The critic in the age of new media, a comment on 'A*STAR vs Elia Diodati in The Sunday Times, 25th March

Controversy, sensationalization, gossip, speculation and exaggeration, popular words to describe certain articles, barring the educational, academic and analytical ones.

I would like to reproduce an article published in The Sunday Times, 25th March

A fresh bout of verbal sparring has erupted between outgoing A*Star chief Philip Yeo and a blogger whom the agency threatened to sue for defamation in 2005 By Melissa Sim Mar 25, 2007 The Straits Times IT WAS supposed to be a civil chat over a cup of tea, a chance for two old sparring partners - Mr Philip Yeo, chief of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) and PhD student Chen Jiahao - to air their differences. Instead the online world has enjoyed a fiesty cyberspace spat between two Singaporeans who seem more destined to cross swords than bury hatchets. The last time they clashed was in May 2005 and almost ended in court with A*Star threatening a defamation suit against Mr Chen. This time, the exchange occurred on Mr Chen's new blog and was sparked by his comments, on Feb 16 this year, on a Financial Times article - that appeared on Feb 14 - about the differing views of National Neuroscience Institute director Lee Wei Ling and Mr Yeo over biomedical research here. Mr Yeo saw his comments and suggested on the blog, on Feb 20, that as he was going to visit Mr Chen's place of study - the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) - they get together for a chat. Mr Chen, 25, agreed but asked that a third party be present and that the conversation be recorded and posted on the blog. Mr Yeo turned that idea down, telling The Sunday Times: 'As I plan to visit UIUC, I thought I could invite him for tea on a one-to-one basis. Instead, he wanted to interrogate me with a witness and publish our meeting! Arrogant chap.' Then the gloves really came off. Mr Yeo brought up the 2005 defamation incident on Mr Chen's blog. He had wanted to clarify that A*Star had not objected to Mr Chen's comments on A*Star's grade point averages (GPA) policy but took action over accusations it had bribed partner universities and some of their academic staff. Mr Yeo also said A*Star had never asked Mr Chen to take down his website, but to just remove offending and defamatory statements. Mr Chen, who had made an unreserved apology at the time, told The Sunday Times that he was surprised Mr Yeo had brought up the past, especially as the A*Star chairman had previously said he considered the matter closed. But this skirmish was far from closed with the protagonists unleashing a to-and-fro exchange that would have done centre court at Wimbledon proud.

Mr Chen, a former Public Service Commission scholar, hit the first volley, querying A*Star's need for such a high GPA requirement. He cited a supposed A*Star scholar at UIUC who had a mental breakdown because he failed to meet A*Star's 3.8 GPA level.

Mr Yeo hit back: 'Another half-truth or lie? Chap was never an A*Star scholar that I am aware of.'

Mr Chen changed tack, demanding to know if high GPAs necessarily translated into good researchers. Mr Yeo unleashed his forehand - or perhaps backhand - on that, saying Mr Chen's pontificating on R&D talent was like a 'small frog in a deep well' who 'cannot comprehend the majesty of the ocean. Yet it croaks noisily'.

That, retorted Mr Chen, was an attack on my moral character so there would be no point meeting for tea. 'Pity,' said Mr Yeo. The colourful exchanges prompted some onlookers to query if the Philip Yeo leaving the comments was the real McCoy. Mr Yeo told The Sunday Times that he leaves comments only on blogs that run down A*Star and always leaves his name. Indeed, he made it clear on Mr Chen's site that he dislikes blogger anonymity. Mr Yeo said some comments were from 'a rude young generation who hides behind blog anonymity spewing vitriolic words without real knowledge or depth of thinking. Sad for the future of the next generation'. That remark arose after Mr Yeo had painted a scenario of a youngster telling an old man that the old were unable to understand the young because the old grew up in a primitive world without TV, jets or space travel. The old man replied: 'You're right, son. We didn't have those things when we were young...so we invented them. Now, you arrogant little XXXX, what are you doing for the next generation?' That was like a red rag to a bull to the youngsters in the online community. One called Prima Deli said: 'Mr Philip Yeo, I'm afraid your time has passed. NEXT.' Mr Yeo did think some posters were 'rational and honest' and he discussed issues such as grade inflation with them. So any chance for that chat, once the dust settles? 'No,' said Mr Chen. 'Mr Yeo's comments on my blog have led me to believe that he is more interested in calling me names rather than (have an) insightful policy discussion.' And to think it all started with an invitation to tea.

