Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Philip Yeo’s side of the AcidFlask/Elia Diodati incident
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
If you wish to reproduce any part of this entry, you can only do so according to the conditions set forth by A*Star, which can be accessed here. If you do not accede to the conditions made by A*Star, you may be liable for defamation and I will take no responsibility for that.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Philip Yeo has kindly commented on my previous article titled “Elia Diodati versus Philip Yeo: a watershed for blogosphere” with the excerpts of the original entry (that was deemed defamatory) by AcidFlask/Elia Diodotai, which I’ve been looking for without success. I’ve amended the original entry accordingly, but I think it’s not fair to Philip Yeo to have his response buried under a whole lot of other comments.
Therefore, in the interest of freedom of speech, I’m extracting Philip Yeo’s comment out to publish as a new entry so that everyone can read the exact writings that were thought of as defamatory by Philip Yeo and have a better understanding of the issue with this new information, instead of discussing/guessing in the dark without knowing the content of the original entry. I leave it up to readers to decide for themselves on who’s right and who’s wrong in the entire incident.
The following was directly copied from the original comment, which can be reached here:
philip yeo // Mar 4, 2007 at 11:45 am
“I originally said AcidFlask made remarks that Philip Yeo felt was defamatory, but that was inaccurate. It was a commenter that posted defamatory remarks, and AcidFlask was held accountable for the comments.†[Aaron's note: the preceding quote was taken from my original entry and was made by me, not Philip Yeo]
For the past 2 years, Chen Jiahao/Acid Flask/Elia Diodati have been pretending that he did not know what defamatory statements that he had made but nevertheless he apologized.
Now claims that “a commenter that posted defamatory remarksâ€.
A born coward. See the naked truth below.
==================================
The Truth about the postings of Chen Jiahao/Acid Flask.
Postings by Chen Jiahao/Acid Flask at http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~chen6/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=318 (now defunct).
caustic.soda by AcidFlask
liminal musings of a graduate studentthis is “a*star in parliament†by AcidFlask at 03 03 05 – 13:03. please leave a comment.
a*star in parliament
-03 03 05 – 13:03
Science, Singaporewhich is perhaps why a*star feels justified in bribing universities for taking in PhD students. staggeringly enough, the cost quoted is very likely to be grossly understated, since I have been told that a*star gives out generous funding grants to specific faculty members (to the tune of us$150k/yr or so) for accepting up to three a*star scholars into their lab, as well as giving out gobs of honey to universities who will sign back-door agreements for taking in scholars without going through the formal application procedure. to the cash-strapped universities in America, the unbelievable godsend that visiting a*star contingents herald is something they can’t get enough of/f. after all, who else would be so incredibly naive and stupid as to throw money at other people instead of investing money to fund their own local research and developing their own r&d communities?
to quote a certain high-up in a*star: “if you don’t like it, then leave!†which perhaps explains the quiet turnover of more than one a*star scholar within the last twelve months. but at last, perhaps quiet no longer.
I would gladly do so, except that my sources are very likely to suffer the kind of spiteful retributive backlash that characterizes the public service. Therefore they can only remain hearsay and rumour under the current circumstances.
[AcidFlask] (email) (link) – 03 03 05 – 17:39
Lest I set myself up for libel, let me state what I know about this.
I do not recall the exact sums involved but this is the gist of what I had been told.A fellow alumna of UIUC once attended a Chemical Engineering class in this university sometime in 2003. The subject of the lecture somehow went on to funding crunches faced by researchers in the US due to post-9/11 budget cuts when suddenly the professor remarked: Oh, by the way, if any of you are in need of money, you should consider applying to this agency called A*STAR in Singapore. They offered me $150,000 for my research with no strings attached, plus an extra $35,000 for every one of their students that I accepted into my group. Singapore seems to be a very rich country; they have money to throw at you, all you have to do is ask for it!
[AcidFlask] (email) (link) – 03 03 05 – 20:30
going further down the list.. a*star scholars seem to know that “a certain high-up†in a*star has a tendency to recommend scholars to go to some institutions, like UIUC, U of Wisconsin, and UCSD.. perhaps it is those very schools that a*star has those connections with? and perhaps the reason for asking scholars not to go to the top universities is that they tend to be awfully expensive when it comes to tuition fees too (like Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Princeton).
[AcidFlask] ( email) (link) – 04 03 05 – 11:30
==============================Mon 9th May 2005
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~chen6/blog/
APOLOGY
I recognize and accept that a number of statements that I made on my on-line journal “Caustic Sodaâ€, in particular the blog post of 3 March 2005, were defamatory of A*STAR, its Chairman, Mr. Philip Yeo and its executive officers.
