Shanmugam vs Sylvia Lim on Woffles Wu

[GoldenDragon]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Nah, I have vast interests and this forum is merely my entertainment.

Goh Meng Seng

Vast interests as in UFOs? Trust me, there is more in life. Do not become a full-time entertainer. May lead you to become Emeritus Entertainer (EE) and no one takes an entertainer seriously in politics.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Err.... you are my entertainer! There are more to life in many aspects... haha.

Goh Meng Seng

Vast interests as in UFOs? Trust me, there is more in life. Do not become a full-time entertainer. May lead you to become Emeritus Entertainer (EE) and no one takes an entertainer seriously in politics.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Well, it is also your prerogative to disagree with me but that's the way I see it. From my perspective, you have quite a low standards expected from MPs. I may be old fashion but I take my core values seriously.

Pritam didn't deny outright when he was accused of plagiarism. The only thing he said was that, it is not against any rules. That's pretty lame. If he really has gotten permission from the rightful writer in advanced, he should have said so, or in all good practice, declare that he is presenting the opinion or writing of a blogger in parliament. But he done none of that. As an MP, one should not give rise to any opportunities for others, especially your opponents, to cast doubts on your integrity. Same for CSM's FB. CSM's FB may not be manned by him but his assistants but nevertheless, it is not an honourable practice to quote the bulk of other people's published writing, make amendments on it then post it as if it comes from him, without giving proper credits. Even if there isn't any intent of becoming a copycat, they have failed to manage things like this with great sensitivity.

As MPs, it is understandable for them to hire speech writers to write parliamentary speeches for them. I have written parliamentary speeches for WP MP as well but I don't publish it as my own work. That's fine. That's pretty alright but NOT to take PUBLISHED work wholesale. As I have said, in parliament, what matters most is what happened there and then, not some explanation later. The spotlight is right at parliamentary sittings, not after. These are the basics of parliamentary politics. If you allow your opponents to score that goal there and then, you are screwed. No amount of "clarifications" after that would save you because impression has been cast. You want to be first world politician, then better understand all these basics.

I will be quite happy if there is nothing I can talk about WP but I guess, that is when they keep totally quiet.


Goh Meng Seng

Like it or not, Goh Meng Seng's bias is apparent and formed. There is no way an objective person will assign credits and brickbats to various parties in the lopsided way he does it. It's his prerogative to disagree with me but since he has clearly revealed his innermost thoughts, it is natural that we will form opinions of him.

To take him seriously (at least on matters related to WP) is like agreeing with those who said WP MPs should give up their MP allowance (but not breathing a word about PAP minister salaries).

 

[scroobal]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Well said bro.

Like it or not, Goh Meng Seng's bias is apparent and formed. There is no way an objective person will assign credits and brickbats to various parties in the lopsided way he does it. It's his prerogative to disagree with me but since he has clearly revealed his innermost thoughts, it is natural that we will form opinions of him.

To take him seriously (at least on matters related to WP) is like agreeing with those who said WP MPs should give up their MP allowance (but not breathing a word about PAP minister salaries).

 

[tanwahp]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

Well, it is also your prerogative to disagree with me but that's the way I see it. From my perspective, you have quite a low standards expected from MPs. I may be old fashion but I take my core values seriously.

Pritam didn't deny outright when he was accused of plagiarism. The only thing he said was that, it is not against any rules. That's pretty lame. If he really has gotten permission from the rightful writer in advanced, he should have said so, or in all good practice, declare that he is presenting the opinion or writing of a blogger in parliament. But he done none of that. As an MP, one should not give rise to any opportunities for others, especially your opponents, to cast doubts on your integrity. Same for CSM's FB. CSM's FB may not be manned by him but his assistants but nevertheless, it is not an honourable practice to quote the bulk of other people's published writing, make amendments on it then post it as if it comes from him, without giving proper credits. Even if there isn't any intent of becoming a copycat, they have failed to manage things like this with great sensitivity.

As MPs, it is understandable for them to hire speech writers to write parliamentary speeches for them. I have written parliamentary speeches for WP MP as well but I don't publish it as my own work. That's fine. That's pretty alright but NOT to take PUBLISHED work wholesale. As I have said, in parliament, what matters most is what happened there and then, not some explanation later. The spotlight is right at parliamentary sittings, not after. These are the basics of parliamentary politics. If you allow your opponents to score that goal there and then, you are screwed. No amount of "clarifications" after that would save you because impression has been cast. You want to be first world politician, then better understand all these basics.

