URGENT NEWS ALERT FROM SINGAPORE

This news has not been reported by any official
press. We piece this info together from various
sources 

To start, the links contained in these two blogs are
useful

http://singaporeangle.blogspot.com/2005/04/sad-day-for-singapore-blogosphere.htm\
l

http://singabloodypore.blogspot.com/2005/04/acidflask.html

(We think Acid Flask is Mr Chen Jiahao (see New Paper
report) although we're not sure why the others keep
referring to him as Acid Flask and not Chen.)

_____________________________________________
A Singaporean blogger who goes by the name Acid Flask
has shut down his weblog caustic.soda after threats of
defamation suits pertaining to comments made about Mr
Philip Yeo, the chairman of A*Star, a government
agency for science, research and technology.


On April 5, The New Paper had run three articles about
scholars breaking their bonds with A*Star. One of the
scholars, Acid Flask, had elaborated on his own
experience with breaking government scholarship bonds.

After the reports were published, he continued to
write extensively about his experiences on various
websites. Below is a link to one of his articles.

How is Singapore Science Really Doing?
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=288

On Apr 22, however, he made this announcement, "I
would like to claim the dubious distinction of
becoming the first Singaporean blog (that I am aware
of) for being threatened with legal action over one of
my most recent posts. Was it something I said? Or some
comment someone else left? Or is the prosecution
peeved at my general attitude? Have the words of my
most recent proclamation come back to haunt me? Stay
tuned for more information as the situation unfolds."

On 26 Apr, Acid Flask's caustic.soda weblog shuts
down, and diverts visitors to this epitaph.

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~chen6/blog/

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. – Wendell
Phillips"

"Unfortunately in recent days, the price of
maintaining the content which used to be accessible at
this URL has become too high for the author to afford.
AcidFlask thanks readers for their past support and
regrets the inconvenience caused.

AcidFlask would like to apologize in particular to Mr.
Philip Yeo, Chairman of the Agency for Science,
Technology and Research (A*STAR) for having hosted or
made remarks which he felt were defamatory to him and
the agency that he leads. AcidFlask promises to not
make such remarks again on this website."

__________________________________________________________________


Below is a brief chronology of events leading to the
closure of caustic.soda. It is written by a another
blogger, cH, on her site
http://www.spilloverink.com/attic/archives/blog-obituary-causticsoda-by-acidflas\
k/


"I first knew about caustic.soda due to a comment
posted in my own blog entry on Scholarship/CJC/HCJC. I
did not, and still do not know how he manage to find
this secluded blog. But he did. When I decided not to
apply for scholarship during that period, nobody
supported me. They lambasted me for wasting time
studying in Singapore when my brain is liquid enough
to give me an overseas scholarship. AcidFlask, the
proud owner of caustic.soda, left me an encouraging
message.

Ever since then, I have been following his blog...I
came to discover the true story of the enmity between
some scholars and their sponsor agencies in Singapore.
This blog was also constantly a source of new
scientific stuffs.
In the recent weeks, caustic.soda looked healthier
than ever. It passed another visitors milestone.

Then, the ill comes. And it comes in the form of
courage. A courage from the writer of the blog to
accept an interview by The New Paper of Singapore.
AcidFlask posted his own life story about breaking
bonds in The New Paper. The articles (by a young
journalist, AcidFlask and Mr Ouyang Jingkai) becomes
hit within the would-be scholars community. A lot of
my friends read it. Some of them were swayed to
rethink their decisions to take bonded scholarships.
Some changed their minds immediately or soon after
that.

It is immediately apparent that this act of courage
will be the one that brought ills into caustic.soda.
The articles have sparked certain discontent within
the force-wielding individuals. They, in turn, use
their force-powered lightning attack on caustic.soda.

However, even at the end of it, caustic.soda’s last
few breaths were marked with distinction. The blog
claimed the dubious honour of being the first blog to
be sued (Huichieh reminded me that it is more likely
that AcidFlask were on the stage of being threatened
by legal suit, not being sued yet) by a government
agency...The force-wielding power-that-be used the
full torrent of the force and at the end brought
caustic.soda to its knee."
_________________________________
The closure of caustic.soda comes hot on the heels of
a public apology issued by PSC (Public Service
Commission) Scholar Chua Cheng Zhan over racist
remarks made on his weblog. (reported in Sunday Times
17 April 2005, see below)

Meanwhile, another blog,
http://www.livejournal.com/~nilsinelabore/, has shut
down, leaving only this message,

"Blog Publicity No More"
"Too many recent events in the Singapore blogosphere
have unsettled me. It started with the CZ affair ,
which cost me a LJ friend, followed by Convexset's
entry and now, Acidflask's announcement.

