Why Pritam and Show Mao were wrong
I’ve been following the controversy over how two Workers’ Party’s (WP) Members of Parliament (MP) used content from sources without any attribution.
It first started with MP Chen Show Mao. He’d posted – re-posted, actually – virtually the entire posting from Donald Low. Donald’s Facebook note was in response to PAP MP Vikram Nair’s now-infamous “Nigerian scam” speech rebutting what Chen Show Mao had said in Parliament.
Chen was criticised for failing to credit his Facebook note to Donald. However, Chen later explained that Donald had told him that he (Donald) “preferred not to be cited by politicians.”
Donald himself posted a comment on Chen’s Facebook page, saying more or less the same thing – that there was no need to attribute the note to him.
A few days later, it was Pritam Singh who caused similar controversy. He had made a speech in Parliament on how perhaps Singapore should introduce an ombudsman. The controversy was over his use of a blog post which had argued for such an ombudsman. Pritam’s speech carried – ad verbatim – much of what the blogger had written. This prompted DPM Teo Chee Hean to remark that he “was struck by how remarkably similar” Pritam’s speech was to the blog post.
The blogger whose blog post Pritam had quoted ad verbatim in his speech said:
“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.”
WP supporters swiftly came to the defence of the WP MPs, while its critics criticised them for “plagiarism”. The two sides will go on arguing about this.
What I am more concerned about is that the two MPs themselves seem to treat the two episodes with nonchalance.
Chen posted later on his Facebook page:
And as the matter continued to be debated, Chen posted again:
For Pritam, he was more cryptic. He posted:
Following the WP’s silence on its change in position vis a vis ministerial salaries and what these should be pegged to – the WP had said, in its election manifesto, that salaries should be pegged to political office holders internationally but changed this position during the Parliament debate in January – one would question how the WP is behaving.
Particularly, its silence on certain matters. This is especially so given how the party itself has spoken eloquently about accountability and transparency – which the party listed as two of the tenets in its model of a “first world parliament”.
While WP supporters will continue to defend the actions of the party, I hope the party and its members will not be blinded by such support – and hold themselves to higher standards of propriety and behaviour.
Certainly, using entire chunks of someone else’s creation, in Parliament no less, is unacceptable, without any form of attribution or credit given to the creator. While the creators of the content may have given consent for it to be used, or may have granted permission to not be credited, even so, MPs Pritam and Chen should know that there are other ways to give credit. After all, both are in the legal profession where the specific use of words is a staple practice.
Otherwise, and as can be seen in the initial comments following Chen’s original posting of Donald’s note, these can be misleading. Several of those who read Chen’s posting had thought it was an original from him – and lavished praises on him.
The WP’s secretary general, Low Thia Khiang, has been an MP for more than 20 years. Never once has he had a need to use someone else’s work – ad verbatim – in his speeches. If he did, he had said so clearly and unequivocally – like the time he read, in Parliament, from a letter a resident of Hougang had sent him.
Low probably cringed – or would have – when he came to know of what Pritam and Chen had done, nevermind what WP supporters think.
Former Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong said:
“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.”
I agree. And I hope Pritam and Chen Show Mao realise this as well.
The two men, so far, have not offered any apology – at least for causing the confusion or controversy. Both will probably put on the cloak of silence and move on.
On top of these, I’m pretty alarmed at how issues eg questioning use of ISA, the matter of inquiry by the 16 exdetainees, issues on accused assailants jumping bail so seemingly easily etc are not discussed by WP MPs.
Hi Andrew, thanks for your article. At the end of the day, if what MPs say make sense then I guess people would be less harsh on the proper citation thing. Overall, missteps from WP here and there, hope they be careful otherwise it would slowly add up.
I don’t get it. The original writers apprarently have no problems not having their text attributed to them.
If they have no problem with this, why is it a problem for you?
Let’s say Student A copies Student B’s homework, with his consent. Does that mean that the copying isn’t a problem?
I don’t mean to say that the WP MP situation is “like cheating”. I’m using an analogy to illustrate that it’s possible to have a problem with an act, even if the people involved in the act “have no problems” with it.
Let’s face it, if PAP MPs had done something similar, lots of people on the internet would be furious.
