In the News (again! gasp!)
A Sweeping Statement which caused a whole flurry of discussions online, everywhere. Blogs, Forums, News Articles. So far, I've just decided to steer clear of such an issue lest someone decides to look in at this blog and use the power of law to deal with bloggers which offer perspectives of this entire 'saga'.
Yes. A 'saga'. Where it all started, it came from the head of the highest distinction you can get for PSLE. Oh yea. A*Star's Mr Philip Yeo, and he's pretty good at shooting off his cuff as well.
On May 15, I read The Sunday Times and there was an article about Mr Yeo: Chairman of Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star).
His statement that incurred a lot of wrath from Singapore men is, as follows:
"I don't want whining Singapore boys. They are not mature even though they have national service and are over 22 years old when they take up undergraduate studies. They give me so much trouble and waste our precious time. It would be better off giving more scholarships to foreign students and Singapore girls."
Then, what came along was this Ms Chng ZhenZhi, an A*Star scholarship holder. When interviewed, she said,
"The local boys are OK until they enter national service. Once they enter NS, they complain a lot. I didn't know that guys could talk about the most minute things. Perhaps they're not used to the physical training or regimentation."
Now, TODAY, we get an article from Ms Chng in an apparent attempt to point out the 'mistakes' and do some damage control from the Sunday Times.
Hey, I'm not a male-basher!
-A*Star scholarship holder Chng Zhenzhi's letter:
"I would like to clarify some of my statements, because of misconceptions arising from the article.
One forum posting I have seen said: 'By saying that Singaporean males start to complain about the most minute things after serving NS, she implies that NS turns Singaporean males into wimps.'
I was implying no such thing! I respect national servicemen and believe their experiences and sacrifices ought to be recognised and appreciated. The issue at hand is not national servicemen voicing their grievances, but the unjustified and hurtful remarks made about our scholarship system.
In the telephone conversation I had with Mr Chua, I was asked to comment on guys who whine, and answered his questions in the context of 'whiny male counterparts' I have come into contact with.
I said 'they are fine until they enter national service', in response to a question about whether I find Singapore men whiny. My point was that the only occasions I noticed whining was when they were talking about their national service experienced. When asked what they complained about, I said 'minute things' as I did not wish to expatiate on what they had shared.
I did not imply that every male scholar I know has whined about national service. Nor did I say it was unacceptable for national servicemen to voice their opinions or displeasure.
When asked if male scholars are easily bullied by female scholars, I said I did not have any example to justify such a statement. I pointed out that most female scholars I know are Type-As, but there seems to be a mix of character types among male scholars. I stated explicitly and repeatedly that I did not wish to generalise.
I would like to restate my point that, as scholars, we are privileged to be given the opportunity for an overseas education, and must fulfil our responsibilities back home and serve in our respective fields. We are not entitled to such privileges, and passeing demeaning remarks will not benefit the system.
I am sorry to have upset so many of my fellow citizens over an issue that is close to the hearts of all Singapore men. I am referring to national service. I accept responsibility where I had not made my points clearly enough to Mr Chua. I was misquoted in the article or quoted out of context.
The presentation of the article did me additional injustice - I'm sure unintentionally - by highlighting a truncated or composite quote under an unnecessarily large photograph of me.
To all my fellow scholars (male) and all other men in Singapore, I assure you guys: Hey, I'm not a male-basher! I like men! In fact, I am grateful to have supportive male friends, and a loving boyfriend, without whom I would not have been able to withstand the barrage of reactions following The Sunday Times article."
Editor's Note: Ms Chng was quoted accurately by our reporter, and an A*Star official said as much in a conversation with the reporter after the remarks were published.
So...she has realised what she had done was purely a sweeping statement. It is interesting to note that being a JC student, having numerous lessons in GP, the lessons on not making sweeping statements has still yet to been imbued into her.
And here we see a desperate attempt to deflect her criticism. Essentially, it gives an unkindly impression of Shoot First, Talk Later. It's a pity, but guess she brought it on herself, as the reporter merely asked for her thoughts on 'whiny Singapore men' and she just had to use her friends/colleagues serving national service as her example. I mean, can't she pin-point further into the group of people she was trying to imply? For example, maybe she should say, "There are of my friends who complain a lot to us on their current employment..." or something like that.
Bashing the entire populance of Singaporean males won't do you good Ms Chng, just a kind reminder only. Hopefully, you won't get to see this blog, and hopefully, you have learnt the art of making more friends instead of more enemies.
As for his comments, maybe the bloggers had stated something flawed in the current system of choosing fresh JC students for scholarships. Instead of lashing out at them on why they broke the bonds, and sitting in the office banging the table for this article, why not look into the reasons for such a case? Is something seriously wrong around here? Might be, and maybe it's time to improve the situation by reviewing the steps taken to select our scholars in future. Have more action, instead of just giving the idea to us that, 'no system is perfect and therefore we can't help it but continue having scholars who break bonds'. Shake the system. Hopefully, this would allow greater breadth and depth when it comes to selecting potential scholars.
And sweeping statements are usually the source of discussions. Does he/she not know that there are even lady bond-breakers also? Maybe this is what we call selective statistical reporting. Oh well, if they prefer to do that, then there's no point in arguing. They will deny, and no doubt it would just go along the lines of gender differences.
P.S. I'm not referring to girls when I talk about this article. Just thought I might give this disclaimer, lest I do something ala Ms Chng and set the whole Internet forums abuzz.
Current Mood: 
In Thought
Current Music: Rythem - Harumonia
Happy
Furious
Happy
Book-reading Mode