The dust-up Between Dr Lee Wei Ling and The Straits Times

choi

In chronological order.

(1) Ivan Fernandez, Why ST did not publish Dr Lee Wei Ling's column. Straits Times, Apr 9, 2016.
http://www.straitstimes.com/opin ... n-was-not-published

Note: "The Sunday Times"
(a) There is
The Times
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times
(founded 1788; since 1981 a subsidiary of News UK, itself wholly owned by the News Corp group headed by Rupert Murdoch)

Quote: "The Times is the first newspaper to have borne that name, lending it to numerous other papers around the world, including * * * The Straits Times (Singapore) (1845), The New York Times (1851) * * * the Los Angeles Times (1881) * * * In these countries, the newspaper is often referred to as The London Times or The Times of London.

* I read New York Times and Los Angeles Times, and can attest to the fact that each of these two newspaper identifies itself "The Times."
(b) In this essay from The Straits Times, "The Sunday Times" refers to its Sunday edition. See The Straits Times / The Sunday Times. SPH, undated (under the heading "Our Business")
http://www.sph.com.sg/our-busine ... s-the-sunday-times/
("The Sunday Times is the Sunday edition of The Straits Times and was launched on December 20, 1931")


(2) Lee Wei Ling. Facebook, April 9 at 12:29am
https://www.facebook.com/weiling ... 65967889054?fref=nf
("I had not intended to write about my father’s death on 23/3/2016. What led to my comments in Facebook on 1/4/2016 was the article on the front page report of The Straits Times on Mar 21st")

Note: "1/4/2016." This is European, but not American, notation for "Apr 1, 2016." American notation is 4/1/016.

(3) The cache of Lee Wei Ling's Facebook posting (probably of Apr 9, 2016) that she allegedly deleted hours later).
https://webcache.googleuserconte ... p;ct=clnk&gl=us

Note: There is no need to read it, as it has nothing to do with plagiarism, or not.