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!
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
university != university and poly
~(top two thirds) = bottom third
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…
That’s not hard. He only looks at those which is negative. =)
Granted, there’s nothing wrong for the forum editor to correct the statistic, but to add an entire paragraph highlighting the minister’s background when there was no mention of it in the original letter is unethical.
I hope the Leong’s frequent letters to the forum does not get butchered like that.
“How children from the bottom one-third by socio-economic background fare: One in two scores in the top two-thirds at PSLE” -
If 50% (1 in 2) score in top two-thirds, then it is correct to infer that 50% score in the bottom third.
I have not seen the graph mentioned but is it possible that whilst 50% proceed to tertiary (incl uni AND poly), if we look ONLY at universities it’s only 10%? If so, then Mr. Wee’s assertion that 90% do not make it to university is correct.
Wow, Leong Sze Hian is usually good with statistics, but this time he is so very wrong.
The whole point of Samuel Wee’s letter is to present Dr Ng’s statistics from a different angle, so as to show that things are not as rosy as Dr Ng made them seem.
As posters above have pointed out, if 50% of poor students score in the top 2/3s, that means the other 50% score in the bottom 1/3. In other words, poor students still score disproportionately lower grades.
As for the statistic that 90% of poor students do not make it to university, this was shown a graph provided in the ST. You can see it here: http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20110308/a10.pdf
Finally, Dr Ng did say: “[Social mobility] cannot be about neglecting those with abilities, just because they come from middle-income homes or are rich. It cannot mean holding back those who are able so that others can catch up.”
Samuel Wee paraphrased this as: “…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.” I think it was an accurate paraphrase, because that was essentially what Dr Ng was saying. Samuel Wee’s paraphrase merely makes the callousness of Dr Ng’s remark stand out more clearly.
Ultimately, if the Forum Editor did not like how Samuel Wee presented the statistics, they should just have rejected the letter. It was journalistic misconduct to put words into Samuel’s mouth and publish a letter that was completely opposite in intent.
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”.
^That is COMPLETELY CORRECT!
Suppose you split the 3 socio-economic brackets into A, B and C.
You then say- 50% of C scores in the top 60%- (which could mean, by the way, that they all score between the 40th and 50th percentile.)
That means 50% of them are NOT in the top 60%, which makes them in the BOTTOM 40%.
http://www.visaisahero.wordpress.com
“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”
So are you implying that it’s really hard to find any evidence of Dr. Ng’s faith in our meritocratic system?
Mr. Wee Not Wrong wrote:
“How children from the bottom one-third by socio-economic background fare: One in two scores in the top two-thirds at PSLE” -
If 50% (1 in 2) score in top two-thirds, then it is correct to infer that 50% score in the bottom third.
i am normally weak in mathematics, but even simple things like this i can understand.
indeed, the lower 33% of the socioeconomic ladder, which statistically should contribute to 33% of the bottom third scores, ended up contributing FIFTY PERCENT (50%) of these bottom third scores – and this distribution is statistically significant.
if i can understand this, i’m sure we can see Sam was right.
“As for the statistic that 90% of poor students do not make it to university, this was shown a graph provided in the ST. You can see it here: http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20110308/a10.pdf
oh my, Mr Wee was not entirely correct, it was not 10% entering University, it was TWELVE percent! all that the Education Minister harped about, ended up only TWELVE per cent entered university.
sigh.
10% full, half full or half empty? It depends on how one chooses to look at the same glass of water(10%-unis) and in this case with oil(40%-polys) added to it. One chooses ‘tertiary education’ which includes both universities and polytechnics while the other looks at universities only and excludes polytechnics. Or am I wrong too?
Yes, it’s a half full/ half empty situation here. Mr Wee is not wrong.
Anyway, even if Mr Wee HAD used false statistics, it’s pretty obvious from his letter that his overall point is one of cynicism about the equalising effect of our education system. The edited letter did not reflect this main idea at all, and instead rewrote the letter to argue the OPPOSITE point.
Either the editor is incredibly dishonest, or so obtuse that he doesn’t understand satire. Whichever the case, I’m disgusted. Shame on you, Straits Times!
Good day kind sir,
I refer to your TOC article dated today, March 25th.
In your article, you make the argument that “Straits Times Forum Editor, was merely amending his (my) letter to cite the correct statistics.
