Vikram Nair now admits: I was too ‘harsh’ on Chen Show Mao in an interview by his RJC schoolmate

Less than a month after attacking WP MP Chen Show Mao ferociously in Parliament during a heated exchange on the Budget, newbie PAP MP Vikram Nair now did an abrupt U-turn and admitted that he was too ‘harsh’ on his political opponent in what appeared to be a desperate attempt to salvage his battered image among some young Singaporeans.

Mr Chen’s call to the government to invest more money in Singaporeans was challenged by Mr Nair who asked him to ‘show’ the money, comparing his ideas to a ‘Nigerian scam’.

”Let’s do more, let’s spend more,’ (they say), and, of course, they never talk of where this money is going to come from…I think many of us here have been working year in, year out, helping the vulnerable groups, and it is pretty hurtful coming from Mr Chen because he might have held this belief for a long time, but he came back only quite recently to help in this,” Mr Nair said then.

Mr Nair was severely criticized by netizens for his remarks after which he threatened to sue socio-political blog The Online Citizen (TOC) for defamation in an interview with inSing news:

“I hope not to take legal action but if there’s lingering damage I might have to consider it. It also depends on what they (The Online Citizen) do and how they respond to the matter. I just want to clear my name.”

Not only did Mr Nair ‘chicken out’ in the end and let TOC off the hook without taking legal action against the site as promised, he is now offering an ‘olive branch’ to Mr Chen to placate him and supporters of the Workers Party.

In an interview with Lianhe Zaobao which was coincidentally conducted by his schoolmate from Raffles Junior College class of 1995/1996 Ms Yew Lun Tian, Mr Nair said:

“The tone I used during the Budget debate was too sarcastic which caused me to be misunderstood. If there is a repeat, I will be more direct.”

(“我参与预算案辩论时用的语气，嘲讽意味太重了。这使我被误会，效果不好。要是可以重来，我会直截了当得多。”)

He tried desperately hard to explain that though he was ‘mocking’ Mr Chen at that time, he was hoping Mr Chen would explain how the government can improve on the Budget.

“I initially thought that since Mr Chen is a lawyer and an economist at the same time, he would be able to explain himself clearly. But he didn’t bother to do so.”

(“我本以为陈硕茂既然当过律师，也是经济学者，理应对我展开火力十足的反击并解释立场。但他却没有，只说对我的演讲没有要澄清或提问的。我为此感到非常过意不去，所以没有继续问下去。”)

Mr Nair’s repeated flip-flops like flipping a roti-prata is not only going to win him new fans from the opposition camp, but will cost him supporters from the PAP camp as well who are not used to seeing their leaders making capitulating to populist sentiments and making ‘concessions’ to the opposition so easily.

Related articles:

Indian new citizen defends Vikram Nair

Vikram Nair being made to look like a ‘joke’ by TOC

Vikram Nair to sue TOC for defamation?

Vikram Nair: ‘Deceptive’ of TOC to attribute ‘lies’ to me

Vikram Nair to Chen Show Mao: Show me the money

Advertisements

Political analysts slammed WP MPs for ‘copying’ the work of others without giving due credit

Two prominent political analysts have slammed WP MPs Chen Show Mao and Pritam Singh of ‘copying’ the work of others in their Facebook note and parliamentary speech respectively without giving due credit to the original source.

Mr Chen was accused of copying the work of a former civil servant Donald Low and passing it as his own on his Facebook while Mr Pritam Singh was ridiculed for using an article found on the internet 4 years ago in his parliamentary speech on 1 March 2012 as discovered by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean who remarked:

“I was doing some background research on the subject and I was struck by how remarkably similar Mr Pritam Singh’s speech is to a 23 September 2008 article on the Internet called “Time for an Ombudsman in Singapore”. Almost word for word.”

In an interview with a Chinese evening tabloid yesterday, Associate Professor Lai Ya Qiao from NTU said:

“It is inappropriate of a MP (Pritam Singh) to use materials found on the internet four years ago to make a speech in Parliament today. Even if the content is still relevant after four years, it is just not right to use the ideas of another person without giving due credit.”

Another political analyst Professor Lim Boon Yee added:

“If a politician wants to build up credibility in the eyes of the public, he should use his own ideas and views. Even when using the ideas of others, he must quote the source. Last month, the Transport Minister of Australia was rapped by the public for using a quote from a Hollywood movie at an important press interview without giving acknowledgment to it.”

