Either Yap Koon Hong is being deceitful or he is just plain stupid and cannot read statistics or detect sarcasm properly. But what really raised my eyebrows was this:
“My colleagues and I took pains to research the points you raised
because we felt your opinion deserved publication, despite the errors, which are not uncommon in Forum contributions.”
Let’s assume that Yap Koon Hong was dumb enough to believe that Samuel Wee really intended to praise Singapore’s meritocratic system. If so, what exactly was so valuable about Samuel’s opinion? It offered no new insight, made no argument and was riddled with factual errors and contradictions (when perceived from Yap’s perspective). Yet Yap Koon Hong went out of his way to research and rewrite most of the letter, because “your opinion deserved publication”.
One can only conclude that the Forum Editor has a policy of going all out to publish sycophantic, rah-rah letters praising Singapore or the Government, even if they are written badly, full of contradictions and make no sense at all. For such poorly written letters, the Forum Editor basically rewrites the whole letter to make them publishable. Who cares about quality? It is the pro-Government sentiment that counts.
I would like to meet the man in private for coffee and get to know him and his sincere views, because I don’t think he’s being sincere here (and I don’t think it’s defaming him to describe him as insincere here, because if he’s being sincere then he’s definitely not qualified to be an editor.)
I appreciate the sentiment, but I have no political aspirations- I believe I can accomplish more from outside the system than from within it. I have plans and I will reveal them when the time is right, as I go along. Thank you!
(Visa: THIS IS NOT A FACTUAL ERROR. If 50% of a group score in the top two-thirds, then the remaining 50% of the group, by simple process of elimination, must score in the bottom third!)
You are under the assumption that all Singaporeans sit for PSLE when in actual fact there is a small minority who don’t, i.e. disabled children. Was it mentioned that the statistics only counted those who sat for PSLE? If yes then your statement is correct. But if the stats included all Singaporeans regardless of whether or not they took PSLE, then your statement is only correct as an approximation.
Secondly, is the term ‘university’ referring to all degree-awarding institutions (including private distance learning courses at SIM, MDIS, etc., online learning courses, studying in universities overseas, academies like NAFA, etc.) or just NUS, NTU and SMU? If it is the latter, I don’t think 10% is as bad as it sounds, considering the competitiveness and limited space of the aforementioned public institutions.
Either Yap Koon Hong is being deceitful or he is just plain stupid and cannot read statistics or detect sarcasm properly. But what really raised my eyebrows was this:
“My colleagues and I took pains to research the points you raised
because we felt your opinion deserved publication, despite the errors, which are not uncommon in Forum contributions.”
Let’s assume that Yap Koon Hong was dumb enough to believe that Samuel Wee really intended to praise Singapore’s meritocratic system. If so, what exactly was so valuable about Samuel’s opinion? It offered no new insight, made no argument and was riddled with factual errors and contradictions (when perceived from Yap’s perspective). Yet Yap Koon Hong went out of his way to research and rewrite most of the letter, because “your opinion deserved publication”.
One can only conclude that the Forum Editor has a policy of going all out to publish sycophantic, rah-rah letters praising Singapore or the Government, even if they are written badly, full of contradictions and make no sense at all. For such poorly written letters, the Forum Editor basically rewrites the whole letter to make them publishable. Who cares about quality? It is the pro-Government sentiment that counts.
I would like to meet the man in private for coffee and get to know him and his sincere views, because I don’t think he’s being sincere here (and I don’t think it’s defaming him to describe him as insincere here, because if he’s being sincere then he’s definitely not qualified to be an editor.)
Pingback: Samuel Wee’s response « visaisahero.
Pingback: Samuel Wee’s response to ST’s explanation « visaisahero.
Because I am a bandwagon-jumper, I’d like to recommend you to run for office, you know, join politics?
I appreciate the sentiment, but I have no political aspirations- I believe I can accomplish more from outside the system than from within it. I have plans and I will reveal them when the time is right, as I go along. Thank you!
Pingback: Letters 10 « Awesome Typography…and then some
Two questions:
(Visa: THIS IS NOT A FACTUAL ERROR. If 50% of a group score in the top two-thirds, then the remaining 50% of the group, by simple process of elimination, must score in the bottom third!)
You are under the assumption that all Singaporeans sit for PSLE when in actual fact there is a small minority who don’t, i.e. disabled children. Was it mentioned that the statistics only counted those who sat for PSLE? If yes then your statement is correct. But if the stats included all Singaporeans regardless of whether or not they took PSLE, then your statement is only correct as an approximation.
Secondly, is the term ‘university’ referring to all degree-awarding institutions (including private distance learning courses at SIM, MDIS, etc., online learning courses, studying in universities overseas, academies like NAFA, etc.) or just NUS, NTU and SMU? If it is the latter, I don’t think 10% is as bad as it sounds, considering the competitiveness and limited space of the aforementioned public institutions.
Pingback: Straits Times Forum explains why it heavily edited letter | The Online Citizen
Pingback: Want your opinions distorted and misrepresented? Write in to The Straits Times! « visakan veerasamy.
Pingback: Samuel Wee’s response to ST’s explanation | visakan veerasamy.