Leong Sze Hian/

I refer to the article “Straits Times! Why you edit until like that?” (theonlinecitizen, Mar 24).

In my view, the Straits Times Forum Editor was not wrong to edit the letter.

Quoting the wrong statistics

From a statistical pespective, the forum letter writer, Mr Samuel Wee, was quoting the wrong statistics.

So, the Straits Times Forum Editor, was merely amending his letter to cite the correct statistics, cited by the Education Minister.

For example, the Education Minister said “How children from the bottom one-third by socio-economic background fare: One in two scores in the top two-thirds at PSLE” –

But, Mr Samuel Wee wrote “His 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”.

Another example is Mr Wee’s: “it is indeed heartwarming to learn that only 90% of children from one-to-three-room flats do not make it to university”, when the Straits Times article “New chapter in the Singapore Story”http://pdfcast.org/pdf/new-chapter-in-singapore-story of 8 March, on the Minister’s speech in Parliament, clearly showed in the graph “Progression to Unis and Polys” (Source: MOE  (Ministry of Eduction)), that the “percentage of P1 pupils who lived in 1- to 3-room HDB flats and subsequently progressed to tertiary education”, was about 50 per cent, and not the ’90 per cent who do not make it’ cited by Mr Samuel Wee.

Quoting out of context?

As to Mr Wee’s: “Therefore, it was greatly reassuring to read about Dr Ng’s great faith in our “unique, meritocratic Singapore system”, which ensures that good, able students from the middle-and-high income groups are not circumscribed or restricted in any way in the name of helping financially disadvantaged students”, there was nothing in the Minister’s speech, Straits Times and all other media reports, that quoted the Minister, in this context.

In my opinion, the closest that I could find in all the reports, to link in context to the Minister’s faith in our meritocratic system, was what the Straits Times Forum Editor edited – “Therefore, it was reassuring to read about Dr Ng’s own experience of the ‘unique, meritocratic Singapore system’: he grew up in a three-room flat with five other siblings, and his medical studies at the National University of Singapore were heavily subsidised; later, he trained as a cancer surgeon in the United States using a government scholarship”.

To the credit of the Straits Times Forum Editor, inspite of the hundreds of letters that he receives in a day, he took the time and effort to:-

  • Check the accuracy of the letter writer’s ‘quoted’ statistics
  • Find the correct ‘quoted’ statistics to replace the writer’s wrongly ‘quoted’ statistics
  • Check for misquotes out of context (in this case, what the Education Minister actually said), and then find the correct quote to amend the writer’s statement

It is one thing to interpret, analyse or extrapolate statistics, but to purport to quote statistics which are blatantly false, is something else altogether.

Support TOC! Buy Leong Sze Hian’s book here!

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Govt's double standards a danger to society

When the haze hit Singapore last year, it was the worst in…

Let’s think about it: If free market forces determine air-con repair charges

By Guther Wong A man calls his air-con technician after his air-con…

居家通知期间还出门买泡泡茶 确诊冠病女子遭提控

一名22岁女子,在履行居家通知期间仍外出买泡泡茶、前往帮友人准备婚礼,较后确诊感染冠病19。因违反居家通知条例,女子被提控上庭。 根据移民与关卡局的文告,名为Nurul Afiqah的本地女子,在3月21日从澳大利亚回返新,她理应遵守居家通知直至4月4日。 然而,她在3月23日却外出往长堤坊买泡泡茶,还到南洋理工学院去。4月2日和3日,还到榜鹅域(Punggol Field)帮忙朋友准备婚礼,现场还有友人的家属。 4月12日,女子因身体不适前往就医,结果确诊。 移民与关卡局谴责女子行为不负责任,居家通知期间还跑去接触友人,漠视风险。 另一男子40岁男子Mohd Noor Salam,也因居家通知期间擅自离开而被提控。他在3月26日从马来西亚返回,原本应履行居家通知至4月10日。但却在3月31日离开兀兰街住处,搭公交前往母亲住家,还到过蔡厝港邻里警局。 4月2日,他离开母亲位于蔡厝港的住家,前往建屋发展局的蔡厝港分行、林邦咖啡店以及林邦购物中心一带。 违反居家通知条例,可在2020年传染病(冠病19居家令)条例下被提控,最高刑罚可达最高罚款一万元、监禁长达六个月,或两者兼施。

高庭驳回迪哥达索取警方录供的刑事动议

本月3日,大法官梅达顺在高庭驳回了本社总编许渊臣,以及被控刑事诽谤男子迪哥达的刑事动议。 检控官拒绝公开两人此案中的警方录供,他们个别针对此事提呈刑事动议。 不过,梅达顺在口头陈述判决依据时表明,提呈在他眼前的凭据,未能说服他要求高庭审核国家法院裁决的最高门槛已达到。 早前,迪哥达辩护律师拉维,依循刑事诉讼法(CPC)第22条文,要求控方在开审前出示迪哥达的口供,但遭国家法院法官驳回。 至于许渊臣辩护律师朱正熙,强调许渊臣此前录的口供,能力助此案,因为当时当局并没有盘问被告,确认他是否有诽谤内阁的意图,以及他是否认为文章陈述是中立或不利的。 梅达顺则认为,辩方大可在上诉时提及此事,惟朱正熙也指出有凸显程序错误的重要;梅达顺也提醒检控官,考量有关口供是否和辩方有关联。 拉维律师则提及,早在开审前,检控官就已知道被告索取有关口供,但当时对方就已拒绝。可是控方仍辩解被告可走刑事案件披露会议(Criminal Case Disclosure Conference,简称CCDC)程序,但依据《刑事诉讼法》第159条文,却需要征得控辩双方同意。 一开始控方就拒绝让被告索取口供,对此拉维更形容控方的上述建议,形同让被告做“徒劳之举”(原文:go on…