While taking a break from studying, I decided to watch the first 10 minutes of the forum. After listening to all 6 of them, these are my opinion on the 6 speakers and what it reflects on their respective parties.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (PAP)
 Firstly, he spent too much time on unimportant stuff. In such a debate, you have limited time to bring your points across and although he had double the time of each of the opposition speakers, there was not much on proposed policies. If this was an essay, I would say he spent too much time on the introduction paragraph and rushed on the main body.

The first point brought up was to create better jobs by working with the businesses and unions to provide better pay and improve the quality of work. There was a lot of unnecessary repetition on how this is for all Singaporeans, which includes the average and the lower end of jobs. I was left unsatisfied due to the lack of direction on how he intended to create these better jobs. Was he thinking of an incentives system for business? Was he thinking of legislative minimum salaries for different types of jobs?

The second point brought up was to create one of the best education systems in the world by financially investing in the education system so that students have the opportunities to be the best regardless of ability. Once again, besides suggesting to begin by investing financially, he does not bring up how he intends to do that. More streaming at different levels (like at primary 1?), or less streaming? More subjects to be introduced or cut? Different system of grading?

The last point brought up was investing in the elderly so that they can live long and good lives through investing significantly in long term care. This seemed the most promising of his points but was cut short by his lack of time.

Overall, he provided a moderate amount of what, an (at times) excessively redundant amount of why, and very lacking in how. If I were to grade him based on this 2 minutes, he would get a 13/30 for content, 8/10 for delivery, 4/5 for language and 1/5 for time management for a total score of 26/50, a "barely passed" score.

Mr Mohamed Nazem Suki (SDA)

My overall impression of him was that he had some good ideas, but due to problems in delivery, a lot of them is lost. Unlike Tharman Shanmugaratnam who has many such speaking opportunities before, this lack of experience speaking at such a platform resulted in a perceived lack of confidence and an incomplete transference of ideas.

His main point was that for Singapore to remain a credible competitor in the global market, Singapore has to invest in new niche markets. He proposed the use of new technology to compensate for the reducing supply of fossil fuels as a means for energy. Like Tharman Shanmugaratnam, he repeats himself several times, however, it is most likely due to nerves (whereas Tharman Shanmugaratnam was trying to emphasize that the proposed idea was to benefit all Singaporeans). There was a good development of idea, and I was for more satisfied with this point, than with any of Tharman Shanmugaratnam's three points.

His second point was to invest in (younger) workers to become more innovative, to "come up with more than one unique answer". While he roughly spent 20 seconds on this point, I was slightly surprised by the lack of development of this idea.

Overall, he had one good point and one very unsatisfactory point. Delivery was not very smooth and language was fair. If I were to grade him based on this minute, he would get a 16/30 for content, 4/10 for delivery, 2.5/5 for language and 2.5/5 for time management for a total score of 25/50, another "barely passed" score.

Dr Vincent Wijeysingha

With articles like "SDP emerged clear winner in CNA political forum", as well as friends saying that SDP was quite well represented in this forum, I had high expectations that was sadly not lived up to. He comes across as a good orator with a very good vocabulary and delivery, but severely lacking in substance.

He spends all the allocated time picking out some of the problems facing Singaporeans today, but only a vague shadow of an idea on how to tackle some of these problems. the only thing that I felt came close to being an idea, was when he mentioned the need for Singapore to have policies that were "Constructive, Competent but also Compassionate". It is either he mistakenly thought he had all the time in the world (as opposed to the 1 minute he actually had) and did not have enough time to bring up what were some of his ideas of constructive, competent but also compassionate policies, or he is all fluff and no substance. I really hope he brings his game for the rest of the forum.

If I were to grade him based on this minute, he would get a 4/30 for content, 9/10 for delivery, 5/5 for language and 2.5/5 for time management for a total score of 20.5/50.


Mrs Lina Chiam (SPP)
 
Completely opposite to Vincent Wijeysingha, she has so many points, but with a halting delivery with very poor transitions between points. With an astounding 10 points delivered in under a minute, Lina's strategy seemed to be on quantity and not quality, a strategy which does not pay off in such forums.
 
The points she brought up included providing SPP as an alternative voice which led to her next point on democracy, an inclusive society, promoting racial harmony, transparency in policy making, the physical safety of Singaporeans, Singaporeans to have a stake in their country, for Singaporeans to become more gracious, compassionate and humble, as well as the creation of jobs. However, she failed to elaborate on any of them, how she proposes to achieve these, or even what some of them mean (what does it mean for Singaporeans to have a stake in their country, or what is her definition of an inclusive society as definition can vary from people to people). She spent the longest (9 seconds) on the point to develop Singapore as a financial hub by attracting foreign investors through modern technology.
 
With regards to what she proposed, I felt that some of these were meaningless to bring up as they were relevant policies already in place, like promoting racial harmony, the physical safety of Singaporeans and for Singaporeans to become more gracious, compassionate and humble. Points such as the creation of jobs was redundant as that is something every government (should) already be constantly looking at. On the whole, I felt that Lina wasted the opportunity to let us know more about her (or SPP) fresh ideas on policy-making in Singapore.
 
If I were to grade her based on this minute, he would get a 9/30 for content, 4/10 for delivery, 2/5 for language and 3/5 for time management for a total score of 18/50.
 
Mr Gerald Giam (WP)
 
He may not be the most eloquent among the five speakers, or have the most captivating delivery, but Gerald has the most substantial content among all.
 
The first point he brought up was the need for an entrepreneurial and creative economy, and he further develops it by proposing reforming the education system to achieve this, particularly during the formative years, to cultivate a love for learning, as opposed to obtaining good grades. His subsequent two points were to provide affordable but quality health care and a needs based social security net.

His allocation of time was also much better than the other four speakers. I felt that there was a good balance of what needs to be introduced, why and how. The second and third point can be further developed but is understandable due to the overall time constraint. If I were to grade her based on this minute, he would get a 20/30 for content, 6/10 for delivery, 3/5 for language and 4/5 for time management for a total score of 33/50, not yet an A, but far better than the other four speakers in my books.