TR EMERITUS

By Bryna Sim from The New Paper AN ONLINE video featuring Ris Low “teaching” viewers how to use condoms has upset Espire Condoms, which chose Ris to be their youth spokesman a month ago. It said it had not been consulted on her appearance in the video, produced by an online portal. The video has garnered 90,000 hits since it was uploaded eight days ago. Titled ‘Safe Sex with Ris Low’, it shows the controversial former Miss Singapore-World slipping condoms on bananas of various sizes. The video has drawn flak from netizens, some of whom feel that it trivialises an important issue and teaches incorrect techniques. Said Ms Joy Tan, executive director of Zander Asia, which owns Espire:“They (producers) approached Ris directly and she went ahead without our knowledge. We are also upset by the video as it portrayed Ris in a silly manner.” The three-minute video shows Ris seated behind a table dressed in a white unbuttoned jacket and a clearly visible lacy pink and black bra. She uses bananas of three different sizes – small, medium, and large – as her props. The video shows her trying to slide the condoms onto each of them. Bloopers of her failing to slide the condoms successfully onto one of the bananas, and of her accidentally peeling off the banana skin while trying to remove the condom are left unedited. There is also a scene where Ris applies warm lubricant jelly to her nails, which she calls a “fashion tip”. The show drew about 100 comments from viewers. Most of them called the video “stupid”, “silly”, and “horrifying”. Some viewers said the video was “mean” and seemed to make fun of Ris. One said that there was “a sick vibe of cruel mocking” embedded within the video. Read rest of article on The New Paper  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent A Buddhist monk Venerable Dhammika has expressed his doubts about the effectiveness of inter-faith dialogue to prevent another Rony Tan fiasco from arising. An Australian by birth, Venerable Dhammika have been a Buddhist monk for 32 years and am the spiritual advisor to the Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society in Singapore. Lighthouse Evangelism Pastor Rony Tan was hauled up for questioning by the Internal Security Department (ISD) last Monday for making disparaging remarks about Buddhism and Taoism during a church session which was video-taped and uploaded to Youtube. He has since apologized to the leaders of the Buddhist and Taoist faiths and the government has refrained from taking further action against him out of fear of sending "shockwaves" to the Christian community. The Straits Times carried a report yesterday quoting several religious leaders as saying that inter-faith dialogue may be the way to prevent such unpleasant episodes from recurring in the future. Venerable Dhammika, however, was unimpressed with the inter-faith dialogues as conducted in Singapore. Writing on his personal blog "Dhamma Musings", he shared his experience at such sessions: "I doubt that inter-religious dialogue, at least as it is conducted in  Singapore, really brings about a change in how the different religions feel about each other. I have often attended inter-religious gatherings and I have noticed that everyone is friendly, accommodating and open-minded. The participants are already respectful of other faiths. The ones who could do with a bit of tolerance - the bigots, zealots, fundamentalists and the evangelicals, won’t come. Here in Singapore several major denominations have pointedly refused to join the Inter-religious Organization which they see as fratranizing with Satan." The Singapore government frequently organized such inter-faith dialogues to promote interaction between leaders of various religious faiths in Singapore. As they are not compulsory, the participants are usually those who are tolerant and respectful of other faiths, as pointed out by Venerable Dhammika and as such is "all too often just an exercise in the converted preaching to each other." Venerable Dhammika proposed the government rewards tolerant leaders to marginalize those who are intolerant: "The government should consider something like the Public Service Award, the PBM or the BBM, but to be given for service to interfaith understanding. When such people are looked upon as commendable, socially responsible and worthy, the bigots gradually come to be seen as out-of-step, as a public nuisance, as un-respectable. You can marginalize the intolerant by rewarding and lauding the tolerant." While the state media has been quick to sweep the saga under the carpet, religious fault-lines still lurk beneath the veneer of normalcy in Singapore, waiting to be exposed once more. Pastor Rony Tan's running down of other religions would not have come to light had he not video-taped his preaching and uploaded it to Youtube where it was subsequently circulated in cyberspace. With the combustible situation exacerbated by the relentless influx of foreigners in Singapore, the social tension in Singapore society is set to grow in the years ahead. Read rest of Venerable Dhammika's post here  Read More →

By Hurr Riyahi In the last year, Temasek Review has evolved and grown to be an important source of information, news and opinion about Singapore. It has been quoted in international media as a news and opinion source hereby recognising its legitimacy. Mainstream media opinions and information of citizens' opinions have become questionable at times due to its lack of independence given its self-declared pro-government approach. Reporters from mainstream media and even PAP MPs in Singapore have replied directly to Temasek Review, something totally or almost unprecedented. That again is due to the fact many Singaporeans, foreigners and external journalists are visiting this site more than the online sites of other local mainstream news channels. Given these trends and the kind of power and influence Temasek Review yields on and off the internet, there are growing calls from numerous quarters for changes in Temasek Review so that the site meets their expectations. Temasek Review being a champion of change ought to heed the calls for change directed at it. However for each of the area in which Temasek Review falls short of their expectations, there is a bigger reason due to others explaining the shortcomings. Hence for change to occur in Temasek Review, change is first required from others. Temasek Review needs newspaper and TV news channel license One of the key criticisms levelled on Temasek Review is that its pieces need to reach highest standards of journalism. I find this humourous when it comes from Singaporeans because many people in and outside Singapore find mainstream media in Singapore to be lacking of any basic standards of journalism. The reason why Temasek Review lacks the such high standards is because it is online citizen journalism which is run by citizens. In online citizen journalism the standards are very unclear and do not match conventional journalism. Nevertheless it will be a positive change for Temasek Review if it can attain such high standards as conventional journalism because it will also