Note: The source is an electronic version. The original page 3 article quoted a set of exchanges between Mr Philip Yeo and Chen Jiahao in Elia Diodati's blog.

I scanned through the hard copy of The Sunday Times, there were interjections of Philip Yeo......Elia Diodati (Chen Jiahao) multiple times. One would be forgiven if he has mistaken the writer of the article for a "boxing commentator". Yet, I saw the word "grade inflation" only ONCE, a subject of great interest to academics, and that is towards the end of the article.

A sad day for the critic indeed. What it takes to be a critic? One who KNOWS his opponents THOROUGHLY, and is able to acknowledge the merits of his opponent's position, yet sharp enough to point out certain weaknesses. The critic does not seek to destroy, but to advance the subject of interest he is addressing, by taking the subject to a higher level.

I am a self-confessed critic of A*STAR's 3.8 GPA requirement because I believe in a set of indicators that reflect a candidate's aptitude for research, yet I acknowledge the merits of the requirement. Graduate schools look out for a good GPA for science subjects, if the applicant wish to pursue a postgraduate course in the science discipline. Admittedly, I was a participant in Elia Diodati's blog and got into a good discussion with Mr Philip Yeo. The discussion went on to a higher level as we discussed the issue of grade inflation. It has been an interesting development as far as the discussion was concerned. Amazing that such an interesting issue warranted a mention ONCE towards the end of the article, and that was by Mr Philip Yeo.

Yet, I find sad that this discussion I was engaged in was portrayed as some sort of a "boxing match". I am not in the habit of "punching" up opponents. I am no basher or destroyer in other words. I find sadder still that the organization A*STAR was made to look something like a boxing federation involved in 2 rounds of bouts, with the supposedly headline grabber "A*STAR spat: Round 2". For an organization with highly qualified personalities in diverse disciplines to be dragged in was really regrettable.

Allow me to be philosophical but I believe the media plays a role in the evolution of a society. Thought provoking articles involving exchanges between personalities from different schools of thought are food for thought. The readers sits up and reflects thoughtfully. On the other hand, articles written to the tune of verbalized boxing matches are junk food to the brain. It simply passes through one ear and out of the other.

Thus, what now is the role of a media? My limited experience as a voluntary journalist during my undergraduate days taught me one thing. To be ACCURATE. When I was first accepted as a journalist for my undergraduate publication, I browsed online looking for materials on how to be a good one. A vitriolic comment lambasting journalists soon caught my eye. It read something like,"the main agenda of journalists is to write controversy for cash". Apparently, I surmised that the commentator must have been suffering the consequences of some articles. There is also a question of ethics. Should interviewees be treated as means to an end or as ends themselves? I always believe that interviewees should be treated as ends themselves, to illuminate their views to all and sundry in the unadulterated form. Of course, editing for language errors still has to be done, but nonetheless, the intended message stays unchanged. It is completely different when a journalist uses his interviewees as means to an end, be it sensationalization, gossip, exaggeration, whatever ostensible end. The consequence is that the unwitting interviewee becomes a subject of unwanted speculation, and worse, innocent parties start getting dragged in.

What now, for readers in the know of the recent spate of events? Remember I spoke about ACCURACY, and for the critic, to know the subject of criticism fully? I understand that Mr Philip Yeo is the main man in the center, and hence, I would urge readers and potential critics alike to read into the main subject matter extensively. I do not know how the article has affected readers' and potential critics' impressions of Mr Philip Yeo, but I will reproduce a series of quotes on diverse topics from Mr Philip Yeo himself in my correspondence with him both in other blogs and my blog. I believe in ACCURACY, hence, the source himself.

I have said my fill, and please, I don't want to be mistaken as an attendant of a "boxing match" in future.