Saturday, August 18, 2007

National Service

This is Stephanie Ko, one of this year's president scholar.

Taxpayers will be footing $500,000 (half a million), so that she can study medicine at Cambridge University for free.

That's because, in a departure from past practice where medical students who had chosen to study overseas received the honour of being president scholars but no tuition payment, PSC now pays half a million to each of them for their free overseas medical education.

This is how Straits Times' Ho Ai Li reported her background:
...her father, Mr Ko Kheng Hwa, 52, who also received the scholarship in 1974. He is now managing director of the Economic Development Board.

I am absolutely aghast!

How can this nutty reporter highlight Mr. Ko's exact job title at EDB?

In doing so, this reporter has done a great disservice to both our elites and peasants:
  • She has indirectly highlighted that Mr. Ko can well afford to pay for his daughter's UK education, thus making both father and daughter look greedy in accepting this half-million-dollars scholarship! We should not be make our elites look bad in the eyes of the peasants!
  • she has reinforced the impression that apart from a few exceptions, scholarships are usually given to the sons and daughters of our elites. This will make our peasants unhappy!
  • she has denied our peasants' the hope that their families can rise up the social ladder when their sons or daughters become president scholars. Such false hope is needed to garner peasants' support!

She deserved to be given 3 strokes of the rotan!

She should learn from her counterpart from the Chinese newspaper. This is how 沈越 reported:


By calling Mr. Ko an employee ("职员"), rather than a Managing Director ("执行主席"), this reporter has done an excellent job.

Now, that's National Service at its best!

1 comment:

pot/kettle said...

I disagree with your assessment. It's Lianhe Zaobao that highlighted this ridiculous new policy of paying for ourrageously expensive overseas medical education. The Straits Times omitted it conveniently. So what one censored, the other reported and vice versa. Both equally bad!