政治文抄公- Political Plagiarizing

[earnestball]

I hv not seen/heard the speech by PS. I can be considered an academic with a PhD. My view is this - plagiarism can only be so if the person has claimed it is his work/effort. Was the impression given that it was such? The ombudsman idea in Sg is not new - even Tommy Koh wrote an article some years ago calling for such an office. I would hv thought that the focus shd always be on the message rather than the messenger to begin with.

 

[commoner]

these 2 guys, PS and CSM, listened to the ground and from the public, found their suggestions reasonable and a good argument, and present it, at least it is better than believing in UFO i think,,, also luckily they don't plagarised the UFO talk also,,,,,

 

[HedgeTrader]

these 2 guys, PS and CSM, listened to the ground and from the public, found their suggestions reasonable and a good argument, and present it, at least it is better than believing in UFO i think,,, also luckily they don't plagarised the UFO talk also,,,,,

GMS just piss his UFO blog never kana copy so no face LOL

 

[mightyfly]

CSM has posted a fb note and said that the sender told him that he prefer not to be cited by politicians. You can read it here: http://www.facebook.com/ChenShowMao

GMS, please don't jump to conclusion too fast. As you mentioned, CSM and Pritiam are both trained lawyers, surely they should know that plagiarizing is wrong and I am certain they wouldn't be foolish enough to not credit the senders/bloggers without good reasons.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

I have answered your question already in my FB. CSM's case is borderline case as it is just reproduction of writing of a FB friend without putting up the necessary link. I would take it as improper of reproducing an article without putting up the link. That is forgiveable. FB writing, no big deal. However, WP MPs should have learned the lesson: even in such an informal setting of FB, people could raise question of plagiarizing of work, Pritam should make sure that he doesn't make the same mistake in parliament.

It is disappointing in that sense, he lacks political sensitivity and acumen by making the same mistake in Parliament. People could forgive you if its your first mistake; but if you make another similar mistake, it will create tremendous doubts on integrity.

As I have said, Pritam was a PHD student and he should know better. Even if the original writer has given permission, he should not be that lazy to just include a simple "disclaimer" or explain that he agrees with the blog article, willing to share it with the parliament. Parliament is a FORMAL place, unlike FB. He failed miserably, especially so when he didn't admit immediately in parliament when questioned by DPM Teo that he has quoted wholesale from a blog article: that would minimize damage.

It doesn't cost much time by adding a sentence in front of his speech "I have read a blog article on internet management and I agree with it totally. It said: ...." There is no reason for such oversight and if he made that mistake, he deserved to be suspected of plagiarizing the article, trying to pass it as his own view. That is fair game.


Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS,

You best sum up in my view the notion, " with friends like these who needs enemies. ". Firstly both CSM and PS cannot be held to academic standards for research papers and citations. CSM had shared Donald Lows thoughts on his Facebook, by nature Facebook is informal chatty and is build around the notion of networking, sharing and discussion. Whether one as an individual cites or not is really an informal matter and if every Facebook comment is cited with the same academic certainty as a research paper, it really defeats the informal chatty coffe shop nature of Facebook.

PS should have replied better to DPM catching him out on that issue or for that matter adopted or adapted it in a different manner,

As it stands parliamentary speeches being short and time limited do not allow the brevity or breathe for full fledged citations of sources. Political speeches and public speeches in citations of quotes or extracts tend to be of well known academics, politicians and or personalities. Political speeches are not an academic exercise in research and citations and are not held to academic ideas of citations and riguer. Use of open source extracts are at best an issue of courtesy and clarification post speech.


Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Well, if it is just the mention of the idea, that's perfectly alright. But quoting para by para, word by word without proper credits?

Goh Meng Seng

I hv not seen/heard the speech by PS. I can be considered an academic with a PhD. My view is this - plagiarism can only be so if the person has claimed it is his work/effort. Was the impression given that it was such? The ombudsman idea in Sg is not new - even Tommy Koh wrote an article some years ago calling for such an office. I would hv thought that the focus shd always be on the message rather than the messenger to begin with.

 

[SNAblog]

Plagiarizing articles and works of others without proper credits involves integrity problem. It seems that not only CSM does not show good practice, Pritam has taken a further step to copy wholesale of another blogger's work and put it up as his own speech in parliament without giving proper credits at first.

In his haste to denigrate the Workers' Party, self-styled political analyst Goh Meng Seng accused Pritam Singh of plagiarism before checking with the author.

When being presented with this blog post by the author that permission was granted with no acknowledgement required, he instantly does a volte-face and picked on Pritam's inapt reaction to TCH's query.

What he should have said in parliament, before he quote whole chunk of other people's work, "I am going to share this view written by a blogger 4 years ago which I agree totally with him". That would be more appropriate than trying to shy away from his opponent's query.

Without saying more, I think Goh Meng Seng owes Pritam Singh an apology for calling him a plagiarizer.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I have stated my stand. Even with permission of original writer, Pritam has no right to quote para by para, word by word WITHOUT crediting these to the original writer. It is Pritam who owes an apology to parliament, writer and voters.

Goh Meng Seng

In his haste to denigrate the Workers' Party, self-styled political analyst Goh Meng Seng accused Pritam Singh of plagiarism before checking with the author.

When being presented with this blog post by the author that permission was granted with no acknowledgement required, he instantly does a volte-face and picked on Pritam's inapt reaction to TCH's query.



Without saying more, I think Goh Meng Seng owes Pritam Singh an apology for calling him a plagiarizer.