I admit and acknowledge that these statements are false and completely without any foundation.
I unreservedly apologize to A*STAR, its Chairman Mr. Philip Yeo, and its executive officers for the distress and embarrassment caused to them by these statements.
I undertake not to repeat the statements, or make further statements of the same or similar effect in this or any other forum or media. I further undertake to remove any such posting anywhere that has not been deleted.
Addendum:
Philip Yeo has provided more evidence to refute AcidFlask’s claim that A*star only sends its scholars to certain institutions.
32 out of 78 A*STAR PhD USbased scholars are at Stanford, MIT, Harvard and JHU.
By his wicked blog, all 78 should be at UIUC, UWisc, UCSD.
In fact, only 2 at UIUC (EEE and Physics, ex-PSC chaps), 1 at UWisc (biology) and 3 at UCSD (2 biology, 1 EEE).
Not a single Chem Engg scholar at UIUC as his blog claims.
Great insult to A*STAR scholars that they are in rich Stanford etc etc by bribery.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 04/03/2007 at 6:15 pm, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
Missig word: KNOW.
================================
For the past 2 years, Chen Jiahao/Acid Flask/Elia Diodati have been pretending that he did not know what defamatory statements that he had made but nevertheless he apologized.
about 3 years ago
oops! Missing word: know.
about 3 years ago
Missing word: KNOW.
================================
For the past 2 years, Chen Jiahao/Acid Flask/Elia Diodati have been pretending that he did not know what defamatory statements that he had made but nevertheless he apologized.
about 3 years ago
My apologies. I cut and pasted directly without a thorough reading. It has been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out, and once again thanks for providing the original entry. It makes things so much clearer for everyone.
about 3 years ago
Good of you.
about 3 years ago
Wasn’t it Mr. Yeo’s original intention to have the “defamatory” comments purged forever, even threatening legal action if AcidFlask did not remove them? Yet he now posted the very comments that he thought were so damaging to his reputation? It seems like it would have been a lot less troublesome for everyone if he would have just simply replied to AcidFlask’s original blog entry.
I do note that Mr. Yeo seems to comment on blogs using incomplete sentence fragments, with a higher-than-average rate of grammatical errors than I would expect from such a highly-placed (and highly-paid) individual. Considering that he represents a community of scholars and a research organization in Singapore, I wish that he would write in a more formal, intellectual way, lest foreigners think that our scholars write as poorly as their leader. Truly, referring to a Ph.D. student as a “coward” seems unbecoming of a respectable government official.
Let’s look at some of Mr. Yeo’s sentence fragments (collected only from Aaron’s blog):
“Facts of case.”
“Now claims that ‘a commenter that posted defamatory remarks’.”
“A born coward.”
“Chen Jiahao/Acid Flask/Elia Diodati have been pretending that he did not know what defamatory statements that he had made but nevertheless he apologized.”
The last one shows subject-verb agreement problems ([they] HAVE been –> HE), incorrect use of the 2nd relative pronoun “that”, and incorrect tense usage. Some may quibble, so please visit Elia Diodati’s blog and you can find even more heinous examples of Scholar Yeo’s English abilities.
Granted, we shouldn’t criticize everyone’s English, but given Mr. Yeo’s position as a spokesman for the scholars of our country, I expect more from him. At least he could try to sound a bit more intelligent.
about 3 years ago
I don’t have Acidflask’s old blog saved on my computer, so I can’t check this, but I’m not sure that Acidflask himself claimed that the defamatory remarks were posted by a commenter. It was Agagooga in Aaron’s last post on this subject who suggested that the offending remark was by a commenter.
billy,
I think this shows that if anything, the scholars write more poorly than their leader.
about 3 years ago
twasher – You can’t fault them. For many aren’t even ‘native’ speakers/writers to start off with.
about 3 years ago
It is unfortunate that the argumentation and stated facts are not being addressed — with reference being made instead to the commenter’s choice of grammar and vocabulary.
Or is this a new form of elitism — attacking people on grounds of language use? Anyway these are postings in a comments thread, not the Gettysburg Address or Hamlet.
about 3 years ago
For someone who once said degree holders are only good enough to wash test tubes, you’d expect his english to be at least on par with a degree holder.
about 3 years ago
“I undertake not to repeat the statements, or make further statements of the same or similar effect in this or any other forum or media. I further undertake to remove any such posting anywhere that has not been deleted.”
