Agree to counter hard question with easy to understand answer so that the not-so-sophisticated audience can easily grasp the message. Unlike PAP ministers who love bombastic words with the intention to hide and confuse the readers. I also know of a firm who helped guide and teach people how to face TV interview.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
NSP Secretary-General Goh Meng Seng on Talking Point, Sun 2 May 10.10pm
- Thread starter Perspective
- Start date
Agree to counter hard question with easy to understand answer so that the not-so-sophisticated audience can easily grasp the message. Unlike PAP ministers who love bombastic words with the intention to hide and confuse the readers. I also know of a firm who helped guide and teach people how to face TV interview.
BTW ChauVeNist, you have actually given away your own identity here with your little posting. 
Don't be a coward, as you have always portrayed yourself to be. Just admit who you are and get on with life as usual.
Goh Meng Seng
Don't be a coward, as you have always portrayed yourself to be. Just admit who you are and get on with life as usual.
Goh Meng Seng
Channel News Asia website is down, apparently. Everyone is rushing in to watch GMS, it seems.
It is ok on my side. Maybe you can try my blog where I have put up the youtube version.
http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2010/05/cna-talking-point-ncmp-scheme.html
Goh Meng Seng
GMS, maybe next time you can record it with mp3 recorder and put it on internet. the RAW and UNCUT version!
Seeing Goh Meng Seng struggling with his words, Alvin Yeo seemed to let his gaurd down. There is this unfortunate tendency among the English educated to think that those who cannot speak English properly are stupid.
There was therefore almost a stunned surprise when Goh Meng Seng made that point about how Alvin Yeo objected strongly to the NCMP bill but ended up voting for it anyway. It actually took him a while to realise that he was under serious attack. Suffice to say that if they didn't stack the deck by having Debra Soon and Gillian Koh on the PAP side to buy Alvin Yeo some time, Alvin Yeo would probably have been painted into an embarassing corner.
As an acknowledgement that Goh Meng Seng did better than they wanted him to, you can see that there were hardly any trailers on this segment (unlike Minister Mah's HDB series which is getting a 2 part episode). Also I almost thought they were not going to show it as they didn't even list it in CNA's program guide on Starhub.
The Proportional Representation system that GMS suggest is Multi-Member Constituency PR. Using this system - the link between an individual MP and the constituency is broken. We either need local elections or govt taking full charge of municipal issues.
Additional Member System used by Japan/Taiwan is a better option.
Additional Member System used by Japan/Taiwan is a better option.
It disappointing that on an issue that is importatn that the program was restricted to 20 minutes. It thus led to participants rushing thru their points and Debra concluding every participant's comment rightl or wrongly to no one's benefit.
Choosing Alvin was a calculated move to balance out GMS style of addressing the issues rather than making a confrontational stand. Both came across well for the Singaporeans who prefer non confrontational types having seen the PAP roll over everyone for the last 50 years la cul de sac and knuckleduster politics.
Interestingly one can see that Debra was attempting to set the agenda but due to the short time duration, she was not able to do so. If it had been any longer, Gillian would have helped set it up. Instead it was a hurried affair and she looked bad.
Gillian Koh should take arsenic to cure the affliction of not answering questions directly. The first question was straight forward - Do you support the NCMP scheme? The answer is - the public want's diverse views and alternative voices. As an academic, she is a disgrace. Clearly a dishonourable person. The whole of society obviously seeks diverse views and alternative voices from Iceland to the rainforest of Borneo. That is PAP excuse - we will give you a forum for diverse views and alternative voices but when it comes to voting legislation only the PAP can vote.
Overall both Alvin and GMS did well. None of them looked silly or insincere. They in fact looked sincere, honest and keen to contribute. Only Gillian was evasive but due to her more polished responses, whether she answered the question or not was not evident I suspect to most people.
Every public appearence is a great opportunity for opposition candidates. Grab it with both arms. Ask Ti Lik to interview GMS as he did Constance Singham, Michael De Cruz, our human rights lawyer etc.
Choosing Alvin was a calculated move to balance out GMS style of addressing the issues rather than making a confrontational stand. Both came across well for the Singaporeans who prefer non confrontational types having seen the PAP roll over everyone for the last 50 years la cul de sac and knuckleduster politics.