“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”.”
Kind sir, the statistics state that 1 in 2 are in the top 66.6% (Which, incidentally, includes the top fifth of the bottom 50%!)
Does it not stand to reason, then, that if 50% are in the top 66.6%, the remaining 50% are in the bottom 33.3%, as I stated in my letter?
Also, perhaps you were not aware of the existence of this resource, but here is a graph from the Straits Times illustrating the fact that only 10% of children from one-to-three room flats make it to university–which is to say, 90% of them don’t.
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/pdf/20110308/a10.pdf
I look forward to your reply, Mr Leong. Thank you for taking the time to read this message.
Yours truly,
Samuel Caleb Wee
“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…”
well, the forum editor is not known to be brilliant in his work amongst his colleagues. that’s why he’s the forum editor and not like Yacob Ibrahim’s sister, who bosses the newsroom.
Moral of the story: If you think ST got it right, you probably got it wrong.
Will TOC stand corrected?
Dear Sze Han,
Actually this is not the case. The writer made it point to say that only 90% did not make it to university. It has been edited to say 50% made it to university AND POLYTECHNIC. Both are right, and that one is made to make the government look good.
In the other case, as “Mr Wee Not Wrong” pointed out: “If 50% (1 in 2) score in top two-thirds, then it is correct to infer that 50% score in the bottom third.”
Please do amend this article.
Sze Hian,
Clearly, you have got it all wrong. You should re-read Samuel Wee’s original letter and ST-edited letter!
Contrary to what you said, NO credit should go the ST Forum Editor. The editor couldn’t find any letter that praises our education minister, so he had to substantially edit Samuel Wee’s letter!!
WHATEVER HAPPENNED..st editor or not got NO right to edit any author’s contends
owever the editor concerned can add a footnote in italic and correct the honest mistakes…
let says
i post leekingyou is a evil neopsim who 1st 2 cling on power till death do him part…
the editor concerned cannot amend my letters and print
i in my opinion that Mr Lee Kuan Yin believed in free speech and would not hesitate to sue anyone who says his family comes from napoloen bonaparte gene
and MR Lee Kuan YIN would have further challenged the author do i looked liked a katek to you?
when i was a MODERATOR in a affiliated ESPN/india branch forum, i never attempt to edit any original contends whether its a fullstop or a coma…i would only post a small italic footnote to correct the author’s mistakes
PERIOD
Going by the comments, and the reading of the statistics, I believe TOC/ Mr Leong should retract the following post and issue a correction plus apology to Samuel.
Don’t be mistaken, for I have great respect for Mr Leong, especially for taking his time to provide us with very insightful statistical analyses. But while Mr Leong may mean no harm to Samuel, and was probably genuinely mistaken about the supposedly “fabricated” satistics, his post does suggest that a lack of integrity in Samuel’s part.
This suggestion is evident in sentence he wrote that “It is one thing to interpret, analyse or extrapolate statistics, but to purport to quote statistics which are blatantly false, is something else altogether.” It leads one to ask what that “something else altogether” is?
Unless Mr Leong is able to justify that his analyses are not incorrect, the post needs to be retracted with an apology issued. Without which, TOC and Mr Leong will just be like numerous members of the ruling party who fall short of apologizing and taking ownership of their mistakes.
Hang on. Even if the original letter cited wrong statistics or facts, why should it be edited?
If the original letter’s fact was wrong, why didn’t the editor just add a footnote. It certainly does not make the action of the editor right for changing factual error.
This must be one of those rare times when Leong Sze Hian got it wrong. Samuel’s most controversial statistic, that only 10% of children from 1-3 room flats make it to University was backed up by data to at least 1995. Would have preferred a more recent timeline though.
@Defender
if the surveyed subjects were in Pri 1 in 1995, that would make sense.
I’d agree with you that up-to-date data will be much preferred. But I will also note that that was the same chart used in the March 8, 2011 news article.
We could ask why the reporter did not use more recent statistics, and choose to use one that is so outdated. The answer is anyone’s guess until they publish the updated stats. =)
Good point. Straits times needs to label their charts better then.
Mr Leong Sze Hian,
The editor was NEVER RIGHT in any ground of logic and legality.
Samuel Wee says 1+1=3. It maybe wrong or right, but in all journalistic conduct, ethic, or decency one CANNOT CHANGE his words and then put HIS NAME onto the paper.