—
Aaron,
under the terms of what I had agreed to, I must ask you to remove the excerpted statements from this blog post and the relevant comment on the post dated Feb 27th, since I do not have the direct power to do so.
about 3 years ago
Who knows whether this is the real Philip Yeo? Could be just some random person who managed to save a copy of Elia’s blog post. I agree with Billy that comments like “the naked truth” and “born coward” seem unbecoming of a high-ranking government official.
about 3 years ago
“Philip”, if that is who you are, may I ask about this sentence fragment in particular:
“…. which is perhaps why a*star feels justified in bribing universities for taking in PhD students.”
What is the missing part that you have not reproduced?
And could I ask – does A*STAR in fact give funding grants at all, to these overseas labs where A*STAR scholars are posted?
The reason I ask is that if A*STAR does indeed give such grants, there could well be legitimate reasons to do so (eg to ensure that A*STAR scholars work in labs that are properly funded and with sufficient resources to do proper research). Acidflask may view such a practice as improper, or wrong, or inappropriate, but then this merely becomes his opinion, on a matter of public interest, and would therefore likely be entitled to what, in law, is known as the defence of “fair comment”.
By way of analogy, PAP ministers get paid the world’s highest ministerial salaries. Some Singaporeans think that such a practice is improper, or wrong, or inappropriate. Such opinions would be their opinions, on a matter of public interest, and would therefore be entitled to what, in law, is known as the defence of “fair comment”.
Just my thoughts, ok, don’t sue me.
about 3 years ago
Hmm, well, I’m still a born skeptic here, because it’s not that hard to construct an identity on the internet, theoretically speaking.
One should practice discernment at all times, even when one thinks that there is a real deal in front of him or her. It’s the nature of the internet, you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.
I have to say that it has been quite interesting observing this exchange for a while now.
Cheers
about 3 years ago
After reading all the comments posted on Elia Diodati’s blog, any respect for Philip Yeo has been reduced to zilch.
Aiyah… Not that he would really care anyway.
about 3 years ago
I would say that I am 99% certain that the post originated from the real Mr Yeo. I did some authentication outside of my blog, and I am convinced that the source of the comment which the entry is based on is none other than Mr Yeo himself.
That being the case, and adding on the fact that Elia has not denied the validity of what Mr Yeo had written, I am also confident of the accuracy of the information Mr Yeo provided.
Based on the orginal comments from Elia, some things said could possibly border on defamation. However, since I’m not trained in law, I cannot conclude for sure, but there are parts I thought were quite libelous.
about 3 years ago
Elia,
I’ve made contact with Mr Yeo and there has been no objection to the existence of this entry. Until Mr Yeo has given a clear indication of his disapproval, I’m not inclined to take down this entry and his previous comments.
about 3 years ago
philip has a strong character. that’s what you need to get around/ahead. people with strong character won’t take it lying down when you talk shit about them.
the only thing is that people with strong characters, is that they step on others’ toes given the possible abrasive character traits. but then again, why are the toes there in the first place?
philip should just ignore the nonsense and the flaming. it can be very tiring trying to protect yourself online, looking for a fire to put out. the best way for a type A personality (if he is one) is to just turn around and walk away and get on with life. people will have their own lives to get on with, so the yakking and flaming won’t be forever.
about 3 years ago
At the risk of attracting comments about my spelling, grammar or national origins (all of which seem to have come forth during this debate!)…
To me, what Acidflask / Elia Diodati wrote sounds pretty defamatory — and not just in the Singapore context.
If any entity were accused of bribery, it would be a case of strong language and “them’s fighting words”.
about 3 years ago
What we haven’t seen is the part of the post immediately preceding the use of the word “corruption”. So we don’t have proper contextual understanding of why this word is used. Admittedly the word is strong, but it all depends on context.
I could for instance call a butcher “a murderer”, and the word is strong, but the overall statement may not be defamatory if the context is that I am expressing an opinion on a matter of public interest, say, concerning animal rights. People understand, from the context, that I am not literally saying that the butcher has killed another human being.
A further example may be in order. In Singapore, there is this well-known practice that if you make a donation to certain reputable secondary schools, your child will be considered favourably for admission. Arguably, all this is above board and transparent – parents will usually be told, for example, the specific purpose of the donation (eg to buy new computers for the school students) and the principal does not personally benefit. Nevertheless, I imagine in the context of a public discussion of such a matter, the word “bribery” may be used, and it may well be used in a manner that is not defamatory. The defence of “fair comment” on a matter of public interest, would prevail.