 

[earnestball]

Well, if it is just the mention of the idea, that's perfectly alright. But quoting para by para, word by word without proper credits?

Goh Meng Seng

point taken. at any rate, shd hv the courtesy to say it is not his original thot ....

 

[SNAblog]

I have stated my stand. Even with permission of original writer, Pritam has no right to quote para by para, word by word WITHOUT crediting these to the original writer.

Goh Meng Seng

That is just your personal opinion on how Pritam should qualify his speech, but it still does not support your charge of plagiarism. Again, you owe Pritam Singh an apology for calling him a plagiarizer.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

His omission of credits made him to be one. Nothing to do with me. This is regardless of whether the writer has approval or not.

For example, you can't just employ someone to write your own thesis to pass your examination, right?

Goh Meng Seng

That is just your personal opinion on how Pritam should qualify his speech, but it still does not support your charge of plagiarism. Again, you owe Pritam Singh an apology for calling him a plagiarizer.

 

[lockeliberal]

dear JXL

I believe I did not make any excuses for YSL in any form and in fact was brutally critical. Attribution takes many forms and it's strictest as a rule for formal academic research and papers. Speeches are copied wholsale and adapted by context, verse and chapter by speech writers everywhere. Wouldit matterif that blogger himself was not the primary source of definition for an ombudsmen and he to lifted it from someone else ? if anything it is just plain crappy work

Locke

Locke,

You should not keep making excuses for your WP colleagues for blatant plagiarism and covering up extra-marital affairs as personal private matter. You do not have to go through a Phd programme to understand the need to make proper attribution. I learned that in primary 3. Bro Perspective was my senior, I am sure he was taught the same. It does not matter whether it is a research journal article, academic paper, facebook posting or even entry in personal blog, it is still a publication. The golden rule is you cannot cut-copy-paste without making proper attribution and worse copy wholesale and try to pass it off as your work. You also need to understand that csm and pritiam singh are different from popular blogger xiaxue and they need to have better standard.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Put it in another perspective.

If someone wanted to cheat you that this product is Japanese product but later, someone pointed out that this is made in China, then he tried to explain yeah, made in China with Japanese brand approval... does that make him lesser as cheater? Any consumers would have the right to question that sales person's integrity.

Goh Meng Seng

That is just your personal opinion on how Pritam should qualify his speech, but it still does not support your charge of plagiarism. Again, you owe Pritam Singh an apology for calling him a plagiarizer.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Locke,

I am sorry but I cannot agree with you here. Any politicians found to copy whole sale of other people's work and try to pass it as his own speech will be taken to task by his opponents. That's fair game because it is a matter of integrity.

Goh Meng Seng

dear JXL

I believe I did not make any excuses for YSL in any form and in fact was brutally critical. Attribution takes many forms and it's strictest as a rule for formal academic research and papers. Speeches are copied wholsale and adapted by context, verse and chapter by speech writers everywhere. Wouldit matterif that blogger himself was not the primary source of definition for an ombudsmen and he to lifted it from someone else ? if anything it is just plain crappy work

Locke

 

[jixiaolan]

If someone had offered suggestions to csm/pritam and permitted them to use without the need of attribution, that is perfectly fine. But those works were previously published, you cannot reproduce the work without proper citation.

In his haste to denigrate the Workers' Party, self-styled political analyst Goh Meng Seng accused Pritam Singh of plagiarism before checking with the author.

When being presented with this blog post by the author that permission was granted with no acknowledgement required, he instantly does a volte-face and picked on Pritam's inapt reaction to TCH's query.



Without saying more, I think Goh Meng Seng owes Pritam Singh an apology for calling him a plagiarizer.

 

[Char_Azn]

Most pple seem to have missed the point. Nothing wrong with copying but it gives the impression that WP have no opinion of their own, that's the damaging part

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Ok lah, put it in simple kindergarten context, your friend allows you to copy his homework, or essay but it doesn't mean that it is right for you to copy it wholesale and try to pass it up as your own work. Right?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Yes, that's a minor embarrassment. It is alright to share the same idea, same vision whatever. But to copy wholesale of published work, that's another matter altogether.

Goh Meng Seng

Most pple seem to have missed the point. Nothing wrong with copying but it gives the impression that WP have no opinion of their own

 

[jixiaolan]

Would you agree that those who copied are unfit and not qualify to represent you as your own mp?

dear JXL

I believe I did not make any excuses for YSL in any form and in fact was brutally critical. Attribution takes many forms and it's strictest as a rule for formal academic research and papers. Speeches are copied wholsale and adapted by context, verse and chapter by speech writers everywhere. Wouldit matterif that blogger himself was not the primary source of definition for an ombudsmen and he to lifted it from someone else ? if anything it is just plain crappy work

Locke

 

[SNAblog]

His omission of credits made him to be one. Nothing to do with me. This is regardless of whether the writer has approval or not.

For example, you can't just employ someone to write your own thesis to pass your examination, right?

Goh Meng Seng

So you are saying that the author's unconditional consent is totally irrelevant?
Using your examination analogy, if I reproduced the answers from a 10-years series helpbook in an examination, it is considered as plagiarism?

If someone wanted to cheat you that this product is Japanese product but later, someone pointed out that this is made in China, then he tried to explain yeah, made in China with Japanese brand approval... does that make him lesser as cheater? Any consumers would have the right to question that sales person's integrity.

If a person is given permission by a singer to sing his/her song without any acknowledgement needed, and he did so as permitted. Is he a cheat?