Dunman High Debate Invitational 2012

We would like to thank the following sponsor:

Executive Chairmen Mr Chua Beng Kuang

An Introduction The way for this inaugural competition was paved by the Dunman High Debating Team. It seeks to serve as a platform to stimulate secondary students to debate on affairs concerning History, Current Affairs and Literature. The theme for this year centres on ‘Superheroes’, an essential fragment of popular culture that youths of today will find familiar.

The traditional paradigm defines them as models of society to circumvent the limitations of the average legal force. It conjures up images of costumed-men climbing walls and performing other death-defying acrobatics, all in the name of fighting crime. Beyond this facade of crimefighting lie many ideals such as ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’. Drawing from these, motions have been crafted to revolve around these key themes, and we trust that all participants had a fun and intellectually stimulating time in this tournament.

Www.beyondmart.com

Edito

orial

Message from Dr. Foo Suan Fong Principal of Dunman High School It is with great pleasure that I welcome all of you to the Inaugural Dunman High School Debate Invitational.

As a former school debater, I am aware of the time, effort and commitment demanded of you as you work to excel as a speaker. I encourage you to make the most of your time during this competition, teaching each other and learning from each other.

Debating is a useful skill that will give you an edge when you enter into the various arenas of business, law, education and politics, to name but a few. It will give you confidence in voicing your opinions, an awareness of the geo-political situation, consciousness of how you present yourselves and an analytical skill that will help you become exceptional and the problemsolvers that the world sorely needs.

I thank my young Organising Committee who have worked very hard to make this event a reality and a resounding success, the teachers and coaches for their time and dedication and you, for devoting your energies to building yourselves and working for the future.

I wish all of you a fruitful and enriching debating experience with us.

Message from Mr. Adrian Tan Wei Tao Chief Adjudicator of Tournament It is a great privilege to serve as the Chief Adjudicator for this tournament. When I entered the debate scene about a decade ago, debating was a sport restricted largely to the realm of the elites of the elite. To see such a large number of schools turn up for the Inaugural Dunman High School Debate Invitational is immensely heartening.

Every educational institution seeks to imbue knowledge and the ability to question that knowledge in every one of her students. Every student is also expected to be convicted and brave enough to stand up for those convictions. A good debater is essentially the epitome of the desired balance of these qualities. He could examine the knowledge presented, synthesizes that with other bodies of knowledge, and evaluates critically the value of the knowledge presented. He could stand in front of a room full of strangers and argue his convictions cogently and charismatically as though he did that on a daily basis.

Based on what I have observed during the course of my duties as the Chief Adjudicator, I have no doubt that every single debater in this competition has the potential to be just that. It has been an enriching experience for me to watch young and able minds like you tackle the moral issues which have befuddled so many others. I hope the experience was as enriching for you as it was for me and that this tournament would be one of the many highlights as you eventually look back on your journey as a debater.

We hope you could join us again next year.

Message from Sarah Loh Yan Pin Tournament Director

Hi Everyone! It is of great honor to be the tournament director of this Inaugural Dunman High Debate Invitational 2012. The team has come quite far, from the thought of holding this tournament, to developing it, holding it, marking the end of it and finally thinking of how to improve it when it’d be held again next year! It is the first time most of us have undertaken the task of organizing such a large -scale event, and given our inexperience, we’ve had so much to learn along the way. I am immensely grateful to the very capable, motivated and supportive organizing committee consisting of the Senior High and Junior High Debate Executive Committee,

our beloved coach and chief adjudicator Mr. Adrian Tan as well as our deputy chief-adjudicator Mr. Nicholas Huang. I am also very thankful to the other adjudicators who volunteered, the press team, photographers, as well as the ushers, every single one of them played a part and without them, this event would not have been possible. Last but not least, the team and I express our gratitude to all our participants, their teachers-in-charge and coaches for believing in us and committing your time and effort for the tournament. I hope that all of you have enjoyed the tournament; we hope to see you again next year!

(from left) Natasha Sim, Sarah Loh

Message from Nicholas Huang

Message from Natasha Sim

Deputy Chief Adjudicator

Deputy Tournament Director

Organising this event involves coordination between different parties, including adjudicators, debaters from other schools and the debate EXCO of Dunman High. I also managed the tabulation team which power matched the teams based on ability and while maintaining parity. It means a lot to me personally to contribute to the grassroots level of debating within Dunman High school and also towards creating, establishing and maintaining the debate ecology in Singapore. I hope that this event will become an annual affair where the best and brightest to hone their skills on a platform which promotes intellectual discourse. I will count on the school’s symbolic, fiscal and logistical support to sustain this tournament for the years to come

I must say that it’s indeed an honour and privilege to be part of the organizing committee for the first ever Dunman High Debate Invitational.

Thank you for your support of this tournament, and with your continued support we believe that this tournament will grow from strength to strength in the coming years.

Events of the

Day

Day 1—a review of events

By Kristin Ng Wei Ting

The Inaugural Dunman High Debate Invitational was organized as a platform for teams around Singapore to come together to pit their oratorical skills against each other in a competitive tournament revolving around history, literature, and current affairs. The preliminary rounds were held on the 21st January, with the participation of 18 schools and 100 participants around Singapore debating motions pertaining to the theme of “Superheroes”. With one prepared motion, and another two short-prep rounds, the DHS Debate Invitational proved to be a challenging, yet enriching experience for both the participants and the organizers who coordinated the entire event.

