This will be a short write up on the performances of political party individuals during CNA’s English forum last night. I won’t go into too many details as you might want to watch this forum if you haven’t already. The entire programme was too short for my liking and the extremely biased rules are still something that CNA has to answer for. But such forums can be a dream for some parties and a bane for others – amidst the horrible rules, a star was born while a certain politician’s wife simply just floundered her way through the entire taping. A must watch for every Singaporean – you have to see what sort of people our political parties are fielding. Trust me, you will go away thinking differently.
PARTICIPANTS
VINCENT WIJEYSINGHA (SDP) – 9/10 [WINNER]
Masterclass. Vincent is a star for the SDP. He was extremely articulate and witty, hammered his party’s policy points through, cheekily promoted the party’s Shadow Budget near the end of the programme, and ended with a nicely sophisticated attack on the PAP’s authoritarian rule. Vincent’s performance was near excellent, though it could have been better if he had more time to focus on other important issues and avoided simple errors. Nevertheless, he will be a keenly watched candidate during the election, and i’m sure many people now are wishing that there are more Vincent Wijeysinghas around to take on the PAP.
THARMAN SHANMUGARATNAM (PAP)- 7/10
Above average delivery by Tharman – full of usual PAP promises, focus on the party’s past record and a seemingly decent defence of the PAP’s policies. Not greatly exciting. To his credit, Tharman remained gentlemanly and shied away from being too condescending towards his fellow politicians, something voters may find refreshing and not reminiscent of the more direct style fashioned by Lee Kuan Yew. He may have done just enough to convince moderate voters to keep their options open during the General Elections.
GERALD GIAM (WP) 6.5/10
Not as great a speaker i had hoped he would be. Gerald was fairly articulate and put in good points for his party, with a focus on the party’s development of a key pool of leaders to form a credible alternative for Singapore. Unfortunately he committed a big schoolboy error in wasting that additional minute of time allocated to summarize his party’s policies for the elections. Nevertheless, Gerald has shown that he is a man of substance and sufficient calibre to be taken seriously as a candidate. Don’t write him off just yet – he has a long and promising political future ahead of him.
NAZEM SUKI (SDA) – 4/10
Nazem was certainly not as articulate as the other speakers but he managed to put in a few good points and did just about enough to deliver his party’s position on national issues. Unfortunately, i would say the language barrier and perhaps lack of preparedness contributed to his lacklustre performance on national TV – Nazeem was caught pausing between points and as such and did not deliver his points as clearly as he could have. Shame, really. Certainly not a great speaker but not one who’s lacking in substance either. Has to make an effort to improve if he wants to be taken seriously during the GE.
JOSEPHINE TEO (PAP) – 3.5/10
The main problem with Josephine Teo is not about whether she could bring through her points or her speech preparation for the forum – she was certainly a very decent speaker. Rather, it was her role as a stand-in “cheerleader” for Tharman which could put off many potential PAP voters. Like a parrot repeating after its master, Josephine provided very little to the actual discussion and wasted everyone’s time with the usual recycled rhetoric even PAP supporters would baulk at. Overall negative performance. Perhaps the PAP should think twice about sending such a “yes-(wo)man” down to such serious discussion forums next time round.
LINA CHIAM (SPP) – 1.5/10
Completely below par performance, the worse i have seen on television (in any country). Lina Chiam should be ashamed of herself. She came completely unprepared, did not know what to say about national issues, exhibited the wrong body language and failed to use her allocated time at the end to summarize her party’s position (she chose to “ask” what the PAP could do for the people instead). While she did bring up one or two good points at the end, everything else about the delivery was horrendous and just too painful to watch. If this is the calibre of SPP’s candidates, pro-opposition voters had better be very worried.
MODERATOR: MELISSA HYAK – 8/10
Performed fairly without any bias. Hyak wasted no time in cutting off even the PAP MPs when they went over their allocated speaking time. Much better than Deborah Soon.
I think this time round, PAP will have a tough time. Strong candidates the opposition has.
http://sgsharemarket.com/home/2011/04/key-debates-at-channel-newsasia%E2%80%99s-political-forum/
[...] am not a political blogger, but I just had to post this video of the recent political debate between parties, as I was so very impressed by Vincent, who is a social worker by profession. [...]
If I had closed my eyes, Dr Vincent sounds like one of those polished PAP-candidates with Ivy-league degrees. He was candid and sincere, and calm and persuasive at the same time. I really hope to see him in parliament.
Oh, and about Lina. She really seemed out of her league. She seemed to be gasping for air, esp. when she had Mellisa repeat the question so many times. Lina seemed to be of a caliber of winning some votes purely based on her husband’s reputation alone. If she makes it as MP, she may air her constituents’ grievances as a matter of course, but she would do little to advance the ‘alternative’ voices of our country.
I agree with u. Lina Chiam is too painful to watch.That why i think that Sitoh will win against Lina Chiam.
If Mr Chiam has any decency, after watching his wife on TV, he should stop his wife from running to be an MP.
It may not be down to the TV debates for Lina, though i think SPP will definitely do quite badly outside of Potong Pasir thanks to her non-performance for her party.
Sitoh strikes Potong Pasir voters as an insincere and arrogant. I know this because i’ve met him a few times. Lina does not. At the end of the day it depends on how Lina can convince the voters there with her human touch and Chiam’s “track record”, and whether Sitoh can change his attitude for the better.
In Potong Pasir, lots of other factors (incl familiarity, likeability) will count, but in a large GRC like Bishan-Toa Payoh where Chiam See Tong cannot possibly meet enough people personally, Lina Chiam’s performance will hurt. Another sign of how impoverished the SPP is can be seen from the fact that the party was invited to participate in the Chinese-language forum, but declined to send a rep. Perhaps there was no one from the party who could do so? If so, it’s really sad.
I agree with the observations. Three of them, Lina Chiam, Nazem Suki, and Gerald Giam should go for Speech Training. There could still be time. Lina Chiam should brush up on her current affairs. You could see the ‘hidden’ smile on Tharman’s face when Lina mumbled, fumbled and searched for her words. She was truly intimidated by those questions. Such a pity. Gerald was much better of the three, though his speech quivered, WP should send in Chen Show Mao instead.
Wijeysingha did nothing more than take unsubstantiated cheap shots. If not for the limited air time, he would probably be embarrassed when required to substantiate his anecdotes with representative data. Gerald Giam and Lina at least spoke with dignity.
[...] of her husband’s future for SPP, she is out of her depth and unable to hold her ground in debate in parliament unlike Benjamin, Wilfred or Jimmy. That is obvious to any objective observer, [...]