The Power to Inspire

Closing Address @ Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Int'l Speech & Table Topics Contests

2010-08-09T01:32:00.002+08:00

Opening Address @ Division S Toastmasters Humorous Speech & Evaluation Contests 2006

2010-07-30T02:18:00.009+08:00

This opening address was given in October 2006 when I served as Division S Governor. The venue was at AIA Changi auditorium. Credit to Coen Ching for recording the speech. (And yes, my name was spelt incorrectly in the projection behind me)

The young can turn WP into faster machine (ST 2007 Interview with Mr Low Thia Khiang)

2010-05-22T18:20:00.005+08:00

Insight

3 November 2007
Straits Times

(c) 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

You gave the PAP a passing grade earlier this week. But you also mentioned that they can be more tolerant. In what areas would you like to see more tolerance?

They can be more tolerant towards political activities by political parties, such as when we wanted to apply to cycle at East Coast Park, the permit was not granted. I'm sure that isn't going to threaten public security.

So I believe there is room where the Government can look into allowing more political space, to a have more open and consultative kind of environment, where they allow some activities like peaceful demonstrations in an area. Currently, they may allow you to do so at the Speakers' Corner. But I'm sure we can afford to have more than one Speakers' Corner here.

How is your party's recruitment efforts? Do people reject you now because of fear?

No. People do come forward to join us. The challenge really is whether people who join us will remain and be actively involved in the party activities because I think everybody is hard- pressed for time. We are all volunteers.

We do have young people joining us. But I believe we don't have a sufficient number yet to have the critical mass of manpower that we want.

You have said that you might one day contest in a GRC. How serious are you about that?

Well, my answer, as I have said before, is that I do not rule out the possibility that one day I might contest in a GRC. Many people are very interested to know when it would happen. My answer is you would know on Nomination Day.

But what is the likelihood of that happening?

Well, I don't want to speculate because there is still some time before the next election.

Some wonder if you might be just like Mr Chiam See Tong and stay in Hougang like he is staying in Potong Pasir?

You will know when the time comes.

But wouldn't your younger members very much love you to join them and contest a GRC?

Then perhaps you can ask my younger members whether they like me or they think I am lao-kok-kok (old and stuttering) already - 'You join us, you may spoil the chance'.

But by keeping the option open that you may one day join them in a GRC, is that one way that you encourage them, to sustain their passion in WP?

Well, I think the passion has to be their own. And they must have the political passion to serve. They can't depend on whether I would join them one day or not. That is hypothetical.

The PAP is only three years older than the WP. Why do you think the two parties are so different in what they've accomplished?

You cannot compare at all because one is a ruling party, monopolising the power and the resources since 1959. The Workers' Party has been the opposition since 1959.

And you know what the PAP has done after becoming government. They have moved to capture the ground in terms of grassroots, in terms of regulation, restriction and all that, curtailing the development of the whole political process.

I think it is no mean feat that the Workers' Party has survived until now. And you look at the other political parties at the point in time, where are they? What happened? Why? I think people must ask these questions.

Over the last few months, quite a few netizens online wonder why the Workers' Party has been very quiet, especially in the wake of the CPF changes. What is your response?

First of all, the Workers' Party is a responsible party and I do not believe in just making statements, just making comments for the sake of making noise, or of being labelled or afraid of being labelled inactive or quiet, in particular for the CPF issue.

When the PM spoke at the National Day Rally, not all details were out. It is imprudent for a responsible political party to start jumping up and down without even knowing what are the details, what is the concrete plan.

We have made an informed statement and we can properly represent the public and tell the public what is our stand. I know this is the Internet age but I think we can't just respond because people want us to respond.

But what if that is precisely what some people want now - speed, fast, instant?

I don't know, but I think, I'm a bit slow, I have to admit that. I have to admit that I am slow. And people who want it faster should perhaps consider joining the Workers' Party.

I'm old, maybe slower. The younger ones will be faster, so we have more younger ones, perhaps maybe the Workers' Party will move faster. So those people who think that we are slower, well, come and join the Workers' Party to make it faster.

PEH SHING HUEI

5 factors that stirred the ground (ST Report on 2006 GE)

2010-05-13T16:01:00.004+08:00

Review - Insight

5 factors that stirred the ground

20 May 2006

Straits Times

ON AND off, it drizzled at the Woodlands Stadium on the night of May 6, but the men in white from Ang Mo Kio GRC paid scant attention.

With cellphones pressed to their ears and pens in hand, the People's Action Party (PAP) candidates and their key branch activists jotted down numbers on a map of the GRC divided into precincts.

Counting agents at various polling stations, watching the tallying up of votes, were phoning in estimates of votes cast for the PAP.

They could work out roughly the support in each precinct as the voting slips from the ballot boxes from different polling districts are separated according to the respective political parties and stacked.

As the night wore on, their faces turned sombre.

One branch activist muttered: 'Not so good.'

But he hastened to add: 'But not too bad either.'

Up against the Workers' Party (WP), the PAP team in Ang Mo Kio GRC won 66.1 per cent of the 146,059 valid votes cast - the best showing among the three GRCs where the PAP clashed with the WP.

East Coast won 63.9 per cent and Aljunied, 56.1 per cent.

Still, the Ang Mo Kio result was a whisker short of the national average of 66.6 per cent and far from the 'high 80s' that PAP chairman Lim Boon Heng had defined as a good mandate for the team led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

For the WP, it was a 'decent' showing by the young team of newbies.

In contrast, the contest in Aljunied GRC saw the PAP incumbents facing down a WP team widely viewed as its Team A. From Day One of campaigning, it was deemed the match to watch and the fight was fairly close.

Led by party chairman Sylvia Lim, the WP group grabbed 43.9 per cent of the valid votes cast from the PAP team anchored by Foreign Minister George Yeo.

Two weeks on, PAP activists say the results were 'within expectations' but the sense that there is much more to be accomplished in firmly securing the ground in both places is also palpable.

But what are the factors that, on reflection, were critical and may well have a bearing on how the two GRCs will be managed from now on?

Insight talks to analysts, the newly-elected MPs in both GRCs and 150 voters in these areas.

The geographical factor

SECONDS into his rally speech in Ang Mo Kio, 30-year-old Yaw Shin Leong gunned for nostalgia.

'How many of you here are former constituents of Cheng San GRC?' the Workers' Party (WP) candidate asked the large crowd that had gathered at Ang Mo Kio Street 51 two days before Polling Day.

About a quarter raised their hands.

'I'm very glad that we came back,' he told them, to roars of approval.

Almost a decade ago, the 'quiet mountain' - as Cheng San is known in Chinese - was the battleground of the fiercest clash between the People's Action Party (PAP) and the WP. The 1997 election ended with the five-member WP team getting 45.2 per cent of the valid votes cast.

Had the ghost of Cheng San returned to haunt the PAP this year?

The WP clearly counted on it. Party chairman Sylvia Lim acknowledged it from the outset, saying it was one reason for contesting Ang Mo Kio, despite the impossible odds of upsetting Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's team on his home turf.

About one-third of the 159,872 voters in the GRC are from the old Cheng San GRC, 'where traditionally there has been WP support', says Ms Lim.

In 2001, Cheng San was spliced up and absorbed into three GRCs.

Two of its five wards went to Ang Mo Kio, another two to Aljunied and the remaining to Pasir Ris-Punggol.

Sources tell Insight that the areas that went to Ang Mo Kio were where the PAP had fared particularly badly in the 1997 election.

They now form part of the Cheng San and Jalan Kayu wards in the GRC.

But the past patterns did not change on polling night. PAP MPs confirmed with Insight that the tally at both wards were below 65 per cent, the worst among the GRC's five wards.

Sources say that PM Lee's Teck Ghee ward topped the list with 69 to 70 per cent, followed by veteran Inderjit Singh's Kebun Baru (around 68 per cent) and newcomer Lee Bee Wah's Nee Soon South (66 per cent).

The support for WP in the old Cheng San areas can be traced as far back as 1976, when the party put up a strong showing in the then-single-seat Jalan Kayu. Its candidate M.P.D. Nair received 38.4 per cent of the votes against PAP's Hwang Soo Jin.

So, what's at the root of the long-standing support in the area for the opposition? Analysts interviewed are unable to pin it on any particular issue. Reasons they gave range from the Tang Liang Hong episode to the Government's resettlement policy.

In 1997, they attributed it largely to the Chinese-educated constituents' unhappiness with the way the PAP dealt with WP candidate Tang Liang Hong. It continues to rankle.

Says sociologist Chua Beng Huat: 'People vote emotionally. They were angry that Tang was hounded, angry that they didn't get a chance to vote again. This kind of sentiments settles in.'

A public relations executive who lives in Seletar Hills and wants to be known only as Mary is still 'very upset' over how the Cheng San GRC was taken off the electoral map in 2001.

Says the 35-year-old: 'You can't just keep erasing those GRCs with low scores for PAP. There's no sense of fair play. You should be working harder to win people over. That is what's truly called a strong mandate.'

Singapore's resettlement policy is also blamed for some of the long-held resentment towards the ruling party.

Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10 in the Jalan Kayu ward has the lowest score and its MP Wee Siew Kim believes it is due to a 'residual core of people who may have been affected by previous policies'.

About half of the 4,000 homes in the area's 24 HDB blocks have families relocated nearly 30 years ago from villages in old Bishan and Mr Wee says they are still unhappy.

Retiree Ng Ah Yee, 71, is typical. After 30 years of living in his three-room flat, he is still angry at being 'forced' to move from his attap house in Bishan.

'The Government asks you to move, you move,' he mutters. 'It says it will take care of us, but they never do. Our medical bills are high, and the Progress Package isn't really for us. It's for their own good, so that they can buy us over.'

As most living in the area are long-time residents, political attitudes are also probably passed down from father to son, mother to daughter.

But Dr Balaji Sadasivan, MP-elect for the Cheng San ward, prefers to see the bright side.

'In 1997, 54 per cent voted for PAP, so about 10 per cent came over to us this time. To a large extent, it is due to the popularity of the Prime Minister,' the Senior Minister of State for Health tells Insight.

In Aljunied GRC, the talk is less about the old Cheng San GRC and more about the influence of neighbouring Hougang, the single-seat constituency held by the opposition. WP chief Low Thia Khiang retained it with 62.7 per cent of the votes, up from 55 per cent in the 2001 GE.

Insight understands that support for the PAP dipped in those GRC areas that border Hougang, especially Hougang Avenue 3.

Foreign Minister George Yeo believes the 'Hougang spillover effect' is because the two constituencies are 'connected organically' and their residents mingle daily.

'Many families have friends and relatives on both sides. Residents cross the boundary every day to shop, take buses and the MRT,' he tells Insight.

Grumbles or praises spread quickly by word of mouth and the complaint of a 40-year-old retrenched worker in Aljunied is not uncommon. Unhappy that he had to co-pay for upgrading in his town, he was all praise for Mr Low's argument that lift-upgrading should be free.

'I respect him for that. Since he's not moving here, I'd move there if I could,' says the man, who lives in Hougang Ave 10.

The middle-class myth

IT IS conventional wisdom that middle-class voters are more likely to support the ruling party, as they have too much at stake to want to rock the boat.

But the assumption seems to waver in Aljunied, where one-third of the 75,000 homes are private property.

But the votes of the 145,141 residents show there was 'not much of a difference' between private and HDB estates, MP-elect Cynthia Phua tells Insight. 'Support in private estates was just a little stronger,' she adds.

Likewise in Ang Mo Kio, where private homes make up one-seventh of the households.

Dr Balaji says the PAP's showing was lower in the eastern part of the Seletar Hills private estate, divided by Seletar Road and stretching from Jalan Lebat Daun to Seletar Hills Drive.

The houses are older and owned mainly by well-off retirees. Their main worry is means-testing, he says.

'When the Progress Package came, they got only $200 so they knew they were in a different category from the HDB dwellers. So they were concerned whether under a similar type of classification, they may not be able to get health care.

'But the fact is we're in the early stages of looking into means testing and we may not even proceed with it.'

Insight spoke to 30 private homeowners and many felt neglected by a PAP Government that favours poorer Singaporeans living in public housing.

Neighbours and fellow retirees C.C. Pek, 69, and B.H. Kang, 70, who live in semi-detached houses along Jalan Kelulut, voted for the WP.

Says Mr Pek: 'If we were living in HDB flats, they'd have built better walkways for us right now and would have delivered promises made before.'

The pair cited the loss of a food centre, the cancellation of bus service 103, and how talk of a police post to be built nearby had not materialised.

Lifts on every floor, refurbished common areas and flat interiors are just some of the programmes HDB residents stand to gain by voting PAP, but none of it applies to private estates.

Thus for middle-class Singaporeans living in private property, a party's ideas and what it stands for could well matter more. Says Engineer Andy Sim, 28, who lives in a private flat in Aljunied GRC: 'We want stability but we also want a different voice in Parliament.'

Better calibre of opposition

FOR too long, a common lament among voters has been the slim pickings in opposition ranks. But apparently, not this time.

Speaking for many, Mrs Chew, 32, a sales manager living in the Sengkang part of Ang Mo Kio GRC, says: 'It's obvious WP has grown to be a stronger party with the sort of people it has recruited. It's a good sign and is worth encouraging.'

Sympathy also plays a part. 'I wanted to give my vote to the young WP team as an encouragement. I didn't want them to lose their deposit,' she admits.

In contrast, the PAP team did not impress some voters.

Researcher Ng Boon Yian, 28, who lives in Serangoon North in Ang Mo Kio GRC, was concerned about 'worrisome signs of some PAP MPs being out of touch with citizenry's political expectations'.

In Aljunied, the WP's team impressed voters like 51-year-old K. Sathish: 'Before, nobody seriously believed WP has plans. But this time, they had a fairly decent manifesto and candidates.'

Some like a 22-year-old undergraduate who lives in a terrace house in Kovan are even willing to give them a chance even when they are inferior to their PAP counterparts.

Says the undergrad: 'It didn't matter because they made up for it by demonstrating humility and tenacity to establish an opposition presence in Singapore.'

More critical though, few believed the PAP teams would lose.

Says a 36-year-old executive living in Buangkok Crescent in Ang Mo Kio GRC: 'I knew there was no way the PAP was going to lose, so I needed to express my unhappiness with my vote.'

The Gomez fracas

AMONG those who said they voted for the WP, more than half said they were turned off by how the PAP handled the Gomez incident.

Mr James Gomez, one of the five WP candidates in Aljunied GRC, had claimed he submitted his minority certificate when he did not.

While he later apologised for what he said was an 'honest mistake', PAP leaders said the apology was inadequate as they felt he was trying to discredit the Elections Department.

They repeatedly pressed the WP to reveal publicly what exactly happened.

Over and above the perceived high-handedness of the PAP, some resented what they saw as an infantile treatment of the electorate.

Says a former accounts executive who is in her 30s and wants to be known only as Ms Lim: 'Look, we can decide for ourselves if someone is an idiot. Look at how poorly Chee Soon Juan's SDP did in Sembawang GRC compared to the rest of the opposition.'

PAP MPs also admit that Gomezgate - as some have termed the scandal - has had a direct impact on votes, particularly in Kebun Baru.

Its MP-elect Inderjit Singh had revealed publicly that Mr Gomez had told him earlier his 'mistake' was just a 'wayang' (an act in Malay). He feels his actions could have cost him 'two to three percentage points'.

'I had a lot of feedback. Reaction wasn't good,' he tells Insight.

Likewise in Aljunied GRC. PAP team anchor George Yeo admits: 'When we went around, people had already formed a judgment about the Gomez affair but they felt that we had given it too much emphasis and that it became too dominant an issue.'

Like most Aljunied residents interviewed, Mr Sathish feels the PAP needs to trust voters more and let them reach their own conclusions. 'The PAP didn't and lost the moral high ground,' he says.

National not local fight

THAT the WP chose to engage the PAP at the national, rather than local level, in all its fights, means the ruling party could not capitalise on its strengths: its track record running the towns and its ability to provide attractive plans to develop the local area.

In Aljunied especially, PAP candidates and grassroots leaders describe the battle as a microcosm of the clash between the two parties, instead of a local contest between the two teams fielded there.