A short speech and briefing by the Deputy Chief Adjudicator, Nicholas Huang, launched the entire competition. Teams were then ushered to classrooms to begin their first preliminary round regarding a motion on establishing a Jury system in Singapore. Teams brought up many insightful points, such as the need for more discourse among members of the jury in order for a fair verdict to be reached, as well as the fact the a Judge with a degree in law will be more qualified to conduct a just trial. The competition was

intense, with most teams winning by extremely small margins.

The next round was a short prep motion on imposing term limits on all heads of states. The proposition tended to favour arguing that term limits are necessary in order to check a leader’s power and prevent the establishment of dictatorial regimes. The opposition then retorted with how term limits hinders the functioning of true democracies by limiting voter options, as citizens can no longer vote for a particular leader once their term has expired.

The last motion was on the disclosure of identity on social networking websites.

Teams arguing for the motion pointed out how disclosure of identity is crucial for social interactions to occur, while those arguing against the motion mentioned how disclosure violates one’s privacy and allows social networking sites to misuse this information for commercial profit.

All in all, teams put up a good fight and debated with much conviction. However, only four teams emerged victorious, namely Methodist Girls School team A and B, Catho-

lic High school, as well as Raffles Institution team A, which will then proceed on to debate in the final round.

The DHS Debate Invitational proved to be an immensely enriching one for all. Teams reflected on how this tournament, by not completely separating schools according to their respective divisions, allowed sparring with a wide variety of teams. As such, it enables one to improve in terms of content, style as well as strategy. Also, teams were generally satisfied with the organisation of the competition, commenting on how the event was carried out smoothly on the whole. Additionally, the adjudicators thought that the competition was a beneficial one that will raise awareness of Debates of Dunman High School. Lastly, not forgetting the organizers of the event, most of which found the event a successful one on the whole, with the months of preparation being very much worthwhile. Hopefully, the 2nd day of the Debate Invitations will be an equally fruitful one for all.

Day 1—team progress (1st) SANJANA AYAGAN (MGS B) 220 POINTS

(2nd)

(3rd)

(4th)

LIM TZE ETSUKO CLARENCE CHEONG ANDREA CHONG (HCI) 219.5 POINTS (MGS A) 219 POINTS (NYGH) 218 POINTS

(5th) VIJAY RAMANUJAN (RI B) 217.5 POINTS

Team Names

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3

Catholic High School

W

W

W

Methodist Girls' School A

W

W

W

Methodist Girls' School B

W

W

W

Raffles Institution A

W

L

W

Hwa Chong Institution

L

W

W

Cedat Girls' Secondary School

L

W

W

CHIJ St. Nicholas Girls' School

W

L

W

Nan Hua High School

W

L

W

NUS High School

W

L

W

Nanyang Girls' High School United World College of South East Asia

W

W

L

W

W

L

L

W

L

Raffles Institution B

L

W

L

Temasek Academy

L

L

W

Victoria Junior College

W

L

L

Victoria School

L

W

L

Admiralty Secondary School

L

L

L

CHIJ St. Joseph's Convent

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

Bedok South Secondary School

Global Indian International School Zhenghua Secondary School

CHAMPIONS METHODIST GIRLS’ SCHOOL (TEAM A) 1st RUNNER UP RAFFLES INSTITUTION (TEAM A) SEMI-FINALIST METHODIST GIRLS’ SCHOOL (TEAM B) CATHOLIC HIGH

Day 2—a review of events

By Kristin Ng Wei Ting

Held one week after the preliminary rounds, the semifinals of the Dunman High Debate Invitational was fraught with tension, as teams fought to make it into the final round. Consisting of the 4 best teams from the previous round, namely RI Team A, MGS Team A and B, as well as Catholic High, the competition was intense.

The semifinals motion had a short-prep motion regarding allowing private firms to take over weapons manufacturing.

All the teams debated with much conviction, putting forth various points regarding how the government, possessing the mandate of the people, would be in a better position to look after weapons manufacturing. This is due to the fact that military defense is a key component of the government. Other teams argued on how private firms can effectively protect national security as they comprise of citizens who care about national defense in the country that they live in. Also, teams debated on how profit maximsing firms would want to produce the best weapons so as to gain the trust of the government, to which they eventually sell the weapons to. All in all, the semifinals showcased various schools pitting varying speaker styles and rapid fire arguments against each other in an extremely engaging debate that ended with two main teams

emerging victorious, namely MGS Team A and RI Team A. The grand finals of the Debate Invitational took place shortly after the semifinals.

The motion was on providing citizens the right to impeach their heads of state via referendum. Both teams put up a good fight, though they ran significantly different lines of argument. The proposition argued that citizens need to be given the right to take down their heads of state at any point of time, when the head of state does not act within the states’ best interest. They said that citizens need to be given direct access, and the means to express a vote of no confidence should there be a need to.

The opposition on the other hand, expressed concerns over the nature of the media, and how that could promote partisan politics and prompt citizens to call for referendums even when the situation does not warrant such a measure. Consequently, the adjudicators decided to rule in favour of the opposition, for they better understood the motion.

All in all, the Invitational has been a rather hectic, but fruitful experience for all. The winning teams expressed satisfaction at their favourable result, while the other teams were glad to take the competition as a form of experience

in their debating career, spurring them on towards attaining their next goal. As observers of the competition, we realised how all the teams at the semifinal and final rounds of the competition exhibited a genuine passion for debating, and demonstrated how excellent team dynamics could enable success. On the whole, the Dunman High Debate Invitational ended on a good note, and there was a common consensus that for an inaugural competition, the organizing committee put forth an extremely well planned programme.