Again, all this is of purely academic interest to me. It may well be that Acidflask’s incomplete sentence is defamatory, or it may not be. Since the sentence itself is incomplete (never mind the fact that we don’t even get to see the 2, 3 or 4 preceding paragraphs leading to the use of the word “bribery”), I personally wouldn’t conclude that there is defamation here.
“Them’s fighting words”, yes, but fighting words are not defamatory in themselves. Lee Kuan Yew uses fighting words on opposition politicians all the time.
about 3 years ago
hi student of law,
It is true that fair comment on a matter of public interest is a defense against defamation. However, if I am not mistaken, fair comment can only be a successful defense if it is a statement of opinion.
The original entries by Elia read more like an assertion of fact with regards to the use of the word “bribing”. The case for fair comment would be strong if not for what succeed the sentence in which the word “bribing” is used. Elia went on to bring out his evidence to justify his claim that there was “bribing” going on.
Opinions known and accepted to be inherently flawed, but when you justify the opinion with evidence, I think it is no longer an opinion, but an assertion of fact. I’m no lawyer, but my journalism courses do deal with the issue of defamation, and this is perhaps the best understanding that I have. I stand to be corrected if my analysis is untrue.
about 3 years ago
That is why I asked “Philip” what I asked “Philip”.
“And could I ask – does A*STAR in fact give funding grants at all, to these overseas labs where A*STAR scholars are posted?
It may well be (I do not know) that this is true, and that there are good proper honest reasons for doing so. In other words, it may well be (I do not know) that Acidflask’s assertion of the fact is correct, and his opinion of the practice is negative, but this is merely his opinion, fair comment, which others could well disagree with. I also wrote this earlier:
The reason I ask is that if A*STAR does indeed give such grants, there could well be legitimate reasons to do so (eg to ensure that A*STAR scholars work in labs that are properly funded and with sufficient resources to do proper research).
Acidflask may view such a practice as improper, or wrong, or inappropriate, but then this merely becomes his opinion, on a matter of public interest, and would therefore likely be entitled to what, in law, is known as the defence of “fair commentâ€. “
See what I mean?
I don’t know the actual facts (especially since the post has been cut off halfway), and I am no scientist, but speaking as a non-scientific layman, I could see good reasons why A* may want to:
“give out generous funding grants to specific faculty members (to the tune of us$150k/yr or so) for accepting up to three a*star scholars into their lab, as well as giving out gobs of honey to universities who will sign back-door agreements for taking in scholars without going through the formal application procedure.”
Doesn’t this happen for PSC scholars as well – I thought that there are certain overseas universities which regularly set aside a number of places specially for PSC scholars. Certainly some people may view this as improper, and that would be their opinion, fair comment. Others may view it as perfectly proper.
For example, A* may wish to bypass the formal application procedure, because it’s just a formality, and A* scholars are already so outstanding that they would certainly get in. Thus this could just be a time-saving procedure – Philip tells the university, “Look at my scholarship selection criteria, these are the kind of people who get my scholarship” and the university says, “Oh ok, all very bright, outstanding people, we’re happy to have them if they make it through your selection process. Our own formal application process need not apply to A* scholars.”
I can also see why A* may have a legitimate interest in ensuring that its scholars work on projects that won’t suffer from the lack of funding, hence A* may have a legitimate reason for providing grants to those particular labs where its scholars are working. If the research is properly funded and succeeds, Singapore also stands to gain, because A* scholars would have learned something of value.
Of course, the starting point of all this analysis is still the determination of the true facts. Hence my question:
“And could I ask – does A*STAR in fact give funding grants at all, to these overseas labs where A*STAR scholars are posted?
Because if this is untrue, then yes, the “bribery” sentence looks defamatory. But if it is true, then arguably the “bribery” sentence may constitute fair comment – it merely represents Acidflask’s negative opinion of the practice (and as I said, the more-informed, more-intelligent opinion may instead be positive, but this does not mean that the negative view is not fair comment).
No one sue me ok, I’m just interested in discussing the mechanics of the law … I am not alleging anything about Philip or Acidflask or any of the universities or any of the scholars … Frankly I don’t know anything about research labs and I don’t care.
