Forum: Make our maritime moments more visible to the public
A few days ago, home-grown shipping company Pacific International Lines (PIL) held a naming ceremony for its latest container ship, the Kota Ocean.
It showcased a new ocean-going ship that can be powered by liquefied natural gas.
I am a ship captain by profession. A naming ceremony is the most symbolic ceremony for a newly delivered ship. This should be a proud moment not just for the company, but also the bigger population of Singapore. There are many Singaporean seafarers who used to sail on PIL ships.
These ships have carried more than cargo – they have carried a piece of Singapore across the oceans. These floating chapters of our nation's story deserve to form a part of our collective memory for SG60.
In Japan or some European countries, the public would take ferries or yachts out to sea to witness ship-launching ceremonies or the sailing out of famous ships. Perhaps Singapore could explore similar initiatives.
Such events could give everyday Singaporeans a front-row seat to maritime moments that are otherwise out of view, and potentially inspire young talent to join the maritime industry.
In the spirit of SG60 and the upcoming Day of the Seafarer on June 25, let's share our sea stories with more Singaporeans.
Tan Teng Han
More on this Topic Forum: What readers are saying
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
34 minutes ago
- CNA
The Projector's closure and Singapore's struggle to embrace unconventional dreams
How long was The Projector living on borrowed time? It's hard to be certain. What's clearer is that the local independent cinema, which announced its sudden exit from the market on Tuesday (Aug 19), was always more than a screen for arthouse films. Its distinct offerings made it a defiant presence in the sea of sameness that is Singapore's cinema landscape. It also kept its edge by doubling up as an events venue, holding themed parties, intimate concerts and dialogues with filmmakers. It had character and soul, and it was the direct opposite of what many Singaporeans would label as 'cookie-cutter'. And for 11 years, it worked. But I suspect that very difference also ultimately sealed its fate. The Projector's shock announcement on Tuesday marked a complete reversal from its plans less than a month ago to resume screenings at its Golden Mile Tower outlet. It said it would enter "voluntary liquidation", citing rising costs, changing audience habits and other pressures. And it's not just smaller players like The Projector struggling with high rents and the increasing competition from streaming services for audiences' time, attention and money. Cathay Cineplexes, owned by listed entertainment firm mm2 Asia, currently owes millions in rent to mall landlords. Six of its cinemas closed over the span of around three years – with more closures possibly looming. In a July bourse filing, mm2 Asia said it was mulling several options, including winding up its cinema business entirely to address its 'ongoing financial challenges'. As of August this year, only four Cathay Cineplexes cinemas remain in operation. On one hand, it's tempting to see this solely as evidence of a broader, arguably irreversible, shift in Singaporeans' attitudes towards cinemagoing. Even the biggest players are no longer immune. Yet the way I see it, the end of The Projector is a loss for Singapore as a whole. Its closure doesn't just mean decreased access to independent films in theatres, nor is it simply the disappearance of a venue that made the city a little less dull. It feels instead like a reminder of how difficult it still is to succeed through unconventional paths in Singapore. And perhaps it's time we recognised that in such a reality – which extends far beyond cinema – we are all worse off. A "REBEL CINEMA" THAT TOOK RISKS I still remember my surprise when The Projector opened its doors in 2014. I hadn't believed there would be a sustainable market for independent film showings in Singapore. The movie buffs who would show up might have been loyal, but they were always in the minority. And when it comes to our lifestyle interests, in my view, Singaporeans have long leaned towards rather homogenous, mainstream tastes. Take our shopping malls for example. Even as some places have rebranded malls as lifestyle destinations, the majority have stuck to an expected formula. Uniqlo: Check. NTUC FairPrice supermarket: Check. Kopitiam food court: Check. Broadly speaking, it's understandable that offerings with mass appeal would be key to consistently high footfall, and by extension, long-term financial viability. Likewise in cinemas, one would assume commercial blockbusters or movies that spark strong social sentiment after their Hollywood release would attract larger audiences in Singapore. Even so, The Projector seemed to show a growing appetite for the independent arts and culture scene. I believed its mere presence would, in time, nurture a deeper appreciation for raw creativity – the kind inseparable from the boldness that drives risk-taking and boundary-pushing. Its founder Karen Tan told CNA Lifestyle in 2022 that the cinema had always been motivated by 'the desire to do something different and always question the status quo'. It was a 'rebel cinema', so to speak. The team wasn't afraid of the 'messiness of experimentation and collaboration', she'd said, which allowed it to 'do a lot more'. 'While we're not afraid to take big risks, it's always a calculated risk as well. So we enter a space with a plan to foster spontaneity and organic interaction and string a deliberately loose framework around it. 