Connect with us

Current Affairs

Misrepresentation of Interview Leave Girls Feeling Betrayed

Published

on

By Tiffany Gwee
View the original report done by The Straits Times here
Amid pictures of girls posing sexily while clad in lingerie and flashing lights, the article and video seemed to portray the young women as attention-seeking and “slutty” – to simply put it.
The article focused a lot about the girls’ yearn for popularity and fame – Miss Kylie Ng was quoted to have said that whenever she puts her lingerie photos on Facebook, her friends will call her a “slut” but she would not “give a damn” because she does “what she likes”. She reportedly added, “Even though I lose a lot of friends but I gain a lot of popularity and like… it’s okay.” 
Miss Cynthia Ho was also reported to have mentioned that when she posts pictures of her clad in lingerie on Facebook, a lot of people would start requesting to be her friend. “Guys start talking to you,” Cynthia mentioned.
The pictures below are all stills taken from the video.

pic1468

Still of Amanda talking

pic1489

Still of photographer John having a shoot with the girls

Distortion of Original Interview

However, according to Miss Vanessa Yap who posted under Facebook name ‘Vanny Kitchlynn’ two days ago, the video was “horribly taken out of context” and that it was a “misrepresentation” of what really went on that night of the shoot and interview session.
The original interview was really meant to be a “fun, non-serious interview” about how to protect oneself during shoots when one is not an actual model who have agents but just someone who likes to shoot for fun. She even mentioned that in her interview, she talked about how she protects herself by having a knife with her. This was never mentioned in the published article or video.
Miss Yap even posted screenshots of the conversation between Miss Amanda Wong (the journalist) and photographer John Seah in order to organise a meeting with the girls for a shoot. The message clearly stated that the interview will mainly revolve around the “dangers” of such shoots and how they can be protected.

10268521_1426133464308198_666742307919818408_n                                          (Amanda’s text to the photographer John, one of the model’s friend)

razor                                         (Text message from a person-in-charge from RazorTV)
Substituting Football Jerseys for Lingerie

Miss Yap also mentioned that “all of (the girls) did not want to be in lingerie for (the shoot)” but “it was insisted”. Similarly, Miss Kylie Ng posted a status on Facebook and talked about how they were “supposed to take (the video) with their football jerseys” but RazorTV “insisted” they wear lingerie instead.
This reality is in contrast to the article and how the writer used the word “gamingly” to describe the way Miss Vanessa Tan changed into lingerie. The very reluctance of the girls was completely not brought out in the article.
I watched the ‘Behind-the-scenes’ shoot that was posted on Kylie’s Facebook page and it was true – they really were wearing football jerseys before they were asked to change out of it and into sexy lingerie.

Behind-the-scenes video of interview (taken from Kylie’s Facebook Page)

Cyber-bullied and Hurt
Kylie’s post on Facebook showed much hurt and anger – with English not being her first language, she was not able to communicate her words properly and carefully. The media, unfortunately, took this to their advantage and twisted the meaning of her words.
When she said she loses many friends when she posts in lingerie but “gains popularity”, she actually meant that she does not mind losing the more shallow and superficial friends but gaining more love from her more genuine ones.
I managed to talk to Kylie about the whole situation and she told me that she feels very “depressed” and “betrayed” about the way the media painted her to be.
She also told me that many people are now attacking her online and “cyberbullying her” by constantly insulting and “slamming” her, making her feel even more depressed as she already is.
They apparently tried to write in to ask about the misrepresentation of the article and video but to no avail – no reply was given to the girls.
The Irony of it All
It is ironic then that the interview was originally planned out to discuss about what measures could be taken to protect the girls who take shoots like this as a hobby.
This is because the report has ruined their reputations, which did lead to even more bullying and insulting – the idea of protection and safety then, is no longer relevant in the article.
Interestingly enough, I managed to watch the video (posted on asiaone) on the page two days ago but the video no longer works for me today.
Screen Shot 2014-04-17 at 7.31.20 AM
The video was originally a RazorTV video – which has since been removed from the website as well.

Screen Shot 2014-04-17 at 7.40.20 AM

Cover Photo taken from The Straits Times

Continue Reading
6 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

on

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending