1986, complete with a photo of the doomed power station.

A screengrab showing the contingent from Ukraine in the parade. The broadcaster, MBC, reminded viewers that was where the Chernobyl nuclear disaster happened in 1986.

"The images and captions are intended to make it easier for the viewers to understand the entering countries quickly during the opening ceremony," MBC said in a statement in English, published Saturday on Twitter. "However, we admit there was a lack of consideration for the countries concerned, and inspection was not thorough enough. It is an inexcusable mistake."

Raphael Rashid, a freelance journalist based in Seoul, drew attention to the images on Twitter.

"When Haitian athletes entered the stadium, an on-screen explanation said, 'the political situation is fogged by the assassination of the president,'" Mr. Rashid wrote. "When Syrian athletes entered, it said 'rich underground resources; a civil war that has been going on for 10 years.'"

MBC said it would investigate how the images it broadcast during the opening ceremony of the Olympics had been chosen and vetted.

For Romania, the broadcaster used an image of Count Dracula. And for the Marshall Islands, it noted that it had once been a nuclear test site for the United States.

When it was Malaysia's turn in the parade of nations, MBC showed a graphic with that country's coronavirus vaccination rate, along with its gross domestic product.

In its statement, MBC said that it would investigate the process of how the images, and the captions that accompanied them, had been chosen and vetted.

"Furthermore, we will fundamentally re-examine the production system of sports programs to avoid any similar accidents in the future," the broadcaster said.

The Korea Herald reported that this was not the first time that MBC had made a misstep during the Olympics.

In 2008, the news website said, the broadcaster was penalized by the Korea Communications Commission for disparaging countries participating in the Beijing Olympics with its captions. The broadcaster described Sudan as an unstable country with a long civil war and Zimbabwe as a country with deadly inflation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Broadcaster Apologizes for 'Inappropriate' Images Aired During Olympic Parade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The South Korean broadcaster MBC showed photographs associating pizza with Italy, Chernobyl with Ukraine and Count Dracula with Romania in its coverage of the opening ceremony. For television broadcasters worldwide, the parade of nations during the opening of the Olympics can be an exercise in diplomacy and global awareness, with media outlets resorting to trivia nuggets, athlete profiles and geopolitical musings to fill airtime.

# data[].attributes.body
https://daily.jstor.org/the-sorry-state-of-apologies/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In recent weeks, controversial statues and symbols across the United States that seem to glorify the white supremacist ideals of a Confederate past have been taken down by frustrated protesters and concerned institutions, ready for a change in the public conversation. In many ways, this has been a long time in coming, but some have looked on in disapproval, fretting that these quick actions point to a politically correct erasure or denial of the country's Civil War history, good or bad. This is despite the fact that in many cases, these statues do not have a long history at all and celebrate an outdated-or, in some cases, an overtly racist-viewpoint that obscures the stain of slavery from America's story.

As historian Robert R. Weyeneth observes, when it comes to longstanding historical injustices committed against an innocent people, perhaps taking down these symbols of oppression is not a suppression of history, but just one form of historical apology that a nation can make, one way the present can apologize for the past, on the road to reconciliation. "Societies now find themselves compelled to confront their past in its entirety," writes Weyeneth, "to ask new questions about it, and to rewrite the story 'all of us have learned since childhood.'"

Countries can take many steps that could act as apologies for historical wrongs-so is an official apology ever needed? Old statues can be taken down, new statues can be put up. Memorials, plaques, and holiday observances such as Juneteenth can dedicate space and attention for a nation to tell a more complete story of its past. Renaming the places and important geographical points we know can better reflect what really happened. For example, the Custer Battlefield National Monument in Montana acknowledged only the general who was defeated by the Sioux and Cheyenne in 1876, until its name was changed in 1991 to Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. Much-debated reparations and legal settlements can also help the healing process, writes political scientist Angelique M. Davis.

But when a nation is grappling with a painful history, what is necessary, and what is enough?

An apology may be mere words to many, but it is often the case that for those affected, egregious historical wrongs can't be made right without them.

What many don't realize is that a nation's leader just saying the words "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" can be even more powerful than toppling statues. According to Weyeneth, "When the Australian government offered a $41 million assistance package to make amends to the 'stolen generation' [Aboriginal children who had been forcibly removed from their families by government programs from 1905 into the 1970s], some Aborigines deemed the offer 'fundamentally flawed' because the government had refused to apologize as well." An apology may be mere words to many, but it is often the case that for those affected, egregious historical wrongs can't be made right without them.

There is a strange power in the words "I'm sorry." They seem simple, but they can carry far more complex, uncomfortably loaded meanings than we're often aware of.

For some, on a practical level, the very election of Barack Obama as president of the United States might have seemed symbolically more potent as a kind of apologetic act, better than any formally spoken apology could be-yet the effects of slavery and racial discrimination haven't gone away. In fact, as a presidential candidate, writes Davis, Obama publicly opposed both an official apology and reparations, saying, "I have said in the past-and I'll repeat again-that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed." Obama marked the 150th anniversary of Juneteenth in 2015 with powerful words, but none of them contained an official apology for slavery on behalf of the country.

Before Obama, Bill Clinton reportedly did not offer an official apology due to the objections of the white majority. Some may believe that official apologies for historical injustices are unnecessary or meaningless rhetoric, because, essentially, in the opinion of one citizen quoted by Weyeneth, "You're asking people who didn't do wrong to apologize to people who weren't the actual victims."

People often assume the apologizer has a sense of guilt and shame-an apology can be an act of humiliation, making it very hard for many people, not just political leaders, to say sorry and accept blame on behalf of past generations.

So what could saying sorry really do?

Linguist Robin Lakoff explains that apologies are basic to our social interaction, but they can take on different meanings. In our daily lives, they actually cover a range of functions, "from abject abasement for wrongdoing, to conventional greasing of the social wheels, to expressions of sympathy, advance mollification for intended bad behaviour, and formal public displays of currently 'appropriate feeling.'"

Linguists have found that for apologies to be recognized as valid by listeners, they must contain the right words associated with this "speech act," namely the simple expression "I'm sorry," which is used in the majority of cases, along with "I apologize."

The receivers may ultimately refuse to accept an insincere apology, which plays an important role in validating the many forms that apologies can take.

Speech acts are utterances that actually change something about the world, such as a leader declaring war or the police arresting someone "in the name of the law." True apologies are no different: They are intended to right a wrong, to heal something that is broken, to convey a sense of remorse. But unlike other speech acts, apologies aren't simply enacted with a word; they're also a social process of trust. The receivers may ultimately refuse to accept an insincere apology, which plays an important role in validating the many forms that apologies can take. This can be even more involved when it comes to official apologies, which can have a ceremonial aspect of performance to convey the gravity of the matter.

Perhaps the spectrum over which apologies range, from inconsequential politeness to deep remorse expressed formally, drives some members of the public to distrust official apologies as insincere or unnecessary, while others demand them to redress wrongs. When political leaders are attentive to public sentiment, and empathetic to public grief, the careful language of an official apology can be symbolically very powerful as a first step to dealing with a country's deep-seated wounds.