Preliminary Rou

und 1

THW grant every Singaporean the right to be tried by a jury of his peers In Marvel Comics, The Jury can be summed up best as an organization of armoured vigilantes dedicated to hunting down villains and putting them on "trial". Mr. Orwell Taylor was the father of this group with the impetus being the killing of his son Hugh by Venom.

Winning Team: Opposition Victoria Junior College (IP) Best Speaker: Fabian Siau (Opposition 3rd Speaker)

Adjudicator: Yi Jin

By Sung Yu Xin During Opposition 2nd Speaker Speech, Opp 2 Bharat S Punjabi said: Jury trials are extremely lengthy, lasting up to months as compared to the few weeks of a normal trial with a single judge. When that happens, boths sides are made to pay more for court proceedings, and as such, the innocent pay a higher price for justice.

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech, Prop 3 Dafina said: Precisely because the trials are longer, more time is spent thinking through the decision, allowing for more thorough decision making.

Opp 3 (Best Speaker) Fabian Siau POI-ed: The judge submits a report of fifty to hundred pages along with his verdict, whereas the jury only passes a simple decision of guilty or not guilty without any reasoning.

During Opposition 3rd Speaker Speech, Opp 3 (Best Speaker) Fabian Siau said: Facts are facts, there is no “Indian way” or “Malay way” of looking at things.

Speaker

Prop:

Admiralty

First Second

Peren Jamey

Victoria Seow Bharat S Punjabi

Third

Dafina

Fabian Siau

Reply

Jamey

Victoria Seow

Prop: POLICY

Secondary Opp: Victoria Junior College (IP)

Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY

(1) Have a panel of jury to pass verdict on whether or (1) Stick to status quo – one judge to denot defendant is guilty, and then have a judge to decide whether or not the defendant is cide on his punishment guilty, and then have the same judge to determine his punishment (2) Jury consists of all walks of life - difference races Here’s a pretty accurate representation of the jury – people from all walks of life, being of various genders, skin colour, religion, and social background.

However, while a jury may be able to provide a wider range of perspectives on a case, are these perspectives necessarily as good, or even better than that of a judge?

(1) SUBJECTIVITY IN COURT In the debate, the proposition brought up a controversial point on how the increase in each individual’s knowledge in the current world, as compared to that of the time when Singapore abolished the jury, means that each individual is now more capable of passing fair judgment. This was the only argument from the proposition that actually pulled through more than one speaker, but was, however, poorly brought across. Despite the opposition pointing out that higher levels of education does not necessarily mean that the jurors would be able to apply the knowledge and that it would be near impossible for the jurors to be as professional as the judge, the debate continued to clash

on this area to a large extent, preventing the debate from progressing much.

(2) OBJECTIVITY IN COURT On the second area of clash, both sides of the house agreed that the main aim of the court was to give a fair and reasonable judgment, and whichever side managed to prove that their policy better achieved this would win the debate. However, the proposition believed that having a jury from all walks of life would allow for greater objectivity because any bias will be neutralized by the other eleven members of the jury. On the other hand, the opposition believed that the judge, who is professionally trained, would be better able to pass a fair judgment with his experience and relevant knowledge. In addition, the opposition also pointed out that the members of the jury, unlike the judge, are not professionally trained to be immune to the persuasive words of the lawyers on both sides, hence tending to be more easily swayed. As the third opposition speaker said, “there is a reason why some of us work as judges and some of us work in fast

food chains, how is one who works in a fast food chain expected to do the same job as a judge?” In this debate, the proposition questioned the professionalism of the judge while the opposition showed the incapability of the laymen, hence winning the opposition the debate eventually.

IN CONCLUSION Overall, the two teams seemed prepared, with many interesting points brought up as the debate progressed. However, both sides of the house were unable to engage well. There was never an onus set from either the proposition or the opposition.

As such, the debate did not progress much, with much clash on the minor details rather than the important points. In addition, many rebuttals seemed to be rather one-dimensional, brought up repeatedly without engaging what the other side of the house had mentioned. Had the aforementioned points been improved on, the debate would have been a much better one.

Preliminary Rou

und 2

THW impose term limits on all Heads of State With great power comes great responsibility (Spiderman)

Winning Team: Opposition Catholic High Best Speaker: Goh Han Yang (1st Opposition speaker)

Adjudicator: Wong Zheng Kai

By Zeng Jin

During Opposition 1st speaker speech Opp1 (Best Speaker) Goh Han Yang said: If people want a person, that person should be elected. This is democracy. We said the older politicians are good for the state since they are more experienced. But proposition thinks that new politicians are equally good too. Why do you even want to take the risk?

During Proposition 2nd speaker speech Prop 2 Victoria Seow said: Experienced people should remain in the parliament as mentors, and should not be directly involved in the decision making process.

During Opposition 3rd speaker speech Opp3 Sean Lee said: Elections and veto eliminate incompetent leaders, while the ones who are elected are those that the society wants.