Not denying outight is not plagiarism. Giving opportunities to cast doubts against you is not plagiarism. Poor managing is not plagiarism. I am sure you don't English lessons. If you want to accuse them of plagiarism, it has to be a clear cut case and they should not be given the benefit of doubt, least of all from yourself who was the accuser. It's like I said Goh Meng Seng likes to rape but he gave the opportunity because he happened to be present at the rape scene, so that's rape.

By accusing people of plagiarism, then after I clarified, you are now saying that the WP MPs only gave opportunities to accuse them of plagiarism which means they did not plagiarize and you know that. If you had any values at all, you shouldn't make an accusation that you know does not hold water.

I will be quite happy if there is nothing I can talk about WP but I guess, that is when they keep totally quiet.

We know nothing they do will ever be right in your eyes. That we know already.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

I don't think you get it. Anyway, fine, you are entitled to your belief and what you chose to believe.

If there are similar things happening to PAP MPs, I guess the first thing people here will get their guns out and shoot, booing them for plagiarism.

It is alright to take sides but sometimes, when the facts of the incidents are all put out, reasonable doubts raised and people don't defend their own integrity immediately, we will form our own opinion straight. You can argue until the cow come home but the facts still remains. It is just like having a person recorded on video spitting on a man and then, when people accuse him of bad manners, he replied it was not against any rules. Later, he just gets this man to say he allows him to spit on him. Yup, fine for you but not for me.

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote: Well it doesn't really matter what I think or what you believe, really. It is the middle ground that WP or any opposition parties that need to convince. The accusation of plagiarism doesn't start from me either. But after going through what had happened, I think there are merits in such accusations made, even though these were made by PAP people. But it is still up to the middle ground to choose to believe or not and rest to be assured that PAP will raise this issue again when the GE comes.

Not denying outight is not plagiarism. Giving opportunities to cast doubts against you is not plagiarism. Poor managing is not plagiarism. I am sure you don't English lessons. If you want to accuse them of plagiarism, it has to be a clear cut case and they should not be given the benefit of doubt, least of all from yourself who was the accuser. It's like I said Goh Meng Seng likes to rape but he gave the opportunity because he happened to be present at the rape scene, so that's rape.

By accusing people of plagiarism, then after I clarified, you are now saying that the WP MPs only gave opportunities to accuse them of plagiarism which means they did not plagiarize and you know that. If you had any values at all, you shouldn't make an accusation that you know does not hold water.



We know nothing they do will ever be right in your eyes. That we know already.

 

[tanwahp]

Re: To Hang The Woffle Dog ?

If there are similar things happening to PAP MPs, I guess the first thing people here will get their guns out and shoot, booing them for plagiarism.

There were people already doing that to WP, you were not the only one, so it is natural for people to shoot PAP on other occasions. Goes to show that all is fair and square.

In a way, bias cannot be avoided. For me, I try not to let it become too bad. I don't intentionally feed on it. Bias can come from a natural opinion formed, it can also come from a secondary motive, intention, agenda.

 

[Fook Seng]

I just wonder when PAP MPs give comments in public regarding any public issue and they do this very often like bees to honey (who is the first person to come out with this analogy? I must give him credit for that) to support a statement by a senior colleague, do they always say the PM said this, or the DPM said or LKY said? It would seem to me very odd if they do so all the time.

I also wonder what GMS says are all his original thoughts because I seldom see him give credit to others when making his points.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I do not think you understand what plagiarism is or what had happened. Taking a published work WHOLESALE with slight amendment here and there is totally different of people talking about same policy idea in different ways.

I always give due credits to other people's published work or even just comments if I am quoting them. Sometimes, even when it is just passing comments by some people whom I don't even know, I will say from some sources or some people. Nothing strange about that.

Goh Meng Seng

I just wonder when PAP MPs give comments in public regarding any public issue and they do this very often like bees to honey (who is the first person to come out with this analogy? I must give him credit for that) to support a statement by a senior colleague, do they always say the PM said this, or the DPM said or LKY said? It would seem to me very odd if they do so all the time.

I also wonder what GMS says are all his original thoughts because I seldom see him give credit to others when making his points.

 

[Confuseous]

I just wonder when PAP MPs give comments in public regarding any public issue and they do this very often like bees to honey (who is the first person to come out with this analogy? I must give him credit for that) to support a statement by a senior colleague, do they always say the PM said this, or the DPM said or LKY said? It would seem to me very odd if they do so all the time.