mean it will be better than local mainstream media. However the structure of Temasek Review has been rather loose from day one. Just like many  other online websites providing news, it invites all citizens to write. It also does not have full time editors. There is no formal processes. There isnt any Temasek Review core team even. There is no vetting or editing even to the articles.Those who do contribute to this site do not even know each other. They do not control each other's actions either. They do not take responsibility for one another's actions or decisions. There is no stakes for anyone. Even an article like this that includes criticisms about Temasek Review is allowed as it is not going to damage the site's or anyone. But as mentioned again this is online citizen journalism. This is how things work on such a site. Its perfectly alright for such a site as it does not violate any nature of such sites. Another key criticism levelled on Temasek Review is the kind of personal attacks made by netizens posting comments targeting the writers, the site itself, other individuals, the government etc. This is true for almost every article in Temasek Review. In fact for each postings one can see two or more sides being taken from which such personal attacks are hurled. Then again certain segment of Singaporeans, no matter what political affiliation they may have, have a tendency to use personal attacks. Unfortunately it is quite the culture in certain sectors of Singaporeans. As mentioned earlier Temasek Review does not have a formal organisational framework or operations team. Basically one or two guys just log on and approve comments at rapid rate unless if its too unacceptable. For a more moderated discussion, Temasek Review needs full time dedicated personnel to manage this website. If Temasek Review is expected to show standards of conventional journalism, then it requires the freedom and resources needed to be a conventional media. Given Singaporeans are not going to pay for an online website, it is impossible to hire such full time personnel. The only alternative is Temasek Review be given a newspaper and news channel tv license and allow it provide news, opinions and information in the manner some quarters expect. Should anyone think closing down Temasek Review will resolve the problem, they are wrong. Especially since there are nobody who is owning it. Most importantly there are far too many netizens who will simply create a Temasek Review clone the very next day. One can expect many such sites springing up instead of just one. In any other country a site such as Temasek Review will not have achieved as much importance as it has achieved in Singapore. That is purely because of the  repression of media, news, information and opinions. Things also have deteriorated to the extent where foreign media sometimes are relying on Temasek Review and other  online citizen journalist websites to find out what is happening in Singapore. Nobody other than the government and its controlled state media created a need for Temasek Review and other citizen journalism. What is interesting is not the some quarters in Singapore are worried about Temasek Review but they are worried about online citizen journalism. They think they can counter it by themselves going online. It didnt work. They also imagine that if they can exert pressure using rules and regulations for conventional journalism, they can exert some control. Welcome to the new world era. The realities in the internet are not that simple. Their only last bet is to integrate Temasek Review with conventional journalism by allowing online citizen journalistic sites to have newspaper and news tv channel licenses. In that way only can you demand and expect conventional journalistic standards. That is also the only way you can expect to promote more moderated discussions. In fact this can be a really positive step forward allowing the various quarters to engage themselves more actively and directly on a common platform. Mainstream journalists must stop their anonymity The other change expected of Temasek Review by local mainstream media is for its contributors to stop being anonymous. That is so hypocritical because there are intelligence agents in local mainstream media who are anonymously writing under the designations as journalists. Some of them are even open secrets. The only other countries where citizens write anonymously on websites are in countries where there is severe repression, oppression, autocracy and dictatorship. Until a day comes when there is media freedom and intelligence agents stop writing under the disguise of journalists in mainstream media, there will always be websites where people express opinions anonymously. Set standards for all journalists in Singapore Another set of criticisms put out at Temasek Review includes that the site is sensationalizing news, being anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist etc. Which Singapore media outlet including local mainstream media has not been accused of such things? It is not that media sensationalizes news but the way media emphasizes or prioritize or report news.  Society itself has to set standards for all journalists not just for Temasek Review. Instead society becomes selective in its criticisms and that is unhelpful. Each group tends to launch at whichever news outlet that it is unhappy with and when another group is aggrieved in the same manner by another news outlet, the former group sit silent. Society also needs to access what is the role of media in Singapore society. Till now its something solely decided by politicians. Some argue media is the voice of conscience of society but how can it be in Singapore if for instance main stream media calls itself to be  pro-government. In issues of religion and race, Singapore for the last 50 years have regarded them as taboo topics even though they are key issues of our multi-racial and multi-religious society. The failure to establish platforms and standards on how they should be discussed has made journalists in Singapore being incompetent in covering them adequately and appropriately. Singaporeans and not politicians should be heard on how the society wants to deal with this. Way forward for journalism in Singapore Even though Temasek Review has long term vision and is working hard, it has already accomplished itself for what it set itself out for - premiere online citizen journalism site. Tomorrow whether Temasek Review grows bigger or shuts down is immaterial. It has set a certain standard and inspired necessary number of minds that online citizen journalism will carry on with or without it. Journalism has been one area in Singapore which primarily for half a century has been about conquer, control and power. Such hegemonistic approach has failed today with internet. It is time politicians, Lee Kuan Yew and mainstream media shed this attitude and work towards a free and open media environment. For fifty years they imagined that their continuity relied on a tightly controlled media environment. Today, its clear their continuity relies on an open media environment.  Read More →