'For a business to do that, it requires a certain appetite for risk and trust that people will respond.' While Singaporeans may have finally responded after 11 years, The Projector's death (and life) would be in vain if we failed to grasp its deeper message. A society that doesn't support alternative spaces, or that discourages deviation from the norm, is fundamentally incompatible with creativity. And when creativity withers, so too does our ability to remain an innovative, competitive nation. You don't need to be a cinephile to realise the cost of that possible future. CULTIVATING A SIMILAR SPIRIT OF RISK-TAKING We lose far more than just a cinema with The Projector's closure. After all, our physical environment can both reflect and reinforce the culture we live in. In this case, it may highlight our struggle to step away from safe decisions and pursue alternative dreams. Despite the rhetoric around embracing failure, a culture built on the tried-and-true doesn't turn experimental overnight. Even our rebellions are measured. Aim high, but don't overstep. Follow your passions, but keep them on the side. Go niche, but never without a safety net. Moreover, Singapore's emphasis on productivity feels increasingly at odds with the spirit of risk-taking it wants to cultivate to stay competitive in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Not every risk will pay off when we judge its success mainly by productive output. But experimentation like The Projector matters, because even failed attempts can give rise to learning, resilience and the conditions for future breakthroughs. This willingness to try, despite the risk of failure, is the essence of creativity. Like a muscle, it grows stronger when we support what AI can never replicate: The act of being human. In the many eulogies for The Projector so far, it's clear the cinema created a rare space for just that. Cinemas function as a 'third place'. The sociological term refers to a social setting outside home ('first place') and work or school ('second place'), where people gather, interact and build meaning together. Thriving third places are seen as hallmarks of a city's cultural maturity. They signal that society values creativity, leisure and diversity, not just economic growth. The thing is, we tend to forget that building such spaces takes time and effort. This inconvenience runs counter to the Singaporean psyche that prizes efficiency and productivity, yet it is precisely what creates a deeper sense of belonging. So in Singapore, independent spaces often exist on precarious ground from the get-go. Their survival (or lack thereof) then becomes symbolic of whether the city can sustain a richer, more varied urban life. How long was The Projector living on borrowed time? In hindsight, the answer is clear: Since before it opened, if I'm being honest. Its very ethos of daring to dream was already in tension with Singapore's instinct to drift towards the mainstream. And yet, I don't resonate with the jadedness that seems to follow after such spaces close. I don't see The Projector's closure as a cautionary tale against risk-taking. If anything, its existence paved the way for fellow rebels. It gave us permission to wholeheartedly pursue the risks we truly believe in, if only so we remember everything it stood for. In the cinema's announcement on Tuesday, Tan too acknowledged that the place might be closing, but it hopes its 'spirit will live on in the conversations, ideas and communities we've nurtured'. 'If Singapore wants to thrive, it must find a way for creative and cultural businesses to survive because culture is the cornerstone of identity and civil society,' she said. The Projector proved that this reality is possible, despite the odds. Because while the outcome of risk-taking, status quo-breaking and boundary-pushing may not always endure, true rebels know the magic lies in the attempt. And we will all be better for it.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
What's next for the Ukraine peace talks?
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed with Mr Trump only that the level of representation at any talks should be higher than in previous rounds. For all the extraordinary spectacle involved in President Donald Trump's talks with Russia's president last week and with Ukraine's president, accompanied by European leaders, on Aug 18, the most likely outcome so far is more meetings. Mr Trump stressed that his first priority would be to help organise direct talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to bring the war in Ukraine to a close. The US president said that he could then join them for subsequent rounds to help iron out remaining differences. After emerging from the Oval Office, Mr Zelensky summed up the discussion about a key issue, security guarantees, in a way that could apply to the entire process: 'There is still a lot of work to be done.' When will Zelensky and Putin meet? Mr Putin has agreed to meet with Mr Zelensky in the coming weeks as the next phase of the peace process, Ms Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Aug 19. The US National Security Council is working on a framework, she added. But Mr Putin had previously stated that he would hold such a meeting only after all the details of a peace treaty were hammered out, and there is no indication that has changed. State news media in Russia on Aug 19 played down any potential meeting, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggesting that it would require intense preparation. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Proposals sought to develop Changi East Urban District next to T5 World Top officers hold Ukraine talks after Trump rules out sending US troops Singapore NDP 2026 to be held at National Stadium to accommodate more Singaporeans Singapore Girl, 14, among 3 injured after minibus falls into Bukit Panjang canal Singapore Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and ex-CFO gave input to 'play down' energy component of Tuaspring project Opinion The era of job dating? It's all about matching employers and talent Opinion Singapore's next phase of growth requires a refreshed blueprint Business SGX wants to woo private companies to list in Singapore, says its head of research A foreign policy aide to Mr Putin said that the Russian leader had agreed with Mr Trump only that the level of representation at any talks should be higher than in previous rounds. Mr Zelensky has said that he is ready for talks in any format, and suggested at a news conference in Washington on Aug 18 that it might require pressure from the United States to get Mr Putin to attend. Mr Putin has made it clear that he does not consider Ukraine a viable state, and therefore does not view Mr Zelensky as a worthy interlocutor. On Aug 19, Mr Lavrov dismissively referred to the Ukrainian leader, who first became famous in Russia as a television comedian, as 'this character' and 'this man'. During three earlier rounds of talks, Russia sent Mr Vladimir Medinsky, a former culture minister and a Kremlin adviser in anti-Ukraine propaganda efforts, as its lead negotiator – a move that was interpreted as a stick in the eye to Ukraine. Is Putin using a meeting with Zelensky as a stalling tactic? Mr Putin has a reputation for slow-walking any crisis, hoping that circumstances will turn more favorable to him. There is a consensus among war analysts that Mr Putin favors continuing the fighting because he feels that he is winning on the battlefield, and that would give him leverage in future talks, even if the gains are negligible and come with massive loss of life. Even some Russian analysts expect the Kremlin to suggest at least one more round of negotiations in Istanbul to work on a possible format for a Putin-Zelensky meeting. 'Each of these stages can be dragged out endlessly by diplomatic and bureaucratic negotiations, even under American pressure,' Mr Andrei Nikulin, a Russian political commentator, wrote on the Telegram social media app. What are the 'security guarantees' that Ukraine wants? Mr Trump has said the United States would support security guarantees provided by Europe, and that became the focus of the White House talks on Aug 18. While Ukraine and its European allies wanted the first step in any peace process to be a ceasefire, Mr Trump has stressed that an overarching peace plan can be negotiated without a ceasefire. Putin has agreed to meet with Mr Zelensky in the coming weeks as the next phase of the peace process. PHOTO: DOUG MILLS/NYTIMES The basic idea of the security guarantees, first broached by Britain and France last February, is that some nations, likely but not necessarily European, would provide soldiers to Ukraine to bolster its forces and create a kind of tripwire that would make Russia hesitate to invade again. Russia said on Aug 18 that it would refuse any such force from Nato countries. Ideally, Ukraine wants weapons, foreign troops and an ironclad plan of how another invasion would be parried. No American soldiers will be deployed to Ukraine, Mr Trump said on Aug 19 on Fox News, but he did not clarify what exactly he would do to support the security guarantees. 'We can certainly help in the coordination and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies,' Ms Leavitt told reporters Tuesday. 'The president understands security guarantees are crucially important to ensure a lasting peace, and he has directed his national security team to coordinate with our friends in Europe and also to continue to cooperate and discuss these matters with Ukraine and Russia as well.' What are Putin's red lines? From the outset, Mr Putin has tried to justify invading Ukraine by accusing the West of using the country, once a pillar of the Soviet Union, as a stalking horse to undermine Russia. Mr Putin has repeatedly referred to eradicating what he calls the 'root causes' of the war in Ukraine – his shorthand for achieving his geopolitical goals – as his red line for ending it. Those goals include keeping Ukraine out of Nato and preventing the alliance from expanding farther into former Soviet states. Among his other conditions for ending the war are annexing territory in eastern Ukraine populated mostly by ethnic Russians and ensuring that the Ukrainian military cannot threaten Russia and that the government in Kyiv is not hostile toward Moscow. The Russian military largely failed to achieve those outcomes on the battlefield, so Mr Putin is trying to obtain them through negotiations, by leveraging the fact that Russia controls about 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory. What if the talks collapse? Having made a campaign promise that he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, Mr Trump has acknowledged in recent days that it was a lot harder than he had expected. Some analysts have suggested that he might just walk away, although the quest for a Nobel Peace Prize is also seen as a factor that keeps him engaged. French President Emmanuel Macron said after the talks on Aug 18 that new sanctions on Russia and on countries that trade with Russia, as well as new tariffs on Russia or its trading partners, were still possible. Mr Putin, he noted, has continued to bomb Ukraine even after talking to Trump about peace. While threatening punishing tariffs against Russia's trading partners earlier this summer, Mr Trump rowed back the threat after meeting with Mr Putin in Alaska on Aug 15. NYTIMES
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
How Europe learned to speak so Trump would listen