It is WRONG at all accounts. Either the papers print it or don’t. It is SICK TO THE EXTREME CORE that those brain-washed pigs can even bother to change Samuel’s words and use HIS NAME onto what they “think” is correct.
In any other society, even in Malaysia, one can SUE the press for FALSIFICATION, MIS-USE and ABUSE of name!
This moves beyond the message. SPH is CORRUPTED to the CORE!
Maybe we’re all mistaken.
Perhaps by writing this article, Mr. Leong was actually demonstrating how ridiculous it would sound if one had attempted to show how ST’s editing of Samuel’s letter can be justified on factual grounds.
what is freedom of press and speeches?
DO you papayas papers think they has the right to modify citizen letters and published modified version and trick daft singaporeans ？
Ali and Mary have 12 apples in total. Ali has 5 apples. How many apples does Mary have?
What Samuel Wee stated are all logically correct (assuming we trust the stats the government is giving). He was just inverting/negating the stats to paint a different picture, and if one reads his letter carefully, there is a hint of sarcasm to dispel the official rosy picture. Those who think the editors were simply “correcting the stats” have obviously bought into the government propanganda and can’t count apples.
And for Leong SZ to confuse tertiary with university is quite surprising since he claims to be so interested in statistics. He should know how the government twists definitions so as to make things look rosier. In this case, the tertiary figures Leong cites include polytechnics (in some cases, the government might even be lumping ITEs into the picture).
To accuse someone of using statistics that are “blatantly false” is quite a serious allegation, especially if the accusation is made by someone of Leong SZ’s stature.
while Leong SZ is wrong in his analysis of the statistics, although i am unsure if he is being sarcastic in the first place and that all the criticisms about his analysis thus far is perhaps misplaced, Mr Samuel Lee’s use of the statistics clearly does not support his claim.
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”.” Yes, this is the same as what 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”.
The point it: this statistic supports the Education Minister’s claims but NOT Samuel’s. You see, it would only be a bad thing if there is a proportionate number of people in the bottom 1/3 wealth scoring poorly in the PSLE – this would indicate that there is a strong correlation between poverty and poor education. E.g. if almost all the people in the bottom 1/3 of wealth in society also fall into the bottom 1/3 in terms of grades, this would show that if you are poor, you probably will do bad.
But statistically, you see that a substantial number (50%) of the people in the bottom 1/3 of wealth managed to do better than bottom 1/3 in terms of grades. So its a good thing, because this means that even if you are poor, there is sufficient opportunity for you to do well in the education system i.e. the education system does not unfairly prejudice the poor. There is no strong correlation between poverty and grades.
So while Samuel is painting what he feels is a better picture of the facts, actually, it is not at all.
It would be almost quite an anomaly if the reality is that the bottom 1/3 in wealth in society is the top 1/3 in terms of grades. 50% is an extremely substantial number which CLEARLY shows that being poor is not an impediment to getting educated in Singapore. So either way, Samuel can THINK he painted a better picture, that 50% of the bottom 1/3 in the socio-economic ladder is in the bottom 1/3 in terms of PSLE, but like i said, ONLY 50% of the bottom 1/3 wealth is in bottom 1/3 grades. You all have to try to use some logic to understand this la, its not too hard.
See ah, its a bad thign if out of a class of 100 students, 33 are poor economically, and ALL 33 happen to do worse than the other 66 in grades. This would mean that if you are poor, your prob gonna screw up, and that the education system prejudices you because of your economic situation.
But if 16-17 of these poor students are able to get into the top 2/3 of the 100 students int erms of grades, this means that being poor does not mean you will do badly as well. For the sake of those complainers, it is not quite a statistical challenge for all 100% of the bottom 1/3 poor students to get better grades than they are poor. 50% to me seems pretty good.
Of course a useful analysis by Leong SZ or Samuel Lee would be if they could do some research to find the statistics for other developed countries to determine the correlation between wealth and grades.
I think Singapore should stand pretty OK in this regard.
Everybody here is missing the point.
it is actually quite a rosy picture, assuming the Education Minister’s stats are true.
Pascal, if things were truly equal then we would expect 1/3 of the bottom 1/3 in terms of income to score in the bottom 1/3 in terms of grades.