Meanwhile Mr Chen Show Mao and Mr Pritam Singh continue to maintain a strange silence as if nothing has happened, using the typical modus operandi of WP that they do not have to account to anybody so long they wear the ‘opposition’ tag on their shoulders.

 

Related articles:

Academician on Chen Show Mao’s plagiarism

Pritam Singh accused of ‘copying’ work of others

Chen Show Mao accused of plagiarism by netizens

Academic on Chen Show Mao’s ‘plagiarism’: Failure to attribute source of ideas is in itself plagiarism

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.

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,

Shermon Ong

Another WP MP Pritam Singh accused of ‘copying’ the works of others in his parliamentary speech

Another Workers Party MP Pritam Singh has been accused by netizens for ‘copying’ the works of others after fellow party colleague Chen Show Mao was slammed for reproducing an article written by a ex-civil servant on his Facebook page without giving due credit.

In his recent speech in parliament dated 1 March 2012, Mr Pritam Singh highlighted the importance of having an Ombudsman in Singapore. The speech sounded coherent and rational except that the content seemed to be copied directly from an article published in a blog “groundnotes” on 23 September 2008 entitled “Time for an Ombudsman in Singapore.”

Mr Pritam Singh’s speech prompted Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean to remark in Parliament:

“I was doing some background research on the subject and I was struck by how remarkably similar Mr Pritam Singh’s speech is to a 23 September 2008 article on the Internet called “Time for an Ombudsman in Singapore”. Almost word for word.”

The uncanny similarities between the original article by ‘groundnotes’ and Mr Pritam Singh’s speech are highlighted by a netizen below:

[Source: Facebook]

The netizen added:

“Though I am writing this piece with some amusement, it is indeed disappointing and somewhat saddening to know that Singaporeans have opted for an opposition party, thinking that they can provide the check and balances on the government but in many occassions we are beginning to realise that it is the opposition party which need the same check and balance. We want out MPs to represent our voices, our problems, needs and aspirations in parliament but that does not mean that you completely lift off passages and ideas from someone else who has already done it or said it.”

As usual, there were no comments from Mr Pritam Singh on the controversy. Surely it doesn’t take much effort from Mr Singh or Mr Chen Show Mao to acknowledge the good work done by others in their parliamentary speeches and Facebook notes which is basic courtesy and decency to do so?

 

 

Related articles:

Chen Show Mao accused of plagiarism by netizens

Chen Show Mao accused of ‘plagiarism’ by netizens

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.

Vikram Nair attacks Chen Show Mao: Show me the money to invest in Singaporeans

Workers Party MP Chen Show Mao (Aljunied GRC) came under heavy fire from PAP MP Vikram Nair (Nee Soon GRC) during a parliamentary debate yesterday as the latter asked him repeatedly to show him the money to pay for the extra expenditure proposed in his Budget Speech.

Mr Chen had earlier called on the government to invest more in Singaporeans:

“To invest in Singaporeans is to invest in the future of Singapore. It has been said so many times and for so long that the only resource Singapore has is ourselves, that our most important capital is our human capital. Inclusive growth must be built on the growth of our human capital.”

However, Mr Vikram Nair accused Mr Chen and other WP MPs of scoring ‘political points’ by repeatedly asking the government to do more for vulnerable groups without acknowledging what had already been done, criticising him for not having a plan to pay for the extra spending he proposed.

“The one question I have is: what does Workers’ Party intend to do on the revenue side? Is it planning to raise taxes or eat into reserves to pay for all these additional programmes? Because I think the objectives are noble. I am just wondering how you balance it out…,” Mr Vikram Nair said.

He also insinuated that Mr Chen might not understand the reality on the ground as he just returned to Singapore. Mr Chen worked overseas for a number of years before returning to Singapore to contest in the general election last year.

”Let’s do more, let’s spend more,’ (they say), and, of course, they never talk of where this money is going to come from…I think many of us here have been working year in, year out, helping the vulnerable groups, and it is pretty hurtful coming from Mr Chen because he might have held this belief for a long time, but he came back only quite recently to help in this,” he added.

In response, Mr Chen said he is proposing that Singapore run a ‘deficit’ to fund additional social spending, but to “look at the numbers both on the revenue side and how much we hope to make in terms of investments to come to a solution.”

Read Mr Chen’s Budget Speech here.