TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent In another move to extend its influence to Singapore students, the Straits Times will be promoting the use of letters published in its forum page as teaching materials for English studies and National Education in primary and secondary schools. (read article here) The Straits Times' fourth annual Teachers Forum will be held on 24 September to "show how articles can be used to teach English, social studies as well as national education." It will be split into primary and secondary school sections. During the Forum, teachers will share with one another the use of media articles as a dynamic, relevant source for teaching. The forum will begin with two plenary sessions on the benefits of using "authentic" materials like newspapers to develop "critical thinking." It remains to be seen how the one-sided spins and propaganda of the Straits Times can be used to promote "critical thinking" among students. The ST Forum is highly controlled by the paper's editors who screened every letter sent by readers carefully to ensure that those critical of the government or its leaders do not get published. The boundaries for permissible debate are also delineated clearly: while "sycophantic praises" (from PRs and foreigners) and "constructive criticisms" from (the usual ghost writers like Lionel De Souza) are most welcomed, any remote slurs on the nation's institutions will not be entertained. In the complete absence of an alternative source of information to compare with, students will be hard pressed to discern for themselves the authenticity of the reports carried by the state media. All the print media in Singapore are owned by a single company - the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) whose Chairman is almost always an ex-PAP minister. Its current Chairman is Dr Tony Tan, an ex-DPM who took over from Mr Lim Kim San in 2005, another former minister. With their rice bowls in the hands of their political masters, ST journalists seldom dared to venture out of the official line to criticize the government. Needless to say, there is very little objective or investigative journalism found in the Singapore media. Years of relentless propaganda and some might say "brainwashing" have made Singaporeans one of the most politically apathetic and ignorant citizenry in the world. Since the government is "right" all the time, few seldom question the actions and decisions made. As such, there is dearth of public interest in current affairs. The latest attempt by Straits Times to make its presence felt in Singapore schools may arise out of deep-seated concerns and fears that the young generation who spent more time on the internet than reading papers will get influenced by the plethora of alternative news media in Singapore's blogosphere which are mostly critical of the establishment. The Singapore media is ranked a miserable 141st position on the latest World Press Freedom Index conducted yearly by international media watchgroup Reporters without Borders, just above North Korea, Burma and Zimbabwe. EDITORS’ NOTE: If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you! Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview  Read More →

From our Correspondent [EDITORS' NOTE: Please support Project Kasih here] A video posted on Youtube and Facebook on a group of NTU students planting a fake bus stop sign to deceive a bus driver had caused a furore in Singapore's blogosphere! The one-minute video clip first showed a NTU student in black T-shirt flagging down a SBS bus. He was seen pointing to the bus sign and gesticulating to the bus driver to stop. The bus did stop and the student boarded the bus, waving good bye to his three friends at the bus stop who were giggling away. The next segment of the video then showed the four students, three guys and a girl all dorned in black, removing the bus sign which might have been shifted from elsewhere. The students then broke out collectively in laughter. From the video, the students they might have shifted a fallen bus-stop sign with the 179/199 bus number plate to the bus stop which only allows the internal shuttle bus to stop. Footages of the video was posted on STOMP and triggered a massive outroar against the perceived antics of the students. STOMPer Kenneth, who came across the video on both YouTube and a social networking website, said: "This is a bunch of kids trying to fool the driver of bus 179 and the driver actually fell for it.......They tied the sign together with the one standing there showing shuttle bus NTU-Pioneer Station to try to fool the 179 bus driver...From their conversation, they were excited and thought this was fun that the driver was fooled." According to the YouTube posting, the youths are from NTU. While some netizens commented that they found it funny, others condemned the act. One netizen said: "Can't believe that nowadays university students in Singapore have no sense of empathy. The bus captains work more than 8 hrs a day driving on the same route, yet they do this to a bus captain, and which may get that captain into trouble.....No wonder our university standings drop." Sammyboy forumer Pica_Na added: "Another act of stupidity from our "reputable" university student. Poor bringing up and poor society education lead those students to act like idiot and showing everyone...... what kind of parent bring up such kids.... I pity the parent... soon, their kid will perform another their so-called "poor bringing up" act... by throw them to old folk home... oh my oh my.... Government strong promotion of their reputable university make those students think that they are high above anyone else and whatever mistakes they made, it is OK and everyone will move on.... damn the PAPpy !!" The original video had been taken down, but a replica of it was posted on Youtube by a netizen "daphnemaia" who claimed that the NTU students responsible for the prank had written to her to request her to remove the video clip. It has been viewed over 4,000 times so far. While undergraduates in other developed countries are politically aware and active, Singapore students are largely ignorant of current affairs. Neither are they interested in politics or what is going on in their country. The pervasive apathy of Singapore's bright young minds prompted NMP Viswa to suggest in his maiden speech in Parliament last month to "re-politicize Singapore's universities." NTU's precedessor, the Nantah University was a hotbed of student and political activism during the 1950s. Nantah alumni will probably be disappointed at the childish antics of their juniors who appeared to have lost touch with the original Nantah spirit. EDITORS’ NOTE: If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you! Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview  Read More →

From our Correspondent Temasek Holdings has lashed out at the Wall Street Journal yet again for "fundamental misperceptions" in its editorial. In a letter published on Wall Street Journal yesterday, Myrna Thomas, the Temasek's Managing Director in Corporate Affairs claimed that Temasek do not manage any funds from or for Singaporeans: "While our sole shareholder is the Singapore government, we are not a “fund,” and do not manage Singapore “citizens’ earnings.” It is factually wrong to imply that Singaporeans have no choice but to “keep their money with the fund." [Source: WSJ 8 Sept 2009] This is in response to a Wall Street Journal published last week which criticized Temasek for skirting "the basic conflict of interest between the public interest of protecting citizens’ earnings and the private-market imperative of taking risks to seek returns." [Source: WSJ 31 Aug 2009] Myrna Thomas also clarified the role of the Singapore President which does not involve operational or business decisions: "The president’s concurrence is also required for the appointment or removal of Temasek’s CEO and board members, so that no government can remove these key officers at will." The letter did not reveal any new information previously unknown nor did it answer the key questions posed by the Wall Street Journal editorial. The editorial had criticized Temasek for its lack of transparency which triggered a public furore over the loss of a "bundle" in last year's financial crisis and abrupt designation of CEO-designate Chip Goodyear. It was completely ignored by Myrna. It also questioned Temasek's vague Charter and long-term goal: “Temasek is a commercially-driven investment company and is responsible to its sole shareholder, the Singapore Government, for delivering sustainable long-term returns,” the company said. But nowhere did Temasek explain what a “sustainable long-term return” is, who sets that goal, or how it is set." Again, Myrna failed to answer them. Lastly, the WSJ editorial pointed out the lack of disclosure in Temasek's annual report which "doesn’t give complete historical financials, nor does it say how much Temasek pays in dividends to its 100% owner, the Ministry of Finance." Myrna was so surprisingly mute on these important queries and she did not even bother to evade them. Despite its repeated attempts to protray itself as an "investment company" free of interference from the government, the fact remains that Temasek is using public funds (indirectly from the Ministry of Finance) to make its investments. As long public monies are involved, Temasek will forever be subjected to intense public scrutiny which demands a high degree of accountability and transparency on its part unless Temasek somehow stops using government funds and become entirely privatized to become a real "commercially driven investment company." Temasek should stop fudging the issue and strive to be more accountable and transparent to Singaporeans who are after all financing their operations (through years of accumulated budget surpluses) Playing around with words will not change the fact that they are a "government-owned fund" in reality and not a "investment company" as advertised.  Read More →