As PAP candidate Lim Hwee Hua puts it: 'They took the campaign to a national level and capitalised on the fact that people wanted an opposition.'

PAP team anchor George Yeo adds: 'We had a good local programme, which was hardly discussed, because the WP concentrated on national issues.'

The WP, from the outset, made the whole GE a referendum on the future of the opposition in Singapore.

Voters like Eric, a 39-year-old IT professional, hopes the PAP will drop its tactic of using upgrading as a carrot.

He says: 'Those who vote for the opposition still pay taxes, so that was not a good tactic. The PAP likes to use this as a form of pressure, which is what a good government shouldn't do.'

Reports by

Li Xueying, Laurel Teo, Sim Chi Yin, Goh Chin Lian, Tee Hun Ching, Lynn Kang and Sonia Tan.

Cooling-Off day is not a Cool idea

2010-04-27T22:56:00.002+08:00

By Nathaniel Koh

[This article was first published in the Workers' Party newsletter "Hammer" in the first issue of 2010]

In December 2009, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong proposed that the day before Polling Day be designated as a “cooling-off” day.

During this cooling-off period, no form of campaigning is allowed. This means that mass rallies and door-to-door visits are banned, and party logos and symbols cannot be displayed. These regulations are similar to those that apply on Polling Day itself. However, the only exception is that party political broadcasts can be televised alongside news reports on the election.

Are the Prime Minister’s reasons for introducing a cooling-off day really valid? Will this cooling-off day be open to abuse?

Debunking the Prime Minister’s reasons

The Prime Minister gave two reasons: rational voting and public disorder.

Firstly, the Prime Minister argued that voters should be given an extra day to think through the arguments and vote rationally. That reason is flawed because it is assumes that Singaporeans have not been voting rationally in past elections and will not do so in future elections. Our country has one of highest literacy rates in the world. Our people are one of most highly educated in Southeast Asia.

In proposing this change, the Prime Minister has underestimated the intellectual strength of Singaporeans and is signalling that Singaporeans are incapable of making rational judgments through the ballot box. These assumptions reveal the distrust that the PAP has of Singaporeans.

Secondly, the Prime Minister argued that the extra day will lower the risk of public disorder. He recalled that there were occasions of pushing and shoving at election rallies. That reason is flawed because at previous elections, there were no reports of public disorder on the day before polling day.

Precautions against public disorder have already been introduced in previous elections, where supporters of different parties are allocated separate sections. Contesting parties are not allowed at the announcement centre on polling night when the results are released. In addition, parties are assigned separate assembly centres for their supporters to gather.

Open to possible abuse

In the book Media and Elections published by the Council of Europe in 1999, the author, Yasha Lange, writes that having a cooling-off period may be open to abuse. While cooling-off periods are generally observed according to the letter of the law, they are commonly breached in spirit. He cites the example of the 1996 presidential elections in Russia where the incumbent Russian president used the state-owned media to create fear of voting for the opposition candidate by airing films that depicted gloom if the opposition candidate wins.

Another way in which the cooling-off period can be abused is by scheduling non-election programmes, or by showing government officials carrying out their ‘official duties’ on TV. According to the European Union’s Election Observation Commission, in the 2004 presidential elections in Indonesia, during the cooling-off period, the state television company devoted disproportionate amounts of coverage to positive reviews of the incumbent president’s activities and achievements in office. Examples included showing a daily pro-government programme and advertisements for education reform, which was paid for by the Ministry of National Education.

Abuse of the cooling-off period could also happen in Singapore. For example, if the opposition campaigns on the issues of health care and public housing, the relevant government ministries, through their civil servants, can put out statements rebutting the opposition’s stand on those issues without the need for any PAP candidate to appear. Although this does not violate the letter of the law, it ignores the spirit of it.

Comparing Singapore with other countries

When the cooling-off period was announced, the mainstream media made comparisons with other countries to show that this regulation will not be unique to Singapore. Australia, Indonesia, Italy, and Russia were some of the countries that were mentioned. Let us examine the campaigning periods of those countries and the primary reasons for them having cooling-off periods.

The campaigning periods of those countries are long and drawn-out. Australia’s federal elections in 2007 lasted for 20 days, while the 2009 parliamentary and presidential elections in Indonesia lasted for 20 and 33 days respectively. In Italy, the 2009 parliamentary elections lasted for about 56 days, while the 2009 presidential elections in Russia lasted for 29 days.

In contrast, Singapore’s general elections in 2006 lasted for just 9 days. Even with the proposed extension of campaigning to 10 days, there is still a wide gap between the campaigning period in Singapore and that of other countries that have cooling-off periods. The issues that Singapore faces are too important and wide-ranging to be debated on within just 10 days. So if a cooling-off period were to be introduced in Singapore, then the duration of election campaigning must also be brought in line with those countries mentioned.

Conclusion

The Prime Minister’s reasons for introducing the cooling-off period are flawed. His proposal assumes that Singaporeans are prone to vote irrationally and display disorderly behaviour. On the other hand, The Workers’ Party believes that Singaporeans are rational voters, have maintained public order in past elections and will continue to do so in future elections.

Based on the experience of other countries, a cooling-off period in Singapore would be open to abuse. Civil servants and government ministries can still speak on behalf of the PAP during the cooling-off period, whereas opposition parties have no way to make their point.

This proposal for a cooling-off day is just one of the many obstacles that the PAP has put in place to favour themselves and disadvantage the opposition and Singaporeans. Nevertheless, with or without a cooling-off period, the Workers’ Party will continue to its present its programme for the betterment of our country and work hard to win the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans.

PAPA

2010-01-27T22:07:00.003+08:00

I shiver…

Mummy called just now.

Papa’s in the hospital, she said. Take a taxi.

What happened to Papa?

click.

There’s no light…I forgot to switch on the heater…

Mummy never takes a taxi.

Well, maybe once in a while.

Why is Papa in the hospital?

Never mind…a little cold water won’t hurt…

Mummy sounded strange.

She didn’t sound like…well…Mummy.

Did something happen to Papa?

I face the shower…my eyes closed…

Mummy, are you ok?

She’s not here.

Neither is Papa.

I feel the droplets on my face….for they are now…..

mine.

Tomorrow's Elections

2010-01-20T19:42:00.001+08:00

COFFEEGIRL: 你们要喝什么? (what do you want to drink?)

BENG: Umm. Teh-O peng. (tea without milk, with ice)

SENG: Kopi-O siu tai. (coffee without milk, less sugar)

BENG: Eh, tomorrow’s the election. You vote for who?

SENG: Shh…today’s cooling off day. We’re not supposed to talk about election.

BENG: Aiyah, no need to worry one. Cooling off day only means the candidates cannot appear on TV or newspaper or go out to campaign. We all ordinary people can talk, no problem.

SENG: They always say one thing but do another thing. You never know. Wait got ISD people around hear us, how?

BENG: Why you so scared ah? Trust me! Ok, if anything happens, I’ll be the one to get arrested, not you, ok?

SENG: Ok lah, I trust you, since you’re my friend for so many donkey years already.

BENG: So you vote for who?

SENG: Last time I voted for the PAP, but then…I don’t know. Something’s not right.

BENG: What’s not right? They promise you upgrading last time, and you got upgrading right?

SENG: Yah, I got upgrading. My flat now look like condo and somemore got lift at every floor. I don’t need to climb up staircase already.

BENG: So good, right? They gave you what they promised. Somemore this election, if you vote them again, they promise your flat will go up in value even higher. You’ll become a rich man!

SENG: Rich what rich? Flat got money doesn’t mean pocket got money.

BENG: Yah lah, but still?

SENG: Something’s wrong lah.

BENG: What’s wrong?

SENG: You see that coffeegirl over there who just took our orders?

BENG: Yah, pretty right?

SENG: Pretty, your head ah!

BENG: Ok, ok.

SENG: Ten years ago, she wouldn’t have been here.

BENG: What’d you mean?

SENG: You know where she’s from?

BENG: China?

SENG: Yah, ten years ago, where got people from China work in coffeeshop, taking our orders? It’ll be one of our own people.

BENG: So? China people come here serve us, you should be very happy what. We macham like their masters like that.

SENG: Beng, you know how many times I see our old people selling tissue in the hawker centres and collecting cans from the dustbins?

BENG: How many times?

SENG: Many times. Everyday I will always see one or two.

BENG: So what? At least they got something to do right?

SENG: Aiyah, Beng, you study until university, still cannot see the link ah? Those old people can work in the coffeeshop instead. More stable pay. Better working environment. Instead, these young China girls come here steal the job.

BENG: Demand and supply mah.

SENG: Don’t give me your chim chim words ok? I know what I see.

BENG: But then, everything else still ok right?

SENG: You know my younger brother, Heng?

BENG: Yah, what about him?

SENG: Last year, he got retrenched. They say must cut cost so no choice. Must be cheaper, better, faster. Bullshit la. All those job credit nonsense. Save jobs…save what jobs?

BENG: Aiyah, so gahmen got help him find job anot?

SENG: Gahmen, gahmen. Gahmen do nothing la. Until now, he still don’t have proper job. Must go agency find temp job.

BENG: Economic crisis mah.

SENG: Gahmen always say vote them in will have better years ahead. We vote them in last time, but now say got economic crisis. Where got sense?

BENG: Some things can’t control la.

SENG: Then everytime when economy do well, they say gahmen good so must pay them millions of dollars. But when economy do badly, they always blame us, say we all not hardworking enough. But they still get millions of dollars. Beng, you see got logic anot?

BENG: Umm.

SENG: Somemore my brother got degree, like you. Second class honours! Still cannot find proper job! Where got sense? You’re lucky, Beng, still got your job.

BENG: Hope your brother gets a proper job soon.

SENG: I also very lucky. Although I only know how to repair cars, at least my employer still want me to work.

BENG: Good for you lah.

COFFEEGIRL: 来烧 (come hot)

BENG: 多少? (how much?)

COFFEEGIRL: 一块五 (one dollar fifty cents)

SENG: Come come, never mind, I pay.

BENG: Thanks lah, next time I treat.

SENG: It’s ok. Today I treat you. Tomorrow I will hammer them!

--- END ---

COP-15: A Step Forward or a Step Backward?

2009-12-24T16:33:00.001+08:00

COP-15:

A Step Forward or a Step Backward?

Lorraine Elliott

24 December 2009

The Accord adopted at the Copenhagen Climate Change summit has done little to advance global efforts on dealing with the impact of climate change. It does little to meet ASEAN expectations or ensure that the region’s peoples are made less vulnerable. As negotiations move ever slowly forward, ASEAN must strengthen itself as a coherent negotiating bloc.

THE COPENHAGEN Climate Change Conference has come and gone. The outcome is disappointing to say the least, but not surprising. Under the terms of the 2007 Bali Roadmap, the Copenhagen meeting was supposed to adopt emission reduction targets for industrialised countries for a second commitment period after 2012. It was also supposed to agree on longer term cooperative action on a range of issues including mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and financial resources to support developing countries’ efforts.

By the middle of 2009, however, it was clear that there was not going to be any binding agreement at Copenhagen. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer took the line that he would happy to get general agreement on four issues - how much industrialised countries were willing to reduce their emissions; what major developing countries such as China and India were willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions; how help for developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change would be financed; and how that money would be managed.

In the end, the best that thousands of delegates at Copenhagen could manage was a short and rather garbled political statement – the Copenhagen Accord – hammered out as a compromise by a small number of countries behind closed doors. Even then the absence of a last-minute consensus means that this can only be ‘noted’ in the conference report.

What did ASEAN want?

ASEAN has called for international climate agreements that are fair and equitable, embody the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), focus on adaptation as well as mitigation and maintain the distinction between developed and developing countries. Member states opposed the negotiation of an entirely new agreement, preferring an amended Kyoto Protocol, amid concerns that any new agreement would put the issue of binding targets for developing countries back on the table.

In the ASEAN Joint Statement to COP15 adopted at the ASEAN Summit in October, member states called for industrialised countries to take deeper and earlier cuts in their greenhouse emissions; to reaffirm their commitment to providing technology, financing and capacity building support to developing countries; and to ensure that any unilateral measures did not negatively affect the sustainable economic and social development of developing countries. Several specific issues were also part of the ASEAN negotiating position.

On REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries, ASEAN called for as much flexibility as possible in policy and mechanisms so that countries could choose the best REDD mix in line with their capacity and economic circumstances. ASEAN governments also wanted any agreement at Copenhagen to pay greater attention to integrated coastal and ocean management as a climate change adaptation strategy (a follow up to the World Ocean Conference hosted by Indonesia in May 2009). And on funding, ASEAN called for financial contributions for mitigation and adaptation to be set at 0.5-1 per cent of developed countries’ gross domestic product, with a considerable proportion of that coming from governments themselves.

The Copenhagen Accord

First, the (possibly) good news. The Accord still talks about ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ and distinguishes between developed and developing countries. Without this, China would never have agreed to the Accord and there would have been no compromise agreement at all. The Accord also raises expectations about new and additional resources to support adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. The sums seem substantial: USD100 billion a year by 2020 and something ‘approaching’ USD30 billion by 2010-2012. But these are promises only and as funds can come from private and investment sources as loans rather than foreign aid, governments are somewhat let off the hook.

The Accord announces the establishment of a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund and a Technology Mechanism but it is unclear how these will relate to existing processes such as the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism or Adaptation Fund. REDD is addressed specifically in both the Accord and a separate Conference decision, with calls for positive incentives to mobilise financial resources so that developing countries can reduce their emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

And the bad news? There are no really meaningful numbers in the Accord even though most leading emitters had announced their pledges in advance of the COP. It agrees that deep cuts are required to hold the increase in average global temperature to less than 2 degrees Celsius (many developing countries had fought for 1.5 degrees). But it says only that countries ‘should cooperate’ to get to the stage of ‘peaking’ emissions as soon as possible. A goal of an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 was dropped. Developed countries are expected to report their 2020 targets to the Secretariat by the end of January 2010 but can choose their own baseline rather than being tied to the Kyoto Protocol’s 1990 baseline.

Developing countries are also expected to submit Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (or NAMAs). If they want international support for these, then they must submit to international measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). Despite various references to the needs of the most vulnerable developing countries, the COP has done little to guarantee emissions reductions, effective mitigation or wide-ranging support for adaptation. For millions of people in Southeast Asia, the impacts of climate change on food and water security, health, safety from flooding, coastal inundation and extreme weather events, are immediate. Copenhagen will do little for them or for their security.

Just one more ‘first’ step?

Despite the general weakness of the Accord, world leaders have been quoted as calling the COP a first step (German Chancellor Angela Merkel), a good first step (UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown), a positive step (Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi), a significant step (UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon) and a ‘breakthrough’ (US President Obama). This is spin. It is 17 years since governments adopted the UNFCCC in which all countries promised to work together to prevent dangerous human-induced interference in the climate system. Industrialised countries promised to take the lead in reducing their emissions and providing financial support for mitigation and adaptation. It is more than a decade since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol with disagreement rife on whether industrialised countries will meet by 2012 the modest reduction targets that they agreed to in 1997.

Official responses from within the region have been mixed. The Philippine delegation welcomed the agreement. Thai PM Abhisit (also chair of ASEAN) is reported to have called it a failure. Malaysian PM Najib’s speech at the COP made it clear that nothing short of massive commitment of funds and deep emissions cuts from developed countries would satisfy him. Indonesian President Yudhoyono was reported to have been ‘pleased’ with the final outcome.

Where to now?

The mandate of the two key working groups has been extended for another year but without clarity on what kind of agreement should be submitted to COP16 in Mexico at the end of 2010. Submission of individual country targets and NAMAs as required by the Copenhagen Accord could stimulate moves towards an agreement. But on other matters, past experience suggests that promised increases in funding and adoption of governance structures to manage those funds are likely to be slow in materialising.

