Siew Kum Hong: "appropriate thing is to avoid leaving any room for doubt"

[Thick Face Black Heart]

SINGAPORE - Two recent incidents involving Workers' Party MPs have sparked discussions online on how rigorously politicians should attribute materials and arguments from others.

In both cases, the original authors told the MPs - one of whom used the inputs in a parliamentary speech without acknowledgement - not to attribute the materials.

Still, political observers Today spoke to had mixed views about the matter: Some felt it was not a big deal, while others pointed out that it was only appropriate to attribute the source.

Last Thursday, Aljunied GRC MP Pritam Singh made a speech calling for an ombudsman here during the Prime Minister's Office Committee of Supply debate.

The fact that Mr Singh's speech was largely identical to a 2008 blog post on the same topic has since caused a buzz among netizens. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, too, remarked that he "was struck by how remarkably similar" Mr Singh's speech was to the blog post, when he responded to Mr Singh's suggestion in Parliament.

When contacted, Mr Singh referred this reporter to the same blog where the author had posted on Wednesday: "I note that there has been some discussion about Workers' Party MP Pritam Singh and my post 'Time for an Ombudsman'.

"For the record, Pritam contacted me for permission to use some of my text. I told him to go ahead with my blessings. No acknowledgements were necessary. I am happy he found my thoughts useful. Let's keep our eyes on the bigger picture."

Independent scholar Derek da Cunha told Today that "politicians using someone else's ideas is not a new phenomenon".

He cited how then-US presidential candidate Barack Obama had been accused in 2008 of plagiarising a speech made by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick in 2006, but this later became a non-issue after it was disclosed Mr Obama had been given permission to do so.

Dr da Cunha added: "This case is quite similar to the controversy surrounding Pritam Singh's use of someone else's ideas." Still, he noted, as a general principle, one should seek permission first or at least credit a source when using another's ideas.

Former Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong added: "Generally, I think the appropriate thing to do is to attribute the source, especially if words are used in a verbatim fashion. The fact that consent was granted only goes towards the copyright issues."

He added: "You have to come at it from the position of a listener and whether a listener would, given all the circumstances, think that these words were original to the speaker or someone else. The appropriate thing is to avoid leaving any room for doubt as to whether the words were original to the speaker."

Mr Singh's fellow Aljunied GRC MP, Mr Chen Show Mao, was also criticised by some netizens for a note he posted on his Facebook page which had been written by former civil servant Donald Low. He posted the note after PAP MP Vikram Nair had challenged his suggestions in Parliament for more social spending.

Mr Chen had prefaced the note with "Many of you wrote to me with your views on the subject of government spending (from which I learned a great deal), including the following". Mr Low also clarified later that he too had given permission for his post to be reproduced without attribution.

Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Gillian Koh added that just as there will be people who bring up such cases, there will be others who will discount them, given that these involved rookie politicians.

But now that some have made clear they would want their parliamentarians to attribute and credit their sources, she felt that MPs would meet those standards.

On Wednesday, Mr Chen reflected on the episode on his Facebook page. He wrote: "I have been thinking about our social norms, most recently the norms for sharing things online."

He added that in this particular instance, the person who sent him the note "preferred not to be cited by politicians". Mr Chen said: "So I shared it with you on my FB page with a preface ... Was that a sensible way to share online what others have shared with us? I have my views and have learned much from yours."

 

[scroobal]

Yet another good article.

 

[Perspective]

Agree with SKH's sentence that was used in this thread title.

At least he, unlike you know <s>who</s> what, recognises that permission was sought as per this sentence:

"The fact that consent was granted only goes towards the copyright issues."

The it had the cheek to say that it shared SKH's views. IF it really shared his views, I would have left it / it alone.

 

[myfoot123]

I don't mind a politicians to use another person article as basis of argument once permission is sought. Most importantly what was written must be sensible for digestion and discussion and truly reflect the ground sentiment.

On the other hand, some PAP politician who think their mind is original and came out with lot of craps and expected other people to digest - eg Mee-Siam-Mai -Hum, chillie bring rains - very orginal.

 

[Bigfuck]

I don't mind a politicians to use another person article as basis of argument once permission is sought. Most importantly what was written must be sensible for digestion and discussion and truly reflect the ground sentiment.

On the other hand, some PAP politician who think their mind is original and came out with lot of craps and expected other people to digest - eg Mee-Siam-Mai -Hum, chillie bring rains - very orginal.

I think it shows that WP politicians are receptive to good ideas by the people and others and voice them as representatives of the people for a better Singapore. One important to note, WP does not do the condescending lines that " Singaporeans should, must, ought to....." Clearly WP is servant representatives of the people. I hate servant masters of the people - oxymoron

 

[zhihau]

I think it shows that WP politicians are receptive to good ideas by the people and others and voice them as representatives of the people for a better Singapore.