So I would like to say that I am taking down all the
public entries in this blog. My sitemeter had
registered many hits in the past couple of weeks from
Singapore based domains; the edu.sg, gov.sg and net.sg
ones kind of unnerved me.
My apologies if any of my posts were deemed
defamatory."
________________________________________________
Below is blogger Gilbert Koh's take on using
defamation suits as weapon of choice to protect one's
reputation.
http://slmjd.blogspot.com/2005/04/law-of-defamation.html

The Law of Defamation
Acidflask's blog has closed down. The news has
travelled far and wide in Singapore blogosphere. Only
a few sentences remain of his blog, including the
following paragraph:


"AcidFlask would like to apologize in particular to
Mr. Philip Yeo, Chairman of the Agency for Science,
Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, for
having hosted or made remarks which Mr. Yeo felt were
defamatory to him and the agency that he leads.
AcidFlask promises to not make such remarks again on
this website."
Before I proceed with the rest of this post, I hereby
announce the following:
** I do not know Philip Yeo.
** I have never met Acidflask.
** I am not familiar with A*STAR.
** I cannot recall reading anything whatsoever,
whatsoever or whatsoever on Acidflask's blog about
Philip Yeo or A*STAR.
** I have no opinions and no views about Philip Yeo
and/or A*STAR.
** My comments in this post are purely a general
discussion of certain aspects of the law of
defamation.
** I am writing this post purely in the spirit of
public education, as I believe that bloggers, after
learning about the end of Acidflask's blog, may be
interested in knowing more about the law of defamation
in general.

There. Now for the discussion proper.

Singapore is a pretty interesting place, as far as the
law of defamation is concerned. Over the years, we've
had many highly-publicised defamation suits in our
courts, involving well-known political figures such as
Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, Tang Liang Hong, Chee
Soon Juan and JB Jeyaretnam.
Consequently, most Singaporeans have a good basic idea
of what the tort of defamation is all about.
Basically, the law of defamation protects your
reputation. If someone says something to a third party
that hurts your reputation, then you can sue him for
damages.

(Of course I simplify. You can't always successfully
sue. For example, you will fail if the defendant can
prove that what he said was true. This is known as the
"truth" or "justification" defence).

Now, in my view, the law of defamation is often a
rather stupid creature. And often (but not always) the
people who use it to sue someone are also rather
stupid. When they sue, they only end up hurting
themselves even more.

Let's say, for example, that you are a Famous Person.
One day, someone somewhere, of much lower stature and
lesser fame than yourself, says something nasty and
untrue about you.

Perhaps Mr Nobody made the statement at a party where
there were only a few guests; perhaps Mr Nobody said
it at a board meeting where there were only a few
people present. Or perhaps Mr Nobody made the
statement in his personal blog or diary which was so
insipid and boring that only a few people ever
bothered to read it.

Okay, your reputation is "hurt". Technically, yes, you
have been defamed. Yes, you have a valid case, if you
want to use Mr Nobody.

But when you sue, you only give more publicity to Mr
Nobody. You only make his statement circulate even
further. That's because you're a Famous Person. When
people hear that a Famous Person like a Lee Kuan Yew
or a Michael Jackson is going to sue a Mr Nobody for
defamation, people want to know - and will find out -
what Mr Nobody had said. If they can't find out, they
will just speculate. Your reputation may suffer
further damage.

And Mr Nobody's annoying statement about you will
spread far wider and further than Mr Nobody could ever
have spread it on his own.

The other thing about defamation suits is that even if
you win, they often don't do anything helpful for your
reputation. Instead of looking like the honourable guy
determined to uphold his noble reputation, you may
just often end up looking vindictive. Or petty.
Especially if you are a Famous Person and the other
guy is just an ordinary joe who can't even afford a
lawyer.

You also run the risk of looking like the guy who had
something to hide and who therefore sued Mr Nobody to
make him shut up.

In the PAP's case, regular victories in defamation
suits merely led to human rights organisations like
Amnesty International announcing to the world that the
PAP likes to use defamation suits to bankrupt its
opponents. Bad, bad, bad - for your reputation.

In my humble view, the reality is that the most
effective way to restore your reputation is usually to
challenge the offending statement in exactly the same
forum where it was made.