Interestingly one can see that Debra was attempting to set the agenda but due to the short time duration, she was not able to do so. If it had been any longer, Gillian would have helped set it up. Instead it was a hurried affair and she looked bad.
Gillian Koh should take arsenic to cure the affliction of not answering questions directly. The first question was straight forward - Do you support the NCMP scheme? The answer is - the public want's diverse views and alternative voices. As an academic, she is a disgrace. Clearly a dishonourable person. The whole of society obviously seeks diverse views and alternative voices from Iceland to the rainforest of Borneo. That is PAP excuse - we will give you a forum for diverse views and alternative voices but when it comes to voting legislation only the PAP can vote.
Overall both Alvin and GMS did well. None of them looked silly or insincere. They in fact looked sincere, honest and keen to contribute. Only Gillian was evasive but due to her more polished responses, whether she answered the question or not was not evident I suspect to most people.
Every public appearence is a great opportunity for opposition candidates. Grab it with both arms. Ask Ti Lik to interview GMS as he did Constance Singham, Michael De Cruz, our human rights lawyer etc.
D
Da Ji
Guest
Dear All,
Try speaking before a crowd, on stage or on national tv and see whether you will gabra or not. You can overcome it with more experience.
Just google wiki and you would know what the rest are talking about.There are many versions and variations.NZ, OZ, Canada etc. The point is the legislative component resembles the society's views more closely.
The NCMP proposal is mischievous. It does not carry voting rights and therefore sterile and with a captive press covering parliament, the voices are muted.
The proposal however has a devious angle to it - it pits opposition candidates against their own supporters who may not be smart enough to figure out the underlying principles. So far only Sylvia, GMS and Low have correctly treated it - I am not going to chop off my nose to spite my face.
The answer should be obvious. Condemn both NCMP and NMP schemes but take the NCMP seat. The PAP knows that the simple minded will take the "matter of principle" approach and reject it and therefore they will be upset for voting for an opposition candidate. They will still get the NCMP seat but with a much reduced majority and their mandate is thus quite meaningless.
The way to handle the PAP is to first and foremost use the NCMP to one's own advantage. Use it to motivate more participation but aim to win seats outright. Failing which, take the NCMP seat and build a stronger base. But when taking it, do so in protest and condemn the scheme.
By now one should have heard it from the grapevine that NCMP proposal is coming from PM/Ho Ching and their generation whose children who are working or studying overseas are constantly ridiculed and therefore trying to put a semblance of a plural parliamentary system for overseas consumption.
The NCMP proposal is mischievous. It does not carry voting rights and therefore sterile and with a captive press covering parliament, the voices are muted.
The proposal however has a devious angle to it - it pits opposition candidates against their own supporters who may not be smart enough to figure out the underlying principles. So far only Sylvia, GMS and Low have correctly treated it - I am not going to chop off my nose to spite my face.
The answer should be obvious. Condemn both NCMP and NMP schemes but take the NCMP seat. The PAP knows that the simple minded will take the "matter of principle" approach and reject it and therefore they will be upset for voting for an opposition candidate. They will still get the NCMP seat but with a much reduced majority and their mandate is thus quite meaningless.
The way to handle the PAP is to first and foremost use the NCMP to one's own advantage. Use it to motivate more participation but aim to win seats outright. Failing which, take the NCMP seat and build a stronger base. But when taking it, do so in protest and condemn the scheme.
By now one should have heard it from the grapevine that NCMP proposal is coming from PM/Ho Ching and their generation whose children who are working or studying overseas are constantly ridiculed and therefore trying to put a semblance of a plural parliamentary system for overseas consumption.
Dear All,
Try speaking before a crowd, on stage or on national tv and see whether you will gabra or not. You can overcome it with more experience.
For an effective way to gain speaking experience & practice, join any easily accessible Toastmasters Club in Singapore.... they are everywhere www.district80.org !
Thanks, GMS.
Only after watching the 2 videos did I realize the disparity between your spoken and written English.
It's always going to be difficult if you think with Chinese and then translate your arguments into English. The impression is big ammo in a small pistol.
You should try this trick the next time. Put the question back to buy time. When Alvin Yeo explained that he supported the Bill nevertheless because of the other items that were bundled together in the Bill as a package, and he felt the Bill "as a whole" was worth supporting. You should have put the question back to him, that if the proposal for more NCMPs was a standalone Bill, does that mean Alvin Yeo would have voted against it ? And Alvin Yeo would have done something that no other PAP MPs had done before ?