Speaker Position

Prop: Victoria Junior College (IP)

Opp: Catholic High

First Second

Lim Kai Zhi Fabian Siau

Goh Han Yang Osel Pan

Third

Victoria Seow

Reply

Lim Kai Zhi

Sean Lee Goh Han Yang

Prop: POLICY (1) The number of terms a head of state is to be determined by the respective countries (2) Minister mentors or any other similar posts are not heads of state (3) Instead of assuming power for indefinite number of terms, the head of state can retire as minister mentors to continue shaping politics within the nation Term limits originated in ancient Greece, where in the beginning of the 6th century B.C. , many Athenian officials were elected solely by random lottery but permitted to serve only a year. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were among those who considered term limits an important way to check individual power. All the trends have shown us that imposing term limits is the right thing to do. However, is that really so? Should the house impose term limits on all Heads of State?

(1) ELECTION & NEW TALENTS

The proposition started off the debate by explaining the repercussions of a leader who stays in power for an indefinite number of years. They also pointed out how term limits hinder the formation of a new talent pool within the parliament. However, opposition proved how the proposition’s argument cannot stand because elections make the formation of new talent pool possible as confident politicians will still enter the sphere.

This point, however, was not challenged by the proposition, which failed to provide sufficient logic links to make their previous argument stand. The weak logic links demonstrated by the proposition between election and the rallying of new talent that it brings about also contributed to their eventual loss to the opposition.

Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY (1) Elections are sufficient to serve as a check and balance for the heads of state.

(2) AFFECTING DEMOCRACY

The opposition also successfully put across the point that term limits undermine democracy, since leaders who have the potential to be elected could no longer serve the populace. The proposition attempted to counter this argument by stating an irrelevant point: term limits is in fact helpful during elections as it narrows down citizens’ choices, hence allowing for better considerations when electing a leader. This attempt was apparently futile as the proposition failed to attack on the principle level of democracy. Such a failure ultimately allowed the opposition to win the debate.

(3) DISINCENTIVE TO POLITICIANS

Another clash raised by the house includes whether term limits would become a disincentive to the Heads of State and whether the quality of leaders will decline as a result. The opposition argued that term limit is a disincentive to the politicians. This is because if term limits are imposed, the politicians could no longer stay in the political scene regardless of how hard they work. As a result, instead of working hard, the politicians might just choose to “slack off”, as mentioned by the second opposition speaker Pan. Therefore, according to the opposition, if no term limits are imposed, politicians will continue to be motivated to work harder, hence benefit the

society. The proposition, on the other hand, argued that if politicians were allowed to stay for an infinite number of years, they might become complacent, hence not able to focus fully on the people of the country. The aforementioned points raised by the houses are all valid. However, instead of challenging each other on the principle level, both houses fell into the cycle of rehashing their previous arguments, lowering the argumentative quality of this debate.

IN CONCLUSION

All in all, the opposition won the debate due to the failure of proposition to effectively challenge their points. The adjudicator was disappointed by the ‘touch-and-go’ substantives and rebuttals, and thought that the development of arguments could be improved upon. In my opinion, this debate would have been more engaging if the proposition had explained how the absence of a term limit would undermine the principle of democracy. This is because the tremendous electoral advantages enjoyed by incumbents make it difficult to argue that the elections they win are truly democratic, and term limits would be more likely to expand the field of candidates than to restrict it.

Preliminary Rou

und 3

Š Sam68 (DeviantArt)

THW mandate the full disclosure of identity on social networking sites Batman is a superhero who leads a double life. He is known as Bruce Wayne by day, millionaire (later billionaire), playboy, and philanthropist and Batman by night. Despite not possessing any superpowers, he is able to achieve justice through intellect, wealth, physical prowess and martial arts skills. However, his war on crime comes at a cost – he cannot reveal his true identity as Bruce Wayne. Hence he does not disclose who he is, except to his closest aides and friends. This motion questions the intentional act of not revealing who you are, in social networking sites.

Winning Team: Proposition Methodist Girls’ School (Team B)

Best Speaker: Sanjana Ayagan (Proposition 3rd Speaker)

Adjudicator: Jeremiah Tan

By Teo Ning Zhi Angelyn

During Proposition 1st Speaker Speech, Prop 1 Rachel Ang said: The social networking site will then check whether the information provided is accurate.

Opp 2 Vijay Ramenujan POI: How is a company based in California going to check whether your details are true or false?

During Opposition 2nd Speaker Speech, Opp 2 Vijay Ramenujan said: On the full disclosure of identity, what this motion actually means is that all of these details are actually given to everyone, everywhere. This directly tackles their side’s case on only giving these details to social networking sites in the first place.

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech, Prop 3 (Best Speaker) Sanjana Ayagan said: Addresses are not integral to an individual’s identity. An individual is who he is and not where he lives. It is about how old he is and which group of society he is from – teenagers, working adults or senior citizens.

Speaker Position First

Prop: Methodist Girls’ School Opp: Raffles Institution (Team B) (Team B) Rachel Ang Noh Sze Perng

Second

Michelle Lim

Vijay Ramenujan

Third

Sanjana Ayagan

Abdul Lateef

Reply

Rachel Ang

Vijay Ramenujan

Prop: POLICY

Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY

(1) When you create an account, you have to provide (1) People allowed to reveal any inforyour name, age, gender and NRIC mation to whomever they choose (2) Social networking sites will check whether the infor- (2) All forms of expression are allowed mation provided is accurate (3) If it is not, individual will not be allowed to create an account (4) Stick to existing age restrictions Identity— it’s something so innate and personal that we often take it for granted. But what happens when identity is no longer what it seems to be? In today’s context, one can no longer expect to be blessed with the privilege of attaining full disclosure of identity — needless to say on social networking sites. Hence this begs the question—to choose the option of going public or to retain privacy?