There is also an important question about what role ASEAN should play. Despite having submitted a joint statement, approved an ASEAN working group on climate change and established a Climate Change Initiative, ASEAN was not conspicuous as a negotiating bloc in Copenhagen. Yet ‘bloc-ing’ now seems to be the way to go at these meetings for voices to be heard and taken seriously. Being part of the G77 and China is insufficient. So is relying on spillover from the justified attention given to the Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The Association needs to look for more robust ways to present a collective view that will ensure that attention to Southeast Asia’s climate vulnerabilities is more than just the unintended aggregate of individual country interests.

Lorraine Elliott is Senior Fellow in the Department of International Relations at the Australian National University (ANU). She is also Visiting Senior Fellow in the Centre for Non-Traditional Security at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University where she is a co-lead researcher for the Asia Security Initiative Programme on climate change, environmental security and natural disasters.

Policy, People, Presence

2009-10-13T01:59:00.004+08:00

This article was first published in The Hammer, Issue 09/02

In every general election, Singaporeans who are fortunate enough to vote in a contested constituency are faced with a decision which will decide our government for the next five years.

Some may make that decision out of blind faith, some may do so out of spite. What about you?

This article outlines three points to help you in your decision which will determine the future for you and your loved ones.

Policy
Every serious political party will present a set of policy ideas to Singaporeans. These policy ideas are framed in a document called a "Manifesto". With this Manifesto, each political party sets out to persuade Singaporeans that its policy ideas will create a better life for everyone.

When a political party wins the election and forms the government, it then has the mandate and duty to carry out the policy ideas in the Manifesto. Should a political party not win the majority of seats to form the government, but wins enough seats to form a sizeable opposition bloc in parliament, it can continue to persuade the government to adopt its alternative policy ideas on behalf of its constituents.

In the 2006 general election, the Workers' Party presented its set of policy ideas to Singaporeans in its Manifesto entitled "You Have A Choice". The Manifesto contains 180 policy ideas in 14 distinct sections with topics ranging from the economy to national security.

Since the Workers' Party won only one elected seat in Parliament in 2006, and was given one other Non-Constituency MP seat, do our policy ideas get a chance to be heard after the elections? Yes, they do. However, it will take time.

The 1988 Manifesto of the Workers' Party contained a proposal for every child to have a basic education up to the age of 15 or 16. The 1994 Manifesto contained a similar proposal for such basic education to be made compulsory. In 2000, a full 12 years after the 1988 Manifesto, the Compulsory Education Act was passed by Parliament.

With your support and with more seats in Parliament, the Workers' Party will be able to speed up the implementation of such policies that benefit Singaporeans.

People
Without people, there can be no party. While a political party is made up of people who work hard on the ground and behind the scenes, the most visible are the candidates which a party fields during general elections.

With the rise in educational levels of Singaporeans and the increasing complexity of the problems that our country faces, Singaporeans' expectations of the quality of candidates have also soared. Political parties have found it increasingly difficult to find people who are willing and able stand as candidates and, at the same time, meet the high expectations of Singaporeans.

In the 2006 general election, the Workers' Party fielded a total of 20 candidates, its highest number of candidates since 1988. Most of these candidates were university graduates with professions such as teaching, and business.

However, the quality of the Workers' Party's candidates should also be measured by important intrinsic values - the passion to serve, the ability to connect, the drive to succeed - which stem from the desire to make Singapore a better home for Singaporeans.

The Workers' Party continues to seek new people with both ability and passion so that Singaporeans can truly have a voice in parliament.

Presence
When was the last time your elected MP came up to you to say hello? "Walking the ground" is what elected and aspiring MPs must do to better understand the concerns of Singaporeans. No aspiring MP will gain the support of Singaporeans without "walking the ground," and no elected MP should take Singaporeans' support for granted once he or she is in office. For political parties to win an election, they must frequently bring themselves to Singaporeans, instead of waiting for Singaporeans to go to them.

In this respect, the Workers' Party regularly presents itself to Singaporeans by going door to door visiting residents every week, and by conducting weekly walkabouts promoting its newsletter, "The Hammer," at various housing estates around the country.

At these walkabouts, the Workers' Party listens to the concerns of Singaporeans from all walks of life. Those concerns are ingrained in the minds of the party members who propose alternative policies for the betterment of our country. With an increased presence both on the ground and in Parliament, these alternative policies can then be put forward and implemented for Singaporeans' benefit.

In conclusion, the next time you have the chance to vote, think about which political party brings you the Policy, People, and Presence that can truly make a positive difference to you, your loved ones, and to the success of our country.

Picture taken by Terence Ong in May 2006. Published under Creative Commons.

Visit to HortPark - 9th May 2009

2009-05-26T23:56:00.002+08:00

Flowers, Cards, and Candy Are Not the Essence of Mother's Day

2009-05-10T23:55:00.003+08:00

------------

From "101 Really Important Things You Already Know, But Keep Forgetting" by Ernie J. Zelinski (2007), Pg 219-220

-------------

As much as I loved my mother, it will come as a surprise to some people that over the years I didn't buy her flowers, or candy for Mother's Day. I did buy her dinner, however, and spent quality time with her every Mother's Day. Perhaps you should do likewise.

Truth be known, you don't have to feel guilty about not buying gifts to help your mother celebrate Mother's Day. Not buying your mother cards, flowers, or candy to help her celebrate this special event is not about being stingy and saving yourself a few bucks, however. There is a much better reason. We have to go back to the origins of Mother's Day to place this matter in proper perspective.

Anna May Jarvis was just two weeks shy of forty-two, working for a life insurance company in Philadelphia, when her mother (Mrs Anna Reese Jarvis) died on May 9, 1905. It was the second Sunday of the month. The next year Anna May Jarvis made her life goal to see her mother and motherhood honored annually throughout the world. Jarvis felt children often neglected to appreciate their mother enough while she was still alive. She hoped Mother's Day would increase respect for parents and strengthen family bonds.

Two years after her mother's death, Anna Jarvis and her friends began a letter-writing campaign to gain the support of influential ministers, businessmen, and congressmen in declaring a national Mother's Day holiday. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed a proclamation from the U.S. Congress to establish the second Sunday in May as Mother's Day forevermore.

Ironically, the commercialization of the day she had founded in honor of motherhood - today it is the biggest business day of the year for U.S. restaurants and flower shops - was not what Anna May Jarvis had envisioned. Jarvis wanted people to spend a lot of quality time with their mothers and let their mothers know how special they were.

Sadly, Jarvis, who never married and was never a mother herself, retired from her job at the insurance company to spend her remaining thirty-four years, and her entire fortune of over $100,000, campaigning against the commercialization of Mother's Day.

Whenever she could, Anna May Jarvis would speak out. She was known to crash florists' conventions to express her distaste for their "profiteering" from Mother's Day. Eventually too old to continue her campaign, she ended up deaf and blind - not to mention penniless - in a West Chester, Pennsylvania, sanitarium, where she died in November 1948 at the age of eighty-four.

"Why not give your mother flowers, cards, or candy?" you may ask. "Flowers," declared Jarvis, "are about half dead by the time they're delivered." As for candy, Jarvis advised, "Mother's Day has nothing to do with candy. Candy is junk. You give your mother a box of candy and then go home and east most of it yourself."

"Well, then what's wrong with cards?" you may add. Jarvis felt that "a maudlin, insincere printed card or a ready-made telegram means nothing except that you're too lazy to write to the woman who has done more for you than anyone else in the world."

Tell your mother the truth about Mother's Day and you won't have to spend money on flowers, candy, and cards to help her celebrate her special event of the year. Heck, you don't even have to buy her a copy of this book as a gift. You should, however, make her dinner or take her out to a fine restaurant.

Most important, you should spend a lot of quality time with her. You mother will appreciate this immensely. What's more, if she were still living today, Anna May Jarvis would be so pleased that you celebrate the second Sunday of May with your mother in the true spirit and essence of Mother's Day!

Thank Your Mother a Lot While She Is Still Alive

2009-05-10T22:18:00.002+08:00

Regardless of their age, the large majority of mothers care for their children in a thousand little ways that their children tend to take for granted. Unfortunately, most of us don't realize how much our mothers mean to us until they are no longer around. Of course, there are many people who truly appreciate their mothers and express their gratitude for them.

-------------

From "101 Really Important Things You Already Know, But Keep Forgetting" by Ernie J. Zelinski (2007), Pg 213-218

-------------

"All that I am or ever hope to be," remarked Abraham Lincoln, "I owe to my angel Mother." George Washington declared, "I attribute all my success in life to the moral, intellectual, and physical education which I received from my mother." Jewish people have a proverb about mothers that is even more eloquent: "God could not be everywhere and therefore He made mothers."

Given that my mother passed away while I was in the middle of completing the new edition of this book, allow me to share how I never got to express my love and appreciation for her as much as I would have liked. On the first Sunday of February 2007 I was contemplating whether I should go to a musical performance at our local jazz club. I gave consideration to the fact that on the previous Sunday I had not visited my mother, which I had done virtually every Sunday for almost twenty years. Thus, I decided to skip the musical performance.

I picked up some items from a local supermarket deli and headed over to my mother's apartment. This particular Sunday my sister, Elaine, and her husband, Lorne, also showed up and we had an enjoyable dinner together. Later I noticed that my mother was wheezing after she climbed a flight of stairs. She also complained about how her legs had gotten really stiff lately.

Even so, I would later find out that my mother told her best friend that she had a really great day, because my sister, my brother-in-law, and I had visited her. What's more, earlier in the day, just as my mother was about to call my brother, Kenny, who lives out of the city, he called and talked to her for an hour.

As it turned out, this was the last Sunday dinner that I enjoyed with my mother. You can imagine how fortunate I felt that I had skipped the musical performance. Two days later, I called my mother to ask her how she was doing.

She complained of severe headaches that would respond to Tylenol. Later in the evening my sister and her husband drove my mother to the hospital. The doctors decided to keep her for two or three days because of her low oxygen level but they didn't it was anything serious.

On Wednesday afternoon when I visited my mother at the hospital, I was stunned to find out that the doctors had diagnosed her with acute leukemia. The head doctor indicated that she could live for several weeks - even months - if they gave her blood transfusions and chemo drugs along with morphine. Needless to say, I left the hospital in somewhat of a daze.

That evening I decided that I would visit my mother at least once every day until she passed away. I also decided to get a nice black book in which I would write down all the special things that I wanted to thank her for. I was also going to encourage other people to write in the black book all the things that they liked about my mother.

As fate would have it, the next day my mother took a turn for the worse. The doctor phoned early in the morning and indicated she had only a few days left with her likely losing mental capabilities in a day or two. Soon after I got to the hospital, I decided that I should bring my mother's best friend, Mary Leshchyshyn, to see my mother one last time while she still had her mental capabilities. After I brought Mary to the hospital, she and my mother were able to spend half an hour together while the rest of us went for coffee.

When we got back to my mother's hospital room, I noticed that my mother had gotten worse and was gasping for oxygen. At this point I felt that she might not last more than a day. So I immediately thanked my mother for two or three important things that she had done for me.

She responded - as she struggled for oxygen - by thanking me specifically for having come over every Sunday. (At this point I truly realized how much my weekly Sunday visits meant to her.) I also told my mother that the reason that I had never married was that I had never met a wonderful woman like her. Shortly after, my mother's best friend, Mary, stated that my mother looked really tired and that she should go home to let my mother rest. My mother was able to say a few more words to Mary including "Don't get what I got."

Mary's last words to my mother were "See you later." I would find out soon after from my sister that my mother whispered, "Oh no, you won't." But Mary didn't hear this.

Sadly, while I was driving Mary back to her apartment, my mother passed away. My sister, Elaine, and her husband, Lorne; my cousin, Jerry, and his wife, Lil; and the hospital chaplain, Blaine Allan, were there with her and said a prayer while she passed away. Surprisingly, my mother at eighty-five had her mental capabilities and even a great memory right until her last minutes, given that she was giving instructions to my sister about the funeral, including the dress she wanted to be wearing and how she wanted her head tilted just a bit in the coffin instead of straight up.

I found out a few interesting things shortly after my mother passed away. Blaine, the hospital chaplain, had visited my mother in the early morning and spent about an hour with her. She talked to Blaine about what a great life she had had and how she was sure she was going to pass away that day. Blaine also indicated that my mother was not trying to hand on like some people do.

Later that morning, when my sister arrived, my mother told her, "I'm done." My sister responded, "What are you talking about?" My mother replied, "I lost the stone from my family ring. It's gone so that means that I am gone too." My mother was so sweet and so strong during her last hours. Even the hospital staff talked about the deep affection they had developed for her during her short stay in the hospital.

As hard as my mother's death was on me, there was something remarkably spiritual about it. There were also a few things for which I had to feel grateful. My mother did not have to suffer for a long time like so many people do in their later years. I was thankful that Elaine, Lorne, Jerry, Lil, and Blaine were there with her to say a prayer when she passed away. I also felt relieved that I had brought Mary to the hospital so that she and my mother got to spend half an hour together before my mother left us rather unexpectedly that day.

After I left the hospital that fateful afternoon, I felt blessed that I was able to see my mother her last day and thank her for at least two or three special things that she had done for me. But I was also terribly saddened that I did not get to give her a hundred more reasons why she had meant so much to me. So I wrote a letter to my mother, which follows this photo of her in her twenties:

-------------

Dear Mom:

I am so sadden that you left us rather suddenly while knowing that in many ways it was the right thing for you to do. I am sorry that I was not there when you passed on but I know that you appreciate that I brought your best friend Mary to see you one last time and I know that Mary appreciated having to chance to see you one last time.

Unfortunately, while I was driving Mary back to her home, you left us but Elaine, Lorne, Lil, Jerry, and Blaine were there with you.

I will miss you. I hope that we meet in Heaven. I know that from the way you treated me and the way you treated others - and how much they held you in great esteem and admiration - that you have an outstanding chance of entering Heaven - far greater than me, that's for sure. But I will remember the great things that people loved about you and try to instill as many of your great qualities in myself as I can from now on. Perhaps I will get into Heaven as easily as you.

Because you left rather suddenly, there are so many things that I wanted to thank you for but didn't get a chance.

Here are just some of the things I wanted to thank you for:

* Thank you for having stuck by my side so many times and gotten yourself in trouble with Dad when he thought I should be doing something else with my life.

* Thank you for lending me the money to publish my first book although, as you said when I was paying you back, you thought you would never see the money again.

* Thank you for making a prompt decision around eight years ago to sell your house and move into the St Andrew's Retirement Complex - I know that your living in the apartment complex rather than continuing living isolated in the house added several years to your life - and of course joy in other people's lives.

* Thank you for still making the great cabbage rolls this last Christmas that you made all these years even though you had been quite ill just before the holidays.

* Thank you for having taken care of your best friend Mary by buying groceries for her when she couldn't make it out on her own due to her low energy level.

* Thank you for having had the ability to always be so pleasant with everyone that you met.

* Thank you for your appreciation of other people - I can't recall your ever having said a bad word about anyone.

I could go on forever about the things that I would like to thank you for, but I just to wrap it up by saying I am somewhat mystified - but nevertheless proud of you - for being able to live to the age of eighty-five in generally good health and then make a fairly rapid exit from this planet without having to suffer like so many people do.

Great work, Mom!

But I am going to miss you a great deal. Not having the regular Sunday dinners as we have for so many years and not having someone special to phone every day or two are going to be hard on me.

I promise to think of you as I live the rest of my life. I will give much though every day about the types of things you would have wanted me to do and how you would have liked me to treat other people. I know that this will make me a much better person and I hope that I will have as many great people mourn my passing from this planet as will come to mourn yours.

Thank you, Mom

With all my love

Ernie

-------------

I placed this letter under my mother's arm in the coffin when members of my close family and I visited the funeral home to pay our respects the day before the funeral. The next day, after I read a copy of the letter as the eulogy during the funeral service conducted by Father Don Bodnar, a good friend of mine commented that this is the type of letter we should all write to our mothers while they are still living.

To be sure, you should thank your mother a lot for all that she means to you while she is still alive - not only with letters but also with thoughtful comments every time you see her. Clearly, your mother deserves much more than a card, flowers, or candy once a year on Mother's Day. Why not send her a handwritten letter at least once a month? Start today because you never know when she may lose her suddenly.

