Chen Show Mao accused of ‘plagiarism’ by netizens
Posted by temasektimes on March 6, 2012
Workers Party MP Chen Show Mao has been accused of ‘plagiarism’ by netizens in a Facebook note posted two days ago on the subject of ‘government spending’.
It turned out that the content was copied from another netizen ‘Donald Low’ who had tagged Mr Chen earlier in his Facebook note. Mr Low is the vice president of the Economics Society of Singapore.
The uncanny similarities between Mr Chen’s article and Mr Low’s note was pointed out by many netizens who slammed Mr Chen for not attributing the source.
Xu Si Han had first pointed out that “most of the ideas here (in Mr Chen’s post) were taken from his (Donald Low’s) note. Even the ideas are laid out in almost the same order”:
“…if you examine the language and structure, they are largely similar. it looks like plagiarism if we don’t credit our sources.”
Shermon Ong was disappointed:
“Before I start, I must admit that I am supportive of your time in Parliament and whatever ideas you have brought up. However, I am disappointed, to say the least, that you failed to attribute the source of this article to Mr Donald Low (http://www.facebook.com/notes/donald-lows-fc/vikram-nairs-flawed-economics/358938644140116). It matters little that you had a line saying that this was feedback. To the ordinary reader, and indeed it can be shown from the thread of comments here, it seems as if those ideas came from you.”
The brewing storm prompted Mr Donald Low to issue a clarification that he has “no problems with the post not mentioning the source.”
Despite Mr Low’s clarification, some netizens continue to lampoon Mr Chen.
Davian Lee was peeved at Mr Chen for using Mr Low’s article without giving due credit:
“Why did Chen Show Mao use Donald Low’s article without giving credit? In good universities (including NUS, NTU, SMU, UniSIM, Oxford, Harvard and Stanford), it is proper to give credit even when the original author waives the right….I am very disappointed with Show Mao. I had expected First World standards of academic transparency.”
There were no replies from Mr Chen as he continues to ‘act blur’ as if nothing has happened.
THE TEMASEK TIMES 
Anita said
Firstly, Davian Lee is an PAP apologist.
Secondly, Donald has already said he gave permission without attribution. So CSM didn’t plagiarise it.
Sometimes, a good idea put forth by A, may not get much hearing or attention. But when put forth by someone else (say with more influence) it can help bring traction. Either way, the good idea are more widely heard or accepted (by Govt) as it’s being supported. This sort of things happen everywhere. People should first understand what happens behind closed door before jumping off the slightest hook and make mountain out of molehill. CSM is bigger than that.
And Temasek is just the former self of TRE.
Anita said
I am guessing Temasek is going to censor my above comments.
outrageous said
Plagiarism is a severe accusation in the world of internet and facebook – virtually everybody is quoting someone’s else.
If he is publishing a formal paper in the academic world, then, it is a valid context to say so.
Don’t try to discredit an opposition member as the opposition in Singapore is already an underdog – it is David vs Goliath!
Of course, if you are pay n pay mole or suck-up, then, it is something else – ulterior motive! This type of accusation is
totally invalid and baseless. Where is your basic sense of human decency, Sherman Ong and similar minded?
Economics101 said
Act blur is you lah.. That Nair tried to put CSM’s idea in parliament down as “Nigerian Scam” but backfired badly; so now these mad barkings are trying to make a moutain out of a mole hill of this non issue to distract the people from their master’s embarassment??
This is a non issue because：
1. CSM already said in the first paragraph of that article that,
“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:”
Clearly, CSM did not say the idea is entirely his!
2. As per Donald Low’s clarification, even though he had told CSM to use it freely without attribution, yet CSM did not plagiarize by saying the idea is entirely his!!
3. The ideas put forth by Donald Low are not revolutionary, it is based on Economic principles, and any economics students who uses economic principles to analyse could come to these ideas and hence agreeable with the ideas.
This is unlike the counter arguments put forth by the PAP MPs, which is so devoid of even the basic Economic principles that not only made them looked stupid, but made the people who blindly believing them become more stupid.
So, don’t act blur, don’t pretend you are supportive of CSM before. You are like a mad dog if you cannot see the simple truth above and continue to bark relentlessly at nothing.
看不懂Ang Moh吗 ? said
你好像是在無事生非,制造麻烦.
MP Chen Show Mao 有写到”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………
难到连including the following 也看不懂 ?还亏你是读Ang Moh得!