(1) BENEFITS TO SOCIETY On the first area of clash, proposition felt that by taking away anonymity, they are the ones who encourage true discourse as you can only establish a real relationship with an individual when you know who they are.

Side opposition argued that their side promoted an active and reasoned debate by allowing views to come out in the open as anonymity gives people a sense of confidence. Side opposition also argued against proposition’s policy, saying that

the only way they protected people’s welfare is by relying on social networking sites (profitmaking companies) to verify details. This indicates that their policy will fail and the vulnerable will not be protected since people are already making fake accounts.

(2) RIGHT TO PRIVACY On the second area of clash, opposition said that their side better protected people’s rights to privacy by allowing them to choose what they want to withhold and what they want to disclose, something which the state cannot infringe on. On the other side, proposition said that basic information like name, age and gender is not considered private information and hence there is no such concept as the right to privacy in this debate. In the end, the point went to proposition as they had set the scope of the debate such that identity is defined as information such as name, age and gender.

IN CONCLUSION It was a well-fought debate, with the proposition winning the debate by a narrow margin. The opposition managed to weaken side proposition’s policy by mentioning that “full disclosure” refers to everyone and not just social networking sites only. However, the point came out too late and it is not fair for it to come out only in the second opposition speaker as only the third proposition speaker can defend their case.

Overall, it was a quality debate as there was engagement between both sides and both teams put up a commendable fight defending their stances.

However, this debate could be improved if the depth of issues explored could have gone further and the scope of the debate expanded to beyond Facebook as the only social networking site as well as other problems that stem from anonymity, for example, cyber bullying.

Semi-F

Final

THBT weapons manufacturing and development should not be outsourced to private contractors Iron Man possesses powered armour that gives him superhuman strength and durability, flight, and an array of weapons. The armour is invented and worn by Tony Stark. At his parents’ untimely death he inherited the company Stark Industries and turned it into a billion-dollar industry building weapons for the US government.

Winning Team: Proposition Raffles Institution (Team A) Best Speaker:

Chong Ee Hsiun (Proposition 3rd Speaker)

By Tyne Lam & Teo Ning Zhi Angelyn

During Opposition 2nd Speaker Speech, Opp 2 Michelle Lim said: Companies have a contract to society and we believe that they would uphold this at all costs.

Prop 1 Hari Kope POI: Why should companies care for society when they do not have any duty towards it at all?

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech, Prop 3 (Best Speaker) Chong Ee Hsiun said: Opposition 2nd speaker said that somehow, companies have a duty to country and that they will not sell weapons to North Korea simply because they oppose their ideology. This is an inherent contradiction. If companies are profit-driven, who cares about ideology?

During Opposition 3rd Speaker Speech, Opp 3 Sanjana Ayagan said: Their ultimate goal may be profits, but there is a limit to that. Companies will not be so obsessed with money such that they will turn criminal.

Adjudicators: Adrian Tan, Nicholas Huang and Wong Zheng Kai

Speaker Position

Prop: Raffles Institution (Team A)

Opp: Methodist Girls’ School (Team B)

First Second Third Reply

Hari Kope Joel Nee Chong Ee Hsiun Hari Kope

Rachel Ang Michelle Lim Sanjana Ayagan Rachel Ang

Prop: POLICY

Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY

(1) Ministry of Defence open new wing under department (1) Maintain status quo with stringent of defence, focus on manufacturing and development measures in tackling the problem of the of weapons leakage of the company as well as to up(2) This new wing will be regularly checked on by the head hold the quality of products of state, judiciary and department of defence (3) Government can still sell arms but this decision will be made by the government.

Currently, weapons manufacturing and development are outsourced to private contractors. .

Questions arose regarding the main drive of private contractors – profits or the loyalty of clients?

Who then best has the country’s benefits in mind and who best ensures economic benefits?

(1) WHO BEST PROTECTS NATIONAL SECURITY Proposition first stated that private contractors are profit driven and will do anything that is required to achieve this. With this as the fundamental basis for the debate, both sides went on to prove their point. Side Proposition argued that based on this, they will have no qualms about selling to rouge nations like Iran or North Korea. This then compromises on national security and hence, weapons manufacturing and development should not be outsourced to them. They proposed that the government be in charge of this operation instead of private companies as the government does not operate with the goal of monetary profits. Side opposition on the other hand, felt that such extreme measures to

go around measures in place just for profit was highly unlikely on the part of private contractors.

They felt that the status quo, whereby stringent checks are put in place to serve as a disincentive for companies, is sufficient in protecting national security and sovereignty. Ultimately, side proposition dissected the whole manufacturing concept of weaponry clearly – that they have the need to widen their client base and will do what is needed for profits.

(2) WHO BEST BENEFITS THE ECONOMY This point was first brought up by side opposition. They stated that by allowing multiple private contractors to exist with the business provided by the government, they are benefiting the recovering economy as they provide job opportunities for the people instead of condensing the whole weaponry enterprise to be under one sole government wing, which would damage the economy as they are removing an entire industry. Their policy, on the other hand, would create more jobs for a recovering economy.

Proposition attacked opposition’s claim by saying that weapons manufacturing spans across nations – by outsourcing weapons manufacturing to private contractors, jobs are not necessarily created in that particular country.