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
It doesn’t matter whether what Elia said was defamatory under Singapore law, because he made those comments on American soil, on an American server. Singapore should stay out of their internal matters, just as we demand that they stay out of ours. Mr. Yeo is perfectly free to sue Elia in American courts. After all, Singapore doesn’t sue internet porn producers in Los Angeles because they broke Singapore’s nanny censorship law…
If Mr. Yeo had tried to sue in America, he would have lost his case (it would have been dismissed, actually). This demonstrates how backwards our defamation rules are. Even if something is defamatory, in some countries, a retraction (in the case of public personalities being defamed) is sufficient for damages. In others, the damages cannot exceed actual harm. Furthermore, the accuser must prove that his/her reputation was ACTUALLY HARMED (not just potentially harmed) by the defamatory comments. It is difficult to see how Mr. Yeo could have suffered actual harm, even if he were accused of bribery. Because in Singapore, if there is transparency and accountability in the funding practises of government agencies (as claimed by those very agencies), then no one would take the charge of bribery seriously. Had this case gone to an American court, Mr. Yeo may have been put into the awkward situation of having either to claim that government agencies are not transparent (and thus some people might believe the bribery accusation resulting in harm to his reputation) or that his agency is completely transparent in which case no reasonable person would have believed the bribery charge.
This is to say nothing of fairness even if one is guilty. For example, do you think that a Singaporean minister should be awarded 6-digit damage amounts because of a few words spoken by the opposition? Is that fair? Even if it is defamatory? This law in Singapore has led to egregious abuse by those in power, stifling of public debate due to the harsh penalties, and a climate of fear to say anything at all because the law’s reach is so broad. There is also the possibility that courts in Singapore may not make fair judgments in defamation cases due to inadequate separation of powers.
If I were to say, for example, that it is my opinion that Singapore’s courts are biased, is it defamatory? Is it an opinion? What if I then added evidence from international human rights organizations to support my opinion? Aaron, would that convert it to a statement of fact and thus make me liable for being sued? The defamation law, as written, just seems too vague to decide. A fairer and well-crafted defamation law is what we really need. We need a US-style defamation law.
As a side note, Mr. Yeo’s attempt at extending Singapore’s defamation law jurisdiction into the US border in this way may encourage exiled Singaporeans and Americans to haul Singapore to US courts over other issues (such as human rights issues). In the future, we may well see Singapore’s assets in the US seized to pay off damages that US courts award to the exiled victims of our tyrannical government. Now we wouldn’t want that, would we?
about 3 years ago
NO!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
a student of the law SINGAPORE // Mar 5, 2007 at 3:34 pm
And could I ask – does A*STAR in fact give funding grants at all, to these overseas labs where A*STAR scholars are posted?
about 3 years ago
Uncle Sam,
My question then would be why did the racist bloggers get sued then? I believe their blogs were not on local servers. I would like to hear your opinion on that.
about 3 years ago
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/9913/53/
about 3 years ago
Sam,
You are a kind soul.
If you are falsely accused of bribing US universities to take in our graduate Singaporean scholars, and if you are one of our scholars, I bet you would be not be so kind and sweet.
Moral of story: Those who stick out their toes to trip innocents fully deserve to have their toes stamped on hard.
philip
PS: Why do bloggers hide behind anonymous names?
=============================
sam SINGAPORE // Mar 5, 2007 at 10:54 pm
philip has a strong character. that’s what you need to get around/ahead. people with strong character won’t take it lying down when you talk shit about them.
the only thing is that people with strong characters, is that they step on others’ toes given the possible abrasive character traits. but then again, why are the toes there in the first place?
philip should just ignore the nonsense and the flaming. it can be very tiring trying to protect yourself online, looking for a fire to put out. the best way for a type A personality (if he is one) is to just turn around and walk away and get on with life. people will have their own lives to get on with, so the yakking and flaming won’t be forever.
about 3 years ago
Ooops! Hard to type in this crammed blog space on a small 12 in screen IBM X60.
——————————-
Sam,
You are a kind soul.
If you are falsely accused of bribing US universities to take in our graduate Singaporean scholars, and if you are one of our scholars, I bet you would NOT be so kind and sweet.
Moral of story: Those who stick out their toes to trip innocents fully deserve to have their toes stamped on hard.
philip
PS: Why do bloggers hide behind anonymous names?
about 3 years ago
To prevent getting sued making fair comments by you-know-who.
about 3 years ago
Really sad that cowardly souls cannot differentiate between making fair comments from libelous comments.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another anon coward SINGAPORE // Mar 7, 2007 at 2:30 am
To prevent getting sued making fair comments by you-know-who.
about 3 years ago
One word. NKF.
about 3 years ago
Hi Aaron,
The local bloggers made their comments on Singapore soil, though their comments were then stored on a foreign server. Because it could have been shown that they were in Singapore at the time they spoke their comments, Singapore can claim jurisdiction over their actions. Singapore cannot, however, force those foreign servers to remove the racist comments if making racist comments is legal in that jurisdiction. (That would be legal in the US, for example.)