If a newspaper wrote something about you which you
think is defamatory, you should publish your own views
to show why you think that statement is inaccurate,
untrue, malicious or prejudiced.

If the offending statement is made in a board meeting,
then at the next board meeting you should get everyone
together and you should explain why you strongly
object to that offending statement.

And so on. If the statement is really so wrongful,
surely you can convince people that it is.

Don't forget - if you sue, you may not win. And if you
win, you may not get very much. I have heard of judges
awarding a grand total of $1 in nominal damages, in
defamation cases. Yup, it means that the judge agrees
that technically you win the case, but it was such a
stupid case that you deserve to be paid only one lousy
dollar.

Meanwhile, your lawyer rubs his hands in glee.
Thinking of the bill he's about to send you.

posted by Gilbert Koh
_____________________________________________________________________________


Below are two New Paper articles on the bond breaking
story. (5 Apr 2005)
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:imQ-Qn3tO10J:newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfri\
endly/0,4139,86036,00.html+%22Red+Tape+and+bond+breakers.%22&hl=en
The Electric New Paper :
Red tape and bond breakers
Scholarships too restrictive, inflexible
Scholarship officers don't listen, or communicate
MEMO to scholarship boards: Red tape is riling some of
our scholars. It has led some of them to break their
bonds even before they finish studying. And it has
prompted over a dozen of them to vent their
frustration on Internet forums.
05 April 2005
By Teh Jen Lee
jenlee@...
MEMO to scholarship boards: Red tape is riling some of
our scholars.
It has led some of them to break their bonds even
before they finish studying. And it has prompted over
a dozen of them to vent their frustration on Internet
forums.
Their claim: Management styles and red tape seem to be
snuffing out the bright sparks.
Two such students who had been awarded scholarships to
study in the US spoke to The New Paper.
One was a Public Service Commission (PSC) scholar and
the other was from the Agency for Science Technology
and Research (A*Star).
And get this: Both are willing to be named.
The two scholars broke their bonds midway through
their studies - they claimed policy changes or
inflexible policies affected their future.
They referred to criteria - covering aspects like
length of graduate studies, grade-point average (GPA)
and university of choice.
One of them also said he had a difficult relationship
with his scholarship officer, which compounded his
tangles with red tape.
Other scholars have complained about having to make
long-distance phone calls to officers who ignore their
e-mails.
Mr Chen Jiahao, 23, a former PSC scholar who broke his
bond last July after studying overseas for two years,
said he was upset that no one seemed to care about his
case.
'I do not see myself returning to Singapore ever
again,' he said.
Another ex-government scholar, Mr Ouyang Yingkai, 22,
claimed he knows of people who talk about breaking
their bonds because of problems with their scholarship
agencies.
'I know one who did actually break the bond. Three
others were unhappy but they didn't because
bond-breaking is very expensive.
'They are also worried about parental disapproval or
possibly social stigma - these are extremely strong
reasons not to break the bond,' said Mr Ouyang, who
left A*Star after a year of studies. (See other
report.)
POST-GRAD STUDY PEEVE
Unhappy scholars often voice their gripes online or to
their friends, but many declined to be interviewed
when contacted by The New Paper.
One bone of contention for many interested in
scientific disciplines is the length of graduate
studies.
Under most four-year scholarship schemes, students who
complete their bachelor's degree in three years are
allowed to pursue a one-year master's so they complete
their studies in time.
But few reputable US universities offer one-year
master's programmes in the physical sciences.
Mr Chen managed to complete his undergraduate studies
in two years and got a place in the world-renowned
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to further
his studies.
He planned to come back to Singapore after two years
of graduate studies in chemistry to serve his bond as
a teacher.
But he couldn't get PSC's approval. (See report on
next page.)
As for A*Star scholars, some feel restricted by
policies that counter the spirit of creativity and
experimentation that's vital in research.
This includes setting a high grade-point average (GPA)
of 3.8 as a minimum for those wanting to pursue PhDs
and having a list of selected overseas universities
(SOUs) which students are supposed to adhere closely
to.
Under the GPA system, an A is worth 4 points while A-
is 3.67. To have a cumulative GPA of 3.8 means
students have to score mainly As.
This could pressure them to take easier classes and
forgo the more challenging laboratory or
graduate-level courses, limiting their development as
researchers.
Mr Ouyang, a physics student at California Institute
of Technology (Caltech), thinks a minimum GPA has a
role in making students more responsible. But he feels
there should be flexibility.
'They are studying with taxpayers' money after all,'
he said, 'so the minimum GPA can be a guideline to
hold them accountable. But using GPA as a strict
measure of ranking students is not very fair.
VARSITY LIST RESTRICTIVE
'Different majors have different levels of difficulty,
and difficulty varies from school to school. It is
definitely easier to get a great GPA in XYZ college as
opposed to Caltech.'
As for the SOUs, the A*Star website states several
times that scholarship applicants should complete
their studies at those universities.
It goes on to specify that some of the most
prestigious universities like Caltech, Princeton,
Harvard and MIT are for PhD programmes only, so
students have to go elsewhere for undergraduate
studies.
Mr Ouyang disagreed with the restrictions.
He said: 'It is the dream of many students to get into
these very universities.'
While A*Star declined comment, its website states that
scholars are to be committed to giving back to a
knowledge-based economy for all Singaporeans.
Professor Lam Khin Yong, executive director of the
A*Star Graduate Academy, said: 'A*Star takes a very
serious view of any scholar who deliberately breaks
his promise. We will not hesitate to publicly name
irresponsible scholars who intentionally break their
bonds for selfish interests.'
Dr Ong Seh Hong, deputy chair of the Government
Parliamentary Committee on education, thinks scholars
and their agencies need to work together to solve the
problems.
He said: 'I do support scholarship schemes being
flexible. Compared to my time, they have improved. Of
course if there are problems such as with the GPA
criteria for researchers, these should be tackled. It
is better to focus on research output than GPA.'
The crux of the matter is that scholars need to feel
they are not working against their agencies, said Mr
Ouyang.
He said: 'It's better to feel you belong. An overly
strict regime may not work well for the happiness of
the scholars. Happy workers are generally more
productive.'
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,86038,00.html?
Why bond breakers left
'I wanted a two-year programme, but they refused'
April 05, 2005
By Teh Jen Lee
jenlee@...
HE graduated magna cum laude from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in just two years.