Australia established its first National Sorry Day in 1998, which helped sway public opinion to support an official apology from the Australian government for its policy of forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families. Then Prime Minister John Howard stubbornly refused to join millions of Australians in apologizing to the victims on behalf of the nation, believing that " present generations should not be held responsible for the actions of past generations." Two years later, the Howard government did pass a resolution expressing "its deep and sincere regret," yet a motion to use the simple word "sorry" was defeated. This shows how much meaningful, performative weight the mere words "sorry" or "apologize" can carry, compared to milder expressions like "regret."

It was not until a decade later, in 2008, that the next government, led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, officially apologized to the stolen generations and their families. In a close study of this historic speech, linguists Martha Augoustinos, Brianne Hastie, and Monique Wright show how a leader with a simple, unequivocal apology, using the right inclusive language, and accepting responsibility, can change how an entire country sees a once-disenfranchised group.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

[...]

For the pain, suffering, and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

By accepting institutional and collective guilt and blame, rather than stubbornly avoiding it, such a symbolic apology can actually reframe and reset a nation's history, allowing people to feel the collective emotions and empathy and respect for those who were once left out of the story. An honest, heartfelt apology on a national scale, seeking forgiveness from the victims of injustice, rather than dividing a population into "us" and "them," can actually be inclusive as the wronged are recast as fellow human beings, belonging to the same community, with the same national identity.

How is it that a mere apology can turn long-held assumptions upside down in a way that practical solutions, such as more social support or even financial assistance, simply can't do alone? Those one-dimensional symbols, such as statues and flags, can give way to richer, more complete stories that embrace empathy and respect. A sincere apology on a national scale can turn once-revered heroes, such as Confederate leaders, into villains, and once-despised outsiders, such as an enslaved people and their descendants, into human beings who have endured unimaginable injustices. It may be one small first step, but without a political leader addressing it head on as an official act, it is harder for a nation to be made whole and move onward.

Apologies that look and sound and speak clearly like true apologies do matter, when it matters to those who desperately need to hear them. For those people whose very humanity has been repeatedly denied in the telling of a nation's history, somehow those simple words "we are sorry" might help restore and heal, just as much as physically correcting problematic symbols and statues.
Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Sorry State of Apologies | JSTOR Daily

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent weeks, controversial statues and symbols across the United States that seem to glorify the white supremacist ideals of a Confederate past have been taken down by frustrated protesters and concerned institutions, ready for a change in the public conversation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong apologized on Monday that a dispute with his siblings over their late father Lee Kuan Yew's will has had an impact on citizens' confidence in the government.

The feud between the children of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first prime minister, over the future of the family home erupted publicly last week in a flurry of accusations and denials through press releases and Facebook postings, which also touched on Lee Hsien Loong's leadership.

The prime minister's brother, Lee Hsien Yang, and sister, Lee Wei Ling, said they had lost confidence in their older brother as a leader and feared that state power would be used against them in their dispute with him.

Prime Minister Lee denied the allegations made by his siblings, and said he would make a statement on the charges and answer questions when parliament sits on July 3.

"I deeply regret that this dispute has affected Singapore's reputation and Singaporeans' confidence in the government," the prime minister said in a statement and a video message posted on his Facebook page.

"These allegations go beyond private and personal matters, and extend to the conduct of my office and the integrity of the government," he said.

"They must be and will be dealt with openly and refuted."

The prime minister assured citizens that the dispute "will not distract me and my cabinet colleagues from our responsibility to govern Singapore, and to deal with more important national issues, including the pressing economic and security challenges we face".

Lee Hsien Yang, who said he and his wife would be leaving Singapore because they felt closely monitored and threatened, has no immediate comment.

Lee Wei Ling could not be immediately reached for comment.

In his last will, part of which was released by Lee Hsien Yang on Thursday, Lee Kuan Yew, who ruled Singapore for three decades, said he wanted his house, a humbly furnished home near the bustling Orchard shopping district, to be demolished.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
real estate development & operations (trbc)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore PM apologies for harm caused by family feud over house

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong apologized on Monday that a dispute with his siblings over their late father Lee Kuan Yew's will has had an impact on citizens' confidence in the government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Later on Saturday night, MOM also edited the May 17 Facebook post, indicating the retractions and adding a note to say the ministry had emailed Ms Rasif on May 5 "for further assessment of her MDW (migrant domestic worker)".
RASIF'S ACCOUNT AND MOM'S ORIGINAL RESPONSE

Ms Rasif, a former DJ and model, took to social media last week detailing how a maid that her family had employed from Indonesia was released from her stay-home notice after a few days.

Ms Rasif said she was told this was because the domestic worker had "recovered".

However, two weeks later, the maid was called up for a COVID-19 test, which turned out to be positive. She was then placed on stay-home notice again.

Ms Rasif said that the family was neither provided with information regarding the maid's status - including where she was taken to - nor told if family members had to quarantine themselves.

According to the 27-year-old, who now works in the healthcare line, she sent a text message to the ambulance service which had ferried the maid and was replied with an expletive.

She also said that when she contacted the courts to request a postponement of a court appearance, the police informed her that she was being investigated for breaching a quarantine order, despite not receiving such an order.

Responding to Ms Rasif in a Facebook post on May 17, MOM said her account was "inaccurate". It said that along with the Health Ministry, it had contacted the Indonesian national's employer on two occasions.

MOM gave an account of how the matter was handled, including why it decided to test the maid again.

MOM, RASIF DISCUSSED MAY 17 POST AND HOW CALL WAS HANDLED
It also said Ms Rasif could not have been investigated for breach of quarantine when she was never issued a quarantine order.

Ms Rasif then responded to MOM's May 17 post on her Facebook account, asking which part of her account was inaccurate, noting that the dates provided by the ministry did not tally with the actual events.

In a series of Instagram Stories on May 20, she shared text messages and phone calls with a "manager from MOM", including one where an unidentified person appeared to confirm that the ministry had not checked with the police about whether she was investigated for breaching quarantine.

In earlier posts on May 18, Ms Rasif also said she had spoken to officers from MOM who had "apologised and admitted that their press release was inaccurate, and made without sufficient research".

On Saturday night, MOM said on Facebook that its officers had spoken with Ms Rasif over the phone in the evening.

They discussed MOM's May 17 Facebook post, as well as the handling of a phone call on May 18, the ministry said.

It noted that the police had clarified the purpose of their calls to Ms Rasif and that she was not being investigated for any breach of quarantine orders.

"In addition, we will also retract a point which stated that MOM had reached out to her family on the complaint made against the ambulance driver," the ministry said.

"The matter is being followed up on, and we will continue to review, improve and tighten processes," it added.

On the matter of how MOM officers handled the phone call with Ms Rasif on May 18, the ministry said: "We acknowledged that our officers could have done better and been more tactful in addressing Ms Rasif's questions.

"We assured her that we will improve on this aspect of communicating with our customers."

The ministry added that Ms Rasif had provided feedback on several other matters, although it did not elaborate on what these were.

"We have noted them down and will get back to her with more details," it said.

"We will conduct an internal review of our communications and service delivery processes so that we can better serve citizens and provide greater clarity on their concerns," said MOM, thanking Ms Rasif for her "candid feedback".