It is not "very odd" for our MPs to behave as such. First, they don't have original thoughts. Even if they have, they dare not express it. And having heard a few totally illogical rubbish statements made by MPs, it is safer just to bark like your masters do. Any attacks will therefore be directed at His Master's Voice.

The poor quality of our MPs and some of the Ministers have been well discussed here.

 

[Fook Seng]

I do not think you understand what plagiarism is or what had happened. Taking a published work WHOLESALE with slight amendment here and there is totally different of people talking about same policy idea in different ways.

I always give due credits to other people's published work or even just comments if I am quoting them. Sometimes, even when it is just passing comments by some people whom I don't even know, I will say from some sources or some people. Nothing strange about that.

Goh Meng Seng

Name me a few of the works that have been plagiarised. From what I understand it is plagiarism only if you claim that the work is written by you.

 

[Seamaster]

From what I understand it is plagiarism only if you claim that the work is written by you.

Plagiarism is defined in multiple ways in higher education institutions and universities. To name a few: Stanford sees plagiarism as “use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form”; Yale views plagiarism as “the use of another’s work, words, or ideas without attribution” which included “using a source’s language without quoting, using information from a source without attribution, and paraphrasing a source in a form that stays too close to the original”; Princeton perceives plagiarism as the deliberate use of “someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source”; Oxford characterizes plagiarism as the use of “a writer's ideas or phraseology without giving due credit”; [39] and Brown explains plagiarism to be “appropriating another person's ideas or words (spoken or written) without attributing those word or ideas to their true source”. As well-known institutions, they reflect a common academic definition of plagiarism. Lack of citation, giving credit, or attribution is considered to be plagiarism. In academics, committing plagiarism comes down to citing sources.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

 

[Fook Seng]

Plagiarism is defined in multiple ways in higher education institutions and universities. .................As well-known institutions, they reflect a common academic definition of plagiarism. Lack of citation, giving credit, or attribution is considered to be plagiarism. In academics, committing plagiarism comes down to citing sources.

Of course, if you are referring to academic works which are all supposed to be original works written by the authors, citation is necessary and omission is taken as a major crime.

Outside of this space, especially on cyberspace, eg in this forum or on facebook you often find quotations that omitted the citations but on reading it is eventually revealed from the context that these are in effect quoted passages or even whole articles. To me it is ok, as this serves merely the transmission of an idea held by someone or even shared by the transmitter.

For such instances of quotation, we should rely on the dictionary definition of plagiarism e.g. Word web or Chambers which always link plagiarism to taking someone else's work and passing it as your own.

To use a restrictive meaning in an academic context is to nit-pick.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I would consider in the chamber of parliamentary sitting is as serious as, if not more serious than, academic work. Don't you think so?

That is why I would consider CSM's case minor while Pritam's case is more serious. But as a good practice, when you are already established as a MP, you should be very mindful about such things.

Goh Meng Seng

Of course, if you are referring to academic works which are all supposed to be original works written by the authors, citation is necessary and omission is taken as a major crime.

Outside of this space, especially on cyberspace, eg in this forum or on facebook you often find quotations that omitted the citations but on reading it is eventually revealed from the context that these are in effect quoted passages or even whole articles. To me it is ok, as this serves merely the transmission of an idea held by someone or even shared by the transmitter.

For such instances of quotation, we should rely on the dictionary definition of plagiarism e.g. Word web or Chambers which always link plagiarism to taking someone else's work and passing it as your own.

To use a restrictive meaning in an academic context is to nit-pick.

 

[Fook Seng]

I would consider in the chamber of parliamentary sitting is as serious as, if not more serious than, academic work. Don't you think so?

That is why I would consider CSM's case minor while Pritam's case is more serious. But as a good practice, when you are already established as a MP, you should be very mindful about such things.

Goh Meng Seng

The point is not what you say is serious or not but what you say is meant to be taken as your authorship. For academic work or a publication, yes. For others, probably merely repeating a point.

 

[tanwahp]

I would consider in the chamber of parliamentary sitting is as serious as, if not more serious than, academic work. Don't you think so?

It's not about whether the chamber or a paper is more important. Both are apples and oranges. Every piece of academic work cites sources from several areas, so poor attribution can even refer to missing out 1 or 2 out of 10 citations. The post and speech by the two WP MPs cited only one source from one author, which means it can only be 100% attributed or 0% attributed. How can poor attribution be applied here.