Here are a few words from Washington Irving to remind us a little more about how important mothers are to us: " A mother is the truest friend we have, when trials heavy and sudden, fall upon us; when adversity takes the place prosperity; when friends who rejoice with us in our sunshine desert us; when trouble thickens around us, still will she cling to us, and endeavour by her kind precepts and counsels to dissipate the clouds of darkness, and cause peace to return to our hearts."

I was fortunate that I saw my mother fifteen to twenty minutes before she passed away and was able to at least thank her for a few things. I am also blessed that I get to dedicate this book to her and will have her name live on at least in some small spiritual way due to me - and, of course, due to the great person that she was. You may not get these same opportunities. So again, thank your mother a lot while she is still alive. Trust me - you will deeply regret it later if you don't.

-------------

The Fragility of Life

2009-05-03T20:05:00.003+08:00

Delivered on 6th July 2006, this speech was my inaugural presidential opening address, which marked my first chapter meeting as President of Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club.

-------------------------------------

Inaugural Presidential Opening Address

By Nathaniel Koh Kim Kui

President, Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club

6th July 2006, thursday

At the start of this meeting, we had a moment’s silence to remember the passing of a former member of our club, Martin Steiner. He was murdered in Dubai a couple of weeks back, and his body was found a few days ago. He leaves behind his wife, Christina, and his daughter.

This incident caused me to reflect upon the fragility of life.

I know that this topic is very peculiar to an inaugural presidential address because such addresses usually paint a bright and beautiful picture of our environment. But I feel that this topic is close to my heart and I believe that it is close to yours as well.

It is close my heart because I have experienced the fragility of life a few times before. Let me share with you a couple of incidents.

I was a premature baby. I was one month premature. The doctors had to take me out early because they found water in my lungs. And unlike the other babies who could go home after a few weeks, I had to remain in the hospital for the next half-a-year.

I had tubes inserted into my nose to drain the water out of my lungs slowly and carefully for the next half year. And I was just this small.

If the doctors did not discover the water in my lungs, I would have drowned. And I would have died even before I was alive.

In 1999, my father passed on. He was just 49 years old. He had a heart attack in the office. He may have had diabetes and high blood pressure, but he had no history of heart problems, nor were there signs of an impending heart attack. It was very sudden.

It came just two weeks before my ‘O’ Level exams. But his death affected my mother the most. They were married for over 20 years. I would hear her cry every night in her bedroom.

But through this circumstance came the passion, perseverance and persistence to carry on with our lives. I took the ‘O’ Level exams two weeks later, and I passed. Soon, my mother picked herself up and moved on .

Those are just two personal incidents of mine which I have only skimmed the surface of. I have more to share, and I believe that you have yours to share as well.

As each of us look back in our lives, there would be incidents and circumstances that push the limits of our patience, but which reflect the passion, perseverance and pure persistence to push forward in our lives.

How about in Toastmasters? Can we find passion, perseverance, and pure persistence in the movement?

Many of you may know that I began my journey in Toastmasters as a Co-Curricular Activity in Temasek Polytechnic. That was in the year 2000. In that year, I delivered only two projects. There was no push, there was no motivation.

But around May of 2001, at the end of the term after the exam, I made a call that changed my life. I called a friend of mine who was also member in the club. I asked him, “How come so long never have chapter meeting? When’s the next chapter meeting?” And he replied, “Nat, don’t you know that the poly asked the club to close down?”

I had no idea. I was not in the Executive Committee. But over the next few days and weeks, I played a small part in the team to rescue the club from the clutches of closure. On my own accord, I compiled a 29-page report on why the club should not be closed down. Because I was still inexperienced at the time, most of the 29 pages were copied from the Toastmasters website.

I still do not know whether or not the report had any effect, but it doesn’t matter to me, all I needed to know was whether or not the club survived. And to great relief, it did. And that changed my life forever.

Because soon after, I was made the Vice-President Education. That began my habit of visiting clubs almost every day. I would go out, shake hands, meet people, deliver my projects, do some evaluations, take up some appointments, and improve myself so that my club could improve as well. That was five years ago.

If not for that phone call, I would not have known that the club was on the verge of closure. If not for the passion and perseverance of the Executive Committee at that time, there would be no more Temasek Polytechnic Toastmasters Club. I would be club-less and my life would have taken a different direction.

What about Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club?

If you look at the top of your programme sheet, you can see that our club number is 9165. And that we were chartered on 14th January 1993.

But on 14th January 1993, Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club did not exist. On that date, club number 9165 existed, not Tampines Changkat.

Because on 14th January 1993, club number 9165 was chartered as the NCOC Toastmasters Club. We were under the auspices of the People’s Association. The charter members of that club who are still with us today are Michael, Cheng Lee and Edward.

But a few years later, the People’s Association no longer saw a need to have a Toastmasters Club. And so, the NCOC Toastmasters Club was dissolved. But because of the passion, perseverance, and persistence of the charter members, the spirit of Toastmasters lived on. Soon, club number 9165 found a new home in Tampines East Community Club. And club number 9165 was then called Tampines East Toastmasters Club.

After a few years, the Tampines East CC closed us down, under what circumstance I do not know. But again, because of the passion, perseverance, and persistence of its members, the spirit of Toastmasters found a new home in Tampines Central Community Club. And club number 9165 became Tampines Central Toastmasters Club.

Again, after a few years, under what circumstance I do not know, Tampines Central Toastmasters Club was asked to move out. But again, because of the passion, perseverance, and persistence of its members, the spirit of Toastmasters found a new home. And club number 9165 became Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club. And that is where we are today.

Passion, perseverance, and persistence have guide us throughout these years.

I hope that history does not repeat itself. Because our past should not be an indication of our future. But if it is. I hope that we here today will have the passion, perseverance, and persistence to carry on the spirit of Toastmasters wherever we go.

Labour Day: Economic growth should benefit all, not just the rich

2009-05-02T01:19:00.001+08:00

Labour Day: Economic growth should benefit all, not just the rich

By Avery Chong, Gerald Giam, Nathaniel Koh, Watson Chong and Yaw Shin Leong

1st May 2009

Singaporean workers are facing their most challenging period since Independence. Thousands have lost their jobs since the current economic crisis began last year, and unemployment is expected to continue rising through 2009 and beyond. Many workers have been forced to accept salary cuts or go on unpaid leave to help their companies stay profitable.

These workers should be saluted for their resilience, perseverance and adaptability in the face of enormous challenges. Singapore’s prosperity and economic progress were achieved primarily through the sweat of our workers.

The Government always claims credit for Singapore’s economic growth during good times, yet conveniently blames the global downturn when our economy takes a nosedive. However the facts tell a different story.Singapore was the first country in Asia to slip into recession last year. Our GDP is expected to contract 8.8% this year — much worse than almost all our major trading partners (see Annex A for the economic forecasts for our top trading partners).

The Government’s economic model may no longer be serving us well, and we need to start a national conversation to discuss alternative economic models to take Singapore to the next level of progress.

Closing the income gap

Singapore’s economic growth over the last decade has resulted in phenomenal income increases for PAP ministers, “foreign talents” and top company executives, while the incomes of low wage Singaporean workers have stagnated or even fallen. Singapore’s income inequality is now more in line with Third World countries than with other developed economies like Japan and Denmark.

Economic growth should benefit all Singaporeans, not just the rich and well-connected. While there should be fair rewards for hard work and good performance, the reality is that many ordinary Singaporeans work just as hard, if not harder, than their wealthy counterparts, but have not reaped commensurate rewards.

The Government should implement measures to increase the take home pay of low-wage local workers. This can be achieved through tighter restrictions on the import of foreign labour in domestic industries, skills development for higher value-added industries, productivity increases through capital investments and increasing government-funded income supplements.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) for basic necessities like rice and sugar should be removed to benefit low-income Singaporeans. The GST should be reverted to its previous rate of 5% for all other goods and services, except luxury items.

While a no strings attached welfare state is undesirable, there is room for limited and conditional financial assistance for the unemployed. This financial assistance could be based on a fixed quantum or a proportion of the job seeker’s last drawn salary. It should not be disbursed solely at the discretion of Citizen’s Consultative Committees or Community Development Councils. It should be given for a limited period (e.g., six months) to all retrenched Singaporeans who demonstrate a commitment to looking for a new job.

Finally, wealthy Singaporeans should do their part to help their less fortunate countrymen through increased contributions to social welfare organisations and foundations that help Singaporeans in need.

We wish all our fellow Singaporean workers a Happy Labour Day!

——–

[1] The Economist Country Briefings (17 April 2009).

[2] Caught in the pay squeeze, Straits Times, 8 Jun 2008; MOM Report on Wages in Singapore 2006, p45.

[3] Singapore’s Gini index is 42.5, similar to Thailand (42.0) and Cambodia (41.7). Gini index for Japan (24.9) and Denmark (24.7) are much better than Singapore’s. There are no developed countries that have a worse Gini index than Singapore (UNDP 2007/2008 Human Development Report).

——–

Annexe A

2009 GDP Growth Forecasts for Singapore’s top trading partners

Trading partner rank	Country/Region	*Real GDP growth forecast (2009)*
2	China	+6.0%
10	India	+5.0%
11	Australia	-1.2%
4	Indonesia	-1.9%
1	Malaysia	-3.0%
3	United States	-3.2%
13	United Kingdom	-3.8%
9	Thailand	-4.4%
12	Germany	-5.3%
6	Hong Kong	-5.9%
5	Japan	-6.4%
-	Singapore	-8.8%
7	Taiwan	-9.3%
8	South Korea	-10.1%

Source: IE Singapore and Economist Intelligence Unit

Transcript of 1988 TV Debate on the Elected President Proposal

2009-04-21T21:49:00.002+08:00

TRANSCRIPT OF TV DEBATE ON THE ELECTED PRESIDENT PROPOSAL - 1988

Transcribed by Nathaniel Koh on 18^th & 19^th April 2009 from Lee Kong Chian Reference Library, Level 11, ENGLISH 324.7 ELE

INTRODUCTION

NARRATOR: This morning, a TV debate was recorded between the People’s Action Party and Opposition parties on the proposal for an Elected President. Mr Goh Chok Tong and Brigadier-General Lee Hsien Loong represented the People’s Action Party. Mr JB Jeyaratnam represented the Workers’ Party, and Mr Chiam See Tong, the Singapore Democratic Party. The moderator was Professor KS Sandhu. We bring you now the debate in English, unedited.

Rules of the TV debate: The duration of the debate will not exceed 60 minutes. 50% of the time will go to the People’s Action Party and the other 50% to the Opposition parties as a group. Timekeepers will alert participants when their time is up.

Format of the debate: The debate will start with opening statements. The People’s Action Party will be given 6 minutes, and the Opposition parties as a group 6 minutes - 3 minutes for each Opposition party.

This will be followed by a debate on positions. The People’s Action Party will have 12 minutes to cross-examine the positions of the Opposition parties. Then, the Opposition parties will cross-examine the People’s Action Party’s position for 12 minutes. 6 minutes will be allotted for the moderator to seek clarifications.

The debate will end with closing statements. The Opposition parties first. They will be given 6 minutes - 3 minutes for each party. The People’s Action Party representatives will then have 6 minutes to make their closing statements.

The moderator’s ruling regarding duration, relevancy to the issue debated, and other related matters will be final.

MODERATOR (MOD): As all Singaporeans know, the government last month published a White Paper to provide for an Elected President to safeguard accumulated national financial assets and the integrity of the public services. Also, that this proposal has become an election issue. Indeed, there have been calls for a TV debate on this by Opposition parties. Responding to such calls and associated public interest, the SBC took the initiative to organise such a debate and approached the PAP and the main Opposition parties to participate in it.

Accordingly, to participate in this debate on the Elected President proposal are on the one hand the PAP, and on the other, the Opposition Workers’ and Singapore Democratic Parties. Representing the PAP are Mr Goh Chok Tong and BG Lee Hsien Loong. While the Workers’ and Singapore Democratic Parties are represented by Mr JB Jeyaratnam and Mr Chiam See Tong respectively.

The debate will comprise essentially of three parts: opening statements by the competing parties, followed by rebuttals and clarifications, and finally, closing statements. I’m the moderator, and my job is to enforce the rules agreed upon as well as to keep the debate on schedule. In this regard, the participants have been again reminded that time is of the essence and any unnecessary deviation from the topic under debate would be a golden opportunity missed.

With these guidelines, it is time to get the debate underway. To do so, I have great pleasure now in inviting Mr Goh Chok Tong to make the opening statements on behalf of the PAP. Mr Goh.

OPENING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY

GOH CHOK TONG (GCT): Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Elected President is to protect our reserves. These are your hard earned savings, your CPF money, which is looked after on your behalf by the government. Presently, the only safeguard is the integrity of the PAP government. If an irresponsible, unscrupulous and dishonest government should one day come into power, they can spend your money without telling you about it. When you retire at 55 and try to withdraw your CPF, it will be gone. Hence our proposal to create an Elected President.

First, to safeguard reserves and secondly, to protect the integrity of the civil service. How can it do this? The Elected President must consent if the government wants to spend reserves which it itself has not accumulated, to make certain key appointments, for example, appointments to members of the Public Service Commission or judges of the Supreme Court. The Elected President will have the custodial powers, custodial powers to say no in these two key areas, and the moral authority to block the elected government again in these two areas. He will not have the right to initiate policies himself even in these two areas, be given any powers in other unrelated areas, or be an executive President, like the US or French President. It is a two-key safeguard mechanism. To unlock the reserves and take out the money, both keys must be used. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet hold one key, and the President, the other. The veto powers over key appointments are necessary to protect the judiciary, the SAF and other key institutions from political corruption, to prevent an unscrupulous government from packing the Public Service Commission or the MAS with corrupt appointees who will do their bidding and spend the reserves secretly without telling you or even the Elected President.

The Opposition have claimed that the Elected President proposal is designed for Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In fact, the PM has told the Cabinet that he was not interested in the job. He wanted to say this publicly. I have told him not to do so because I know that there are many Singaporeans who would like him to be the first Elected President, and anyway, he should not close the option, because I believe he has a lot to contribute to Singapore even after he has stepped down as Prime Minister. He is a national resource. The Elected President proposal is a major change in our Constitution. That is why the PAP wants it to be thoroughly discussed and debated and endorsed by Singaporeans. The government has been thinking about this, about how to safeguard your reserves since 1982. The Elected President was first publicly discussed in 1984 before the last general elections, and the government has deliberately released the White Paper on the Elected President before this general election so that it will be fully debated before the electorate. After the general elections, the government will table the bill in parliament on the Elected President. The proposal will be put to a select committee so that more views can be heard. Now, I do not believe in government by referendum, but if despite the prolonged consultation, at the end of the process, there is no consensus on the Elected President, then despite my reservations, we will put the question to a referendum.

In 1984, both Workers’ Party and SDP campaigned on the platform of denying the PAP a two-thirds majority, so that they could not amend the Constitution to create an Elected President. They failed. The government had the time and the majority to push the Elected President proposal through this year before we call for an election. It chose not to. Why should it want to ram through the Elected President proposal or any other hidden proposals after the general elections? Why should it want to do so when we have not done so before this? Thank you.

OPENING STATEMENTS BY WORKERS’ PARTY

MOD: Mr JB Jeyaratnam.

JB JEYARATNAM (JBJ): The Workers’ Party’s position is very clear. The issue is not whether there should be adequate safeguards to protect the financial assets of the country, that there should be adequate safeguards to prevent an irresponsible government from squandering our financial assets is accepted by the Party without question. But the Party believes that already we have adequate safeguards in our institution of parliamentary government. The issue is whether the supremacy of parliament, the body of the people as the final check over the government, should be diminished, whether the parliament should surrender its role and its powers to one man over whom there would be no control under these proposals. The Party is firmly convinced that government should remain accountable to the people through parliament. That is the essence of parliamentary government. We accepted this when we became self-governing. The fact that hitherto parliament has not been effective as a check on government is not due to any weakness in the system, it is due to the PAP’s deliberately followed policy of reducing parliament to a rubberstamp of the government, by blocking the growth of any opposition in parliament.