On top of that, for his graduate studies, Mr Chen
Jiahao, 23, managed to get a place in MIT, where he
was offered a teaching assistantship worth over
US$23,000 ($38,130) a year.
He had a PSC scholarship which required him to come
back to Singapore to teach after four years of study.
With two years of his scholarship left, he planned to
get a Master's degree.
In May 2001, after his first year of studies, he
e-mailed his intentions to his scholarship officers
and followed up by speaking to them.
'I was told to go ahead and take the GREs
(standardised tests for graduate schools), apply to
schools, and to keep them informed about what happens
at each stage of my applications and admissions
process - which I did,' said Mr Chen.
So when Mr Chen returned to Singapore after his
graduation ceremony in mid-2002, he thought he would
start his Master's programme in August at MIT.
But his world came crashing down on 9 Jul 2002 when
his father, the sole breadwinner of his family, died
of a sudden heart attack.
Barely a month later, while he was still coming to
terms with his loss, he was told that his request for
a two-year course, submitted over a year earlier, was
denied.
The e-mail came three weeks before he was to attend
orientation at MIT.
It stated: 'The reason your Master's request was
turned down was because you asked for a two-year
Master's course. PSC guidelines clearly outline that
one of the criteria/conditions for Master's approval
is that the programme is for the duration of one
year.'
Mr Chen said it was not stated in his scholarship deed
that only one-year Master's courses would be allowed.
He was originally told that it was standard policy to
approve only one-year Master's programmes as most
people get their first degree in three years.
He said: 'Applying the one-year policy to my case
would have been a case of fitting a square peg into a
round hole. I was told that one complicating factor in
my case was that I was the first person to ask for a
two-year programme. They were concerned that I would
set a precedent.
'Apparently the fact that I had graduated in two years
did not weigh in my favour, and for some strange
reason PSC did not wish to break down 4 into 2+2,
although already allowing 3+1.'
Mr Chen and his mother kept trying to meet PSC
officials to appeal against the decision, and after
three weeks they got an interview.
He waited another two weeks after the interview before
getting a letter that his appeal was unsuccessful and
that he would have to do national service immediately.
If he had asked for a one-year Master's program like
others, he would most likely have been able to defer
NS.
Mr Chen said his then-scholarship officer made things
worse during that difficult time by giving him lots of
paperwork.
'No allowance was made for my bereavement. Breaking
the sudden news of having my plans rejected and piling
loads of overdue paperwork on me was hard to take,' he
said.
And he claimed that other scholars started to ask him
about his case.
'How many people know how it feels to lose their
father and have a place in a dream school swept away,
all in less than a month?'
By the time he completed his NS, he had lost his place
at MIT.
After long discussions with his mother and brother, he
decided to break his bond last July and pay the amount
of $130,254 in one lump sum.
'It was almost my entire allotment of inheritance
money but they were both very supportive. It was a
very difficult decision because it drastically reduced
the amount of buffer money that could be used to
support my brother's studies and my mother's living
expenses,' said Mr Chen.
Today, he has a stipend from UIUC to pursue his PhD in
chemistry there.
Although going overseas had originally strengthened
his identity as a Singaporean and his resolve to work
in the civil service, he is now not sure about ever
coming back.
He said: 'A scholarship agency has the right to reject
a proposed programme of study. I accept that.
'But scholars should be managed as more than merely a
human resource.'
_____________________________________________________________________________