Tuan,
me think it's also good to find out if these folks willingly addressed and/or forwarded their articles to WP or not

 

[PTADER]

Former Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong added: "Generally, I think the appropriate thing to do is to attribute the source, especially if words are used in a verbatim fashion. The fact that consent was granted only goes towards the copyright issues."

He added: "You have to come at it from the position of a listener and whether a listener would, given all the circumstances, think that these words were original to the speaker or someone else. The appropriate thing is to avoid leaving any room for doubt as to whether the words were original to the speaker."[/B]

Unlike in the past, I only pop in every once in a while and hardly post these days. But SKH's response needs a response of some sort.

SKH needs to look into his own backyard, The Online Citizen.

SKH joined TOC in January 2011. TOC's editors have engaged in acts of plagiarism before SKH' entry into TOC. His entry into TOC has not changed anything. The TOC team regular trawls forums (including this) and plagiarise or even lift entire stuff without acknowledging the source. They even have the shameless temerity to pass off other people's work in research and in digging up old archived material as work that they have done.

One example. In Sep 2011, when news broke that KL was scrapping the ISA , I posted (after waiting 21 years for this moment) in this forum, an article of a promise made by the Dauphin in Feb 1991 that Singapore's would "seriously consider" abolishing the Internal Security Act if Malaysia were to do.

It was promptly lifted by SKH's young colleague in TOC, Joshua Chiang. He did a cut and paste job and posted the article in TOC as if he was the one who had carried out the research.

Compare the actions of TOC editors like Joshua Chiang and "panda-hippo" of the Hardware Zone. Although "anonymous", PH is decent and honest enough to credit other people for their work and to attribute the sources of his articles in The Hardware Zone that he takes from blogs and forums.

Not so with TOC. Not so with the likes of the Joshua Chiangs in TOC. And as I stated earlier, this is not the first time.

My advice to SKH? The pot should not be calling the kettle black.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

PTADER,

You posted an ST article dated 1991. That ST article was not your own work (even if you were the columnist at ST in 1991 who wrote that very article). The fact that Joshua copied the same ST article does not mean he plagiarized you. Since many of the old ST article can be accessed for a fee, it may well be that Joshua did his own research and found the same article.

What has his posting got to do with you?

SKH joined TOC in January 2011. TOC's editors have engaged in acts of plagiarism before SKH' entry into TOC. His entry into TOC has not changed anything. The TOC team regular trawls forums (including this) and plagiarise or even lift entire stuff without acknowledging the source. They even have the shameless temerity to pass off other people's work in research and in digging up old archived material as work that they have done.

One example. In Sep 2011, when news broke that KL was scrapping the ISA , I posted (after waiting 21 years for this moment) in this forum, an article of a promise made by the Dauphin in Feb 1991 that Singapore's would "seriously consider" abolishing the Internal Security Act if Malaysia were to do.

It was promptly lifted by SKH's young colleague in TOC, Joshua Chiang. He did a cut and paste job and posted the article in TOC as if he was the one who had carried out the research.

 

[Ramseth]

Although I agree, since with permission, there's no issue of plagiarism and copyright, CSM and Pritam should have either acknowleged the writer, even just anonymously, in advance if they want to quote whole chunk or edited it themselves in line with their own style, delivering the same idea.

I remember one TLH rally in YCK Stadium 1996. That was even before internet forumming and blogging etc. were invented. He started off his argument against upgrading by saying, a Cheng San resident came to my office and gave me this...then quoted verbatim entirely.

TLH was no political juvenile even though he just stood for one election in 1996. He was a political activist since the student strike and riot days of the 1950s. LKY was the political and legal adviser to his student union. (That's why LKY was so pissed with him when he turned around.)

There's nothing legally wrong with CSM or Pritam. But they should learn from this episode to be more politcally acute and correct.

 

[PTADER]

PTADER,

You posted an ST article dated 1991. That ST article was not your own work (even if you were the columnist at ST in 1991 who wrote that very article). The fact that Joshua copied the same ST article does not mean he plagiarized you. Since many of the old ST article can be accessed for a fee, it may well be that Joshua did his own research and found the same article.

What has his posting got to do with you?

Joshua of TOC failed to indicate that is he lifted the ST article entirely from this forum. How do I know it was something taken from this site? Let's just say, I left a little "signature" in that article. While he changed my usual "147th Prostitute Press", he did not spot that other unique signature.

I will show how this panda-hippo chap does it (see here). That chap even had the decency to say that he edited the original (see below) as some readers may find "some terms offensive". He was referring to my more than decade old respectful habit of attributing the source as coming from the "147th Prostitute Press" instead of "The Straits Times".