Now that the PAP perceives that parliament may begin to play its rightful role with the emergence of an effective opposition, the PAP proposed to circumvent this by this plan to transfer parliament’s powers to the man they have already decided should become President. Under the proposals, the President will not only control our financial assets, he will be given powers over the appointment of Supreme Court judges and key personnel in the public service. The magnitude of this power cannot be exaggerated. The President can under these proposals thwart a government elected by the people from carrying out the mandate of the people. These are fundamental changes to how we govern ourselves, and if these changes are to be made, the people should be first asked in a referendum whether they agree to surrender their powers to one man over whom they would have no control once he is installed until his term is over. Remember, he is not accountable to parliament. What the proposals do is to lock the people out of what is theirs.

OPENING STATEMENTS BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

MOD: Mr Jeyaratnam, we must stop. Mr Chiam.

CHIAM SEE TONG (CST): Thank you, Mr Chairman. We must first crystallise the issue in this debate. The PAP is saying that we need an Elected President to safeguard our national reserves. To the SDP, safeguarding the reserves is not the issue. The issue of safeguarding our financial reserves is only a deception, a distraction, a diversion from the real issue, and that is the people of Singapore do not want an Elected President. This can easily be proven if the PAP dares to hold a national referendum. At this referendum, the question can squarely be put to the people of Singapore, quote, “Do you want an Elected President?” unquote. I know the majority of people of Singapore will say no to that question. A national referendum must be held as the issue of the Elected President is so vital to our political system. It concerns the survival of democracy and the survival of our parliamentary system as we know of it today. If the people of Singapore gives the PAP two-thirds majority at the polls, this will be the last time the people shall be voting under the parliamentary system as we know of it today. The real purpose of the PAP to introduce the Elected President is to deprive the people of Singapore effectively the one-man-one-vote system. Yes, the real purpose of installing an Elected President which has executive powers ultimately is to deprive the people of Singapore the one-man-one-vote system. The threat to the change to the one-man-one-vote system was made by the Prime Minister in the early morning hours of December 23^rd 1984 after the last polling day. The people of Singapore must demand on a national referendum.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY

MOD: Well, we have the opening statements. Now it is time for challenging the statements and rebuttals.

LEE HSIEN LOONG (LHL): If I may direct my first question to Mr Chiam. Mr Chiam, do you recall that in parliament on August the 12^th, Mr Goh Chok Tong spoke on the subject of the Elected President, and asked you to confirm that you are in favour of making changes to our system in order to ensure that our reserves not be depleted.

CST: Yes.

LHL: And you said yes.

CST: Yes, we agree that there should be.

LHL: You agree there should be checks.

CST: There should be checks. We should have hundred, a thousand Gurka troops if you want to take care of our reserves.

LHL: It’s that simple.

CST: Eventually, these Gurka troops instead of taking care of the reserves; they will be imprisoning the people of Singapore. That is why we are concerned.

LHL: That is why we don’t have Gurka troops. Are you suggesting that?

CST: Well, take another example. If the government without me asking put ten policemen in front of my house. They say, the PAP says that ten policemen is to guard me for my safety, but I say no, they are to put me under house arrest. That is why I object to an Elected President.

LHL: You agree that it is necessary to safeguard the reserves.

CST: That is not the issue at the moment. The main issue is whether or not we want to deprive Singapore of our parliamentary system.

LHL: Do you also agree to the need to safeguard the civil service?

CST: By all means, civil servants, reserves, they must be safeguarded.

LHL: They must be protected, and some changes have been made to do so.

CST: But these two are not the issues at the moment.

LHL: But you have conceded. This is the purpose of the proposal.

CST: We are saying that the purpose of the proposal is to have an Elected President with executive powers, eventually leading us to a fall of government which we do not want, maybe a dictatorship, and then our reserves will really be lost then.

LHL: Can you explain how it will be possible for the President to have executive powers when all he can do is to say no to the government spending money which has been accumulated by previous governments, not by itself? It can tax, it can spend, it can plan, it can implement. The President has no say, but only protect money accumulated by previous governments, including CPF money.

CST: We all know the proposal, but our innermost fear is that when the PAP is threatened in 1992, and you have the majority, you have two-thirds majority, who will stop you from amending the Constitution further to hand over more executive powers to the President, internal security, finance, defense?

LHL: You therefore concede that the proposal does not contain executive powers, because you are talking about a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise.

CST: No, Mr Lee. We are going to establish something in our society, in our country, which is going to be there for ages to come, and we don’t know who is going to abuse that system that you are going to establish. What the people of Singapore is worried is the powers that will eventually end up in the hands of one person.

LHL: What about the powers which are presently proposed to be given to the Elected President? Do they or do they not constitute executive powers?

CST: Of course they do.

LHL: They do, because he can say no.

CST: Yes.

LHL: You are aware that we have a Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: Well, if they are given discretionary powers, I think they are, but they are not real safeguards.

LHL: You are aware that there is a Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: What has the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, up to date, what has it done?

LHL: You know that…

CST: As far as I know, there is nothing effective about it.

LHL: Mr Chiam, can you answer the question?

GCT: Are you aware or not aware that there is?

CST: Of course. There was a big debate in the 60s on it.

LHL: You know that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights vets all bills before they are sent to the President.

CST: Well, I read my papers, parliamentary papers. Yes, of course.

LHL: Yes. It has custodial powers. It can say no to bills if it deems them discriminatory.

CST: Discriminatory only in regard to certain matters of affecting the community, the community at the moment.

LHL: Yes, yes, in the same way as the…

CST: If there is going to be racial problems or disrupting racial harmony in Singapore.

LHL: Yes, it has the power.

CST: Yes.

LHL: It is not an elected body. Is it an executive body?

CST: We are talking about electing an…installation of an Elected President, and here you are, you are diverting the issue by saying that there should be a person to take care of our national reserves and appointing of our civil servants. These are only as I have said, perhaps you do not understand me, a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is that your government is going to install one person with executive powers, and you can please tell me whether or not there is any provisions to check parliament from further giving any more powers to the President.

GCT: Mr Chairman, Mr Chiam is being cross-examined. He should give the answer.

MOD: Yes, yes. Straight.

LHL: Is or is not the Presidential Council for Minority Rights an executive body? It has custodial powers. Does that make it an executive body?

CST: Well, there’s nothing…..

LHL: It doesn’t, so why not say so.

CST: It doesn’t say anything about, you know, stopping the use of reserves.

LHL: But it has powers. It can prevent parliament from passing bills, any bills.

CST: The Presidential Council for Minority Rights, its purpose is set up to ensure that no bills would disrupt our racial harmony in Singapore.

LHL: Correct, and the Elected President is set up to make sure that no bills or any other government measures would eat into reserves accumulated by previous governments. Specific purposes. Those are custodial powers, similar to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: No, they are not.

LHL: Does that make the Elected President an executive one?

CST: Yes, of course, as I have said so.

LHL: And the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is also an executive body?

CST: The fact that the President is able to stop the use of finance without….

MOD: Mr Chiam, I think we will get the debate going if you could answer his question directly, and then we can come back to your turn.

LHL: Are you opposed to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which has custodial powers?

CST: Well, there is no necessity…

LHL: You do not oppose that.

CST: There is no necessity for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. I was not in politics when it was formed.

LHL: You would get rid of it. Mr Jeyaratnam, you would surely agree with Mr Chiam that there is no need for such a Presidential Council or indeed any safeguards whatsoever to the system.

CST: So far, you…so far, there is no law which is passed in parliament which has been refused by Presidential Council except I know of one in which parliament overruled the Presidential Council in the GRC proposal, that is what has happened.

LHL: Is that true?

GCT: No, that’s not true.

CST: You have made laws that cut out the powers of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. That is what you have done.

MOD: That’s not the answer.

GCT: We haven’t heard the answer from Mr Chiam.

MOD: Do you want to respond, Mr Jeyaratnam?

JBJ: Was I asked a question?

LHL: Yes, you were asked a question. Do you agree with Mr Chiam that we should scrap the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and it has an executive function?

JBJ: I think there is a confusion of thought here. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights protects the minorities’ rights, their culture, and their, you know, way of life. Now, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is not effective. Perhaps you have forgotten that parliament can override the presidential committee’s decision on any bill by itself passing the bill again with a two-thirds majority. Are you aware of that? So that the presidential committee is not effective. I, my Party, would like to see the presidential committee for minority rights made really effective.

LHL: But it has in no way diminished the standing of parliament, neither will the Elected President. Now let me ask you another question. Mr Chiam, you say the Elected President denies people one-man-one-vote.

CST: Yes.

LHL: In America, they have one-man-one-vote?

CST: Yes.

LHL: They vote for a President?

CST: But their system is different.

LHL: They vote for a President?

CST: Yes.

LHL: Therefore, an Elected President does not in itself mean that one-man-one-vote is diminished.

CST: Yes, but we have a different system here.

LHL: Can you answer the question, Mr Chiam?

CST: Yes, what is it?

LHL: The question is, in America they vote for a President.

CST: Correct.

LHL: They also have one-man-one-vote.

CST: They have got an electoral system where they have other people to vote the President.

LHL: And they have democracy.

CST: Yes.

LHL: We will have an Elected President with powers far fewer than the American President. We will have one-man-one-vote too.

CST: Effectively no, in time to come.

LHL: Why does that follow?

CST: Because if you have two-thirds in parliament, and when there is a threat to overthrowing you, as stated by the Prime Minister in 1984, then you will amend the Constitution…

LHL: Mr Chiam, if we have wanted to amend the Constitution…

CST: …to give more powers to the President and that will be the end of one-man-one-vote.

LHL: If we had wanted to amend the Constitution, why do you think we did not do so before the general election?

CST: Well..

LHL: We have the majority. You campaigned on this issue in 1984 if you will remember. You failed.

CST: No, we were against the Elected President.

LHL: Yes, and you failed. If I may quote you, in your first election rally, you said, “If the PAP is returned again, parliamentary and democratic government here will be changed to a presidential system in which power will rest with a few or one person.” We have not done that.

CST: Yes, I still stand by it.

LHL: Have we done that?

CST: Because the time has not come yet. Once it comes, you will do it, your government will do it.

LHL: Why do you think we have not done so all these years? Since 1966, there was no Opposition in parliament until ‘81 when Mr Jeyaratnam was elected, and then in ’84, you were elected, and in ‘86 Mr Jeyaratnam was disqualified, and you were alone again. All these years, we have never passed any bill, or amended any constitutional provision, without full debate, discussion, and public explanation. Why do you think we want to do so now?

CST: Because at the moment you don’t perceive the threat. Once the threat is there, I believe, unless you give us assurances, you will go ahead to amend the Constitution to hand further powers above those proposals.

LHL: If the threat is there, Mr Chiam, it will be too late for us to do anything, would it not?

CST: No, you can amend the Constitution in one hour on a certificate….in one afternoon, on a certificate of emergency, three readings, one, two, three.

LHL: Which could be done without an Elected President.

CST: No, you must have an Elected President first.

LHL: No, why? We can have the three readings without the Elected President?

CST: Well, you would not have the moral authority…

LHL: (Loud laughter)

CST: You would not dare to. That is the only reason why you want to go for election.

LHL: So without the Elected President, we would not dare, with, we would. It’s that simple. Can I ask you one last question? Do you understand the President’s powers to restrict spending is only on old money, not new money?

CST: Well, that is a very difficult issue…

LHL: You understand that.

CST: Because even Dr Toh himself says that it is difficult to determine what is old money and new money.

LHL: Mr Chiam, we are not debating Dr Toh here. Do you understand that?

CST: We understand…

LHL: Why do you object to restrictions on spending old money?

MOD: I think we should move on to Mr JB Jeyaratnam now. It’s your turn to ask the questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY WORKERS’ PARTY

JBJ: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We’ve been told that this plan was first mooted in 1984.

GCT: ’82.

JBJ: ’82. Alright.

GCT: ’84, publicly.

JBJ: Pray why in 1982, and not before? Was it because the 31^st of October saw an Opposition member in parliament?

LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, you flatter yourself. In 1972, the Constitution was amended to prevent sovereignty from being surrendered.

JBJ: Will Brigadier-General Lee answer the question?

LHL: Because you ran the line, in 1982….

JBJ: Mr Chairman, will Brigadier-General Lee answer the question?

LHL: In 1982,…

JBJ: Why in ‘82?

LHL: Because by 1982, a sufficiently large amount of reserves had been built up, that we were worried for Singaporeans that should something happen, their savings would not be protected, before that there was no money.

JBJ: Was there a large jump in the reserves from ’81 to ’82?

LHL: These are cumulative…

JBJ: Please answer the question.

LHL: The PAP…

JBJ: Was there a large, a big jump in the reserves?

LHL: The reserves have been building up year by year because we have never touched them.

JBJ: But why, before ’82, this plan was never hatched up?

LHL: Why should we not?

JBJ: But why, I’d like to know. Would you please answer that question?

GCT: Mr Chairman, there’s always a time to introduce certain amendments. This was discussed first in 1982. Mr Jeyaratnam would like to think that this was prompted by his victory in Anson.

JBJ: Well, that’s not what I think, Mr Goh. That’s what the public in Singapore think. That’s so plain to everybody. May I move on to the next question? Do not these proposals make a radical change to the parliamentary system?

LHL: Yes, they make a radical change to our Constitution.

JBJ: Thank you, and let’s move on to the next question.

LHL: And that’s why they have fully discussed and are being presented for the population to decide upon them in the election.

JBJ: May I make the next question? You agree that they make a radical change. If you look at your White Paper, you say there should not be any radical change, but now you admit there’s going to be a radical change. Why don’t you go to the people on this radical change?

LHL: As Mr Goh has explained, we will take it step by step. First, a White Paper, debated, explained. Second, major general election issue. We didn’t have to do that, but we have chosen to make it a general election issue. You notice, Mr Jeyaratnam, that in your paper, Towards a Caring Society, you have made no mention of the Elected President, have you?

JBJ: But you don’t answer my question.

LHL: Because…

JBJ: You have admitted that this makes a radical change and this is my Party’s stand, it is going to reduce the role and powers of parliament further

LHL: Can I ask where in your programme you have covered this subject?

JBJ: Please don’t evade my question. We are here to debate this issue, not what appeared and what not appeared in the Hammer.

LHL: You are presenting this as a fundamental issue of momentous significance. We agree…

JBJ: It is. It is.

LHL: Well, where is it in your programme?

JBJ: Brigadier-General Lee, will you please answer my question?

LHL: Where was it…

JBJ: And not try and, you know, evade the issue by saying, oh, you didn’t raise this before.

LHL: Did you raise it?

JBJ: I’m raising it now.

LHL: Did you raise it in the Party’s political broadcast on Sunday?

JBJ: Now, next question for you, Brigadier-General Lee or Mr Goh Chok Tong. Under these proposals, where is the check on the President? Where is the check on the President, can you tell me?

GCT: Well, the President does not have the power to initiate any policies. He cannot, on his own, change any policies. That lies with the government.

JBJ: I’m not asking you about initiating policies.

GCT: I have not yet completed my answer….

JBJ: Where is the check on the President’s use of his powers?

GCT: The President does not initiate any policies. It is the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that do so. The President can decide to say no to certain proposals of the government. Your question is where is the President checked?

JBJ: Where is the check on the President?

GCT: Right. Hence, the need to have an Elected President. The check is with the people. If the President does not do a good job, the people will throw him out very quickly.

JBJ: Well, have you seen your proposals on how to throw the President out? They are very cumbersome and tortuous. Have you seen that?

GCT: The President has got to go before the people every six years.

JBJ: And yet you take the line that it is cumbersome to go to the people now, at this precise moment.

LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, we have not said that. You have not listened to Mr Goh’s opening statement.

JBJ: I have listened.

LHL: What we said was, first, debate it in the general election. Then, introduce a bill in parliament. Then, have a select committee hearing. You may present your proposals, alternative views, objections. And if at that point, after all the debate, there is still a need for a referendum, we will do so.

JBJ: May I come back to my question?

MOD: Your colleague, JB, also wants to raise a point.

JBJ: May I come back to this question? Do you agree that the President is not accountable to parliament? He cannot be made to answer to parliament if he decides not to allow the government to spend any reserves or he blocks the appointment of any civil servant. Do you accept that?