But in Elia’s case, he is living in the US. He made comments from inside the US, and stored them on a server in the US. Other Singaporeans abroad, especially the exiles, have blogs calling LKY a liar, etc. (defamatory under Singapore law for sure). But they are not sued. So Singapore seems to have a double standard for those living abroad – one set of rules for those with assets in Singapore, and one set for those with no assets in Singapore.
So to sum up, I agree that Singapore could correctly claim jurisdiction for the racist bloggers, but I disagree that it could claim jurisdiction for Elia. Elia could have fought the case in US courts too, had Mr. Yeo obtained a judgment in Singapore and tried to collect damages in the US. But he would not have tried because his case was too weak under US law.
Uncle Sam
about 3 years ago
Uncle Sam,
There has perhaps been no legal precedent as yet, but I do wonder if someone who makes libelous remarks overseas can be taken to court locally. I mean, the law was changed to prosecute Singaporean paedophiles who carried out their illicit activities overseas. I wouldn’t be surprised if the courts rule that a Singaporean cannot get away with defaming others while overseas. Of course, the ruling would be hard to enforce in another country, but that would also mean that Elia would not have been able to return to Singapore forever without being charged.
I’m not dismissing your argument, but I am thinking that is that no legal precedent doesn’t mean that something cannot be ruled in a certain way.
about 3 years ago
philip,
personally, i don’t really care. because there are people in this world who like to sling mud, but i prefer to use the mud to build things that make me happy and make the people i really care about happy.
yup, maybe i’ll stand up for the organisation if someone says mean/false things about it. it can also be a huge public relations problem. of course there’s always the law to protect you from such malicious things. i’ll follow the law and seek legal advice, because there’s no point picking up the mud others have thrown you and throwing them back, and neither is there a point in making the effort to correct the problem.
relax la, philip. there will always be people who hate your guts. but guess what, life goes on. your organisation is your baby, but the thing about babies is that you can’t protect them all the time.
you sort of guessed what i intended to mean when i talk about “toes”. any way, the problem with this world is that (1) people hear but don’t listen and (2) people trying to impress their priorities onto others who have different priorities.
bloggers make a choice to be anonymous. they fear. i know a few scholars who blog and they do so anonymously because they’re fearful of saying the wrong thing or things that may not be sensible, nevermind sensitive. but to fear for your future and any repercussions may not necessarily make one a coward.
from what i observe, most bloggers want attention (to their blogs and personas) but they don’t want the responsibility that come with the attention. what makes a blogger ineffective is when he/she/it is ignored. the best way to deal with anonymity is just ignore it and ignore what it says, because anonymous people who enjoy anonymity deserve an anonymous treatment. you’ll just be wasting your energy and time trying to engage them.
and you know, the best way to wind up a type-A/alpha male/strong character, is to engage him because we all know that he will definitely engage you back. i think most of the time, it’s not worth it. the point can be proven and the truth will come out sooner or later, naturally.
sam
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
philip yeo // Mar 6, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Sam,
You are a kind soul.
If you are falsely accused of bribing US universities to take in our graduate Singaporean scholars, and if you are one of our scholars, I bet you would be not be so kind and sweet.
Moral of story: Those who stick out their toes to trip innocents fully deserve to have their toes stamped on hard.
philip
PS: Why do bloggers hide behind anonymous names?
about 3 years ago
sam,
good telfon points. thanks.
philip
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
I anticipated your comment about the sex tourism law. One key difference is that sex with minors is largely illegal both in Singapore and the target country. Few would argue in either country over the prosecution of pedophiles. I don’t think Singapore’s unique defamation laws can be put into the same category. Here, we are not looking at a case where Singapore is trying to prosecute sex tourists going to our 3rd world neighbours – we are looking at Singapore trying to extend its unique legal system into a developed democracy like the US. Developed countries will not allow this type of incursion to a great extent without causing diplomatic uproar. One isolated case may not attract attention, but as soon as Singapore starts threatening US constitutional freedoms of US residents (and Elia certainly counts as a US resident), the US will take notice.
The US State Department evidently just released its 2006 country report on Singapore. It is huge. While Singaporeans may be unhappy at the brazenness of the US to dare criticise Singapore (“the imperialists!”), the fact that the US wrote the report does not make its comments less worthy of our attention. I noticed that buried in that long report is commentary on this very case. That means that the US State Dept. has noticed what Philip Yeo is doing and that they are not happy. And they are watching. And they will influence US foreign policy. When Singapore negotiates free trade agreements with the US or the US wants to decide where to refuel their aircraft carriers, the same people will remember how Singapore treats US residents, and thus treat Singapore accordingly. In a country as small as Singapore, even “minor” civil servants like Philip Yeo can do considerable diplomatic damage.
