Ghostwriters are not owners of the work they create for politicians or anyone for that matter. This is because they have been employed to produce that work. Hence the issue of plagiarism does not arise. This is clearly stated under Section 12.01.5 of Singapore's Intellectual Property Law.
=> I am aware of the legal disclaimers on this issue which does exist all over the world. In USA, it is definitely necessary to have the disclaimer as litigation is a lucrative business for client and legal representative. Singapore's IPL was copied and adapted from Australia, if memory serves me right, 97 version? Long time since I bothered to touch it and Singapore Law after witnessing CJs who can see how I can think when modern science still admits it cannot understand much of the human mind and CJs that say if you can materialize out of nowhere into a voting area as a political candidate, you do not violate regulations of keeping minimum distance away. I guess I must be thinking 2D. Perhaps those political candidates from that one party were from a different time line.
True, they are not legal owners of those works due to the created officious writing made to look legal. But ask the "legal" owner to reproduce the same type of writing and ask what was the basis and train of thought for making his legal ownership piece. I know many a researcher here in the earlier days being so pissed as they could not own any of the work they did. Someone else here profited big time on it. I am not sure if they were allowed to publish findings in their names at all as I never bothered to dig on the issue. Of course, the same applies to both CSM and Singh that they should attribute to whomever, or everyone in parliament should start saying, "through our consultative findings, we....." or " as representatives of the people's aspirations and concerns, we......" So whatever they do or say is representing what Singaporeans have already said or written, though it is not strong legally. But let us be mindful of the slippery slope. No idea is that original. Chances are you can find something somewhere for every concept raised in Parliament if you search over the world.
Having said that, CSM and PS should, as a simple matter of ethics, acknowledge that the work they reproduced was not theirs instead of creating the impression that it was. They should say the work is being reproduced by them with permission by authors who wish to remain private. => True, no doubt.But then again, Pappies create an impression of a lot things that came from public consultation responses to be theirs, too.
Those who got a big fat zero for plagiarism in the late 70s/early 80s may know who I am. => Yes, it does and it continues as it is still the culture even in junior colleges and polys. I saw a boy doing mechatronics getting As for his works which he shamelessly cut and paste to put into his papers for submission. I was wondering how this dumb arse could actually complete so much work and get As. I understand. Chances are lecturers are involved in it to cut their work of dealing with failed students and keep a good track record for themselves. If proper paraphrasing with citation is adopted, lecturers need to seriously buck up their substandard teaching as do students. Let's face it, the standards of education are actually not high in Singapore and also in most parts of the world. I have seen outright plagiarism from students in Germany, China, Japan, Korea. There is also the issue of language. Many a Chinese, Japanese and Korean, use translation either from their mother tongue or to their mother tongue as a way to flagrantly flout the plagiarism ruling. Due to the bloody fact that if you use a software to detect in plagiarism in Chinese, Japanese and Korean, you will have a serious headache as writing styles are extremely parsimonious, due to the nature of the languages - you end up with so many things being accused as plagiarized. I did a comparison of different writings on the same topic before. By US, standards, it is straight plagiarism for all of them including professors.
For USA, creative paraphrasing is used to pass off ideas as their own original, till they meet professors who know the subject matter and literal review inside out. Then they get fucked.
I support attributing to people with original ideas, but it is becoming tougher with time as more information is becoming available to us in the world and you find that the thoughts of individuals are not that unique after all. Then you have the immature debate that Duanwujie is a Korean creation, Japanese filing patent for making curry.
Thoughts that are too unique will be alien to everyone and likely not understood. BTW, fractals were created and better understood to African tribes far earlier than when fragments of thoughts were invented in Europe. African tribal understanding of fractals are still driving pHds from ivy leagues nuts. So fractals is a black thing invention, you dig? Do not attribute it to the whitties. My fucking 2cents worth.
=> I am aware of the legal disclaimers on this issue which does exist all over the world. In USA, it is definitely necessary to have the disclaimer as litigation is a lucrative business for client and legal representative. Singapore's IPL was copied and adapted from Australia, if memory serves me right, 97 version? Long time since I bothered to touch it and Singapore Law after witnessing CJs who can see how I can think when modern science still admits it cannot understand much of the human mind and CJs that say if you can materialize out of nowhere into a voting area as a political candidate, you do not violate regulations of keeping minimum distance away. I guess I must be thinking 2D. Perhaps those political candidates from that one party were from a different time line.
True, they are not legal owners of those works due to the created officious writing made to look legal. But ask the "legal" owner to reproduce the same type of writing and ask what was the basis and train of thought for making his legal ownership piece. I know many a researcher here in the earlier days being so pissed as they could not own any of the work they did. Someone else here profited big time on it. I am not sure if they were allowed to publish findings in their names at all as I never bothered to dig on the issue. Of course, the same applies to both CSM and Singh that they should attribute to whomever, or everyone in parliament should start saying, "through our consultative findings, we....." or " as representatives of the people's aspirations and concerns, we......" So whatever they do or say is representing what Singaporeans have already said or written, though it is not strong legally. But let us be mindful of the slippery slope. No idea is that original. Chances are you can find something somewhere for every concept raised in Parliament if you search over the world.
Having said that, CSM and PS should, as a simple matter of ethics, acknowledge that the work they reproduced was not theirs instead of creating the impression that it was. They should say the work is being reproduced by them with permission by authors who wish to remain private. => True, no doubt.But then again, Pappies create an impression of a lot things that came from public consultation responses to be theirs, too.
Those who got a big fat zero for plagiarism in the late 70s/early 80s may know who I am. => Yes, it does and it continues as it is still the culture even in junior colleges and polys. I saw a boy doing mechatronics getting As for his works which he shamelessly cut and paste to put into his papers for submission. I was wondering how this dumb arse could actually complete so much work and get As. I understand. Chances are lecturers are involved in it to cut their work of dealing with failed students and keep a good track record for themselves. If proper paraphrasing with citation is adopted, lecturers need to seriously buck up their substandard teaching as do students. Let's face it, the standards of education are actually not high in Singapore and also in most parts of the world. I have seen outright plagiarism from students in Germany, China, Japan, Korea. There is also the issue of language. Many a Chinese, Japanese and Korean, use translation either from their mother tongue or to their mother tongue as a way to flagrantly flout the plagiarism ruling. Due to the bloody fact that if you use a software to detect in plagiarism in Chinese, Japanese and Korean, you will have a serious headache as writing styles are extremely parsimonious, due to the nature of the languages - you end up with so many things being accused as plagiarized. I did a comparison of different writings on the same topic before. By US, standards, it is straight plagiarism for all of them including professors.
For USA, creative paraphrasing is used to pass off ideas as their own original, till they meet professors who know the subject matter and literal review inside out. Then they get fucked.
I support attributing to people with original ideas, but it is becoming tougher with time as more information is becoming available to us in the world and you find that the thoughts of individuals are not that unique after all. Then you have the immature debate that Duanwujie is a Korean creation, Japanese filing patent for making curry.
Thoughts that are too unique will be alien to everyone and likely not understood. BTW, fractals were created and better understood to African tribes far earlier than when fragments of thoughts were invented in Europe. African tribal understanding of fractals are still driving pHds from ivy leagues nuts. So fractals is a black thing invention, you dig? Do not attribute it to the whitties. My fucking 2cents worth.
