TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent The impartiality of The Straits Times is thrown into doubt again following another unfair and biased article to portray opposition "activists" in a bad light. (read ST's article here) Straits Times journalists Jeremy Au Yong and Kor Kian Beng published an article today with the inaccurate title "No approval given, but website launched" about the NGO - Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD) started by former Workers' Party candidate Dr James Gomez to give the public the erroneous impression that it has broken the law in doing so. The first sentence of the article is particularly disparaging and dismissive of this worthwhile initiative started by a group of concerned Singaporeans: "A group of activists went ahead and launched the website of a civil society organisation last night despite not having obtained official approval for the registration of the society." Dr James Gomez, who is currently working as a visiting lecturer in Australia's prestigious Monash university, launched the website of Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD) during a public dialogue organised by a political discussion group called Talk "Politics". According to Dr Gomez, the SFD "aims to promote civil and political reforms among Singaporeans here and abroad using new media tools. He is still waiting for approval from the Registry of Societies (ROS) to register the group. The Straits Times appears to take issue with the fact that Dr Gomez launched the website before formal approval was given by ROS. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no need for Dr Gomez to do so and he did not contravene any laws or rules. Mr Au Yong and Mr Kor may like to refer to the Societies Act (Cap 228) and point out to us specifically the exact rule which stipulates that it is illegal to launch a group's website before it is registered by ROS as a society proper in Singapore. Dr Gomez or anybody can start any website and call it "Singaporeans for Democracy", "Singaporeans against dictatorship", "Singapore for Singaporeans" or any other name as they see fit. In the event that his application for the NGO is rejected by ROS, SFD can simply remain as a group of individuals who have come together for a common cause and its website is merely a new media tool to reach out to the online community. It is disingenuous for Mr Au Yong and Mr Kor to add a spin to the matter to mislead unsuspecting readers into believing that Dr James Gomez and his colleagues have done something "improper". Opposition leaders and civil society activists should be extremely wary when granting interviews to the state media. Remember the two golden rules: 1. They won't give you free publicity for nothing. 2. Their aim is to make you look as bad as possible in order to serve the partisan interests of their political masters. It is unfortunate that the Straits Times has chosen to cast aspersions on SFD on such trivial technicalities instead of elaborating more on its noble vision of advocating for "political and legislative reform in line with the principles embedded in the Singapore National Pledge to build a democratic society based on justice and equality". Once again, SPH journalists have proven to us that they cannot be trusted to cover socio-political events in Singapore in a fair, balance and accurate manner without taking any sides or spinning it to favor one side over the other.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent The Temasek Review was quoted in an article published on 13 January 2010 by influential international newspaper Wall Street Journal, a sign of its growing clout as a credible alternative news source to the mainstream media for socio-political matters in Singapore. (read article here) In the article written by Patrick Barta and Tom Wright on the impact of the influx of foreigners in Singapore, it contains a paragraph on two articles published a few weeks ago by The Temasek Review: "On Temasek Review, a Web site dedicated to Singaporean affairs, one writer recently warned Singaporeans would be “replaced” as “3rd class citizens” by foreigners, while another said that immigration “will emerge as the single most important issue” in Singapore’s next general election, due by 2011." Despite only being accessible intermittently for the last few weeks, our readership has tripled in the same period, propelling us to within the top 500 sites in Singapore as of 14 January 2010:   [Source: Alexa.com, 14 January 2010] With our growing readership, we are now in a strong position to build on it to challenge the monopoly enjoyed by the mainstream media for ages. A year ago, nobody, including us would dare to believe that this is possible, but now we are standing right at a crucial juncture in our short history which will determine how far we will go in the next few months ahead. Over the past six months, we have proven ourselves in the following: 1. Capability: We have shown that we are able to build the readership up at an astonishingly fast rate within a short period of time with very limited resources. Our readership has increased by more than ten times in less than six months in spite of the fact that this site is run largely by anonymous part-time bloggers. 2. Resilience: We have gone through many trials and tribulations in our journey - from the relentless attacks to incapacitate our site, smear campaigns orchestrated by our enemies in cyberspace to the numerous attempts by the establishment to discredit us, we have not only survived, but grow stronger as a result. 