Therefore, due to the fact that it is a transnational industry, it might not necessarily benefit the country’s economy. Instead, having one sole industry in the country itself provides not only jobs, but also job security as it is under a government entity. On the other hand, by manufacturing the weapons themselves, the government could offer job security and more jobs to citizens.

IN CONCLUSION In the end, the debate went to side proposition. All in all, both teams put up an impressive fight defending their stances. Side proposition won this debate with a proper dissection of the process of motivation for companies as well as strong levels of analysis throughout the debate.

Winning Team: Proposition Methodist Girls’ School (Team A)

Best Speaker:

Anmol Kaur Gill (3rd Proposition Speaker)

By Sim Yi Jie & Regina Ng

During Opposition

1st

Speaker Speech,

Opp 1 Jerrold Lam said: I would firstly like to point out what the Proposition has missed. The motion reads ‘THBT Weapons Manufacturing & Development Should Not Be Outsourced to Private Contractors.’. They apparently missed out the word ‘development’.

During Opposition 2nd Speaker Speech, Opp 2 Goh Han Yang said: We told you ‘What secrets?’, we said that even if these were secrets, these are non-sensitive secrets. If I reveal that the country is facing climate change, how is that going to impact the country? I challenge the next speaker to come up and tell us.

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech, Prop 3 (Best Speaker) Anmol Kaur Gill said: We see a principle concession from Side Opposition when they tell you that they want governmental control but they just want to sub-contract to other companies at the same time. We see that they agree principally that they want the government to have full control over it.

Adjudicators: Jeremiah Tan, He Shu Jun, and See Kurt Wei

S p e a k e r Prop: Methodist Girls’ School Opp: Catholic High School (Team A) Position (Team A) First Annette Yeo Jerrold Lam Second Andrea Chong Goh Han Yang Third Anmol Kaur Gill Sean Lee Reply Andrea Chong Goh Han Yang Prop: POLICY Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY (1) Weapons manufacturing done by companies fully (1) Status quo: outsourcing to private concontrolled by government. tractors.

(2) Government will be involved in the entire process (2) Private contractors can be sued by the and have a say in every step of the way. government if they were to divulge state secrets regarding weapons technology The interesting reality of outsourcing the responsibility of weapon technology has been played out in movies before, such as in the recent ‘Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows’.

Set in the late 1890s, the villain Professor Moriarty controls a large portion of the weapon manufacturing industry and schemes to ignite the tensions already present amongst the European countries such that while a war rages amongst them, he will reap vast profits from the sale of these weaponry.

This begs the following questions: better weapons or national security? Would there necessarily be better weapons with private companies or a leakage of secrets with private contractors?

With these questions in mind, the debate boiled down to three main areas of clash: (1) WEAPON TECHNOLOGY AS SECRETS Side Proposition stated that weapon technology were important military secrets. If this responsibility was given to private companies who were profit -driven, these secrets will be at

stake should they decide to sell these to the next highest bidder. However, Opposition begged to differ, arguing that these were non-sensitive secrets and would not harm the country even if they were disclosed. As side proposition prioritised the safety of the nation, this point went to them.

(2) RELIABILITY OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS Opposition claimed that laws are present to bind these contractors from information leakage, and that contractors would have a greater incentive to keep state secrets in order to earn more money from governments in the long run. They also argued that governmentcontrolled companies could leak state secrets too. To this end, Proposition suggested that even if the government sues these contractors, the damage would have already been done and it would be too late. Opposition’s reply to this was that in order to safeguard this, manpower would have been set in place to protect these secrets.

As the proposition managed to prove that prevention is better than damage control, this point went to them as well.

(3) ABILITY OF GOVERNMENT Opposition also argued that the existence of private companies highlights that governments are inefficient in handling weapon manufacturing and development as they need to focus on more important aspects of the country. Proposition’s rebuttal to this was that they saw national security and the benefit of people as of utmost importance compared to building bigger and better weapons. As side opposition did not manage to prove that the government lacked the ability to handle weapons manufacturing and development, this point went to the proposition.

IN CONCLUSION To conclude, this exciting debate went to Side Proposition by a narrow margin. The judges had felt that though both sides did not clearly define WHO the enemy was in this debate, Proposition’s overarching principle of national security worked better in line with the motion while Opposition lacked some in justification of some ideas introduced. Overall, it was an exciting debate.

F

Finals

THW let citizens impeach their Heads of State via referendum In DC Comics, The Watchmen were a group of (flawed) ‘superhero’ crime fighters working as allies to the US government. It is set in an alternate reality where President Richard Nixon was never impeached as his deeds were never discovered, and he continued to be the Head of State during the period in which the Watchmen’s events happened.

Winning Team:

Opposition Methodist Girls’ School (Team A)

Best Speaker:

By Sung Yu Xin & Ong Zi Shan

During Opposition 1st Speaker Speech, Opp 1 Annette Yeo said: The media today is essentially toxic and only spills conservative ideas. People live in echo chambers where they believe what they want to believe and not what makes more logical sense.

During Proposition 2nd Speaker Speech, Prop 2 Joel Nee said: There are many sources of media these days, they serve to offer a wide range of viewpoints rather than a toxic view.

Opp 3 Anmol Kaur Gill POI: Then why is it that there are people who still think that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Prince?

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech, Opp 3 (Best Speaker) Chong Ee Hsiun said: It is simply impossible for any president to get the full support of the people. This is an inherent facet of democracy, so why is the opposition rebelling against this point? Are they going to set up a personality cult for the President, like Kim Jong Il? Evidently not, and even if they do, we tell them that they are crazy.