"Thank you and I graciously accept," said Ms Rasif in a later Facebook post, responding to the apology by MOM.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MOM apologises to Jade Rasif for saying her account of maid with COVID-19 was 'inaccurate'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Later on Saturday night, MOM also edited the May 17 Facebook post, indicating the retractions and adding a note to say the ministry had emailed Ms Rasif on May 5 "for further assessment of her MDW (migrant domestic worker)".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - A TikTok video showing national bowler Shayna Ng holding an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) has led to the 32-year-old issuing an apology, though the athlete has clarified she had not been vaping and that the device was not hers.

The Straits Times understands that the short video, which was sent via e-mail by a reader and viewed by ST, was on Saturday (July 31) posted on a TikTok account that was not Ng's. It has since been taken down.

Please subscribe or log in to continue reading the full article.

Latest headlines and exclusive stories

In-depth analyses and award-winning multimedia content

Get access to all with our no-contract promotional package at only $0.99/month for the first 3 months*

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S'pore national bowler Shayna Ng sorry for TikTok video that shows her holding e-cigarette

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - A TikTok video showing national bowler Shayna Ng holding an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) has led to the 32-year-old issuing an apology, though the athlete has clarified she had not been vaping and that the device was not hers.

# data[].attributes.body
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/christian-influencer-joanna-theng-apologises-for-homophobic-video-before-withdrawing-from-social-media-073534974.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - Influencer and former actress Joanna Theng apologised yesterday (25 July) for a Christian video that linked gay people to Satan, before withdrawing from social media.

Theng, 22, had received a lot of flak from netizens after appearing in a video talk posted on Instagram by Christian group City Revival on Wednesday (22 July). In the video, Theng and City Revival director Jaime Wong said the "gay movement" was a result of Satan's plan to insult and show contempt for God.

The pair associated the six colours in the LGBTQ pride flag with the "mark of the beast" in the Bible's book of Revelation, saying that gay pride was a sign of the devil's influence on Earth.

Wong posted an apology on Instagram on Saturday, and removed the video that had been the subject of much online criticism.

Theng posted an apology in the form of an Instagram Story before apparently deactivating her Instagram account and making her TikTok account private.

Theng had over 46,000 followers on Instagram and has almost 140,000 followers on TikTok.

In her statement, Theng said, "Before I go, I would like to publicly say that all I've said in City Revival's video was never out of the intention of my heart to hurt anyone, but I understand how some of the parts had played out and were received... I am sorry that the way it was shared caused so much hurt. I sincerely apologise for that."

This is Theng's full statement:

She has been criticised, however, for what some called an insincere apology.

In a Reddit thread discussing Theng's statement, one netizen said, "I think even if you disregard the religious aspect, this is simply a non-apology. In brief, it essentially says: 'I'm sorry you perceived my message wrongly. I stand by the essence of my message, and will find a way to better phrase it in the future.'"

Another netizen said, "She claimed that she never intended to hurt anyone. I find that very hard to believe, words hurt. And from her phrasing and tone, she was definitely there to heavily condemn. This wasn't an outreach of love, it was there to attack and punch down on the already oppressed group in Singapore."

Wong, City Revival's director, told Yahoo Lifestyle SEA that neither she nor Theng would make further comments beyond their apology statements.

Pauline Ong, a pastor at Free Community Church, the only officially LGBTQ-affirming church in Singapore, shared with Yahoo Lifestyle SEA: "We feel it is important to say this is not how most Christians would understand or interpret this text (the Bible's Book of Revelation). We may each have our interpretation but I think the litmus test is this: if our interpretation oppresses others, if it doesn't give life, then we need to rethink our interpretation. Such interpretations demonise and dehumanise others, and often leads to the justification of violence against them - this is not the gospel, this is not love."

Pink Dot said in a statement on Saturday night, "The broad generalisations cast on LGBTQ+ Pride in this video made outdated allusions to the concepts of 'sin' and 'Satan'. We celebrate pride because it provides a safe space for people to be their authentic selves. It is about people coming together to celebrate love and friendship, and also remember how far progress on equality has come, and how much more work should be done. More importantly, it is about being proud of who we are, regardless of who we love.

"The rainbow in the Pride flag is not about the numbers of colours it has, but it is about representing the many diverse segments in the LGBTQ+ community. Even till this day, the Pride flag is constantly evolving to be more inclusive and diverse as more and more of us in our respective communities begin to find our voices and place in society.

"We hope that everyone can respect and recognise the lived experiences of LGBTQ individuals who have faced discrimination, violence and pain in their lives."

Activists have said LGBTQ people in Singapore suffer persistent discrimination and stigma. Sex between men is illegal under Section 377A of the Penal Code. The authorities have said the law is not actively enforced but is still in place to reflect the moral views of the conservative majority.

Local broadcaster Mediacorp recently apologised for homophobic tropes in a TV drama following a backlash from viewers and the LGBTQ community.

Several legal challenges against 377A have been heard in the courts over the years. Three such cases were dismissed by the High Court in March this year.
Related stories: Christian group in Singapore apologises, takes down video calling gay people agents of Satan Mediacorp apologises for TV drama containing negative gay stereotypes COMMENT: Dear Mediacorp, here's a crash course in equal media representation Singapore's LGBTQ voters call on election candidates to end silence on queer issues Singapore court dismisses 3 constitutional challenges to Section 377A

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Christian influencer Joanna Theng apologises for homophobic video before withdrawing from social media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - Influencer and former actress Joanna Theng apologised yesterday (25 July) for a Christian video that linked gay people to Satan, before withdrawing from social media. Theng, 22, had received a lot of flak from netizens after appearing in a video talk posted on Instagram by Christian group City Revival on Wednesday (22 July).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The two most powerful words to come out of a CEO's mouth can also be the most humbling: "I'm sorry."

When done well, corporate apologies can fix a PR disaster and turn around ill will towards a company. However, when done poorly, apologies can add to the problem and seem disingenuous and insincere.

