Technorati Profile
The Philip Yeo Fracas
My impression of Philip Yeo has dropped to a new low. By all accounts in the Straits Times, the man has a serious chip on his shoulder. All quotes below are from Straits Times May 15, 2005.
a) After musing about discriminating against Singapore males, he makes a half-hearted, reserved u-turn:
A week ago: "I don't want whining Singapore boys. They are not mature even though they have NS and are over 22 years old when they take up undergraduate studies."
May 7, 2005: "Maybe I should give more scholarships to non-Singaporeans who are bright, eager and hungry, and then help them get Singapore passports. The rest, I give to the A-level girls at 19 years old."
May 15, 2005: A*Star scholars are selected entirely on their merits. "I was pinpointing only the immature, whiny boys."
Either Straits Times has quoted him out of context (surprise surprise), or Mr. Yeo is slightly confused. When the chairman of the agency is considering excluding Singapore "boys", how is he going to select scholars "based entirely on their merits"? The reversal on May 15 does not clarify the matter, unless by merits Mr. Yeo means "certain Singaporeans without an out-hanging reproductive appendage".
b) On refuting arguments that paper qualifications aren't everything, Mr. Yeo again chooses to be sweeping in his examples, on top of seemingly contradicting his earlier views.
Nov 2002: "Would you want to be treated by a medical school dropout? Would you take a 'new' cancer drug developed by a biomedical sciences college dropout?"
In the same vein, I ask "Would you want to be treated by a brilliant biomedical researcher who boasts of a 'new' drug tried and tested illegally on humans without regard for testing safety?" It would be worrisome if the chairman of A*Star thinks the answer is yes.
Feb 1997: "I want brave young men and women who can ski, windsurf and jump from planes... We should not have first-class scholars looking like water lilies. If they come back all looking the same, like yellowish bookworms, then Singapore will become a library, not a nation."
If paper qualifications are everything, as Nov 2002 quote appears to suggest, then first-class scholars with first-class degress can have the personalities of water lilies or even Jabba the Hutt for all Mr. Yeo cares. Wanting scholars to be well-rounded is a tacit admission that paper qualifications are not everything, unless there are universities that award degrees on skiing, windsurfing and jumping from planes.
Want Arnold Schwarzenegger types? Then Singapore will become a Hollywood movie, not a nation.
c) His views on whining and whiners are amazingly paradoxical.
"Complain in a feeble or petulant way? That's not my style. When I see a problem, I define it. I speak out and fix it."
Since he clearly believes that "whining Singapore boys" are a problem, how does Mr. Yeo propose to fix it? By making broad and unproven claims about the problem to the national paper and musing aloud if he should exclude Singapore males from the A*Star scholarship selection process? Is that what is meant by speaking out and fixing the problem? Amazing logic. Maybe Mr. Yeo thinks differently, but I would classify this as a "hit and run", not much different from bond breakers who break their contracts rather than solve their scholarship problems.
Since it is Mr. Philip Yeo that I'm writing about, it will probably be apropos to add that all my judgements were based on the Straits Times article, which as far as I am concerned, may not be the most reliable source of information.
For example, the idiot paper mistook Singapore Ink as a blogger, although it is clear as day on the main page that it is a blog maintained by four writers. (update: Singapore Ink is irate) Not surprising then, how they can take an entire quote out of context, and make the "blogger" sound as sweeping as Mr. Yeo.
Straits Times then proceeded to quote a certain Ms. Chng Zhenzhi, who represents the female side of the sweeping argument trilogy. Her words are so full of holes and sweeping that I shan't even bother reproducing or countering them. I suspect "O" level candidates can rip holes into her arguments faster than Straits Times can quote their sources out of context. Perhaps she has been quoted out of context as well, although I doubt it, considering the length of her quotes. Since women scholars are purported to be problem solvers, perhaps Ms. Chng would like to solve this problem of post-NS whiners, rather than committing herself to sweeping statements that make a mockery of her public-funded education.
People tend to start spouting nonsense when they don't think before they say, when they don't realize that they don't automatically deserve credence just because of their upcoming admission to Harvard Medical School.
Update 1: News article quoting PM Lee as saying "We must consciously minimise the social distance between those at the top and the general population". Is this done by having "top" scholars and the Chairman of a scholarship agency declare approximately 1/2 the local population "whiners" and "wimps"?
"We dress down; we do not wear expensive designer suits; and we have our meals in hawker centres. We must maintain this informal tone in order to keep this an egalitarian society."
Maybe "we" shouldn't make sweeping statements or cast gender aspersions as well.
Update 2: Young PAP picks up the discussion.