Uncle Sam
about 3 years ago
Uncle Sam in Germany? Threatening?
A F1 student is not a US resident.
______________________
That means that the US State Dept. has noticed what Philip Yeo is doing and that they are not happy. And they are watching. And they will influence US foreign policy.
about 3 years ago
aaron,
re: your point that “Opinions known and accepted to be inherently flawed, but when you justify the opinion with evidence, I think it is no longer an opinion, but an assertion of fact.”
what about using evidence to justify how he could have gotten his opinion? surely we can’t have a checklist of what constitute a fact, and even we were to have one, we can’t be sure it’s foolproof.
a seperate point: much too often, some officials are just too happy to take up the legal course of action, and in the process, keep their critics at bay, even though the critics themselves might have a valid case. think NKF is a case in hand.
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
Post this:-
http://www.a-star.edu.sg/astar/attach/textlet/0e44d2035bWE/(US)NSS(PhD)_Scholars‘_Choice_of_Uni_20062007_US.pdf
32 out of 78 A*STAR PhD USbased scholars are at Stanford, MIT, Harvard and JHU.
By his wicked blog, all 78 should be at UIUC, UWisc, UCSD.
In fact, only 2 at UIUC (EEE and Physics, ex-PSC chaps), 1 at UWisc (biology) and 3 at UCSD (2 biology, 1 EEE).
Not a single Chem Engg scholar at UIUC as his blog claims.
Great insult to A*STAR scholars that they are in rich Stanford etc etc by bribery.
Wicked chap.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Elia/Acidflask in his blog:-
a*star in parliament
-03 03 05 – 13:03
Science, Singapore
which is perhaps why a*star feels justified in bribing universities for taking in PhD students. staggeringly enough, the cost quoted is very likely to be grossly understated, since I have been told that a*star gives out generous funding grants to specific faculty members (to the tune of us$150k/yr or so) for accepting up to three a*star scholars into their lab, as well as giving out gobs of honey to universities who will sign back-door agreements for taking in scholars without going through the formal application procedure.
[AcidFlask] ( email) (link) – 04 03 05 – 11:30
going further down the list.. a*star scholars seem to know that “a certain high-up†in a*star has a tendency to recommend scholars to go to some institutions, like UIUC, U of Wisconsin, and UCSD.. perhaps it is those very schools that a*star has those connections with? and perhaps the reason for asking scholars not to go to the top universities is that they tend to be awfully expensive when it comes to tuition fees too (like Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Princeton).
[AcidFlask] (email) (link) – 03 03 05 – 20:30
A fellow alumna of UIUC once attended a Chemical Engineering class in this university sometime in 2003. The subject of the lecture somehow went on to funding crunches faced by researchers in the US due to post-9/11 budget cuts when suddenly the professor remarked: Oh, by the way, if any of you are in need of money, you should consider applying to this agency called A*STAR in Singapore. They offered me $150,000 for my research with no strings attached, plus an extra $35,000 for every one of their students that I accepted into my group. Singapore seems to be a very rich country; they have money to throw at you, all you have to do is ask for it!
about 3 years ago
neutral bystander ,
Read above and THINK before you blog.
about 3 years ago
mr yeo,
i am merely pointing out to aaron the flaw (or at least it seems to me) in his argument that once you justify your opinion with some sort of evidence, it becomes a fact. (and in this specific case of acidflask, it’s not even evidence. it’s just hearsay.) it’s more of epistemological questioning, rather than passing a conclusion or a judgment on acidflask’s comments.
if your reply to me is on my separate point, i am just raising a general point which had been raised time and time again. of course, i concede i made this comment motivated by the fact that acidflask was threatened by a libel lawsuit. but my point was there a need to?
i thought that one might win more hearts and minds if you were to have a proper exchange of views in popular media. in that way, there will be a healthy exchange of views, and also if allegations were proven to be false, i am sure the general public can judge for themselves.
more importantly, your threat of a libel suit merely made a*star look bad in a sense that an organisation was bullying a student (according to the popular perception). and ultimately, you still have to publish your facts via the popular media, such as this blog.
of course, my concern is the at the freedom of expression of opinions, which could indirectly contribute to the vibrancy of singapore. (re: aaron’s latest post on the need for roadblocks)
rather than what a*star is really doing. biomedicine might be “in” thing now, but i think creativity is the constant theme if we were to examine how economic growth is created.
i don’t know if you would agree to this. but i thought the rights to raising dissenting opinions should be respected, if not embraced.
cheers.
about 3 years ago
In response to Mr. Yeo’s comment, I did not state that Elia was a PERMANENT resident or citizen of the US, but rather a temporary RESIDENT under US law. (In other words, he legally resides in the US.)