Here are 10 examples of the most powerful corporate apologies. These examples show that an open, heartfelt apology can make all the difference.
KFC Adds Humor to a Missing Chicken Situation
When KFC ran out of its most important ingredient-chicken-and had to temporarily shut down its 900 restaurants in the UK, angry customers took to social media. KFC took a risk by adding humor to its apology in a masterful and self-deprecating way. It took out a full-page ad in London newspapers that simply showed its signature chicken bucket with a re-worked logo: "FCK." Paired with a brief explanation of the problem and a vow that it wouldn't happen again, KFC saved its brand-and its chicken.
PwC Keeps it Short After Oscars Fiasco
It was the mistake seen around the world: the wrong movie was announced as the Best Picture winner at the 2017 Oscars. Responsible for the mistake was PwC, which was tasked with counting the votes. Instead of making excuses, PwC owned its mistake and offered a short and clear apology. The statement briefly explained what happened, apologized to the people involved and was gracious in thanking the people who handled the situation. Instead of drawing out an embarrassing situation, PwC took ownership, apologized and moved on.
O.B. Tampons Creates 10,000 Personalized Apology Videos
Perhaps one of the best ways to apologize is to sing it. In 2010, a line of O.B. tampons was abruptly taken off the shelves after supply issues, and customers were furious. O.B.'s parent company, Johnson & Johnson, sent a personalized apology song to all 65,000-plus women in the company's database with their name in the song. In all, the company made videos for 10,000 different names. Customers could easily share the video on social media, which helped O.B. turn a potential PR disaster into a social media win.
Apple Uses Social Media to Apologize to Taylor Swift
Anyone who's heard any of her songs knows it's not a good idea to get on Taylor Swift's bad side. The singer boycotted Apple Music after the service offered three free months to customers without paying artists. Swift posted her news on Tumblr, so Apple responded on Twitter with an apology and a statement that it would change the policy and pay artists. Apple's apology stood out because it was directly to one person on a platform everyone could see.
Airbnb's Diversity Apology Takes Action
Airbnb was accused of racial profiling and discrimination in December 2015, with a Harvard paper and social media frenzy to back up the claims. Instead of running away, Airbnb proactively addressed the issue with an email from the CEO to all members. The company took a stronger stance against discrimination with a new policy and followed it up with an audit and inclusion campaign.
JetBlue CEO Offers Raw Video Apology and Promises to Change
One of the worst aviation PR disasters came when JetBlue passengers were stranded on the tarmac for 11 hours with limited updates. After the fiasco, JetBlue's CEO shared a raw video with his apology. He also made detailed promises about how the company would prevent similar issues from happening in the future and re-committed to the company's reputation of strong customer service with the JetBlue Customer Bill of Rights.
Netflix Recognizes Not All Ideas are Good
Back when DVDs were still an important part of Netflix's business, the company broke into two categories with separate pricing and billing-one for streaming and one for billing. The change meant a price increase that customers weren't happy about. The CEO was open and honest about the mistake and admitted he had messed up. His open letter to customers did the trick, and people appreciated that he owned the mistake.
Sony Helps Remedy Data Breach
In 2011, Sony was the victim of one of the largest data breaches in history when the personal information of 77 million PlayStation users was leaked. The CEO apologized personally and acknowledged the frustration the breach had caused. Even better, customers were given a free month of PlayStation Plus and identity theft insurance to remedy the situation.
Toyota Makes Personal Apology Visible
Toyota's biggest nightmare happened in 2010, when more than 8 million cars were recalled and nearly 90 people were killed because of accidents caused by the defects. The CEO offered personal condolences to the families and emotionally apologized to all customers. To make sure everyone got the message, Toyota created an ad campaign admitting it hadn't lived up to its safety standards and took out ads in major newspapers about how it would fix the safety issues.
Domino's Responds to Prank Video with Apology Video
Companies learned the danger of social media in 2009 when a video of Domino's employees putting cheese up their nose and farting on the salami they used on a customer's pizza went viral. In a respond to the prank video, Domino's CEO responded with a heartfelt apology video of his own. His video put a face to the company and outlined the company's cleanliness standards.

Every situation and apology is different, but these examples show that an honest and timely response can turn a situation around. When it comes to apologizing, taking ownership and fixing the problem goes a long way.
Blake Morgan is a keynote speaker, futurist and author of "More Is More." Sign up for her weekly customer experience newsletter here.
... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Powerful Examples Of Corporate Apologies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Corporate apologies can fix a PR disaster and turn around ill will towards a company. However, when done poorly, apologies can add to the problem and seem disingenuous and insincere. Here are 10 examples of the most powerful corporate apologies showing a heartfelt apology can make the difference.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'm sorry are the two most healing words in the English language. When spoken as part of a wholehearted apology, these words are the greatest gift we can give to the person we've offended. Our apology can help free the hurt person from life-draining anger, bitterness, and pain. It validates their reality by affirming that, yes, their feelings make sense, we get it, and we take full responsibility for our words and actions-or our failure to speak or act. A heartfelt apology allows the hurt party the space to explore the possibilities of healing instead of just struggling to make sense of it all.

The apology is also a gift to our self. Our self-respect and level of maturity rest squarely on our ability to see ourselves objectively, to take a clear-eyed look at the ways that our behavior affects others, and to acknowledge when we've acted at another person's expense. The good apology earns us respect in the eyes of others, even though we may fear the opposite.

Finally, the good apology is a gift to the relationship. Two people can feel secure in the knowledge that if they behave badly, even fight terribly, they can repair the disconnection. We strengthen our relationships when others know that we're capable of reflecting on our behavior, that we'll listen to their feelings, and that we'll do our best to set things right.

In contrast to the profoundly healing power of the good apology, there's the terrific cost of a failed apology. One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons shows a father talking to his grown son. "I wanted to be there for you growing up, I really did," the dad says. "But I got a foot cramp. And then a thing came up at the store-anyway, you understand." While the humor of the cartoon rests on its absurdity, real-life apologies are good contenders, and have been flooding the news as women come forth in record numbers to speak about the sexual misconduct of powerful men. The empty, obfuscating, and self-serving public apologies of the transgressors provide us with excellent examples of how to muck up a sorry.
THE PUBLIC APOLOGY AS PERFORMANCE
From the long and ever-expanding list of recent faux apologies, I recall the early ones from the entertainment industry best. Kevin Spacey, accused by actor Anthony Rapp of making a sexual advance when Rapp was 14, said he had no memory of the incident, then continued, "But if I did behave then as he describes, I owe him the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior." Dustin Hoffman, accused of sexual harassment from a former intern, said, "I have the utmost respect for women and I feel terrible for anything I might have done that could have put her in an uncomfortable situation. I am sorry. It is not reflective of who I am." Harvey Weinstein, insisting that even the most brutal of his violations were, in his mind, consensual, stated, "I so respect all women and regret what happened."

One doesn't need to be an apology expert to recognize when "I'm sorry" means not sorry at all. These slippery, sleazy, dishonest, gaslighting apologies are devoid of accountability. But even if the men making apology headlines had said the right words, it would hardly suffice. Public apologies that follow the harmed parties coming forth with the terrible facts are, well, performances. At the time of the public apology, the wrongdoer wants to save his own skin-a perfectly normal human impulse. But the person the wrongdoer feels genuinely sorry for is himself.

The public apologies making headlines differ from private ones in another respect. They're not intended to heal a relationship, mend fences, or rebuild trust. There's no relationship to repair. The foundation on which a mutually respectful connection might have been built was irreparably shattered long ago. Rather than offering mea culpas with endless qualifications and undoings, a truly meaningful reparation from these powerful men might include contributing a hefty proportion of their net worth to organizations and programs that will protect women from future sexual harassment and ensure safe work environments.

"Was his apology sincere?" is the question I've been frequently asked by the media, as one public apology for sexual misconduct follows another. As someone who has researched the subject of apologies over many years, my short answer is no. It's unrealistic to expect authentic expressions of empathy and remorse at the moment when the offending persons are at risk of having their life accomplishments, reputations, as well as their identities reduced to the worst things they've ever done. We can apologize for what we do, but not for who we are. Perhaps in the future, some of the wrongdoers will be able to comprehend the harm they've done, carry some of the pain, and take the opportunity to redeem themselves. At this cultural moment, however, I'm surprised by only one thing. Why, I ask myself, didn't these men get coached by someone who would at least have put the right words in their mouth?