GCT: The President is accountable to the people, and..

JBJ: The question is, is he accountable to parliament? Please.

GCT: He is accountable to the people.

JBJ: You don’t answer my question, Mr Goh. Where does he say that he can be summoned to parliament to answer these questions?

MOD: Well, his reply is he is accountable to the people.

JBJ: Doesn’t that diminish the supremacy of parliament? Does it not?

LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, you’re dying to lord it over the people, aren’t you?

JBJ: Parliament is the people’s body. I’m not lording it over them. I’m defending the people’s rights. Parliament stands for the people.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

MOD: Well, we have now run out of time. But it is the moderator’s time, and Mr Chiam had a question. If it’s a quick question, I’ll allow it.

CST: I have the other half of the questioning to do. You have agreed on that.

MOD: No. No, it…

CST: Yes, yes, Mr Goh has to give me six minutes as well.

MOD: Sorry, I beg your pardon.

CST: Can I start now?

MOD: Yes, please.

CST: Now, Mr Goh. You are going to be the next Prime Minister of Singapore. Can I put this question to you? Do you agree that there should be a national referendum on this question of Elected President?

GCT: No, my position is very clear. I don’t believe in going to the people on every issue. You can’t govern through a referendum.

CST: No, this is not every issue, Mr Goh.

GCT: Let me finish. You can’t govern through a referendum. I’ve stated my position very clearly. If after all this discussion, first this debate in this studio, debate outside this studio before the people, select committee after the bill has been tabled in parliament, and you, I and everybody agrees that there’s no consensus on this important issue, I’m prepared to refer this subject to the people for a referendum.

CST: No, as a matter of principle, let’s take aside all this talk about consensus. Do you agree on principle that this is a very important issue, as important as dismantling our armed forces, as important as giving up our sovereignty, because we are going to give up our parliamentary system. Do you agree on this issue, in principle, that we require a referendum.

GCT: No. It is not on the same genre as selling your sovereignty to other countries.

CST: Thank you. Alright, Mr Goh. Now, assuming that you go with what you’ve just said, that there is no national referendum on this question, and you have two-thirds majority in parliament, do you agree to give an assurance to the people of Singapore that no more executive powers will be handed over to the Elected President unless you go back to the people on a national referendum to get the permission to do so?

GCT: Now, we have stated this very clearly….

LHL: This proposal is to safeguard money….

CST: I’m asking Mr Goh please, not Mr Lee.

LHL: Mr Chiam, we speak together. This proposal is to safeguard money. We have said that there would be no amendments not related to this money and key people, because key people are related to money. No clearer undertaking is possible. There are no other components to this. The PAP lays its cards on the table. We do not even have to open this subject. We have presented it because we want to debate it.

CST: I have only three minutes. Can you please answer the question yes or no? The question is if you have two-thirds majority in parliament…

LHL: We have no intention of making any further amendments.

CST: Alright, so you would be willing to go to the people on a national referendum should you require further powers given…

LHL: We will proceed the way we have always done with full public discussion on any issue. But this is purely hypothetical. We have no intention.

CST: The question is do you agree to go to the people?

LHL: Mr Chiam, there is no proposal. We are not intending to do any such thing. You are raising a hypothetical question…

CST: No, it is not hypothetical. You are thinking of 100 years ahead. We are only thinking of, maybe, four years ahead. Assuming that you have got problems, you are going to lose the election, are you going to pass more powers to the President without going to people on a national referendum?

GCT: The answer is a simple one…

CST: Yes or no.

GCT: And I repeat my point. We don’t believe in government-through-referendum. And we will proceed with any changes in accordance with the way we have governed Singapore all the time.

CST: So your answer is no.

GCT: No, there must be full public discussion first. The answer is not a no or yes. There will be a full public discussion…

CST: Don’t evade the question, Mr Goh. Yes or no. You are not willing to go on a national referendum if the government sees a need to hand more powers to the President.

GCT: No, you are assuming that we see the need to hand more powers to the President. We have put up a very clear proposal that we are only interested in these two areas.

CST: So I take it that you are not willing. Your answer is no. You are not going to go on national referendum in case you are going to give…

GCT: We are not contemplating of introducing any other areas for the President.

LHL: There’s no proposal. We’re not intending to do anything.

CST: We are talking of a system if the need arises.

LHL: We are talking about the Elected President.

GCT: Mr Chairman, we are discussing the Elected President proposal as it is. Mr Chiam is asking us a question on what we will do. It’s all in the White Paper.

MOD: Mr Chiam, in the opening statement, Mr Goh made the statement that if as a last resort, if all other issue…

CST: Alright, I go to the next question…

MOD: Let me finish, Mr Chiam. If all other options are exhausted, then the last resort would be they would be prepared to go for a referendum as a last resort if the need arises.

CST: Now, on the first question, he said no. I’m not going to the second question. Mr Moderator, now I go on to the next one. I presume your answer to the second question is no. Now, we come to the general elections, we are in the midst of the general elections. Now, what is the purpose of the general elections?

GCT: Very simple. First, to present our programme to the people, to get a mandate from the people.

CST: To elect a new government, isn’t it?

GCT: Exactly.

CST: Correct. Now what is the purpose of my standing at Potong Pasir?

LHL: You have to answer that.

GCT: I’m amazed. I don’t know what’s the purpose.

CST: So the purpose is not to decide on the issue of the Elected President, is that not correct?

GCT: The purpose of a general election is to decide on whose programme you’re going to accept for the next five years, and…

CST: But the purpose of this general election is not to give a mandate to the government to change the Constitution.

GCT: It is part of our programme, and we’re putting it before the people to decide.

MODERATOR’S TIME

MOD: Well, gentlemen, it’s time for your cross-examinations, but if I may just come back to where we started. Let me get one thing straight on the part of the People’s Action Party. That in proposing the Elected President and the safeguarding of the accumulated reserves and the integrity of the public service, you’re not talking in terms of either hindering the proper functioning of government or dismantling anything or working out to detract in manner from the people’s rights or the normal concerns of a democracy. What you’re really concerned about is how to prevent the squandering of hard-earned reserves by putting in a check, checks and balances to be provided by an Elected President of proven worth and integrity. Is that what the main thrust?

GCT: Yes.

JBJ: Mr Moderator, if I may say, you are putting the case for the government. You are putting the case for the government.

MOD: No, I’m not. I’m coming to you now. And I’m going to ask you that is the case for the Opposition that the Opposition is not opposing the principle but you are concerned about the manner in which it is being implemented and the impact that this is going to have for the very fundamentals that you are concerned.

JBJ: I thought I made that clear in my speech. We are concerned with the further erosion of parliament’s role and its effectiveness. The Party believes that parliament and parliament alone should have the final say over what happens in this country. Now, under the proposals the President can thwart the elected mandate of the people by stopping appointments, preventing use of assets. He’s got great powers under these proposals which is not realised by the government, or they do realise it, they are disguising it.

MOD: Mr Chiam.

CST: Thank you Mr Chairman. Our stand is that the people of Singapore do not want an Elected President, and if you want an Elected President, there must be a national referendum, otherwise the will of the people will be subverted. That is our position. We are demanding that there must be a national referendum on this very vital issue.

MOD: Thank you. Do you want to add anything before I move to closing statements?

LHL: I would just like to ask the Opposition why they are against having two keys on the reserves. All these years the PAP has never found it necessary to do what the Elected President is elected to prevent namely touch the reserves in order to spend them. We have never had to do that because we always run prudent financial management. We’re now trying to put a safeguard.

JBJ: May I answer that?

MOD: Quickly.

JBJ: Well, he’s taken a minute or more. Alright, but I say give that other key to the people, and that is the key should be given to parliament, and I will outline in my closing statement how I think the parliament can hold that key.

LHL: The President is elected by the people.

JBJ: But the President is not accountable to parliament.

MOD: Right gentlemen, we are really going to run out of time. And now I think you will have your last chance to say really what you consider to be fundamental. I’ll start with BG Lee on behalf of the PAP.

LHL: I think it should be the other way, Mr Chiam.

MOD: Sorry, I beg your pardon. We will start with Mr Jeyaratnam.

JBJ: No, Mr Chiam first.

MOD: Ok, sorry. Oh, you’re going to follow this order.

JBJ: That was how it was arranged.

MOD: Sorry. Mr Chiam to start off with, then Mr Jeyaratnam, and then the closing statement by BG Lee.

CLOSING STATEMENTS BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

CST: Thank you Mr Chairman. I said that the purpose of the Elected President is to deprive the people of Singapore the one-man-one-vote system. Now I think it’s significant to quote from the Straits Times of 23^rd December ’84, what the Prime Minister said, “Asked what alternative there were to the system, he said,” ‘he’ meaning the Prime Minister said, “he was thinking of modifications to make sure the excesses were not carried too far.” I interpret the word ‘excesses’ as being the 12.6% vote swing to the opposition in the 1984 general elections.

Now, the Prime Minister is an experienced man, and he knows that once this swing starts, the momentum will be there and if it goes to the ultimate conclusion, the PAP will lose power. In fact, that is what he said, “It is necessary to try and put some safeguards into the way in which people use their votes to bargain, to coerce, to push, to jostle, to get what they want without running the risk of losing services of the government because one day, by mistake, they will lose the services of the government.” He said, “Suppose there had been another 14% shift in votes, the combined opposition would have captured forty seats, and the PAP 39.” Mr Lee then went on to describe the mood of the voters as groping out for something which they thought was better for them. To those voters, he had this to say, “By all means, reach out. But know the price, this is going to lead to some brinkmanship, not in 1988 maybe, but if we go along this road, it must unravel” meaning PAP government will be unseated. “Is it going to be 1992?,” The Prime Minister asked, “When the PAP is going to lose at the polls.” There you were, those were the innermost fears of the PM when he expressed those words.

Now, you would notice that it is very significant. He was concerned purely whether or not the PAP government was going to be unseated. There was no mention about the preservation of our financial reserves. There was only utterances of fear on the part of PAP losing power. By all means, we have safeguards. Like I’ve said, you have hundred, 200 hundred Gurka troops to guard our reserves. But what the people of Singapore are worried is that these Gurka troops instead of guarding the reserves, is going to imprison them. That is the fear. You give powers to one person, and eventually, instead of using it just to keep our reserves, it can be used against us.

CLOSING STATEMENTS BY WORKERS’ PARTY

MOD: Mr JB Jeyaratnam.

JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. This issue, or these proposals rather have been put forward on a fallacious assumption that only the PAP contains within its ranks honest men, and slanderous statements made of the opposition parties that they’re all crooks. I resent that very strongly and it’s not worthy of the PAP to make that statement, shows the kind of people we’re dealing with.

I’m surprised that I have not been asked what the Workers’ Party’s alternative proposal is, and I will now tell you. A much better safeguard would be to require the government to get the unanimous vote in parliament before it begins to use in parliament before it begins to use any of the foreign reserves or the assets. In that way, the government will have to come to parliament, explain its proposals, why it needs the money, and the whole thing will be debated, and if parliament, the government party and the opposition object to this and reject it, then the Prime Minister can advice the President if he thinks that he has to have access to the reserves to dissolve parliament and to call for elections and go to the people. That seems to me to be a much more effective safeguard of our reserves than to give it to the President. As I’ve pointed out, the President under these proposals cannot be summoned to parliament. He cannot be asked to explain why he has made any decision about the reserves or over the appointments. Contrast this to the United States, the President there can be checked by Congress. Every key appointment that he makes must be approved by the legislative bodies. And if Congress doesn’t approve of any decision, it can withhold the supply of money from the President from implementing it. It seems to me, to the Party, that the PAP is fraudulent in its reasoning and its attempting to perpetuate this PAP hold over Singapore by introducing these proposals which are purely designed to pass from a parliamentary government to a dictatorship. Thank you, Mr Moderator.

CLOSING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY

MOD: BG Lee.

LHL: Mr Chairman. The PAP has deliberately made the Elected President a key issue in this general election. Otherwise, we will not be here today. We seek the people’s mandate to implement the proposal. Our purpose is very simple: safeguard CPF savings, prevent an unscrupulous government from squandering them without telling you or consulting you. The Elected President will stand guard over these reserves and should they be in any danger, he will sound the alarm. The Opposition are against having a guard or an alarm. You must ask yourselves why.

The Elected President will also have to consent to key appointments in the civil service, because otherwise his powers to protect the reserves can be circumvented. You just put the wrong man in, he will do the job surreptitiously for a crooked government. The Opposition says there’s no need to do anything, all is well. They say that this is a way for Mr Lee, the Prime Minister, to hold on after he has stepped down as PM. They say this will lead to an executive president, and water down our one-man-one-vote system. They are wrong.

First, Mr Chiam and I think also Mr Jeyaratnam have already admitted that there is a need to do something to safeguard our reserves and to uphold the integrity of our public service. So it’s not a difference of principle. It’s only a question of how it should be done.

Secondly, Mr Lee is not interested in this job. He doesn’t want the job. Why should he? He’s already said he doesn’t want to and we have held him back from saying so publicly. And in any case, as he has explained, if he wanted to hold on to power, this is not the way to do it. All he has to do is to be Secretary-General of the Party, and that would be enough.

Thirdly, the Elected President’s powers are purely custodial. He cannot do anything. He can only say no. And they are only restricted to two areas: key personnel and money. He cannot extend his influence to other areas. Even Mr Chiam has no objections to these two proposals. His fear is this will lead to horrendous consequences. Totally unfounded, of course. But even as it stands, he has no objection to the intrinsic powers which will be given to the President. And one-man-one-vote will be quite unaffected. In America, they vote a President. It’s one-man-one-vote. In France, they have a President and Prime Minister, it’s one-man-one-vote. And in Singapore too, nothing would have changed.

Now, we must ask ourselves why the Opposition opposes a two-key system. The PAP has never had to touch the reserves all these years. Is the Opposition intending to touch them as soon as they come into power? Why oppose? If they oppose, what is their alternative? Mr Chiam has sketched none. Mr Jeyaratnam’s alternative is a unanimous vote in parliament. What that means is that if Mr Jeyaratnam or Mr Chiam are the two Opposition members in parliament, they will effectively be the Elected President, because they would have complete veto powers in one constituency on the basis of Potong Pasir.

JBJ: But the Prime Minister can then go to the country.

LHL: So the proposal has been invented on the spur of the moment, and we have yet to hear one from the SDP.

CST: That is not an issue.

LHL: That is an issue, because the SDP, if it is against this proposal in practice, but not in principle, then it is your responsibility to produce an alternative possibility. Now the opposition is asking the electorate to deny the PAP a two-thirds majority, as if except for this majority, the Elected President would be imposed on people The PAP has had more than a two-thirds majority for more than 20 years. We have never abused it. Why do we need to do so now? A referendum? Well, if need be, we will have a referendum. Let us go through the whole process first. Argue, debate, vote in elections. Second reading in parliament, select committee and then if there’s still fundamental objection, we will hold a referendum, and it will be properly entrenched and the votes will be produced. The question is not whether the PAP has a monopoly on virtue, we don’t claim that.

JBJ: Don’t you?

LHL: The question is how can we make sure that whoever governs Singapore is a good government. Never mind whether he’s a PAP one or an Opposition one. Mr Jeyaratnam takes umbrage at some of the things which have been said about the Opposition candidates but none of them are untrue.

JBJ: What about the PAP Ministers?

LHL: The concern is how do we make sure that whoever is in charge, your money is protected. So think carefully, decide whether you want your money protected, that is what the PAP wants to do. And vote according to your decision on Saturday.

CONCLUSION

MOD: Thank you. Well, gentlemen, I’m afraid we have run out of time. I wish we had more time listening to the arguments.

JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. That’s what I’ve been asking for.

MOD: But that’s what we have. And we must bring this debate to a close. In doing so, it remains for me to say how grateful I and the organisers are for your participation. Thank you. Thank you.

Financial Address of the Honorary Finance Secretary

2009-02-04T01:14:00.005+08:00

This speech was delivered at the Annual General Meeting of the Singapore Management University Students' Associaton on 21st January 2009.

As the Honorary Finance Secretary from January to December 2008, it was my duty to present the statement of accounts of the Association for the past year.

