Wool over left-wing/right-wing

I disagreed with an 'Opinion Writer' about his definition of 'left-of-centre' in a recent piece. This letter was published in Straits Times online today:

ONE can hardly qualify Singapore in the 1960s to 1980s as "clearly left-of-centre" ("Are Singaporeans ideological prisoners?"; last Saturday).

In Britain, where I now live, being left-wing means expecting the government to do everything. Being right-wing means one is expected to look after oneself.

If Singapore had ever been left-of-centre, then my late father would not have had to borrow from loan sharks to buy textbooks and school uniforms for his children.

One notion of the left-wing/right-wing divide blurs into the socialist/capitalist dichotomy.

Yet, leaders of British trade unions who lead the socialist section draw obscene salaries, supported by the ordinary man in the street, who earns a pittance.

My preferred definition of the left-right divide in Britain today is based on risk.

Leftists take no risks. Many of them draw larger salaries than the prime minister.

No amount of right-wing ram-raiding could break through these cosy - some say "incestuous" - relationships within such close-knit, closed-shop citadels of left-wing power.

When local chains of high street shops failed, it was entrepreneurs who risked their own money to reopen shops and rehire staff.

Higher risks often lead to higher profits. Left-wingers neither like nor understand that.

When people take on low-paying jobs instead of relying on benefits, they are taking a gamble that their work ethic would rub off and make a difference to the lives of their children.

When my father borrowed from loan sharks, he was taking a risk to invest in his children.

When he went to the abattoir every morning, he had to decide: one pig or two, and which pig to pick/risk to ensure the highest return on his investment.

This was not left-of-centre behaviour.

It's an anaemic and soul-less version of the original below:

One could hardly qualify Singapore in the period 1960s-1980s as ‘clearly left-of-centre’.

Left-wing where I now live means ‘expecting the government to do everything’. Hole in the ground, leak in the roof, obesity in young people, generations of poverty, it’s all the government’s fault.

Right-wing equals an expectation to look after oneself. It also has the negative connotation of supporting the bankers, businesses that pay no tax, and overpaid politicians who make fraudulent expenses claims.

If Singapore had ever been left-of-centre, then my late father would not have had to borrow from loan sharks to buy textbooks and school uniforms for his children.

One notion of the left-wing/right-wing divide blurs into the socialist/capitalist dichotomy. Yet leaders of trade unions who lead the socialist section draw obscene salaries, supported by the ordinary wo/man-in-the-street who earns a pittance.

My preferred definition of the left-right divide in the UK today is based on risk. Leftists take no risks: trade union leaders, senior civil servants, CEOs of local councils and NHS hospitals, directors in the BBC.

Many of these people draw larger salaries than the Prime Minister. Imagine that happening in Singapore. It is not as if we have a choice of not paying our income tax, council tax or TV license.

Left-wing academics (and there are many) do not even have to risk their reputations. When an academic paper about my organization was published and I found it to be riddled with factual, methodological and logical discrepancies, they refused to publish my response.

No amount of right-wing ram-raiding could break through these cosy – some say ‘incestuous’ – relationships within such close-knit, closed-shop citadels of left-wing power.

When local chains of high street shops fail, it was entrepreneurs who risked their private money to re-open shops and re-hire staff.

Higher risks often lead to higher profits. Left-wingers neither like nor understand that.

When people take on low-paying jobs instead of relying on benefits they are risking a gamble that their work ethic would rub off and make a difference to the lives of their children and children’s children.

When my father borrowed from loan sharks, he was taking a risk to invest in his children.

When he went to the abattoir every morning he had to decide: one pig or two, and which pig to pick/risk to ensure the highest return on his investment.

This was not left-of-centre behaviour.

Why bother to insist that writers use under 400 words -- which I did -- and then reduce it to 300 words?