However, we see that HALF of the lower-income score in the bottom 1/3. Thus, a disproportionately large number of poor students do badly in the PSLE.
Sure, you could argue that “it could have been worse”, but Samuel’s point is that income DOES still have an effect on grades. Lower income students ARE more likely to score poorer grades. More needs to be done to help them.
Blaise above is correct in his assertion that “if things were truly equal then we would expect 1/3 of the bottom 1/3 in terms of income to score in the bottom 1/3 in terms of grades.”
The point of Mr. Wee’s letter which Pascal missed is that the minister, government and press should stop patting themselves on the back when the statistics show that a lot more can be done for the poor.
Yes we may have done better than many other 3rd world countries but with our high per capita income we should and could be doing better for them. Is it really rosy if we compare against Switzerland, and other countries with similar per capita incomes as Singapore?
The ST editor merely confirmed what is already very obvious that they are merely a mouthpiece for the PAP.
i get your point blaise..
Well, it is perhaps the harsh reality of things that there will always be some correlation between poverty and poor grades.
I’m not wrong to look at it from the perspective that as long as there is no strong correlation between poverty and poor grades, its a good thing. Of course the utopia would be that 1/3 of the bottom 1/3 in terms of wealth are in the bottom 1/3 for grades. this means that things are well and truly equal. But the question is whether this utopia is even possible in the first place and whether the countervailing costs needed to get there could be disproportionately more for the nation as a whole.
That is why i was asking that instead of looking at the numbers per se, both samuel and leong should do a comparative study to see how other countries do in comparison to Singapore. I would not be surprised to see that we stand in good stead in contrast to others. Enabling 50% of the bottom 1/3 in terms of wealth to be vindicated in terms of education from the supposed limitations posed by their economic well-being sounds to me pretty acceptable.
So I don’t think anyone can say that being poor is that big an impediment to good grades. You see, the range in this is from 33.3%(utopia) to 100%(bad) of people in the bottom 1/3 of wealth to also be in the bottom 1/3 of grades. 50% lies very much further in this spectrum toward the utopian goal of perfect equality (which we all know is impossible in reality, also because such a statistical exercise assumes the absence of a multitude of other factors).
Of course more can always be done. But in the context of things, I think it would not be surprising should we find in other countries that close to 100% of the bottom 1/3 in terms of wealth likewise fall into the bottom 1/3 in terms of grades. I would not say that we should be patting ourselves in the back, but we should at least stop lamenting as if a horrendous job is being done.
the thing is, while you do understand the significance of the numbers, i am skeptical as to whether samuel or leong truly appreciate the statistics or are just making normative statements based on their gut. I mean of course without putting things in context you look at wha! 50% of them are still in bottom 1/3 it seems like a big deal. but when you realise that the optimum deal is only 33.3%, does it seem that far off?
Moreover, i am looking at this from the assumption that by default, one would expect that almost 100% of the bottom 1/3 in terms of wealth will also do badly in terms of education. That is also the assumption that any government is trying to fight against. The fight starts from bringing down the number from 100% to the utopian goal of 33.3%.
If Forum editor had to correct the stats, he shouldn’t have published the letter.
Never mind, this incident gives credibility to SDP’s claims that it’s letters to ST are “fixed”.
Maybe ST Forum editor is at heart a gd guy. ))) Juz joking.
or maybe leong sze hian is just trolling all of you, because maybe, just maybe, he’s being sarcastic and poking fun at ST?
idk about you… but this was quite funny.
yeah..some parts of his article does seem rather sarcastic, like the part about giving ‘credit’ to the ST editor for being able to check statistics despite receiving hundreds of letters a day – but then the last sentence of the article seems to me like LSZ is serious after all..i don’t know too
please stop the charade.
the guys in the street wants to know the CORRECT figure, how many poor can make it to uni, that’s all the guy in the street wants to know,
NOT SOME MUMBO JUMBO….
Half of the children from the bottom third of the socio-economic ladder score in the top 2/3 at PSLE. Firstly, if we go strictly by proportion, 2/3 of these children should score in the top 2/3 at PSLE. Secondly, where are these children distributed along the top 2/3 PSLE score? If, just an example, most of them cluster around the 50th percentile (which still qualify as top 2/3), the picture becomes much less rosy.
Я написал статью на тему дифузии марксистов, как вам это.
Как нормально написал.