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox US President Donald Trump's persistent effort to bring a diplomatic end to the war has forged stronger bonds among European leaders. BERLIN – By mid-day Aug 15 in Europe, a question was bouncing among the government offices and vacation villas of the continent's most influential leaders. The Ukrainian president was headed to the White House for a crucial meeting with President Donald Trump. Mr Trump was allowing him to bring backup. But who should go? It was the sort of dilemma that once might have erupted into public disputes among Germany, France and Britain, the continent's largest powers. This time, it didn't. The leaders of those countries decided they would all accompany Mr Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, to Washington, for a summit with Mr Trump about peace talks with Russia. So would the leaders of Italy, Finland, the European Union and Nato. They flew in on separate planes. But with Mr Trump, they spoke in one voice. 'We were well prepared and well coordinated,' Mr Friedrich Merz, chancellor of Germany, told reporters after he and his counterparts met Mr Trump at the White House. 'We also represented the same viewpoints. I think that really pleased the American president.' Mr Trump's persistent and sometimes volatile effort to bring a diplomatic end to the war between Ukraine and Russia has forged stronger bonds among European leaders. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Proposals sought to develop Changi East Urban District next to T5 World Top officers hold Ukraine talks after Trump rules out sending US troops Singapore NDP 2026 to be held at National Stadium to accommodate more Singaporeans Singapore Girl, 14, among 3 injured after minibus falls into Bukit Panjang canal Singapore Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and ex-CFO gave input to 'play down' energy component of Tuaspring project Opinion The era of job dating? It's all about matching employers and talent Opinion Singapore's next phase of growth requires a refreshed blueprint Business SGX wants to woo private companies to list in Singapore, says its head of research It has strengthened the unity that emerged earlier this year amid Mr Trump's tariff threats and his wavering on what have been decades-long security guarantees that America has provided to Europe. Since Mr Trump's election, European leaders have raced to shore up their own defenses, wary of losing American support. Nato members, led by Germany, have pledged to increase their military spending significantly, to meet a target set by Mr Trump. Mr Merz, President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain have signed new friendship treaties with one another and begun to build a set of shadow diplomatic institutions, including one for Ukraine, that advance European interests but do not include the United States. The last two weeks have forced them to coordinate even more closely, on the fly. After Mr Trump made the shock announcement that he would meet President Vladimir Putin of Russia in Alaska, Mr Merz quickly pulled together European allies for a video call with Mr Trump. The Europeans presented Mr Trump with a five-point strategy for him to take into the Alaska meeting – including the insistence that only Ukraine could negotiate any land swaps with Russia and that for serious peace talks to begin Russia must first agree to a ceasefire. Mr Trump signed on to it. But at the summit, he abandoned it – agreeing with Mr Putin's long-standing push to negotiate a peace deal while fighting continues, a position that advantages Russia, which is making gains on the battlefield. That reversal alarmed the European officials, even as they publicly stressed a few areas in which Mr Trump had seemingly won concessions, like the need for a robust multinational security guarantee for post-war Ukraine. After Mr Trump called to brief Mr Zelensky and then the European leaders on his way back from Alaska early on Aug 15, they scrambled again. They agreed on the large group to accompany Mr Zelensky, which was formalised by a White House invitation on the night of Aug 16, and hammered out a strategy for the meeting. Early on Aug 18, they huddled at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington. Their script leaned heavily on flattery for Trump, which is by now standard practice among visiting dignitaries, and on declarations of unity with each other and with Mr Trump. 'Everybody around this table is in favor of peace,' Mr Macron said, as television cameras rolled, near the start of a large group meeting with the president. The Europeans avoided big disagreements with Mr Trump; the closest anyone came to a diplomatic row was when Mr Merz, on camera, repeated his belief that talks between Mr Zelensky and Mr Putin could only happen if a ceasefire was in place. Privately, Mr Merz pressed Mr Trump on at least forcing a ceasefire for the duration of any actual meeting between Mr Putin and Mr Zelensky. They also tugged on Mr Trump's heartstrings. Mr Zelensky presented a letter from his wife to Mrs Melania Trump, the first lady, echoing her public concerns over the fate of Ukrainian children abducted by Russian troops. Mr Zelensky and Dr Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Union, raised the topic again shortly before their meeting ended and Mr Trump left to call Mr Putin. European leaders expressed confidence that the approach had helped to break whatever spell Mr Putin appeared to have cast over Mr Trump in Alaska, and that Mr Trump had ended the day back in agreement with them over most points about the peace process. Mr Trump, in an interview with Fox News on Aug 19, sounded pleased with the Europeans who had visited him. 'They want to get back to leading their countries,' he said. 'They're consumed with this far more than we are.' He also took credit, in a way, for their united front. 'A year ago, they wouldn't have come,' he said. 'They wouldn't have even thought about it.' NYTIMES