While the offenders making headlines must be held accountable, sexual misconduct is not an individual problem to be solved by individual solutions. What we glibly call "sexual harassment" (a very large umbrella, under which all offenses should not be leveled as one) is a systemic problem from the Oval Office down to the deepest interior of family life. Despite the gains of feminism, all major institutions that generate power, meaning, policy, and wealth are run almost exclusively by men. Until women are fully represented and valued in every aspect of language, politics, and culture, men will always have too much to be sorry for.

We're All Apology Challenged

Decoding the faux apologies of public figures is easier than getting our own apologies right. We're wired for defensiveness and to protect our favored image of ourselves. Every one of us has certain relationships and particular circumstances in which we're apology challenged. None of us is immune from slipping into vague, obfuscating language that obscures what we're sorry for.

In moving from public apologies to private ones, I'd like to share two stories. The first describes my own failure to apologize to a dear friend whom I'd offended at her book-launch party. Although it was only a simple heartfelt apology that was due afterward, I found it wasn't quite so simple for me to offer one. But sometimes the failure to apologize for even a small thing can put a crack in the very foundation of a relationship when the other person doesn't get the validation she needs and deserves.

The second story is from my clinical work with a mother whose adult daughter had been sexually abused by her father many years earlier. It will illustrate an apology process that was a long-distance run, and that required an effort so heroic that the very word apology seems far too glib.
THE PARTY: GETTING PAST MY NEED TO BE RIGHT
Sheila, a close friend of many decades, had invited me to her book-launch party in New York. It was scheduled at a difficult time for me to leave Kansas and the plane tickets were expensive. Still, I wanted to be there for her. I've learned how important it is to show up for rituals, and the launching of Sheila's first book was a huge event for her.

I arrived at the party to find I knew only one other person besides Sheila, a woman named Blanche, who was the senior editor of a magazine where I'd been a columnist for many years. I'm not comfortable talking to people I don't know, and to avoid that experience I ended up sitting in a corner with Blanche for almost two hours, lost in a conversation, and oblivious to the passage of time. Neither of us noticed when the guests began to gather in a different room to offer toasts, so we joined the group midway through the ritual.

When Sheila called me the evening after I returned home, I assumed she was going to thank me for making the trip, but instead she told me I'd behaved incomprehensibly (or was the word reprehensibly?) at her party. She went on to share how hurt (and furious) she was. How could I have sat with one person for almost the entire party, making no effort to circulate and meet her friends? And how could I have been so self-absorbed that I missed half of the ritual taking place in the other room? I had disappointed her friends and embarrassed her.

I felt blindsided. I had no idea there had been a problem at all. I'd made an expensive trip at an inconvenient time to be at the party, and now I was being told that I'd ruined it. Her criticisms seemed exaggerated and unfair, so I responded in defensive mode, with an I'm sorry, but.

"I'm sorry," I said, "but why in the world didn't you pull me away from Blanche early on and let me know what you wanted?"

"That's not my responsibility," Sheila fired back at me.

"I'm not saying it's your responsibility," I answered. "I'm just saying that, of course, I would have circulated if you'd asked me to. A tap on the shoulder would have done it."

"It's not my job to supervise you or tell you how to behave." Sheila was even angrier than before. I'd obviously thrown fuel on the fire.

I was really upset. Why couldn't Sheila see that we'd both participated in the problem? It would've been the easiest thing in the world for her to tell me she'd like to introduce me to some of her friends. And, of course, I would've wanted to be present at the beginning of the toasts if I'd known they were starting. Instead of doing the mature thing, Sheila had stayed silently seething for much of the party, as if she were the helpless victim of my gross insensitivity, for which she then blamed me. The fact that I'd come to New York at considerable trouble and expense grated-but the fact that she couldn't see her part grated more. I ended the conversation with another classic faux apology: "I'm really sorry you were so upset by my talking so long to Blanche." Apologizing for the other person's feelings rather than apologizing for our own behavior is often worse than no apology at all. It only deepens the original injury, but I did it anyway.
Dialing Down My Defensiveness
Over the next couple of days, away from the heat of anger, I took stock of my defensiveness. Sheila had gathered the courage to confront me about my behavior. She wanted me to hear her criticisms, which was not the time for me to criticize her back. She'd made herself vulnerable by sharing her anger and deep hurt. Whether I saw these feelings as completely valid was irrelevant. They were her feelings.

I often feel a great need to get my close friends to see how they should have handled a situation differently, whether with me or someone else. I recognize this as a problem of mine-the downside of my clarity about relationship patterns. Sheila has many wonderful qualities, but one she doesn't have is the ability to see her part in the interactions that bring her pain. My response on the phone could only have felt to her like I was trying to reverse the blame, which I was. At the very least, I wanted her to share it.

I called Sheila a few days later and offered a genuine apology. I told her I was sorry for my insensitive behavior, and especially at such an important occasion. I said I'd given her words much thought and that there was no excuse for sitting in the corner with one person for so long-a decidedly thoughtless act. I meant it all. It was her book party, her very big night. I had screwed up.

Yes, I secretly wished she could've said, "Well, Harriet, it's also true that I should've said something, so I share at least a teensy bit of the responsibility." But I let this hope go. A true apology focuses exclusively on the hurt feelings of the other person, and not on what we'd like to get for ourselves, like forgiveness, or in my case, Sheila's recognition of her part in the bigger picture.

A wholehearted apology means valuing the relationship, and accepting responsibility for our part without a hint of evasion, excuse-making, or blaming. Sometimes the process is less about insisting on justice and more about investing in the relationship and the other person's happiness. It's about accepting the people you love as they are, as I eventually did with Sheila, and having the maturity to apologize for our part, even when the other person's feelings seem exaggerated, or they can't see their own contribution to the problem.
MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS: A HEROIC APOLOGY
In our clinical work and personal lives, we're faced with the challenge of apologies that begin with "I'm sorry" but don't end there. An apology that opens the door to forgiveness and healing for serious harm like neglect or a sexual violation is a long-distance run that requires courage, clarity, and integrity. The story of Letty's apology to her 24-year-old daughter, Kim, illustrates the most stunning apology process I've ever witnessed in my clinical practice.

The First Step

I'd been Letty's therapist for some time when I suggested that she invite Kim to join us for a session. Kim had been avoiding her, and something was obviously wrong. But when Letty inquired, Kim snapped, "I don't want to talk about it."

The backdrop is this: when Kim was 12, her father had entered her bedroom one night when he thought she was sleeping and molested her. Letty was out of town moving her own mother into an assisted living place, and didn't know for several months that this had happened. When the facts came out in the open, Letty responded appropriately by getting the whole family into treatment. They were fortunate to see an excellent therapist who was helpful to them.

Letty considered the issue resolved, but trauma is never fully resolved, certainly not as if it had never occurred in the first place. Kim's father, whom Letty had eventually divorced, had recently died of a heart attack, and I suspected his death had stirred everything up for Kim again, including her enormous rage.

Kim first refused Letty's invitation to join us, but a few months later, she agreed to come just once. When I asked Kim how she'd been doing since her father's death, she launched into a terrible attack on Letty. Although I'm trained to be a calm presence in an intense emotional field, my own anxiety rose in response to the raw rage that Kim directed not at her deceased father, but instead toward her mother. It felt as if Kim blamed Letty for her father's behavior, and was locating the betrayal in the family between mother and daughter.

