Temasek Holdings wants Temasek Review website to change its name

aurvandil said:

I am Goh Meng Seng,

Click to expand...

Hi Cpt Goh Meng Seng, hav u had ur lunch yet?

Maybe they dun want to spend too much money on Dr Ong? That's explains the low quality?

aurvandil said:

If the Opposition had access to the resources and technology to make such videos, there would be more interesting subjects to make movies of rather than Dr Joe Ong.

Click to expand...

I think actually, TR wants to change its name to aviod confrontation with TH but they want face lah. Just give them a good reason and they will quickly do it.

They are "Bo Chi Lan" but must act "Hu Chi"

scroobal said:

The site would be blocked or taken down if national security is a concern. The technical term in the industry is " site takedown" The main feed is controlled by Singtel and there are arrangements in place with ISPs around the world. This is the same mechanism that is used to control online pedophilia, online arms and contraband trade. For internal monitoring, there is a whole suite of vendors and applications that can do the same.

If the people behind this is more than one person and their identities are not known, the authorities would have done the trace or they would have blocked it. The primary concern is foreign agencies such as Malaysia and the US playing around with our internal politics.

The intelligence agencies obviously know who is behind it and will not move until a genuine threat is present. He does a service to the establishment by
projecting that dissent and opposition to the govt is active and present and this pleases first world investors who are facing pressure from their own local NGOs. The bonus is that he does something worse to the opposition - the character assassination of individuals associated with opposition.

One must be silly to think that TR is fighting a rearguard action and the authorities have not been able to tackle them. Get real.

Here is single example and those who know the history will understand. Joe has made numerous attempts to hire editors and even personalities like Tan Kin Lian but failed because he refused to disclose his identity. He however managed to screw Kent Ridge Common by persuading Kelvin to do some thing that he should not have done and the premature registration of "Kent Ridge Review" to be run by Kelvin failed. The site is still registered and hosted by the same TR servers. By now you must know that NUS authorities stepped in and sought the removal of Kelvin as they did the democracy wall, the protest on social engineering and the tuition fee increase. He however manage to engage his correspondent Khalil Adis to write articles and has paid him. Those records can be traced because of AML. If you do not know what AML is , best to step away. Others like Gilbert Goh, Yoong, and Ng are freely submitting and they are looking for maximum exposure for their articles.

As time goes on , one wonders if he is the same chap and if there are others. True to form, he came roaring back with "Namqiong" and with classic style yesterday. Looks like his PM network is also intact.

This journey continues.

Click to expand...

Yozzz Scroobal:

Think your take on Kent Ridge Common is off. Was wondering where you got your info from? Honestly coming in from NUS, the uni is alot more freer than the Wah Piao era.

When I was last at NUS, there are Professors who have said worst things, yes I was told, in a law lecture..the kinda things that can get sued. I even have Professors who made cynical remarks of PAP..yes they aactually mentioned the terms "PAP". What Kelvin writes isn't even considered anti-establishment. Critical maybe...but I wouldn't even rate Kelvin's writings as anti-government or anything. In fact he seems to fit the bill of what MICA expects of a political commentator...discusses problem and suggest solutions. Definitely not in TR's class or the TR way of writing.

I do not think there was any interference in KRC-government or otherwise..more of misunderstanding..

If there was an interference, it would be a sad day for us of course. Hope you don't feed the fuel to the fires of conspiracy theories!

Interestingly, Kelvin was invited back to KRC as he mentioned in his blog which means differences were resolved. Think it looks like a major misunderstanding, that's all.

What I find interesting is that Kelvin also contributes at TOC.

As I understand, this was what Kelvin wrote in his personal blog about what happened at KRC:

http://kelvinteowrites.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/what-really-happened-when-i-was-last-at-krc/

"I was initially inundated with work in my professional life with ongoing projects. In terms of editorial work, I was a volunteer in such a capacity with the Bone Marrow Donor Programme and was also part of The Online Citizen International desk team, on top of my writing work with the The Kent Ridge Common.

What transpired was the re-direction of the KRC servers and what appeared to be a falling out, and finger pointing amongst observers alike. However, the issue was discussed later among those whom are involved in the KRC setup, and what happened was really attributed to one thing – the breakdown in communications because it came during a busy period when writers were preparing for their exams and I was busy with my own work.

Initially, I thought I was relayed a message with regards to a change in editorial process and a comment with regards to the contents of my articles. I believed at first that this message was taken to mean what I have written thus far was unacceptable and not desired on the website, and with regards to changes in this editorial process, was that I was to make an exit out of the KRC team. Thus, I made the decision to just host the articles elsewhere and leave the team.

What really resulted in this misunderstanding was primarily due to the fact everyone was busy and do not have time to relay specific instructions. On subsequent verification with the KRC team, I have clearer picture of the actual instructions relayed to me, and it was indeed unfortunate that the busy period meant that communications lines were disrupted. The actual instructions were of changes to editing style and layout of articles.

Hence the purpose of this write-up was to address certain myths based on comments amongst observers elsewhere.

1) That an external party was involved in the events at KRC , e.g. censorship or mere disruption. This was never the case, something which I have verified with other writers. No external entity had ever disrupted the setup, and what resulted in my departure was based on my interpretations of messages sent out by my former colleagues from KRC, which upon later clarifications proved to be a misunderstanding between both sides. More importantly, at no time was KRC approached by any authority or such a representative.

2) That relations had completely broken down. Contrary to beliefs, the issue was resolved much earlier. I was invited to return to the KRC team earlier this year when the issue was completely resolved. However, I embarked on a demanding graduate degree programme that it wasn’t possible for me to commit my time (requires me to read 8 or more textbooks every week). In fact, my busy schedule started during the time of the incident that I only submitted sporadic work to The Online Citizen. After I left KRC, my works appeared mainly on The Online Citizen. However, I still showed my support for the KRC project by commenting occasionally on certain write-ups.

The next question is whether if I would like to return to KRC. To tell the truth, there were happy memories and camaradie involved and I will cherish them forever. Yes, I am an NUS alumni, but now NUS seems like a distant memory. Maybe because my undergraduate life was pretty uneventful that there wasn’t much memories for me to hold on to. But I have digressed. I am now in an institution miles away from home; a student of another institution, and in the near future, also an alumni of this overseas institution. I do not believe my presence in KRC is that appropriate; the ethos I experienced during my days as an undergraduate could be different from what the current generation experiences. And as I have mentioned earlier, I can’t spare the time to commit to KRC even if I wanted to. In other words, I have moved on. Even if the incident did not happen, I would have made a quiet exit from KRC given my current courseload.

To sum it all, after all in my opinion, KRC is a voluntary project where we are all giving our time. It is definitely not easy to keep a voluntary project like such going, and there is bound to be times when the going gets tough. During busy periods and when uncomplicated technical issues crop up, some breakdown in communication can occur, which is quite natural. Nonetheless, we emerged wiser. Last, but not least, I would like to thank readers for their continued support of KRC. "

Was from NUS