Chong Ee Hsiun (Proposition 3rd Speaker)

Adjudicators: Adrian Tan Wei Tao, Nicholas Huang, See Kurt Wei, Jeremiah Tan, Natasha Sim, He Shu Jun, Wong Zheng Kai

Speaker Position

Prop: Raffles Institution (Team A)

Opp: Methodist Girls’ School (Team A)

First Second Third Reply

Hari Kope Joel Nee Chong Ee Hsiun Hari Kope

Annette Yeo Andrea Chong Anmol Kaur Gill Andrea Chong

Prop: POLICY Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY (1) An individual will be responsible to submit documents stat- 1) Status Quo — Guilt of Head of State to be ing the crimes that the Head of State had committed decided by legislature.

(2) The country will vote on whether or not to impeach the Head of State (3) Minimum 1% of the country to vote for impeachment in order for it to happen (4) Abstinence will be a choice in voting In 2007, Romania’s President Traian Basecu was not impeached due to referendum by the public.

Still, political insiders stated that Basescu had "won a victory without glory," because turnout had been relatively low. Is referendum really fair and practical? Can this kind of rights be given to the people? That is for the proposition to prove and for us to find out.

(1) IS IMPEACHMENT REALLY NECESSARY, i.e. IS THE CURRENT PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM INADEQUATE? On this area of clash, the proposition gave a detailed analysis on why the current status quo, i.e. the parliamentary representation was inadequate and insufficient to uphold the justice of the people. They explained that legislation often fails to be a good check-andbalance to the head-of-state due to partisan politics and party domination and how the affiliation between the Judiciary, Legislation and the Executive (the head-of-state) would impede justice during parliament voting. In response to this point made, the opposition claimed that the members of parliament will be able to stay impartial as they are concerned with the welfare of their party and the people. As compared to the in-depth analysis of the proposition, the response of opposition lacks depth and further justification and thus can only be accepted as an assumption on the side of

the opposition. Therefore, this point of clash went to side proposition.

(2) WHETHER CITIZENS HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS On this point, the proposition believed that normal citizens would have the intellectual capacity to make informed and rational decisions on whether the head-of-state should be impeached. However, the opposition stood firm on their stand that as the media today is partisan and toxic, normal citizens are susceptible to the influence of biased and inaccurate information, especially due the Echo Chamber Effect and thus they should not be accorded the right of impeach the head-of-state. The opposition firmly claimed that the current status quo of the parliamentary system is not flawed. In response to the opposition’s argument, the proposition rebutted that if the opposition asserts that people are unable to make rational decisions, then elections would not even be possible.

The opposition then responded that the proposition was confused between elections and impeachment, which was two fundamentally different concepts. The opposition clearly explained that the elections is for the people to vote for

candidates whom they feel can best serve their needs, while an impeachment is an outright determination of guilt in the head-ofstate. The opposition demonstrated a more consistent and clear understanding of the concept of impeachment as discussed in this debate and thus won the point in this clash.

IN CONCLUSION Overall, the two teams put up a commendable fight defending their stances and it was a close fight between both teams. However, this debate eventually went to the opposition, who demonstrated consistency and clarity in their understanding of the concepts of impeachment and election, as compared to proposition who failed to give a clear definition of impeachment right at the beginning and consequentially blurred the distinction between election and impeachment at certain junctures of the debate. On a side note, an area of improvement for side opposition would be giving more in-depth justifications and explanation of links for their rebuttals. To conclude, it was a highly engaging debate that brought the Inaugural Dunman High Debate Invitational to a satisfying end.

V

Voices

Through The Eyes Of An ADJUDICATOR

By Tyne Lam Yan Ting

“My life would be very different without debate”

During the debate invitational, I got to meet Jeremiah Tan. He was an adjudicator for the event. However, his achievements extend further beyond that.

Jeremiah’s experience as a coach spans 11 years, at both the secondary and tertiary level – namely at Saint Patrick’s Secondary School, River Valley High School, Nan Hua High School and National Junior College.

Among these schools, River Valley clinched 1st and 2nd runner up for Julia Gabriel’s Debate Competition (B Division) in 2002 and 2003 respectively.

Also, Saint Patrick’s Secondary School earned the title of 2nd runner up for Singapore Secondary School’s Debating Competition for both the years of 2005 and 2006. Collectively, Jeremiah has coached 18 debaters ranked within Top 20 Individual Speaker Ranking in JGDC and SSSDC over 9 years.

Having met him, I personally feel that he is an extremely experienced debater and coach. He has an uncanny ability to analyze any miniscule move that either team made – something that I would have otherwise never picked up on. For the duration of the day, I felt like there was this voice of wisdom that was constantly feeding me information of each

“Debating I think is the most important skill that anyone could actually pick up” debate, breaking down each team’s flaws and strengths.

Also, it was a very interesting experience to watch Jeremiah adjudicate. From the way he takes down notes, to the way he scores and analyzes their moves – it was all very intriguing. The way he gave his debrief, both general and for individual teams, were extremely helpful as well and it was the way he phrased his words in such a succinct manner that caught my attention. His experienced allowed him to point out the major flaws in the debate and pinpoint the team’s area of improvement. The fact that he laid the hard truth down for the teams for the fake of their improvement was very commendable. It truly is the only way to learn.