I was about to intervene when Letty rose from her chair and pulled it closer to Kim's. I thought she was going to yell back at her daughter something like "How dare you say this to me! How can you blame me for what your father did? How could I have known?"

Instead, Letty turned to her daughter in the most fully present way and said, "I'm so sorry, Kim. I'm so sorry I didn't know. I'm so sorry I didn't protect you. I'm so sorry that this terrible thing happened in our family. I'm so sorry that you didn't feel safe enough to tell me the truth." Then Letty started to cry. Kim put her arms around her mother, and they cried together.

I don't know how Letty was able to be there for her daughter in such a remarkably open and nondefensive way. Letty didn't say she was sorry because she believed the abuse had been her fault or because she thought that she'd been a bad mother. But now, in the face of being totally blasted, she moved into a place of pure listening and offered her love.

Letty's tears didn't silence her daughter's anger or make her own pain the focus of the conversation. Nor was Letty inviting Kim to comfort or protect her. Her apology for being part of this wrenching history was heartfelt and deeply healing for her and her daughter.

Letty's apology was especially healing because it didn't include any add-ons. She didn't say, "I'm sorry, but you need to keep in mind I didn't know it was happening." Or "I'm sorry, but your dad was a weak man, and I don't think he could help himself." Or "I'm sorry, but this happened a long time ago, and I wish we could put this behind us and move on." She didn't even say, "I'm sorry and I hope you'll forgive me." Of course, Letty hoped Kim would forgive her. But a true apology doesn't ask the other person to do anything-not even to forgive.

Continuing the Conversation

Letty deserved a badge of honor for the pure apology that she offered Kim, and when I saw her the following week, she understandably wished that it would've put closure on the pain of the past. We all might wish that even the most emotionally painful issues could be resolved in one conversation, but it doesn't work that way.

I learned in a subsequent therapy session that there had been no conversation about the sexual abuse after the family therapy had terminated, when Kim was 13. Letty's silence over all those years reflected her loving intention to protect her daughter from revisiting painful emotions. But in her desire to avoid being intrusive, or making things worse, she unwittingly left her daughter feeling unutterably alone with the worst thing that had ever happened to her. When people suffer, as Kim did, they often do so twice: first because they've lived through something painful, and second because a key person in their lives doesn't want to hear about it, or doesn't want to hear all of it.

A few sessions later, Letty told me about a Saturday night movie-and-dinner date that she'd initiated with Kim a week following the funeral service for her father. Letty chose the film they saw together, not knowing that it contained a scene in which a teenage girl was raped by a hired hand. When the two women grabbed a bite to eat afterward and did their usual post mortem of the movie, neither mentioned the sexual violence.

"Did the rape scene in the movie remind you of what had happened to Kim in your family?" I inquired.

"Of course it went through my mind," Letty replied. "And I'm sure Kim thought of it, too. How could she not? She was in a foul mood when we left the theater, and my choice of the movie probably contributed to it."

"Did you consider saying something about it?" I asked. It was, after all, on both of their minds.

"No," said Letty. "My plan was to have a fun evening, and it was my mistake to pick this movie. I wasn't going to make things worse by bringing up the sexual abuse. It's Kim's place to mention it, if she wants to talk about it."

The rape scene in the movie was an obvious trigger for both of them, and given the prominence of sexual abuse in media, it was undoubtedly one of countless reminders of what happened to Kim. What made it stand out more intensely was that it was the first trigger that followed the death of Kim's dad, and that preceded Kim's distancing from Letty.

What if Letty had done something different after leaving the movie? Imagine that Letty had turned to Kim and, with the same open-heartedness that she showed in her apology, said something like this:
Kim, I'm so sorry that I chose this movie for us, because I wanted this to be a fun time for us. I don't want to make the evening heavy, so I'm hesitant to say anything at all. I just want you to know that as I watched that rape scene, I could only think of what your dad did to you, and it was painful to watch. I want you to know that I love you, and you're not alone with the pain of what happened.
How might Kim have responded? Surely anxiety would have risen like steam. Kim would likely have said something curt like "I don't want to talk about it." Or "Forget it. Don't worry about it." Nor is late Saturday night the best time to discuss a heavy issue that hasn't been mentioned since she was 12 years old. It wouldn't be easy to continue this conversation in even the most optimal of circumstances.

But what about Kim's long-term response? I imagine as her mother's words settled in over time, Kim might have felt something akin to a sense of gratitude that her mother had reached out to her in this way.

Where from Here?

When I asked Letty to consider where the conversation might go following her powerful apology to Kim in the earlier therapy session, she gave the predictable response. "I'll wait to see if Kim brings anything up," she said. "I want to follow her lead on this." With the best of intentions, we almost always leave it to the hurt party to reopen the conversation about a painful or traumatic past event. But it shouldn't just be the hurt party's job. It becomes their job because they're so often left with it.

As we talked more, Letty began to recognize that it was important to say something to Kim that acknowledged the importance of what had happened in the therapy session she'd joined us for. Total silence was a form of distancing, and at the very least, it amounted to a lost opportunity.

So after Letty left my office she steeled herself, took some deep breaths, and made herself call Kim. She thanked Kim for coming to the therapy session, and added, "I've been thinking about how I never asked you any questions over all those years about how you were doing with the sexual abuse, how it was affecting you growing up, and what kind of leftover anxiety or anger you still feel. It really hit me during the movie we saw after Dad died, but I couldn't bring myself to say anything at dinner."

"It doesn't matter." Kim said flatly. "I didn't want to talk about it."

"It matters to me. I want to have a relationship with you where we can talk about what's important."

"I don't see the point." Kim said.

"I hope we can talk later," Letty said.

No one wants to be intrusive or dredge up the past when the other person wants to put it to rest. The past, however, was already dredged up. I encouraged Letty to take the initiative to keep the conversation going, using her own good sense of timing and intuition. The challenge was to keep the lines of communication open to allow for conversation as it might arise over time, without getting overfocused on the sexual abuse, or trying to do too much too fast.

One Thing Leads to Another

It was a bit of a tightrope walk, but Letty did her best to maintain her balance. She didn't pressure Kim to talk, but neither did she return to her previous silence. Letty found ways to test the waters. She began by asking Kim a few factual (rather than emotionally loaded) questions when the opportunity arose, like "Does your best friend Linda know about the sexual abuse? How did Linda respond? Is there anyone else that you trusted enough to tell?"

Letty also returned to her own contribution to the painful history, the part she now looked back on with sincere regret. She said, "Kim, since your Dad died, I've been thinking about the fact that I never asked you one question about the sexual abuse after we stopped the family therapy. Even when it was on my mind, I didn't talk to you about it. I didn't bring it up because I thought if you weren't bringing it up, I shouldn't bring it up. That was a mistake. I left you alone with it. I'm so sorry."

"You don't need to apologize again," said Kim. "Enough already."

"Okay, I won't apologize again. I just want you to know that when and if you feel ready to talk, I'm here to listen."

Because one thing leads to another, a couple of painful conversations took place several months later that left Letty feeling temporarily flattened and misunderstood. Most excruciating for Letty was when Kim confronted her about her marriage.