It’s an ethical issue. We are judging MPs on their ideas. If WP MPs take ideas from others, and pass them off as their own, that is very misleading to the public. People will think that the WP is full of good suggestions, when in fact they have taken it from elsewhere, without attribution. And the sad thing is that the WP MPs copied their speeches almost word for word from anonymous bloggers. The WP MPs didn’t even bother to re-write their speeches in their own words. At the end of the day, this is not how a “First World Opposition” behaves.
I see nothing wrong with what you call ‘nonchalance’. In my opinion, Mr Chen didn’t try to pretend the work was his (not to mention he had permission); That the readers skipped his preface and went on to assume it was his work, is the readers’ problem. Of course, many hold the opposite view – that it’s still wrong (for whatever reasons). Mr Chen’s response put it succinctly, “I have my views”, and you have yours. Why must I agree with you that it’s wrong, simply because some of you say so? I would be disappointed if he had simply conveniently apologised just because of public pressure.
Then why didn’t Mr Chen respond to the FB thread and point out that the praise really should go to someone else? True, the initial misunderstandings may simply have been the fault of careless readers (and there are certainly lots of those around). But Mr Chen’s lack of clarification casts some doubt on the purity of his intentions.
“I want to eat a plate of char kway tiao”….overheard at the local hawker centre.
Can I utter the very same words, when I order a plate of CKT?
Can I repeat myself to my colleagues in the office?
Can I write this on my blog and facebook?
Do I need to seek permission from the person who first uttered this “idea”?
And if I did get his permission (however trivial it is), do I need to quote his name?
Come on, stop picking a fish bone from an egg.
laugh out loud – I wonder how many of the PM and minister speeches are written by speech writers….
Andrew,
I am with you on many of your articles but not this one.
There is nothing wrong with what the two WP MPs were doing. They both did asked for permission
first. Many readers have missed reading that and the best flattery you can give to the writers is to quote word for word from their articles.
What is important is It shows that the citizens are engaging with the WP for the well being of Singapore and I am sure the ruling PAP will be very envious that they couldn’t do the same. They have to pay private secretaries or get the civil service to do that.
Andrew you seem to be also jumping on the bandwagon. It is very clear to me Chen had clearly qualified what he was doing was to quote some of the feedback he has received. He DID NOT SAY: I think, IMO, It is my views and words to that effect to imply that it was his own words and ideas. How is it wrong for an MP to quote word for word what he has been told when he himself agrees with it? MPs may have their own opinion of issues, but IMO more importantly, an MP must see himself also as a channel for the views of the common people. I am glad that he has done so, as it shows he really do care for how the ground thinks and feels and seen to it that it gets heard at the highest forum.
For far too long, the PAP MPs has been behaving like the three proverbial monkeys who see no evils, hear no evils and say no evils. JUST EVERY MONTH PAY CORRECT ,SIR! Like during NS.
In any event, what can be clearer than the owners of those words themselves coming out UNEQUIVOCALLY to confirm that they have given their permission and also did not want or need attribution or acknowledgement that it was their words? Under the circumstances, how do you think Chen should have acted? It does not make an IOTA of difference if he had paraphrase the ideas and words in his own words. And I don’t see why he had to, if the original version made the point admirably succinct. This would be like trying to reinvent the wheel all for the sake of political correctness. IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE AFTER? Does it make a difference? IMO, No. Your criticism seemed over the top and you are appeared to be bend over backwards as a hatchet on behalf of the govt to indiscriminately hack out at the opposition party.
Why the nitpicking?
Why do they need to apologize? You make it sound as if asking for permission to use material and sharing it is a crime. So what if you and Siew Kum hong believe they are wrong. Do you really believe information abt our social and political happenings only circulate in between TOC and TRE and Singaporedaily and Singazine etc and no where else. Go and log in to any LAN channel and go and hear what our leaders are saying abt this matter. They know there are some elements trying to blow up this matter to embarass WP, but that is not going to happen as they have stopped it gaining momentum, killed it even in its tracks, its dead as duck. I happen to think they did the right thing, as those people did nothing wrong.
If there is no issue between those who was quoted wholesale and those who quoted them, Why is there an issue so big for others to blown about.
Were they not liken the Judas from one of the ancient story??