Below is the Sunday Times story on a scholar's racist
remarks on his weblog. (17 Apr 2005)

http://singaporeangle.blogspot.com/2005/04/storm-over-cz-breaks-on-print-media.h\
tml
THE Public Service Commission (PSC) is investigating
one of its scholarship holders for putting racist
remarks on his Internet site.
Maths major Chua Cheng Zhan, 21, has since taken the
material off his website and replaced it with a
profuse apology. His shocked family has also
apologised on his behalf.
Mr Chua, a third-year student at Northwestern
University in Illinois, made disparaging remarks about
other races on his personal online journal or weblog.
Since then, at least two forums have been discussing
his comments and one angry Net user even e-mailed the
PSC to complain.
When contacted, the commission would only say that it
was investigating the issue.
Much of the flak Mr Chua is receiving seems to stem
from three errant posts among the hundreds on his
weblog.
He used words like 'repulsive' to describe some races,
and talked about their 'irksome features'.
This issue has come just a few weeks after a Nanyang
Technological University student sparked debates when
he remarked at a public forum that watching a man hold
the hand of a woman with a different skin colour 'made
his skin crawl'.
Those who know Mr Chua, who has a younger brother and
sister, said it was out of character of him. By all
accounts, he is an accomplished scholar.
The former Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Junior
College student has a spotless academic record. He
scored full distinctions for his A levels and is now
maintaining a 3.8 grade-point average at university.
He is also heavily involved in student leadership
positions at Northwestern University and has been very
active in volunteer work.
So what got into him?
He said: 'I guess I was not myself when I wrote those
things. I don't use my own persona when I write on my
blog. I realise they were in very poor taste and I
deeply regret my actions. I am not like that.'
The weblog, he added, was never meant to be read by
anyone but his closest friends. He had locked the site
with a password but now admits it may have been too
easy to crack.
He added: 'I don't know who cracked it, or who would
even want to.'
Somebody did, and spread the word about it on Net
forums.
Many Internet users have posted angry messages calling
him names. Some have even asked that his scholarship
be revoked. One, calling himself thesaint888, said:
'The thought that a racist is using public money
frivolously while casting his racial slurs around
absolutely makes my blood boil.'
Another, Juliet Chan, actually compiled a dossier of
the posts and e-mailed them to the PSC and the media.
In her e-mail, she wrote: 'His utter disdain for
minority races here in Singapore is worrying and
completely unacceptable for a potential civil
servant.'
The Sunday Times tried to contact Juliet several times
but she did not reply to the e-mail.
Not all Net users, though, are calling for his head.
One, called jane, wrote: 'They (racist comments)
certainly weren't meant to perpetuate racial hatred,
neither were they a real reflection on what the writer
really feels.
'In fact, any sane person reading it would know they
were just made in jest, and were meant to be read by
people who would know and put his comments in their
proper context.'
Mr Chua's friends and family say the comments were
completely unlike him.
His father, 51-year-old Larry Chua, managing director
of an investment company, said: 'He's a racist? He
volunteered for three months, teaching English in
Nepal at his own expense. He volunteered to teach
English to Vietnamese and Hispanic immigrants in the
United States. You can draw your own conclusions.'
Mr Daniel Quek, 22, who attended Hwa Chong with Mr
Chua and who is now studying in the University of
Illinois, said: 'I never once thought of him as
racist. He's always been a nice, cheerful guy.'
Now, Mr Chua and his family just want to put the
matter behind them. He said: 'I really regret posting
what I did. I admit I did something wrong and I am
very, very sorry.'



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com