Due to confidentiality of the accounts, I have only included the opening and closing remarks of the speech. I hope you find some inspiration in reading this.

------------------------------------------------------------

Financial Address & Presentation of Statement of Accounts

by Nathaniel Koh Kim Kui

Honorary Finance Secretary, 8th SMU Students' Association

SMUSA Annual General Meeting

21st January 2009

Good Evening,

President, 8th SMU Students’ Association, Andrew Wong

President, 9th SMU Students’ Association, Rachel Kok

Council Members

Leaders & Representatives of Clubs

Invited Guests

Members of the Association

Ladies and Gentlemen

Opening Remarks

1. I am delighted to be here today to present to you the financial report of the SMU Students’ Association for 2008.

2. The past year has been one of great change and challenges. We embarked on several key initiatives that will hopefully propel the finances of our Association towards greater heights in the years ahead.

3. I would be the first to admit that our financial system is not perfect. No system is or can be perfect. But it is this never-ending quest for the elusive goal of perfection that drives us to work hard, that drives us to keep on improving, that drives us towards better accountability, better transparency, better integrity of the finances of our Association, all in the name of Students First.

4. Any student leader can tell you that it is a challenge to meet every demand. And in finances, the demands have never been greater. I wish to acknowledge those student leaders who are with me here today, and those are unfrotunately could not be with us. They have served with me not just in the finance committee, not just in student governance, but also as friends, as partners, and as confidentes.

5. I wish to acknowledge their service here today.

a. As Vice-Chairman of the Finance Committee & Deputy Finance Secretary of the Students’ Association, she has been my alter-ego and partner in this journey, please give a round of applause for Ng Seok Imm!

b. As President of the Students’ Association, he concurrently served as member of the Finance Committee, and has played a very crucial role in the committee, bringing with him his brand with motivation and experience, please give a round of applause for Andrew Wong!

c. As Committee Secretary, she has been meticulous in recording the minutes of our committee meetings. Without her, our meetings would not be as smooth. Please give a round of applause for Teh Qing Yu!

d. Next, our four Finance Secretaries of the CCA Constitutent Bodies have played critical roles as links to the clubs. Credit must go to them for educating clubs and for handling the mountains of claims that are sent to their mailbox every single day.

I wish to acknowledge the hard work of my four CCA Constituent Bodies Finance Secretaries:

Finance Secretary of the Arts & Cultural Fratenity: Ong Heng

Finance Director of the SMU Sports Union: Gay Zhi Cong

Finance Secretary of the Special Interest & Community Service Solidality: Kwok Kin Fei

Finance Secretary of the SMUXtremists: Wu Hui

Please give them a round of applause!

e. Finally, our six Finance Secretaries of the School Constituent Bodies have played a valuable role in ensuring that their schools keep their students happy and united by maintaining accurate records of the finances of their activities:

Finance Secretary of the School of Accountancy Society (ASOC1): Kwan Zhi Yuan

Finance Secretary of the School of Business Society (BONDUE): Bena Yeong

Finance Secretary of the School of Economics Society: Lincoln Choi

Finance Secretary of the SMU Information Systems Society: Tang Kejie

Finance Secretary of the School of Law Society: Darius Tay

Finance Secretary of the School of Social Sciences Society: Muhammad Suffyan

Let’s give all of them a round of applause!

6. For the next 30 minutes, we will discover the following parts.

a. Key initiatives for 2008

b. Presentation of accounts

c. Closing Remarks

d. Question & Answer

Closing Remarks

The future of our finances holds great promise.

With your help, the principles of accountability, transparency, and integrity can come true.

Despite all that you have seen and heard today, we are not there yet. But I have faith we will get there one day.

The time will come when those principles become synonymous with the finances of the Students’ Association.

But we cannot do this alone. We need you, the clubs, to come on board with us. We are your partners. We are your peers.

The work of my predecessors and the work of my committee has brought us a few steps closer towards those principles.

I have faith that my successor, Avnish, and his team will lead us forward in this quest.

To Avnish and your team, I wish you the very best in the year ahead.

Thank you.

Barack Obama's Announcement for President - February 10, 2007

2008-11-20T00:17:00.001+08:00

2007 Division S International Speech & Table Topics Contests - Closing Address

2008-09-30T01:09:00.010+08:00

In May 2007, I was serving my final two months as Division Governor of Division S. This was the closing address I made at the Division S International Speech & Table Topics Contests. It was my final opportunity to address my entire division.

Source: http://tampineschangkat.blogspot.com/2007/05/2007-division-s-international-speech_3618.html

2006 Tampines Changkat Humorous Speech & Evaluation Contests - Closing Address

2008-09-30T00:46:00.004+08:00

In March 2007, Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club held its International Speech & Table Topics Contests. This video shows the closing address I gave as Club President.

Source: http://tampineschangkat.blogspot.com/2007/03/2007-club-istt-hilarious-moments-6.html

2006 Division S International Speech & Table Topics Contest - The Interview

2008-09-28T19:21:00.004+08:00

In April 2006, while serving as an Area Governor for Area S4, I was the Contest Chairperson for the Division S International Speech Contest. I interviewed the contestants to fill the time while waiting for the Chief Judge to arrive with the results.

Source: http://tampineschangkat.blogspot.com/2007/10/2006-division-s-international-speech_21.html

Toastmasters is an Education

2008-09-28T01:58:00.004+08:00

Presidential Opening Address
By Nathaniel Koh Kim Kui, CL
President , Temasek Polytechnic Toastmasters Club
23rd March 2003, Friday

A couple of months ago, Temasek Polytechnic issued a directive ordering all Co-Curricular Activities to be suspended until further notice. As a result, we are not allowed to conduct our Chapter Meetings in the poly. That is why we are here today conducting this Chapter Meeting in the home of Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club.

I would like to thank the President of Tampines Changkat, CL Daniel Goh, who will be arriving later, for confirming this venue for us.

This would also not have been possible without our Vice-President Education-elect, Hui Mian's, commitment and enthusiasm in searching for an alternative venue for us. She asked many clubs like Tampines West and Changi-Simei, before deciding to hold the meeting at Tampines Changkat. Let us appreciate her efforts.

It is this commitment and enthusiasm that will propel our club towards greater state of awareness in the future.

I have been in our club for the past three years and my dedication towards it remains strong. It is not blind faith, mindless following, or CCA points that keeps me working for our club, rather it is because of my belief our club can change your lives for the better, as it has for mine.

I believe that most of us are not yet aware of the good that our club can bring to us now and in the future. Most of our fellow students in the poly think that they must already be excellent public speakers when they join our club. That is not true. We are different from the rest of the CCAs in the poly.

Some CCAs like the Pacesetters require us to go through interviews before being a member. Some CCAs like the Band only take in those who are already good in playing an instrument. Some CCAs like the Debaters only focus on the best people by giving them more opportunities while leaving behind those who can't speak.

We are above those CCAs. We are not just a club. We are more than a club. We are an education. Toastmasters is an education.

When we began our lives, we didn't know how to count, how to read, how to write, how to talk, but through education we learnt how to count, to read, to write, and to do those thing that we are supposed to do as human beings.

When we began our studies in our Diplomas, we didn't know much. When I began my Diploma in Information Technology, I didn't know how to programme. I didn't know what the parts of a computer were. I didn't know anything about IT. But it was through my education process of studying, attending lectures and tutorials, that I learnt how to programme, and have exceled in the IT Diploma.

Similarly, when we join this club, we didn't know much about public speaking and leadership. But it is only through attending Chapter Meetings regularly, delivering our project speeches regularly, interacting with Toastmasters from other clubs, being involved in the decision-making process of our club, being in the Executive Committee, that we are able to learn public speaking and leadership.

In our Diplomas, there are times when we find it difficult to handle our projects and tutorials, sometimes we don't understand what our lecturers are talking about, but we perservere because we want to get the grade.

Similarly, there will be times when we find it difficult to prepare our speeches, to attend Chapter Meetings regularly. But instead of persevering, some of us become inactive or leave the club entirely. That's because some of us do not have the eyes to see beyond our studies, beyond those insignificant ABCs, beyond our noses.

Toastmasters is an education. And in an education, there will be diffiulties involved. But these difficulties can be shared. In our studies, when we have a problem completing a question, we ask our friend for help. Similarly, when we find it difficult to prepare our speeches, when we are faced with a problem anything, we can always ask our friends in this club for help.

In our Diplomas, we only study for three years and we get a Diploma in the end. But in Toastmasters, there is no time limit to our education. Toastmasters is an education for life for as long as we choose.

The end result of this education is not a Diploma, it is not an ABC, it is not even getting a CTM or DTM. The result of a Toastmasters education is the satisfaction of seeing ourselves improve day by day, step by step, bit by bit, in our public speaking and leadership abilities. Of seeing ourselves grow to become a person we always aspire to be.

In this education, there is no lecturer who can pass or fail us. If we want to pass, we pass. If we want to fail, we fail. We decide for ourselves, and if we decide to pass, we will pass not by getting a piece of paper that will be useless many years from now, but we will pass in the improvement of our lives and seeing ourselves grow and develop as people

We are more than a club, we are an education. Toastmasters is an education.

Ideals & Vision

2008-09-20T23:09:00.000+08:00

Presidential Opening Address
By Nathaniel Koh Kim Kui, DTM
President, Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club
21st June 2007, Thursday

Good evening Fellow Toastmasters and Friends,

This is my final opening address as Club President.

I want to say thank you to my Executive Committee, Coen, Foong Yin, Kelly, Kervin, Cheng Lee, Bao Lun, and Virginia.

This committee has been a very passionate and committed bunch. Throughout the term, their will and passion are not exhausted.

I am very lucky to have them with me. To help me along as I tackle my other position as Division Governor, and my studies in SMU. Without them, my term of office would have been exhausting.

They are not just executive committee members. Foong Yin, in her introduction said that she is here to catch up with her friends again. They are friends. Friends whom you have grown to know and love.

And this is how our club should be. A club of friends. And as a club, we have just about to reached that level.

It is an ideal level. And if the next committee can have a vision to reach that ideal of being a club of friends, and when through this vision, we truly discover bonds of friendship, then that will be the day when we truly belong together.

I want to share my personal vision and ideals.

I am 23 years old, going 24 this November.

I have been with Toastmasters since the year 2000, about 7 years.

It’s about one-quarter of my life. And one-quarter of a person’s life is a very long time.

Especially when that one-quarter is a time when the first digit of the age changes from 1 to 2.

When you are 18-19 years old, and into your early twenties, it is a period when you feel grown up, you feel mature, you feel you can take on the world, but yet you are still a child.

And this is a situation which I have been in for the past few years, even till today.

Despite all the high-level positions I have held in Toastmasters, despite all the sagely advice that I dispense about delivering speeches, or holding appointments, I have to realise that there are many things I do not know, that I have not experienced, that I need guidance in.

Things like work, earning a living, affairs of the heart, and many other things that many of you are much more experienced in than me.

And to know that I don’t know everything is a very humbling thought.

Toastmasters has given me a lot of opportunities, and I have taken them, I have learnt a lot from the experiences that I have gained.

And I feel that my greatest contribution to Toastmasters is yet to come. I feel that my greatest contribution to Toastmasters will come from outside the organisation.

I feel that it will be a great disservice to the movement if I do not use what I have learnt for the greater good of society.

I do not know yet what kind greater good I want to do. It could be a political agenda. It could be a social agenda.

I know I need to take incremental steps. But I have not gotten the push to take those steps.

But even though I do not yet know what to do. Even though I do not know what steps to take. What I do know is that I have a vision for myself. And that vision to do something for the greater good of society.

That is my vision. What’s yours?

If you have a vision, clearly articulated or not, that’s great. If you do not have a vision, it is ok. Because I did not have a vision.

When I chose to leave Serangoon JC after the first three months, and I entered Temasek Polytechnic instead, I did not have a vision to enter university because at that time, average poly students were not known to enter university, especially local unis. I just did what I had to do academically, and I was prepared not to enter any university. I was so prepared that I did not even bother to apply for a place when I could do so in 2004. And in 2005, I applied to all three universities just for fun of it, to see how it goes. And all three accepted my application.

When I paid my membership fees to Temasek Polytechnic Toastmasters in 2000, I did not have a vision to become a whatever Toastmaster or be a whatever governor. I did what I had to do consistently meeting after meeting, month after month, year after year, and somehow I found myself in positions of leadership in the past few years.

So you ask, if good things happen to me when I did not have a vision, why should I have a vision now?

Perhaps those were the days when I did not need a vision. Those were the days when my path was clearly set for me. In 2000, I did not have to face the world out there for at least the next 6 years, 3 years in poly and 2 and a half years in National Service.

Times have changed. We grow older. Situations have changed. And I find myself needing a vision to set my direction in life.

And this vision to do something for the greater good of society did not come overnight. It came from the interaction I have in Toastmasters. It came from extensive readings in newpapers, books, magazines, internet.

And it came because I do not want my life to revolve around the making of money forever. Yes, I may start a business, or work in a corporation and build my career. But I may not derive satisfaction from those. Money is important. It is necessary. But it is not what life is about.

It may sound idealistic because it should be. Ideals are the reason why our species has lived for so long. Ideals are the reason why the opposition PAP won the 1959 elections. Ideals are the reason why Toastmasters was founded and has spread around world.
But ever since a couple of months ago, our sense of idealism has become warped. Money is now the new ideal.

But money and cash do not make a country. Cash makes a corporation.

Compassion, charity, care, and concern, make a country.

And we must bring back those values and ideals before we simply become economic digits.

If it sounds like a political speech, maybe it is. But it doesn’t matter.

The main message is to find your ideals, hold true to your values and beliefs.

The ideal for this club to for us to truly discover the bonds of friendship.

My vision is to do something for the greater good of society.

What are your ideals and what is your vision?

Endorsements - Campaign for Division S Governor 2006/2007

2008-08-10T01:46:00.008+08:00

This is a sample of endorsements during my campaign for Division S Governor in 2006. I owe these people a great debt in promoting and endorsing me during the campaign.

Endorsement #1: Pradeep Kumar, Area D5 Governor 2005/2006
"I endorse, Mr. Nathaniel Koh ATMS as the Division S Governor for the term 2006-2007. Quite apart from me (just joking!), I am unable to think of a better candidate. Nathaniel is passionate, deligent and a bright young man. He is very knowlegable of what Toastmasters is all about. This is not limited to his knowledge of the rules and procedure.

Mr.Koh will shortly be embarking on his undergraduate studies with Singapore Management University. He will have all the time in the world to focus not only on his studies and reigning in on his raging hormones but also his beloved Division S.

Do not hold his youth and good looks against him but focus on his ability and ask, can he deliver? There can be only one answer, and that has to be a resounding Yes!

Give him a chance, give him your support and give him the opportunity to serve you: which only a young man with passion and the brains can do.

Vote for Nathaniel! If you refuse to heed my advice, then do not complain if the candidate of your choice does not satisfy your expectations. But instead support your candidate with silent determination."

Endorsement #2: Michael Rodrigues, Division D Governor 2003/2004

I have been aware of Nathaniel’s enthusiasm, devotion and diligence as a Toastmaster for the past 6 years.

He exudes enthusiasm when it comes to Toastmasters and everything to do with the movement. This is exemplified in the work and office he has held through out these years. It all started when he was a student at Temasek Polytechnic as he was responsible for reviving this club which is still very active today, partly due to his mentoring and care.

Nathaniel’s devotion to Toastmasters directed him to join Tampines Changkat Toastmasters club where he studied well under the tutelage of the experienced and Great Toastmasters of the club that enabled Nathaniel to dedicate his membership to support the club as an officer, mentor and friend. He is well-liked at this club and is still called upon for support all the time.

The good work and diligence that Nathaniel has put in at club level has been recognized by Division S as has been called upon to serve the Division as Secretary, Webmaster and this term (2005-2006) as Area S4 Governor. Nathaniel’s progression through the ranks at Club and Division level has brought him a wealth of experience in Organization, Administrative and Mentoring skills that will arm him with all the qualities required of a Division Governor.