John1-6
LOL LOL
http://groundnotes.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/i-note-that-the/
Nobody has a monopoly of ideas. Since MPs are the representatives of the people, they should be commended for bringing good ideas and arguments into parliament for deliberation. This will result in the formulation of better policies for the good of all Singaporeans. As Deng Xiao Ping once said, “It does not matter whether the cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice, it is a good cat”.
When students are criticised for plagiarism, it is because academic credit is an extremely important thing. The purpose of a student is to learn the material, and prove that he has done it. That is why it is an important thing. Likewise for researchers, the whole idea is to demonstrate to the world that he has come up with something truly original, and that the person who came up with that original idea does not have credit stolen from him.
Politicians have a different job. Their job is to push and advocate policies. Coming up with the idea is important but it is not the main point of being a politician. That is why plagiarism is not important in politics. As long as they understand it, and are willing to push and fight for it, that is their main job.
What I am truly disappointed in is that people do not do enough thinking and reflection, they take a rule that makes perfect sense in one situation (ie academia) and try to implement it wholesale in another different situation (politics). That is rubbish.
There is one other reason why this discussion is disappointing. Let’s look at the context. The PAP says in parliament that they prefer to stick to their old and current mode of thinking, which is to keep up the endless accumulation of capital through invisible taxes (face it, you get taxed more for a car and buying a HDB for an outrageous price than income taxes) and profits from GLCs, and to keep that surplus out of reach of the citizens.
The Worker’s party wants to challenge that mode of thinking, which is what they’re in Parliament for. But instead people are actually criticising the WP and not the PAP for being unoriginal. I don’t know if I”m the only one who finds this outrageous.
The other aspect is the dire level of discussion that we see here: granted, Singaporeans do have some way to grow before they mature politically. We are only starting to get used to this level of political freedom. But we are still in the old “us vs them” mentality. Is there not something seriously wrong that when somebody like Donald Low comes up with a good essay about the philosophy behind the government’s fiscal policies, when 10 people talk about the essay, 9 of them will comment on bimbonic stuff like whether or not the essay was copied by Chen Show Mao, rather than comment on the substance of the essay: do the economics make sense? What about the fears that when you start being more generous you can’t take back the entitlements?
We all need to look at ourselves and ask whether we are really interested in constructive discussion, or whether we’re in the old mindset of the same old boring questions: is the PAP being fair? Is the opposition united? Does the opposition have credibility? Who has scored the points? Is the government giving or taking? That is the problem with Singaporeans – you care less about what is being said than who is the person saying it.
Andrew, in Chen Show Mao’s case you seem to have missed the significance of a crucial point: the author did not wish to be cited. You did mention this fact, so i’m wondering how you could have overlooked its implication. Maybe you’re trying too hard to position yourself as being even-handed and “credible”, and therefore must show that you are capable of criticising even opposition MPs as well.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments and criticisms, and for sharing your views.
My position remains the same, as I see no new arguments which would change my mind. The points raised have already been addressed in the article.
And “swingtime”, no, I am not trying to position myself “as being even-handed and ‘credible’. I am not into frivolous things like this which is a waste of time. I feel Pritam and Show Mao were wrong – and I still do.
Regards.
Some of my suggestions or writings given to PAP ministers and MPs were eventually adopted and used wholesale. No public attributions or acknowledgements of my contributions – no prob, I am not seeking fame or fortune and am just doing my duty as a citizen.
Andrew – Perhaps there is another dimension of (A) Respect and (B) Applicability of Apology.
(A) Respect – When the author/source specifically asked that no attribution be made to him/her (as in this case where Mr Donald Low said so upfront and re-affirmed it when this issue got blown up), shouldn’t the preferences of the author/source be respected?
Granted that whilst the author/source need not be cited by name but by capacity (eg, an economist friend, an industry expert, a constituent, a supporter, a citizen, a friend, etc), I’d see this more as an educational process for our newbie parliamentarians as they learn the ropes.
(B) Applicability of Apology – One apologises when (i) one has made a mistake and (ii) one backs-up words with action by taking corrective and/or preemptive measures. Otherwise, it reduces the “apology” to sheer spin which would lead to disgust and disillusion (eg, PM Lee’s “apology” prior to GE and the continuing Progressive Corporatism). In this unfortunate saga, I don’t believe there was intent by, eg, Mr Chen Show Mao, to claim credit for another person’s thoughts or work.