DUNO_Y_U_KEEP_BASHING_WP_INSTEAD_OF_RALLYING_THEM said
Not happy ah? Vote pap next round loh.. then have 100% rule by pap again!
CUBE said
this website is interested in an incident of copycat when the copied owner dun mind. this website dun seem to be interested in bigger political and social issues…sigh
fengshuimaster said
I believe Ah Ong do not even has a U.K or U.S degree,let alone Oxford, Harvard and Stanford.So keep your comment esp when you are so clueless and baseless to yourself.Don’t shame yourself.
Shermon said
Dear all,
Posting on Mr Chen’s wall was never an easy decision on my part, partly because of my fondness of the Workers Party. I admire Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim’s performance in Parliament and what they stood for. That admiration did cause me to vote against the PAP in my own GRC (even though PAP won in the end). Hence, by going onto Mr Chen’s work and saying that he plagiarised was never an easy decision. Nevertheless, I went ahead with it.
I did ask myself if it was worth the trouble having to scrutinise the post as it will (and indeed it did) incur the wrath of Mr Chen’s sizable following. However, I remember what I told my friends who questioned my faith in the opposition – that I will apply the same standard to an opposition MP compared to a PAP MP. If a PAP MP had made the same mistake today, I will also not hesitate in posting the same thing.
Going onto the topic of plagiarism, many people have mentioned that it is not plagiarism because the author has already given permission. To me, that is besides the point. The failure to attribute the source of ideas is in itself plagiarism, whether the author has given permission or not. Recently, I had the privilege on sitting on my university’s board of discipline and I have seen many students being fined and reprimanded because of failure to attribute, regardless of whether the original author has given permission.
However, I understand that it could have been an honest mistake by Mr Chen. Besides, I did acknowledge in my first post that he did mention it was from feedback he aggregated. However, looking at the first few comments left on his status, it seems that quite a few people got the misconception that it was Mr Chen’s own idea. That is wrong. Having read Mr Donald Low’s note prior to reading Mr Chen’s status, alarm bells did ring. Nevertheless, after Mr Donald Low clarified the situation, I did not bother to pursue the matter further. You may read the entire thread for my response in their entirety.
To answer Outrageous, ‘discrediting’ an MP should be done on a party-neutral line. If an MP makes a mistake, the same scrutiny should be applied, regardless of whether he/she is from the PAP or WP. Just because an MP is from the WP does not entitle the MP to be given more latitude in making mistakes, especially when there is a possibility of plagiarism which is a very serious offence in academic circles.
To answer Fengshuimaster, well I agree with you that I do not have a degree from UK or US. However, a person’s comparative lack of education does not mean that he/she cannot scrutinise the MP. To give an example, can a polytechnic graduate scrutinise an MP with a degree? I will answer yes. But going by your logic, the answer should be no! Why should an MP/Minister get away from scrutiny just because he has higher education qualifications? A person’s voice in a democracy should NEVER be determined by his/her educational qualification. A polytechnic graduate, PhD holder and PSLE holder should have the same capacity to scrutinise the performance of our MPs.
These are my own personal views. My comments on the original thread can still be found there and you can read them to judge for yourself. Although I may not agree with your views, I respect your right to hold those views. If you have some questions or comments that you wish to direct to me, you can contact me directly at shermon dot ong at gmail dot com. I will be happy to engage you.
Cheers.
Cayden said
I do believe Mr. Shermon Ong had no intention of criticizing CSM just for the sake of doing it. I agree fully with him that any MP, opposition or not, should be under the same level of scrutiny. I also agree that educational qualifications should not be a factor in scrutinising an MP; the validity of an argument may not always be proportional to the qualifications. Therefore I feel like I should Mr. Ong does not deserve such criticism. Being a WP supporter myself, I’ve noticed that sometimes opposition supporters can become over-defensive as well, to the point that any criticism of the opposition invites insults. Not that PAP supporters don’t do that, but I always feel that as long as we have logic and reason on our side we don’t have to stoop to such levels.
However, I have to say that I think CSM did nothing wrong in this case. It seems to me that “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…” is a good enough clarification. Even if many people seem to have mistaken him as the source of those views, from my point of view I think they simply did not read carefully enough. In any case, I think that it is not so important who came up with the views that CSM is adopting, but what he has chosen to adopt.