3. Impact: Our articles are able to generate a real impact which extends beyond the confines of cyberspace and in some cases, forces the authorities to react because we have published the news and there is no way for them to hide it - from MM Lee's remarks in the National Geographic magazine, the losses suffered by GIC in Stuyvesant Town to the "escape" of Romanian diplomat Dr Silviu Ionescu. As our resources have been over-stretched to their limits recently which had derailed our initial plans completely, we are unable to complete our road-map on schedule. Temasek Review has become too "big" to be helmed by just a few of us. We need every Singaporean to give us a hand to make it a success. We want to give every reader a stake in TR and to take ownership of it. In short, you are the bosses and we are merely writing on your behalfs as a form of "National Service" to fellow Singaporeans. Please invest in us and we promise we will deliver the goods you want: 1. Unlike the mainstream media which serves only the interests of the PAP, we will serve the interests of all Singaporeans. We will be a media run by Singaporeans for Singaporeans together with Singaporeans. We will be your VOICE in Singapore and you will never need to suffer in silence, injustice or anger ever again. 2. With our high readership, you will have a voice which is loud enough to wake up those "higher mortals" who are still sleeping in their ivory towers to pay attention to your concerns and we will make sure that we keep making the same "noises" again, again and again till they sit up and listen. Please feel free to utilize this mouthpiece fully. It is completely free of charge. 3. Will the Malaysian political tsunami ever come to our shore? It depends on all Singaporeans. We have a platform to build on now and if we build it high enough, who knows what will happen? Ways to invest: 1. Publicize our site to everybody you know, spread the word for us far and wide. 2. Be our "eyes and ears" on the ground and tip us off immediately of any news worthy of publication on our site. 3. Contribute articles to us to add diversity to our site. We welcome views from across the political spectrum, be it pro or anti-establishment. 4. Offer your expertise and share your experience with us in matters pertaining to IT security, website design, editorial content and other relevant aspects of running an online news site. 5. Supporting us financially by clicking on the "paypal" button on our right-hand sidebar. Though we are self-sufficient currently, having more cash in the kitty will enable us to achieve our immediate goals in a shorter period of time: 1. Continue to beef up our security system to withstand future attacks which will definitely come again. 2. Engage the services of a professional programmer to write a program to enable readers to access our site directly from their desktop without going through the ISPs in case Starhub and Singnet block us during the elections. 3. Employ one or two full-time staff to manage the site full-time, edit the articles for spelling and grammar mistakes, liaise with external agencies and to produce original news. 4. Start an audio-visual unit (in the form of Malaysiakini TV) to produce short video clips like street interviews with Singaporeans, social documentaries and political films. 5. Incorporate a company and maintaining it yearly for the long haul. We will endeavor to accomplish all the above eventually given our limitations, but if you can chip in and lend us a hand, we will stand a better chance to achieving every objective before the next general election. Once again, we thank you for your continued support and we sincerely apologize for the frequent inaccessibility of our site which has caused considerable distress to some readers. We know once readers are "exposed" to TR, they will most likely get "hooked" on it forever,or in the words of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong in Hokkien - "Pak4 Si4 Bei3 Zao4" (beat to death also won't run away).  Read More →

作者: 陈鸣鸾（教育工作者） 进入2010年，媒体总爱总结一下过去10年的国际大事、政经成绩等等。我脑海里的一些纳闷也浮现，需要梳理。 亚洲四小龙里，撇开同是英国殖民地的香港，我最感兴趣的是韩国和台湾。这两地经历了集权统治后，自上世纪80年代中逐步解严开放以来，在短短的20几年 中，在科技和文化产业领域已塑造了几个家喻户晓的国际品牌和企业，韩国有三星、LG、现代和久兴未衰的“韩流”（包括影视剧、流行乐），其中，三星和现代 更列入2009年世界100大知名品牌内；台湾则有宏碁、云门舞集等，这是纳闷之一。韩台的一些共同点是在政治上多有矛盾和混乱的同时，皆有深厚的本土文化和母语教育，在20几年间快速吸收各方先进知识靠的是翻译的文本，这是纳闷之二。 从韩台两地的发展来看，韩国似乎更胜台湾一筹。于是，台湾政界、学界和媒体认真地关注韩国，希望从研读中发掘他人的长处，好给自己加把劲。《天下》杂志进入21世纪时，出版了几本有关韩国的专书，通过采访探讨剖析韩国的政经与文化层面对现今社会发展的影响。 让我引用《韩国，跃升中》（2005年出版）一书有关韩剧的报道来说明。电视台在拍摄剧集时，已经和旅游产业达成共识，留住场景为旅游景点，旅游业者 （包括旅游部）则进一步开发和该剧相关的旅游点子和饮食文化配套等，并在场景的选择上也扮演辅助和联系的角色；旅游部官员视自己为“民间的外交官”，常到民间走动，建立人脉和进行推导。这种作业方式是一种横向的扩散性思维，是多元性、全方位的，将一些看来不相关的，隶属不同部门的点，串联成一个最终能发挥极大效应的面。众所周知的韩剧《大长今》就是这样运作出来的。习惯于这样的作业，也就不存在主导性在谁那里，看不出主从或上下关系，所有相关单位是自然地相呼应，从民间到官方是一个团队。韩国在推动影视业和保留传统文化上，作业和思考方式也是雷同的。 不久前，新加坡植物园的食阁在关闭装修后重新开放，我们一群朋友满心欢喜地光顾，迎来的是整洁明亮、缺乏饮食个性、令人倍觉冷酷的餐厅！一个有近150年历史的植物园食阁，硬体的设计与植物园的内涵互不协调姑且不论，连冲泡一杯本地风味咖啡的软体条件都没有，只备有冲好的咖啡一大桶，让顾客自助；这背后体现的是一种怎样的作业思维，实在令人 好奇。 新加坡的政经发展也在80年代中之后转型，以英文为学习语文的我们，在接收世界最新信息方面应该占点便宜，甚至可以赢个马鼻吧！ 至今，我们的国际品牌如新航、新加坡港务集团都是政联公司；在国际艺文领域，我们更几乎是交白卷。那么，台湾和韩国究竟做对了什么，以至有今天的成就？我们没做对什么，以至在2010年还得继续面对植物园那样的食阁？我尝试上国大图书馆网站查询在国内发表的这方面论文英文书目，却令人失望。有关本地人对新、韩、台的比较研究，简直凤毛麟角，而由亚洲研究所主办的研讨会，也仅就《韩流文化》的探讨有一些专文。 长久以来，我们已很习惯地肯定现有的成就，自信的同时也不免自傲。回看别人的进展时，我们应该虚心地自我内省，诚如《韩国，跃升中》问及韩人保留传统文化的意义时，答案是“走进全球化世界之前，你要知道自己是谁。”自1964年起，韩国已推行全面的保护传统文化政策，有助认清自己的身份认同。 2008年和2009 年，我在韩国见识了工潮和示威，他们的政局没有我们的安宁，但在经济发展与科技领域，我深刻地体会到这个国家所迸发出来的活力。当我读到《韩国，跃升中》 所提示的韩国民间有三八六世代（出生在1960至80年代，年龄是30几岁）“为韩国带来自由、奔放的能量”时，我知道自己对我们走过的路，其实不甚了了。 来源：联合早报（2010-01-10）  Read More →