Update 3: TalkingCock reports large increases in sex change operations.
Filed under: Singapore, News, Politics
a) After musing about discriminating against Singapore males, he makes a half-hearted, reserved u-turn:
A week ago: "I don't want whining Singapore boys. They are not mature even though they have NS and are over 22 years old when they take up undergraduate studies."
May 7, 2005: "Maybe I should give more scholarships to non-Singaporeans who are bright, eager and hungry, and then help them get Singapore passports. The rest, I give to the A-level girls at 19 years old."
May 15, 2005: A*Star scholars are selected entirely on their merits. "I was pinpointing only the immature, whiny boys."
Either Straits Times has quoted him out of context (surprise surprise), or Mr. Yeo is slightly confused. When the chairman of the agency is considering excluding Singapore "boys", how is he going to select scholars "based entirely on their merits"? The reversal on May 15 does not clarify the matter, unless by merits Mr. Yeo means "certain Singaporeans without an out-hanging reproductive appendage".
b) On refuting arguments that paper qualifications aren't everything, Mr. Yeo again chooses to be sweeping in his examples, on top of seemingly contradicting his earlier views.
Nov 2002: "Would you want to be treated by a medical school dropout? Would you take a 'new' cancer drug developed by a biomedical sciences college dropout?"
In the same vein, I ask "Would you want to be treated by a brilliant biomedical researcher who boasts of a 'new' drug tried and tested illegally on humans without regard for testing safety?" It would be worrisome if the chairman of A*Star thinks the answer is yes.
Feb 1997: "I want brave young men and women who can ski, windsurf and jump from planes... We should not have first-class scholars looking like water lilies. If they come back all looking the same, like yellowish bookworms, then Singapore will become a library, not a nation."
If paper qualifications are everything, as Nov 2002 quote appears to suggest, then first-class scholars with first-class degress can have the personalities of water lilies or even Jabba the Hutt for all Mr. Yeo cares. Wanting scholars to be well-rounded is a tacit admission that paper qualifications are not everything, unless there are universities that award degrees on skiing, windsurfing and jumping from planes.
Want Arnold Schwarzenegger types? Then Singapore will become a Hollywood movie, not a nation.
c) His views on whining and whiners are amazingly paradoxical.
"Complain in a feeble or petulant way? That's not my style. When I see a problem, I define it. I speak out and fix it."
Since he clearly believes that "whining Singapore boys" are a problem, how does Mr. Yeo propose to fix it? By making broad and unproven claims about the problem to the national paper and musing aloud if he should exclude Singapore males from the A*Star scholarship selection process? Is that what is meant by speaking out and fixing the problem? Amazing logic. Maybe Mr. Yeo thinks differently, but I would classify this as a "hit and run", not much different from bond breakers who break their contracts rather than solve their scholarship problems.
Since it is Mr. Philip Yeo that I'm writing about, it will probably be apropos to add that all my judgements were based on the Straits Times article, which as far as I am concerned, may not be the most reliable source of information.
For example, the idiot paper mistook Singapore Ink as a blogger, although it is clear as day on the main page that it is a blog maintained by four writers. (update: Singapore Ink is irate) Not surprising then, how they can take an entire quote out of context, and make the "blogger" sound as sweeping as Mr. Yeo.
Straits Times then proceeded to quote a certain Ms. Chng Zhenzhi, who represents the female side of the sweeping argument trilogy. Her words are so full of holes and sweeping that I shan't even bother reproducing or countering them. I suspect "O" level candidates can rip holes into her arguments faster than Straits Times can quote their sources out of context. Perhaps she has been quoted out of context as well, although I doubt it, considering the length of her quotes. Since women scholars are purported to be problem solvers, perhaps Ms. Chng would like to solve this problem of post-NS whiners, rather than committing herself to sweeping statements that make a mockery of her public-funded education.
People tend to start spouting nonsense when they don't think before they say, when they don't realize that they don't automatically deserve credence just because of their upcoming admission to Harvard Medical School.
Update 1: News article quoting PM Lee as saying "We must consciously minimise the social distance between those at the top and the general population". Is this done by having "top" scholars and the Chairman of a scholarship agency declare approximately 1/2 the local population "whiners" and "wimps"?
"We dress down; we do not wear expensive designer suits; and we have our meals in hawker centres. We must maintain this informal tone in order to keep this an egalitarian society."
Maybe "we" shouldn't make sweeping statements or cast gender aspersions as well.
Update 2: Young PAP picks up the discussion.
Update 3: TalkingCock reports large increases in sex change operations.
Filed under: Singapore, News, Politics
1 Comments
Post a Comment
<< Home