"As this happened in 1997, it is difficult to have a live url link to old newspaper stories. PTADER reproduced two reports in Sammyboy forum. I have included these in Appendix A with some minor edits to remove some terms which readers might find offensive."​

The lot at TOC need to learn from these chaps. Despite being "anonymous", these chaps in The Hardware Forum and Satay Club have the the integrity and ethics to do what is right, that is, to attribute their sources and not pass off work that they did not carry out as being theirs or through their own effort.

I am more than happy for the chaps from TOC to do their "cut and paste" job. This is since the whole idea for posting is for people to read what you have posted. However, this TOC lot need to have the decency to attribute the source of what they have lifted from other sites. They should not pass them off as their own efforts or their diligence or work in research or in digging up articles. As I have mentioned, this is not the first time they have done this.

The TOC lot have also been selective in their edits of comments posted on their site. No doubt, they are carrying out their own little astroturfing. The only thing they need to recognise is that this practice is unethical and dishonest. It makes them no different from the 147th Prostitute Press that they are so eager to be differentiated from.

 

[Ramseth]

... ... ... ...

 

[scroobal]

Have to agree with Ptader on this. Just can't see why people don't have the courtesy to acknowledge where it came from. The other thing that i find bewildering is the notion that if the author consents, there is no need to attribute who conceived or created it. Sounds like misrepresentation to me.

People seeing it or hearing it for the first time would wrongly concur and form opinions of the presenter based on hidden but important facts.

Obviously it is not a crime except in the field of copyright but bringing a container or plastic bag to a buffet is also not a crime. But would any self respecting individual would do that at buffet.

 

[scroobal]

Very well articulated.

Although I agree, since with permission, there's no issue of plagiarism and copyright, CSM and Pritam should have either acknowleged the writer, even just anonymously, in advance if they want to quote whole chunk or edited it themselves in line with their own style, delivering the same idea.

I remember one TLH rally in YCK Stadium 1996. That was even before internet forumming and blogging etc. were invented. He started off his argument against upgrading by saying, a Cheng San resident came to my office and gave me this...then quoted verbatim entirely.

TLH was no political juvenile even though he just stood for one election in 1996. He was a political activist since the student strike and riot days of the 1950s. LKY was the political and legal adviser to his student union. (That's why LKY was so pissed with him when he turned around.)

There's nothing legally wrong with CSM or Pritam. But they should learn from this episode to be more politcally acute and correct.

 

[Debonerman]

Mens rea. The act and the intent. Kan ni na bu puah cheebye!

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Joshua of TOC failed to indicate that is he lifted the ST article entirely from this forum. How do I know it was something taken from this site? Let's just say, I left a little "signature" in that article. While he changed my usual "147th Prostitute Press", he did not spot that other unique signature.

I see.

Well if Joshua had indeed taken this from the forum, at least he should have acknowledged that he did so. Doesn't have to mention which nick posted it, but at least say something like "I found an old ST article reproduced in SBF, and here it is ....."

 

[scroobal]

It is not only TOC, some other blogs are also the same.

SBF chaps do all the hard work, these arseholes grab it, tidy it up and put it on a nicely designed blog. Joshua was in diapers when the article was written. There is also issue of class. If that article appeared in the Economist, I am sure besides copyright, they would have mentioned Economist to be associated with Economist. I suppose pinching from a site associated with porn is too low class.

I see.

Well if Joshua had indeed taken this from the forum, at least he should have acknowledged that he did so. Doesn't have to mention which nick posted it, but at least say something like "I found an old ST article reproduced in SBF, and here it is ....."

 

[Borat]

I think it is good that this incidents happened and now everyone should be more careful of using ideas that do not originate from them. Pritam has said on hindsight he should have mentioned it but did not and acknowledge it was his oversight. As the writer of the article has said about looking at the bigger picture, I completely agree with him, rather than mulling over this issue.

 

[PTADER]

I see.

Well if Joshua had indeed taken this from the forum, at least he should have acknowledged that he did so. Doesn't have to mention which nick posted it, but at least say something like "I found an old ST article reproduced in SBF, and here it is ....."

That's fair and that's the way to go. I am more than happy for Sammyboy to be credited as the source.

But as Scroobal mentioned, maybe this forum is a bit too "low-class" to be quoted. Apparently not too low-class though when it comes to the plagiarising and pilfering of considered views and opinions, inside information and other people's work.

 

[Perspective]

SKH needs to look into his own backyard, The Online Citizen.

SKH's just TOC leader on paper and name lender - don't even thinks he knows what TOC is putting up or up to.

 

[bhoven]

I think it is good that this incidents happened and now everyone should be more careful of using ideas that do not originate from them. Pritam has said on hindsight he should have mentioned it but did not and acknowledge it was his oversight. As the writer of the article has said about looking at the bigger picture, I completely agree with him, rather than mulling over this issue.

If we want to stretch this what about all the speeches written for the politician office holders by civil servants...are these politicians to disclose that what was expressed are not their own original thoughts?