"So you stayed with Dad after knowing what he did to me," Kim said angrily one afternoon at lunch. "And you divorced him when I was 17 because he had an affair. So his affair was a bigger deal to you than his molesting your daughter? Is that fucked up or what?"

Letty felt unable to speak, like the words were knocked out of her mouth. "It was like you never gave the abuse a second thought," Kim rushed on. "It's like you and Dad just put it behind you. I couldn't put it behind me. It happened to me."

This conversation would never have occurred if Letty hadn't opened the lines of communication. And who among us wouldn't prefer to avoid further accusations-which is why we so often don't take the conversation far enough to evoke the possibility of being slammed. Without the confidence to know that we can handle whatever comes next, and enough self-esteem to avoid collapsing into shame, it's unlikely that we'll deepen the conversation.

But Letty hung in even when she was suffering. She talked honestly with her daughter, explaining that her outrage about the affair, and her refusal to go to couples therapy before filing for divorce, was related to the sexual abuse. The affair precipitated the divorce, Letty said, because it reactivated her rage about the harm he did to Kim. She told Kim that she never put the abuse behind her, not for a day. She revealed that she and Kim's father had never resumed sexual relations after she discovered the abuse, and that thoughts of leaving the marriage were always with her.

Letty told Kim that she didn't want to make excuses for her choices, and that she couldn't fully explain or justify her decisions, not even to herself. She could only tell Kim with 100 percent conviction that she would never, not for one second, compare a marital infidelity to the sexual violation that Kim experienced as a child.

"There are no words to tell you how sorry I am that I left you alone with what happened," Letty said. "I wish I could go back in time and do it differently. Is there any way that I can make it up to you?"

"You can't make it up to me," Kim said. Then she softened and added, "But at least I have my mother back."

- - - - -

No list of dos and don'ts can capture the quality of a good apology, but it helps to keep the basic ingredients in mind. The good apology requires that we take clear and direct responsibility for what we've said or done (or failed to say or do) without any ifs, ands, or buts, and without bringing up the other person's crime sheet. It includes a sincere expression of empathy and remorse, a commitment to ensuring that there's no repeat performance, and (when necessary) a reparation or corrective action that fits the harm done.

Of course, it matters what you're apologizing for. It's one thing to forget to return your friend's Tupperware and another to betray a deep confidence, in which case the good apology may also require us to sit on the hot seat and listen with an open heart to the anger of the wounded party on more than one occasion. There's no greater gift, or one more difficult to offer, than putting aside our defensiveness in order to listen to that sort of pain.

The need for apologies and repair is a singularly human one-both on the giving and receiving end. We're hard-wired to seek justice and fairness (however we see it), so the need to receive a sincere apology that's due is deeply felt. We're also imperfect human beings, prone to error and defensiveness, so the challenge of offering a heartfelt apology permeates almost every relationship. Tendering an apology, beyond the social gesture, can restore our sense of well-being and integrity when we sincerely feel we've done something wrong.

Unlike the faux public apologizes that 2017 will likely be remembered for, our private apologies have the potential to heal broken connections and restore trust. Without the ability to apologize and repair the hurts we've caused, relationships would be impossibly tragic. We have no control over how a particular apology will be received, and some broken connections can't be fixed. Still, it's empowering to know that we have the possibility to set things right, or at least to know that we've brought our best selves to one of life's most essential challenges.

****

Parts of this article first appeared in Why Won't You Apologize: Healing Big Betrayals and Everyday Hurts. Copyright © 2017 by Harriet Lerner. Published by Touchstone/Simon & Schuster.

Harriet Lerner, PhD, is one of our nation's most respected voices on the psychology of women and family relationships. She's the author of numerous scholarly articles and 12 books including The New York Times bestseller, The Dance of Anger, and most recently, Why Won't You Apologize? Contact: harrietlerner.com.

Tell us what you think about this article by emailing letters@psychnetworker.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unlike the faux public apologies from men accused of sexual misconduct that 2017 will likely be remembered for, our private apologies have the potential to heal broken connections and restore trust. But an apology that opens the door to forgiveness and healing for serious harm is a long-distance run that requires courage, clarity, and integrity.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/www.vulture.com/amp/2021/04/james-charles-apology-video-grooming-allegations.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
James Charles finally acknowledged mounting accusations of "grooming" and Snapchatting minors in a new YouTube video today titled "holding myself accountable," weeks into backlash on social media. Charles begins the video by saying he did not plan what to say or write a script, like he did two years ago in his video "No More Lies," which addressed claims that he harassed straight boys. "As I did more research on these topics and self-reflected, I realized that the receipts and the screenshots and the specific details of the interaction really don't matter because I fucked up, and I needed to take accountability for my actions and, most importantly, apologize to the people who were affected by them," he begins in a soft voice. Charles specifically apologizes for two underage accusers - "One of them being from last year, and one of them being from more recent" - who he claims initially said they were 18. Since then, four more accusers have come forward. "I trusted the information that was given to me rather than the information I could have and should have gotten myself," he explains. "In both of these situations, doing research into these people's public social-media profiles would've revealed their true ages, and therefore these conversations would have never happened in the first place. But I didn't do the research, and that is what is so embarrassing."

"To the guys involved in the situation, I want to say I'm sorry," he apologizes. "I'm sorry that I added you, I'm sorry that I flirted with you, and I'm really sorry that I made you uncomfortable."

In the latter half of the video, Charles theorizes as to why he would "not take the precautionary measures that really anybody, but especially somebody with a public platform, should be taking before talking to anybody." "It sucks, and it's ridiculously embarrassing to admit this, but I'm desperate," he says, before explaining his dating situation since 2019's " No More Lies." Charles says his recklessness and inexperience is why he used the Instagram Explore page and TikTok For You page "like a dating app." "That's just not how dating works literally at all," he reflects. "It's gross, it's weird, and it's desperation."

Charles admits he did not understand the power imbalance between himself and fans even after 2019's cancellation. "What I wasn't getting before is that the excitement that comes from talking to a celebrity is literally enough to make somebody do or say something they normally wouldn't, even if that celebrity isn't intentionally weaponizing their fame, money, or power," he continues. "That's the concept I just wasn't getting, but I now do." Charles ends the video by saying he is "completely okay" with the conversation continuing. "I didn't understand how a situation like this could affect the people involved, but now I do, and for that, to the victims, I am so, so sorry. And I promise that something like this will never ever happen again."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
James Charles Says He's Sorry He 'Flirted' With Underage Fans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
James Charles finally acknowledged mounting accusations of "grooming" and Snapchatting minors in a new YouTube video today titled "holding myself accountable," weeks into backlash on social media. Charles begins the video by saying he did not plan what to say or write a script, like he did two years ago in his video "No More Lies," which addressed claims that he harassed straight boys.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apology a 'turning point' for SMRT, workers' morale a concern, experts say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - Transport analysts have expressed hopes that the apologies by leaders of SMRT and Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan for the recent service disruption on the North-South Line will mark a "turning point" in the company's train operations.

# data[].attributes.headline
“We must keep racial harmony strong.” Tuition centre removes race preference option for parents

# data[].attributes.subject
“We must keep racial harmony strong.” Tuition centre removes race preference option for parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Singapore - A tuition centre that was called out for having a race option for clients' preferred choice of tutor has decided to mend its ways, and said it will be removing the option from their site.