The US does care about Mr. Yeo’s activities as evidenced by their mention of this incident in its human rights report, but to answer Mr. Yeo’s question, I do not think we need to view the US as threatening.
Nonetheless, all individuals inside the US are entitled to the freedoms and constitutional protections guaranteed therein. This is established in the 5th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution, which entitles non-citizens to due process and equal protection under the law. This is continually tested in courts, and was tested in the Supreme Court as recently as 2001 in INS v. St. Cyr, verifying the right of habeus corpus to non-citizens. Similarly, Noncitizen Children and Parents v. Texas (1980) verified the rights of illegal immigrants to free education. (Contrast this to Singapore, where poor immigrants are caned and imprisoned before deportation.) In effect, Elia is treated as a US citizen except for voting rights and right to hold public office, and as such is fully guaranteed the right of freedom of speech under the US Constitution. And they have true freedom of speech, not Singapore-style “freedom” of speech. Elia’s comments are quite mild when compared to hate-group websites hosted on US servers, and had the university of Illinois ever threatened to remove his blog, HE could have SUED the university for infringing his right to free speech (which the American Civil Liberties Union would likely have supported pro bono), and Elia would have won. Schools cannot censor students in the US and there’s a long string of court cases upholding their rights. His right of free speech in the US, as I mentioned before, cannot be infringed by minor Singaporean autocrats without US diplomats taking notice, as indeed they have.
about 3 years ago
One does not reason with bloggers who write libelous statements.
If Acidflask write on his blog stating that you are a crook or worse, would you smilingly try to win his heart and mind?
See http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/9913/53/
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
neutral bystander SINGAPORE // Mar 8, 2007 at 4:04 pm
i thought that one might win more hearts and minds if you were to have a proper exchange of views in popular media.
about 3 years ago
Uncle Sam in Germany,
The complete Acidflask blog with the incriminating defamatory statements, before it was voluntarily self removed, was handled over to his University’ administration who confirmed that it would NOT allow one of its students to use its server to defame A*STAR.
And the same set was give to the US Embassy here to keep it in the know.
Your reference to the Singapore report (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78790.htm) is downright misleading and condescending.
Cut out your pompous and sneering legal pontification.
End of useless dialog.
about 3 years ago
mr yeo,
maybe it’s just different for you and for me. i am just a nobody. i had worse things that had been written online, or put worse things as their msn nick.
i understand the need to be accountable and stuff. but opinions should be allowed to be aired. i think it’s worse if we were to start to have self censorship and live in an air of fear. you would say oh, what’s there to fear if you are telling the truth. but like what we had discussed. the grey area is opinions. we can’t verify. sometimes, you have all the facts, we don’t.
i thought one good thing about this was you clarified one of your scholars having mental problems. realised that once you disclose the facts, there just isn’t more discussion. i thought it’s a good example how you would have at least won the argument.
about 3 years ago
Mr Yeo,
I’ve added your evidence of the scholar’s numbers in an addendum to this entry.
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
Good of you. Thanks.
philip
about 3 years ago
I wrote that I was not aware of the case when it happened.
I keep my eyes focused on Biomedical Science scholars.
Delegated the Science and Engineering scholars to my Deputy Chm then.
When I asked for the old 2002-2003 files, then I learned of the case.
I do not have the bad common habit of lying.
___________________________________
neutral bystander SINGAPORE // Mar 8, 2007 at 11:16 pm
i thought one good thing about this was you clarified one of your scholars having mental problems. realised that once you disclose the facts, there just isn’t more discussion. i thought it’s a good example how you would have at least won the argument.
about 3 years ago
Aaron,
Your addendum pdf link is not functioning.
Sent the web site for NSS(PhD) Scholars’ Choice of University 2006/7 (US) to you by email.
See if you can correct the link. Thanks.
about 3 years ago
The complete Acidflask blog with the incriminating defamatory statements, before it was voluntarily self removed, was handled over to his University’ administration who confirmed that it would NOT allow one of its students to use its server to defame A*STAR.
Elia Diodati’s quote from a letter sent to him by his department regarding his blog speaks otherwise. I think “you have established yourself as an expert on the topic of Singapore, and that is sufficient reason for me to support your right to maintain your site on the SCS server” pretty much contradicts whatever the adminstrators told you.