I believe Nathaniel Koh will make an effective Governor for Division S and I wish him all the very best and hope this is only another step for Nathaniel Koh is serving District 80 of Toastmasters International.

Endorsement #3: Loh Zhiqi, SMU Toastmasters Club
Despite his years of experience and knowledge, Nathaniel came across as very humble. I first met him when he visited the Toastmasters Club which I was a fresh member of. Being a newcomer, I was highly motivated by his support – providing his email to the club so we could contact him for advice or for assistance in preparing for our project speeches. He was very approachable.

He’s passion for helping new Toastmasters goes further than just being approachable. Whenever there are club contests or talks held externally, he would share it with us and encourage us to attend. These opportunities were good exposures that further helped me in my growth as a Toastmaster.

Nathaniel has a very positive attitude. Once during a club meeting, a few members who were supposed to do their project speeches pulled out at the last minute, resulting in a drastic shortening of the programme. The overall atmosphere was not too good but Nathaniel promptly volunteered to do a 10-12 min educational speech on “How to Conclude Your Speech with a Bang.” He saved the day!

In addition to being a kind, calm and optimistic gentleman, I feel that his altruism in helping others is the most wonderful thing that Nathaniel possesses.

Endorsement #4: Rendell Tan, Tampines Regional Library Toastmasters Club
Nathaniel is certainly one of the most dedicated, committed and passionate toastmaster, who has given his best and more to the success of his club as well as the Area S4.

I recalled once when I was desparate for a Language Evaluator when the initial LE was called away due to an emergency. My first thought was to call Nathaniel for help. It was literally the "last hour" the night before, and he promptly said "Yes!" His enthusiasm and generosity plus a huge helping of willingness to go the extra mile will always remain in my mind.

Never mistaken his quiet unassuming manner, as what lies below is a man of conviction, confidence and compassion. He has the ability and the leadership qualities, and most important of all - I see he has humility and is always willing to listen for feedback to improve.

I strongly believe Nathaniel will always be dependable, and can be counted on at all times to help Division S grow stronger wings and take us higher in the skies of District 80.

With honour and with pleasure, I hereby endorse him to be the next Division S Governor 2006-2007 in District 80.

Endorsement #5: Edwin Ollikkala, Lecturer, Temasek Polytechnic

Nathaniel Koh is a man with a vision. He was born with Toastmasters in his blood. He has conquered challenges that many said were insurmountable. Nat, as known to his many friends and colleagues, is self-driven, need-driven, and proactive. He consistently strives to meet his own high standards and surpass the standards of others.

Nathaniel Koh is a motivator. He inspires others to persevere and achieve their hopes and dreams. He helps clubs to meet their goals. His long-term vision and meticulous planning has resulted in magnificent achievements.

Do not ask me what he has done. Ask yourself what you would like to do and then tell it to Nathaniel. He will see it through. Ask your club where you would like to be in one, three, or five year’s time and let Nat work out a plan.

Listen to Nathaniel Koh. He speaks with passion, innovation, and enthusiasm. He thinks creatively. He is honest, hardworking, and dedicated beyond rationalization. Why does he do it? Like I said, he has Toastmasters in his blood.

Read what the others say about him and then see if you can find a more ideal candidate. I bet my life that you can’t. That’s why I am endorsing Nathaniel Koh for Division S Governor.

Campaign Speech - Election for Division S Governor 2006/2007

2008-08-10T01:04:00.002+08:00

This speech was delivered at the District 80 Annual Convention held at the Furama Riverfront Hotel Ballroom in May 2006.

Delegates from Toastmasters clubs in Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand gathered to elect the top leadership of their District.

I was up against another candidate more than twice my age, and well-established in the finance industry.

The result was 192-36 in my favour.

Campaign Speech for Division S Governor 2006/2007

Council Members, my fellow Toastmasters and friends, Good afternoon!

My name is Nathaniel Koh, and I am here to ask for your vote for me to serve you as your next District leader and Division Governor for Division S.

I believe that some of the qualities you would look for in a Division Governor are experience and the ability to lead.

I have been in Toastmasters for 6 years. I have served in the Division S Council for 4 years. I have served in various positions like Vice-President Education, President, Division Secretary and Area Governor.

In these 6 years, I have learnt many things, and experienced many highlights along the way.

So yes, I have the experience. Yes, I have the leadership skills. So what can I do for you?

One of the core values of Toastmasters is Dedication to Excellence. Our District’s theme is Achieving Excellence, Sharing Success.

I visit clubs. I listen to the members. You tell me that you want to achieve excellence. You also tell me achieving excellence is more than being President’s Distinguished. Excellence is about members. Because you can be President’s Distinguished, but how many members attend your meetings regularly?

I’ve seen members leave the club after achieving CTM. I’ve seen members leave the club after a year. I’ve seen members who pay their fees and don’t attend meetings at all. Sounds familiar? If I’m elected, I want to help you find solutions to put a stop to all this.

I want our members to feel valued. I want our members to feel wanted. I want our members to reach their fullest potential.

My fellow Toastmasters, if you share my values and vision for our members, then vote for me as your next District leader.

ORD Speech - December 2005

2008-08-10T00:49:00.007+08:00

I was selected by 2PDF to deliver this ORD speech on behalf of my unit. It was given a couple of weeks before my ORD in December 2005 in front of a packed auditorium of ORD personnel of the 2 People's Defense Force (2PDF). In attendance were key appointment holders of 2PDF, including the Commander of 2PDF himself.

ORD Speech - December 2005

By 3SG Nathaniel Koh

A show of hands. How many of you here are looking forward to your ORD and getting back that pink IC?

I believe it was just a few months ago when we looked at our calendars and dreamt about how far we were to our ORD, but now our ORD is just a couple of weeks away. For some of us, just a couple of days away.

For most of us, we look forward to our ORD because we want to leave this place, because we want to get out of this constraint that was placed upon us.

However, let us look forward to our ORD for a different reason. Let us look forward to our ORD not because we want to get out, but because we want to get in, to get in to a life that is in store for us after we ORD.

What do we want to do after we ORD? Do we want to further our studies? Do we want to start earning a living in the workforce? Do we want to find our life partners, make babies, and start a family?

The possibilities are endless. And the possibilities are there for us to choose.

As I look forward to my ORD, I also look back at my more than two years of National Service.

I began my journey as a young, slightly enthusiastic recruit in BMTC. For those of us who have been through the enhanced PTP/BMT, we know how tough it was.

I was then posted to OETI, Ordnance Engineering Training Institute, to be trained as a Weapons Technician. OETI has another meaning. Apart from weapons training, we Only Eat Talk & Idle.

After three months, I was posted to 6SIR.

Having been in 6SIR for more than a year, I have experienced the ups and downs of working in the military. I have shed tears. I have been frustrated. I have kicked chairs around in private. And there are days when I find no meaning in my work.

But amidst all the frustration and negativity, I learnt a lot of lessons. I learnt a lot of myself, my character, my personality. I learnt a lot about others, their characters, their personality. I learnt a lot of intrinsic lessons. And what I learnt I will bring with me throughout my life.

While we look forward to our ORD, let us look back at the lesson we have learnt. Whether those lessons were positive or negative, let us bring them along in our lives, so that we can become better people, better human beings.

National Service is just a passing phase in our lives. Some of us serve for two years. Some of us serve for a little more than two years. But whatever the duration, let us keep in mind that our time in NS is just a drop in the ocean of our lives. What matters most is what happens after we ORD, what we achieve, who we become.

In conclusion, as our ORD day comes closer, let us reflect on our experiences here. And let us look forward, move on with our lives, and get back that pink IC.

Essay - Experiences in National Service

2008-08-10T00:38:00.004+08:00

This essay was written on 23rd November 2005, about a month before my Operationally-Ready Date (ORD). I served as an Armament Technician Specialist in the 6th Singapore Infantry Regiment, and am proud of it. This essay serves as a summary of my experiences in the unit.

ORD ESSAY – 23RD NOVEMBER 2005
BY 3SG NATHANIEL KOH

INTRODUCTION
Being an Armament Technician (Armt Tech) in 6SIR has been a truly rewarding and eye-opening experience.

Those two positive adjectives are used not only to describe the “ups” of my 1½ years in the unit, but also the “downs” as well. It was rewarding because of the people I meet and my interactions with them. It was eye-opening because I learnt a lot more about myself and the environment in which I worked in.

What does an Armt Tech do?
The job-scope of an Armt Tech is to maintain, service and administer the weapons in the unit. Sounds simple enough, but what sounds “simple enough” usually entails more than just that.

What are my strengths & weaknesses?
Throughout this journey, I discovered what my strengths and weaknesses are in terms of my character, in both the personal and professional sense. Here are some of them:

Strengths: Willingness to learn, ability to communicate, enthusiasm in doing, sensitive.

Weaknesses: Slow learning curve, ability to be misunderstood, prone to mistakes, cries easily.

As seen above, every strength has its own counterpart weakness. This enables me to see both sides of the fence and appreciate my life better, thus improving it in the future.

How do I grade myself?
I would grade myself in this job as 2 out of 5 stars overall. Although, in the end, I did not succeed, I persevered and learned with an open mind in this journey.

LOGISTICS READINESS INSPECTION 2005

Let’s cut to the crux of the matter which is the recent Logistics Readiness Inspection (LRI) in October 2005.

I could have given a chronological journal of my journey from Basic Military Training to trainee days at the Ordnance Engineering Training Institute to the early relaxed days in 6SIR till now. But I believe that we are much more interested to know what happened in the run-up to LRI 2005.

I regard my observations as learning experiences of myself, of what I should have and not have done, and I shall learn from these, improve and better myself in the years ahead in the world out there.

Independence within a Team
During my student days in secondary school and polytechnic, I discovered that I maintained a quiet distance between myself and my peers. While I could communicate and interact with others well, it seemed that I was a tad too formal, a little too professional in the way I spoke and behaved. I could not joke or laugh together with them as they might have spoken a different language, or I simply could not connect with whatever they were saying. We were at different wavelengths, and producing different vibes.

During my four months as one of ten interns in a multi-national company, I discovered that I connected and communicated better with the permanent staff and upper management than with my own peers. What was more interesting was that the other nine interns were my classmates for the past two years!

I found it difficult to adapt to the “herd mentality” where everyone went for lunch as a group at the same time to the same place. I wanted to have lunch at my own time because I was hungry, and not wait for everyone else to be hungry first.

Don’t get me wrong. I am entirely comfortable eating in a group and working together as a group, as long as I get to do what I want to within acceptable means, and not just “follow the crowd.” It could be as simple as leaving work on time to get recharged for the next day, to as complicated as deciding where and when to eat for lunch.

Those traits, unfortunately, made their way down to the preparation of LRI 2005, and made me appear to be uncooperative and not a team player. Although I might have been a little too independent in the way I worked and behaved, I know that I have been cooperative and a team player, albeit in a different, quieter sense.

Perhaps I should loosen up, let my hair down, and speak more Mandarin.

Blurred Lines of Control
In any organization, there are levels of hierarchy and lines of control. In any job, we will have a boss, and we have to listen, understand, and achieve whatever the priorities of our boss. Those are the universal norms and I thoroughly accept them.

However, in the few months leading up to LRI, I did not feel like an Armament IC, and I did not feel like I was treated like one. I may be wrong, and I hope I’m wrong, but those are just my opinions and observations.

That was because apart from reporting to our immediate boss, we had a couple of other bosses to report to as well. Other bosses who had the ear of our immediate boss. Therefore, the lines of control were blurred and the system of hierarchy became more complex.

We did not feel in control. Plans were made, which we felt were acceptable, but they were quickly torn apart by the priorities of others. While we respect and acknowledge those different priorities, it became increasingly frustrating that we were not able to make our own decisions.

Soon, whatever influence we had was quickly diminished, and we became drones, blindly following the instructions of others.

Perhaps Armament Tech should be made a permanent position, rather than the current temporary one-and-a-half-year appointment. Or maybe let’s just wait for CMAT to arrive.

Motivations: Positive & Negative
In any job, we have our motivations. We want to do the job well because we are motivated by something. In any working environment, those motivations are usually career advancement and the accompanied pay raise.

However, those motivations do not apply to me as an NSF, because no matter how well I do the job, I will still be a 3SG and I will still receive the meager $556.50 net allowance every month. No career advancement, no pay raise, no positive motivation.

So because there is no obvious positive motivation for NSFs, negative motivations are frequently used in the army. Negative motivations like fear of being scolded severely, fear of being charged, fear of not being able to clear our leave. Those negative motivations are all based on one single aspect of humanity: FEAR. And any successful modern organizational manager or leader will tell us that fear simply does not work in today’s world. Fear may get the job done in the short-term, but the long-term effects to our subordinates are absolutely poisonous. Long-term effects include increased cases of skiving, medical leave, and demoralized workers, which causes more unhappy faces, and results in a murkier working environment.

So how can we solve this problem? First of all, we must remove fear from our vocabulary because it just gets us nowhere. Next, motivate our subordinates positively by appealing to their inner senses. Giving praise for a job done helps, no matter how small the job seems. Empathy towards our subordinates by sincerely asking how they are doing, without feeling as if a report is needed. Asking for feedback without being defensive when the feedback is not what we expect to hear. Delivering on promises of offs and leaves even when work is being sacrificed for the well-being of our subordinates. There are lots of ways to motivate NSFs positively, without resorting to fear. It’s just a matter of wanting to.

The only way I could motivate myself was to find meaning in what I did. There were times when this self-motivation worked and I quietly went about my job with nobody looking. The times when this self-motivation did not work was displayed for all to savour.

That was the only way because this job will not affect my career; it will not affect my small allowance. Any promises or hopes of clearing leave went down the drain because I knew whatever result was achieved, work does not stop with the end of LRI. In fact, there will be more work and I still have to teach and guide our two new armourers.

With absolutely nothing to gain in sight, coupled with a murky working environment and strong negative motivation factors, it was a classic example of how an employee can break down due to lack of positive motivation.

CONCLUSION
Learning is a continuous journey in our lives. I have learnt many lessons in my full 2 years and 4 months in National Service. However, the 4 months leading up to LRI 2005 were the highlights of those lessons. I will learn from them and improve in my future university and corporate life. It has been a worthwhile National Service experience.

What is the Purpose of this blog?

2008-08-10T00:16:00.003+08:00

This blog serves the following purposes:

1. As a repository of my essays as a student.

2. As a collection of thoughts and commentaries on issues of concern.

3. As a re-publication of articles of interest.

Who is Nathaniel Koh?

2008-08-09T22:47:00.002+08:00

Knowing the person behind a blog is as important as knowing the purpose of the blog.

With the veil of the Internet, anonymity is easy. It is a choice. I choose to establish credibility with my words, and responsibility with my choice of words.

Since August 2006, I have been pursuing a degree in Information Systems Management at the Singapore Management University (SMU). In SMU, students can choose to study a second major. My second major is in Political Science.

In September 2007, I was elected by my peers into the council and executive committee of the SMU Students' Association, the student government of the university. At the subsequent internal elections of the council, I was elected as the Honorary Finance Secretary of the executive committee. My term of office began on 1st January 2008 and ended on 31st December of the same year.

Prior to my election into student government, I had served in various leadership positions in Toastmasters International, a worldwide organisation dedicated to helping people from all walks of life realise their communication and leadership potential.

In May 2006, at the annual convention of District 80, which covers Toastmasters clubs in Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, and Thailand, I was elected into the position of Division S Governor by a margin of 192-36 votes. As the Division S Governor, I was responsible for the success of one of five Divisions of Toastmasters clubs in Singapore. My term of office was from 1st July 2006 to 30th June 2007.

Other positions of leadership in Toastmasters that I have served in are: (All terms of office are from 1st July to 30th June)

2006 - 2007: President, Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club

2005 - 2006: Vice-President Education, Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club

2005 - 2006: Area S4 Governor, District 80

2002 - 2003: Division S Secretary, District 51

2002 - 2003: President, Temasek Polytechnic Toastmasters Club

2001 - 2002: Vice-President Education, Temasek Polytechnic Toastmasters Club

Having been of service to my peers in Toastmasters and SMU, I have gained invaluable experience in leadership and communication. It is through such experiences that I hope to bring about a betterment to our society.