You also cannot make attribution in speeches in the same way as you do in a paper. On paper, you can cite your sources by typing out "http://www.com" in Microsoft Word. In a speech, it will be silly to read it out and go "h-t-t-p: double-u double-u double-u etc." There are time limits in a parliamentary speech.

 

[cass888]

The emphasis in a Parliamentary sitting is different from that in an academic paper. In the former case, what is important is the point being made. In the latter, what is important is the ability of the author to make a point.

In addressing the strengths and weaknesses of a policy, it matters not that someone has made the point before.

Pritam did not screw up in this regard. Sylvia and Gerald (salary debate) screwed up big time.

I would consider in the chamber of parliamentary sitting is as serious as, if not more serious than, academic work. Don't you think so?

That is why I would consider CSM's case minor while Pritam's case is more serious. But as a good practice, when you are already established as a MP, you should be very mindful about such things.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Just simple point, he didn't put attribution to the ENTIRE piece of work which he reproduce in parliament... it is NOT just a point or two, but the ENTIRE essay. No respectable academia or persons would take ENTIRE published work by somebody else and tried to pass it as his own without putting proper attribution. Period.

Goh Meng Seng

It's not about whether the chamber or a paper is more important. Both are apples and oranges. Every piece of academic work cites sources from several areas, so poor attribution can even refer to missing out 1 or 2 out of 10 citations. The post and speech by the two WP MPs cited only one source from one author, which means it can only be 100% attributed or 0% attributed. How can poor attribution be applied here.

You also cannot make attribution in speeches in the same way as you do in a paper. On paper, you can cite your sources by typing out "http://www.com" in Microsoft Word. In a speech, it will be silly to read it out and go "h-t-t-p: double-u double-u double-u etc." There are time limits in a parliamentary speech.

 

[tanwahp]

Just simple point, he didn't put attribution to the ENTIRE piece of work which he reproduce in parliament... it is NOT just a point or two, but the ENTIRE essay. No respectable academia or persons would take ENTIRE published work by somebody else and tried to pass it as his own without putting proper attribution. Period.

Goh Meng Seng

Thank you for zooming into this one simple point. It's a risk you're taking, in my view.

I have addressed the part about "proper attribution" which to me is non-existent in relevance. Only one article was involved so it is either attribution or non-attribution. When you say "proper", it becomes subjective and you open yourselves to be rebutted, because every's "proper" is different.

WP puts up MP speeches and Pritam's particular one is here. As we can see, he thanks "a Singaporean blogger" for his speech. I acknowledge there are some pros to state this one sentence in his physical speech as well, but here we are looking at the label and accusation of "plagiarism" and it should take into account ALL actions of the episode.

http://wp.sg/2012/03/cos-2012-debates-pmo-ombudsman/

We have established that the mystery blogger is someone who goes by "groundnotes" and that's a nickname since "groundnotes" cannot be a name his mother gave him. So you cannot attribute to a real name or person. The blogger's clarification. http://groundnotes.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/i-note-that-the/

The original text is here and I do not think it is clearly "ENTIRE essay". People can do their own comparisons. http://groundnotes.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/time-for-an-ombudsman-in-singapore/

Whether Pritam could have done it better in this episode, two things are established - it is yet to prove that the context falls under "plagiarism" and some parts of your statements were found to have wanting facts (eg. entire).

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Go and look for Hansard records. There are reasons why PAP Minister has to mention about reading the speech on the internet and the subsequent reply follows. Handsard will provide exactly what has transpired in parliament.

The thanking of the Singapore Blogger written as an After note on WP website is an after thought, after being exposed by PAP Minister that he actually plagiarised the published article. i.e. he didn't give proper credit or made known during his actual speech that this is taken from someone else website. It doesn't matter if real name or moniker or even just mention, this is from a Singaporean blogger from xxxxx blog... But the simple fact that, none of these was done.



Goh Meng Seng

Thank you for zooming into this one simple point. It's a risk you're taking, in my view.

I have addressed the part about "proper attribution" which to me is non-existent in relevance. Only one article was involved so it is either attribution or non-attribution. When you say "proper", it becomes subjective and you open yourselves to be rebutted, because every's "proper" is different.

WP puts up MP speeches and Pritam's particular one is here. As we can see, he thanks "a Singaporean blogger" for his speech. I acknowledge there are some pros to state this one sentence in his physical speech as well, but here we are looking at the label and accusation of "plagiarism" and it should take into account ALL actions of the episode.