Political activist group Wake Up, Singapore, has been holding the #CALLITOUTSG campaign to point out racism in the hopes of action being taken.

On Thursday (Jul 15), Wake Up, Singapore showed screen grabs of the websites of tuition centres on its and pages, underlining that these pages have an option for people to choose the race of the tutor they would like to hire.

The screenshots from the sites of brighttutor.sg and championtutor.com both ask would-be clients to "state the preferred race" of the tutor they're looking for- Chinese, Indian, Malay, Eurasian or others.

On one of the sites, clients could choose more than one option.

But, as Wake Up, Singapore asked, "How is the race of a tutor relevant? And why do you include such options which enable racial biases?"

It added that other tuition centres do the same, adding "This must end now and the tuition centres that continue to enable racism shall be held accountable."

Wake Up, Singapore called the demand for certain tutors "discriminatory."

"We shouldn't enable such racism and or racial biases. We are equally culpable if we give in to placate the discriminatory demands. Long story short, we have a choice not to serve racists," it added.

And while it did not feature smiletutor.sg on its social media pages, Wake Up, Singapore left a comment on an Instagram post of the tuition centre on Tuesday, Jul 13.

"It is also difficult for me to understand why race is relevant in choosing a tuition teacher. Can help me understand?"

Wake Up, Singapore received a lengthy reply from smiletutor.sg, which decided to remove the race preference option.

While the tuition centre admitted that 20 to 30 per cent of parents who call them actually indicate a race preference and that it's a standard industry practice, it acknowledged that Singapore has a multi-racial society and that "we must all do our part to keep the multi-racial harmony strong."

smiletutor.sg added that having the race preference option could create the perception that the people behind the company are "racists or enabling racists, hence we are removing it permanently."

Wake Up, Singapore posted the message from smiletutor.sg, thanking the tuition centre for its "prompt action."

"We now hope the rest of the tuition centres or co-ordinators that have this option will follow in their footsteps," it added. /TISG
Read also: Man working in a local bank says that in his team of 8, there are only 2 locals, adds: 'if anyone wants to accuse me of being racist, I'm Indian too'
Man working in a local bank says that in his team of 8, there are only 2 locals, adds: 'if anyone wants to accuse me of being racist, I'm Indian too'

Follow us on Social Media

Send in your scoops to news@theindependent.sg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Singapore - A tuition centre that was called out for having a race option for clients' preferred choice of tutor has decided to mend its ways, and said it will be removing the option from their site. Political activist group Wake Up, Singapore, has been holding the #CALLITOUTSG campaign to point out racism in the hopes of action being taken.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE - Workers' Party (WP) Sengkang candidate Raeesah Khan apologised on Sunday for two Facebook posts said to allege police discrimination against minorities.

At an unplanned press conference the party called on Sunday night, Ms Khan, 26, said she did not mean to cause social division, but had made the remarks as she wanted to raise awareness about minority concerns.

Flanked by WP leaders Pritam Singh, Sylvia Lim and her GRC teammates, Ms Khan, with her head bowed and reading from a piece of paper, said: "I apologise to any racial group or community who have been hurt by my comments.

"My remarks were insensitive, and I regret making them. I feel really passionate about minority issues regardless of race, and in my passion I made improper remarks, and I have to be accountable for them. I will fully cooperate in any police investigations."

The apology comes after the police issued a statement on Sunday about two police reports that were made against Ms Khan.

Police said in a statement on Sunday (July 5) that she had allegedly commented that Singapore law enforcement authorities discriminated against citizens, and that compared with other groups, rich Chinese and white people were treated differently under the law.

Another police report was made over a separate post. In the context of a news article on the City Harvest Church ruling, she was alleged to have commented that Singapore jailed minorities mercilessly, harassed mosque leaders but let "corrupt church leaders who stole $50 million" free.

Responding to questions from the media, Mr Singh said the party would stand behind its Sengkang team and he and Ms Lim were at the press conference to support them.

The rest of the candidates, equity analyst Louis Chua, economist Jamus Lim and lawyer He Ting Ru looked on solemnly but did not answer questions.

Asked if this matter would affect Ms Khan's candidacy, Mr Singh said it was too early to talk about it and that the police investigations would have to be allowed to take its course.

He added that he had not known about the Facebook posts beforehand, but noted that at 26-years-old, Ms Khan is WP's youngest candidate in this election and comes from a generation that has "completely grown up on social media".

"And for me, I would be actually a bit disappointed if our candidates try to sanitise their past. And I think they should be upfront and authentic to the public. This is who they are. And in the event there are certain posts or certain comments that they may have made which are untoward, then I would expect them to explain themselves."

He added that he has no regrets fielding her and that she will continue with her campaign.

"I know that she takes each case very seriously, regardless of race, regardless of religion. She's very vested in what issue the resident is facing," he said.

"I think those are very important criteria for me personally to consider someone for candidature, whether you are able to put yourself and walk a mile in the shoes of someone who needs help and assistance, so I've got no regrets for fielding a candidate who is like that, who is prepared to walk with residents and solve their problems and issues, and I think that's an important criteria, which resulted in Raeesah being selected as a candidate."

The Straits Times understands that both of the posts in question were made on her personal Facebook account.

One post was made on May 17 about an incident involving seven foreigners violating social distancing rules at Robertson Quay during the circuit breaker period.

"Imagine if this was a group of minorities," she had said, adding that she saw police patrolling near a hawker centre and supermarket near her house every day to ensure that people practise social distancing and mask-wearing.

"Do you see police officers here? Imagine if this was a neighbourhood hawker centre. There would be policemen swarming the area and enforcing the law within minutes," Ms Raeesah had said in her post.

"Why is the law different for these people? Is it because they're rich Chinese or white people? Do you think expats will be treated with the same disdain as migrant workers who broke the law?

"I'm not a fan of aggressive policing, but what I will not accept is law enforcement that discriminates against its citizens."

The seven foreigners, including four Britons, an Austrian and two Americans, were tracked down by the police and fined in court last month. Six of them had their work passes revoked by the Manpower Ministry and were banned from working in Singapore in future.

Ms Raeesah was comparing the case to a separate incident in April, in which a work pass holder was stripped of his pass and permanently banned from working in Singapore, after breaching circuit breaker measures. Another 39 foreign workers were also fined in April for gathering in groups.

The Straits Times understands the comments on the City Harvest Church ruling were also posted on Ms Raeesah's personal Facebook account in February 2018.

After the police reports were made, her social media accounts were made private.

The police said in its statement: "The police have consulted the Attorney-General's Chambers, which advised that an offence of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race under Section 298A of the Penal Code is disclosed. Police investigations are ongoing."

For promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race under the Penal Code, a person can be jailed up to three years, or fined, or face both punishments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore GE2020: WP's Raeesah Khan apologises for posts which allegedly promoted enmity between different groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - Workers' Party (WP) Sengkang candidate Raeesah Khan apologised on Sunday for two Facebook posts said to allege police discrimination against minorities. At an unplanned press conference the party called on Sunday night, Ms Khan, 26, said she did not mean to cause social division, but had made the remarks as she wanted to raise awareness about minority concerns.