I must say Alvin Yeo behaved quite gentlemanly, unlike the typical condescending attitude that most other PAP MPs would have displayed. At no time did Alvin Yeo try to put you down. That is rare from a PAP MP.
Good suggestions & fair comment .....
A naturally gifted linguist and orator is someone like Tang Liang Hong. His Chinese, English and Malay are of flawless fluency. For Goh Meng Seng, it's frankly too late in life to try to achieve a level anywhere near that. However, oratory skill is not everything.
A good example for GMS would be Tan Kin Lian. He simply slows down and controls the speed of fluency that he's weak at, and put his point across. Anyone who've heard TKL speaks know that he's not a naturally talented fluent orator. He slows down the pace to suit his speech, and captures attention through issues addressed in clearly pointed forms.
Another classic pace-down orator, many didn't even notice, was the late J.B. Jeyaretnam. But he was in different league from TKL. His command of and fluency in in English was at native tongue level. He paced down to load his words and syllables clearly pronounced with strength and conviction that drove in hard and impressed upon sense of seriousness.
GMS may train to attain that in Chinese, but frankly, not in English.
Last edited:
Most important factor is to be sincere. Muster the points of argument and rebuttal and voice them with sincerity, even if the language is dotty. Listeners can tell whether to trust you or not. The vital link is to turn credibility into trust into votes.
Alvin Yeo: "We must not equate excitement with quality."
PAP MPs are good at twisting the context, just as when LHL asked LTK if he should also resign since he is the boss of WKS, referring to the MSK great escape.
What is a debate ? To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. One step at a time. Before we even think of the quality of debate, the conditions of a true debate must exist first. If we don't even have diversified views, we don't have a debate to begin with. Alvin Yeo is putting the card before the horse. We have Minister proclaiming in Parliament that he is deaf to criticism. You trust such a MP to provide quality debate ?
PAP MPs are good at twisting the context, just as when LHL asked LTK if he should also resign since he is the boss of WKS, referring to the MSK great escape.
What is a debate ? To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. One step at a time. Before we even think of the quality of debate, the conditions of a true debate must exist first. If we don't even have diversified views, we don't have a debate to begin with. Alvin Yeo is putting the card before the horse. We have Minister proclaiming in Parliament that he is deaf to criticism. You trust such a MP to provide quality debate ?
I'll turn around and shoot him down with
"So we had decades of dull monotonous Parliament sessions. Was there quality?"
"So we had decades of dull monotonous Parliament sessions. Was there quality?"
Many people don't realise that deaf-frog Minister is the PAP Chief Whip and that deaf-frog message is meant for all the PAP backbenchers who'd heard too much from the grounds and fedback too much upwards.
You are of course entitled to your opinion & I think your real point is such training is more effective at a younger age. Also, of course, oratorical skills is not everything but still, a very important armour for public communicators.
Fact is: anyone can improve at any age with practice & guidance. As for quantum of improvement, it is also dependent on so many factors.
Speak slower is one very GOOD technique for ALL speakers.
Not only can one mask one's flaws, but it helps in diction & delivery.
When I was young, I watched LKY during National Day Rally. Of course he is an accomplished speaker regardless of your political opinion of him. Yet, many times, he paused & seemed to be thinking a long time, like carefully choosing his words. The joke to youngsters is: has he lost his tongue?
When you are older, you learn concepts like:
- letting the audience hang on to your every word (better have something wise to say)
- pausing for effect
-speaking slower conveyed the care paid to thoughts & communication, the deliberation, the prudence
- lends credibility rather than machine-gun rapid fire babbling
All in all, not just the delivery. Eye contact, non-verbal communication, body language ..... practice in front of mirror, or to a ready audience in a toastmaster club, or to like-minded colleagues & friends .....
Everybody can improve with desire & intention at any age seriously...
What if he said YES ?
It's better to point out to him that his statement was irrelevant at this point of time when we don't even have diversified views. If you were to comment on the quality of the decades of dull monotonous Parliament sessions, you would be accepting that this statement was immediately relevant. You would have accepted the relevancy, but not the quality.
Similar threads
