Samuel Wee’s response to ST’s explanation

The Saga Continues…

Part 1: Want your opinions distorted and misrepresented? Write in to the Straits Times!

Part 2: ST’s justification for its editing of Forum opinions.

Dear Mr Yap,

I thank you greatly for the courtesy of your reply. Time is surely of the essence for a man as busy as you; therefore I do not take the time you have invested into replying my queries lightly.

Nevertheless, I found the explanations given in your letter for editing mine unsatisfactory, especially with regards to the matter of statistics.

The first statistic in question, as quoted in my original letter, is as follows.

“It is indeed heartwarming to learn that 90% of children from one-to-three-room flats do not make it to university.”

Firstly, you claim that the original statistic did not exist in Ms Chang’s March 8 front-page report, and that it was only quoted in a later article (“Poor kids need aspiration: March 18; paragraph 5), which appeared after my letter was published.

This is inaccurate. The statistic appeared in a case study of Primary 1 Pupil Amos Leong, under the headline, “School system still ‘best way to move up’”.

You appear to have forgotten to attach that article together with your email (You did, however, very kindly attach the other two articles by Ms Rachel Chang–my utmost thanks!) Therefore, for your convenience, the quote in question, from para 2 of the article:

“Education Minister Ng Eng Hen gave several reasons yesterday why a boy like Amos, seven, can aim high as he moves through the school system. Among them: One in 10 children from one to three room flats makes it to university. Four in 10 go to a polytechnic.”

The statistic in question can also be found in an infographic uploaded to the ST website on the 8th of March: http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20110308/a10.pdf

Secondly, you claim that my original statement was contradictory and didn’t make sense, and that my original sentence could not have meant what it said unless I was elated over the fact that nine in 10 children from less well-off homes failed to qualify for university.

However, why is it so unlikely to think that someone could be happy over that fact? After all, the statistic in question was produced as evidence to argue that social mobility in Singapore is alive and well, as your article suggested. Following that line of thought to its logical conclusion would force us to accept the statistic as a positive one.

If social mobility in Singapore is thriving, it makes sense that someone would be happy over the quoted statistic, and it thus makes no sense for the statistic to have been removed. If the statistic is a negative one, however, it makes no sense to point at it and use for as evidence that a meritocratic system exists where the poor can rise up–as your article did.

Now, the second statistic in question:

“‘His (Education Minister Dr Ng) statement is backed up with the statistic that 50% of children from the bottom third of the socio-economic ladder score in the bottom third of the Primary School Leaving Examination.’

Reason we edited it: Factual error

‘His statement is backed by the statistic that about 50 per cent of children from the bottom third of the socio-economic
bracket score within the top two-thirds of their Primary School Leaving Examination cohort. (Para 3 of Ms Chang’s March 8 report).”

You claim that my statistic was a factual error, when in actual fact it was a mere paraphrase. If 50 percent of any given group scores in the top two-thirds of the PSLE, the remaining 50% of the group scores in the bottom third by elimination–a matter of simple math.

(So simple, in fact, that it might even be a question for future PSLE Math papers! Food for thought).

Now, as for the matter of misrepresentation:

“Your letter put the minister’s argument out of context by coalescing it with “a system that ensures good, able students from middle and high-income groups (note middle and high-income) to not be restricted by the help given to disadvantaged students. This was not said by the minister at all. So, we needed to provide the context to the minister’s statement in order to retain the sense of your meaning.”

My letter made its original point based on the following exchange between Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) and Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen, as recorded in para 18 and 19 of your article, ‘MPs speak for kids from poorer families’, March 8, Page A6.

“‘If we expect about 70 per cent of the
overall population to go through tertiary
education, should we not aim to do the
same for students from lower-income
households?’ she said.

Dr Ng disagreed. ‘That’s a very wrong
starting point, that in our attempt to focus
on one group, we actually try to conscribe
other groups. It becomes a win-lose
mathematical game,’ he said.”

The exchange directly shows, through use of quotes, that Dr Ng believes that rich-and-middle-income students should not be conscribed at the expense of lower-income students. Therefore, it is inaccurate to accuse the minister of not having said something he was recorded as having said.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, though, that the quote I have just quoted did not exist. The description of his background edited into my letter would still be irrelevant, since my original intention was not to describe his childhood circumstances. Therefore, the change represents a distortion, not a clarification, of my meaning.

I hope you will give the various points I have raised here careful thought. In all seriousness, I appreciate the commitment in time and attention you have invested into this dialogue, and sincerely thank you for your effort. For the sake of accountability and openness, I will be publishing this exchange online. I look forward to your reply.

Samuel Wee

Advertisement