Through him and the interview, I have learnt to appreciate the importance of engagement in each debate and that it is more than just the delivery of

a speech. Currently, I have much to improve in my content and rebuttals. However, after watching the debates that were going on during the Invitational, I have a better idea of how to engage the other team and how to elaborate on rebuttals. For the debates that I was lucky enough to sit in for, some of the teams were extremely strong with very eloquent debaters.

In all, this debate invitational allowed me a chance to learn not only from the debaters themselves, but from my seniors and adjudicators as well. I have learnt what a debate guidebook can never offer to me and I can safely and surely say that after the event, I am a better debater. It was definitely not an experience that I would have been able to gain through a normal day at debate training – it was definitely a day well spent.

JE

1. In what ways do yo bating and coaching affected your view as

I don’t think it’s possible cator without ever expe at least and even if on background, it gives you in how cases are set up higher level of apprecia debaters themselves are judicator you would be s just reading out speec you have been a coa would know what they a selves, what they’re cap how much of it is just ba coach gave them.

2. How different do yo would be without deba

I think my life would be v out debates. I’m in law that was definitely a dec fected by being in deba such, what I would be pu be different.

3. Do you think it is m be the one delivering to be the one judging

To be fair, once you have age you don’t like to be the debate – not that I’m liver anymore. It’s fun t tion being carried on and those who are younger up. So right now I’m e one to judge it though I go on the floor again.

An Interview with

EREMIAH TAN

ou think that dein the past has an adjudicator?

4. What do you hope to see in every debate that you adjudicate?

ou think your life ate?

I believe that the growth of a debater is extremely important. It’s not just about performing a speech and hoping for the win – though that is actually a large part of debating. I feel that what I really want to see in every debate is debaters truly wishing to engage the concept of debating – which is to respect the tradition of debating. I want to see them fighting with passion but at the same time enjoying it, rather than only focusing on the win and looking as if they are really upset and angry, even in the middle of the debate – though of course it is natural to be upset if they have lost. Ideally I would hope that in every debate that I adjudicate I hope to see the debaters learning in the middle of their speeches and that they are improving their skills.

very different withw school now and cision that was afate in the past. As ursuing now would

5. As an adjudicator, what do you think is the most important thing whilst judging a debate?

e to be an adjudieriencing debating ne has a coaching u more perspective and it gives you a ation of what the e doing. As an adseeing them as not ches, especially if ach before -- you are doing for thempable of doing and ased on what their

more enjoyable to g the debate, or it?

e passed a certain the one delivering m saying I cant deo watch the tradid to give advice to and are picking it enjoying being the I won’t hesitate to

While judging a debate, I think that it is very important to look at how far both teams are willing to engage. I think that is one of the key criteria of debating though with the system that is in place in Singapore, in the lower divisions it is not easy to see this engagement and often it is more like speech making in competitions. As an adjudicator, I think that the most important thing is for a team to be willing to step away from their baseline and a very basic argument to engage the other side.

Engagement is what I think to be the most important part of debating.

6. Do you think that the skills you have obtained from debating and coaching over the years has helped you in certain aspects of your life?

Yes definitely. I worked as a schoolteacher for a year, so my experience as a coach definitely helped me. Debating I think is the most important skill that anyone could actually pick up. It helps you a lot with the way you organize your thoughts – and this applies in essay writing, writing reports and many things that life would require of you. I believe that as a debater you would definitely be more well read, and know much more about the world and current affairs. In terms of skill sets, being outspoken, it helps a lot in interviews as well.

7. Do you think that being a debater has allowed you to be empathetic to the team that has lost the debate?

I think there is always a part of anyone to be empathetic toward the loser. Being a debater though, especially since I’ve been a coach as well, I think empathy is one thing, but most of the time I tend to analyze why they’ve lost. I want the team to look towards improvement, rather than anything else. And if this empathy is just feeling sorry for them, then no, I don’t think that that should be the point. I feel sorry for them if I know that they have put in their best effort – maybe for things like the finals, you see teams that really put in their best and they still can’t win, then definitely I could empathize with them.

However, if its just a normal debate, then I feel that the losing team has to learn from it and it shouldn’t be about feeling empathetic or anything else.

8. Do you still remember the first debate you have adjudicated for?

Yes, vaguely remember it. It has been quite a few years back. It’s very hard. It still is – to decide on points. This is largely due to the nature of debates as well. Style and content can be really greatly intertwined.

Sometimes it is really difficult to give points to both sides. Though it is quite hard when speakers speak too fast, to try to write down everything they say. It’s one thing when you are a debater and you just have to write a rebuttal to one speaker – it’s another thing when you have to write judgment for the entire debate and you have you give the debrief. I think for the first debate I gave I was really nervous, but I think I’ve gotten over it by now.

9. As an adjudicator, are you more likely to be impressed by style or content?

I think it’s not exactly something you can separate entirely. Especially the way that debate has changed for the past few years, some schools have become much more impressive style-wise and unfortunately, some schools have really good content that was written by the coach and delivery sometimes gets lost by the debaters themselves. They may not understand what exactly they are saying and this really shows when they receive Point of Information (POIs) or they are unable to reply.

So I would say that content is more important than style alone. Of course, every coach knows that after your team has style you should focus on content. But maybe some of the weaker teams right now believe that style is more important.

10. Do you think that quotes make a speech more memorable? Is there any one speech that has left a strong impression on you because of a quote?

Yeah, I think that’s definite. But whether the quote is one that is funny or not would have a stronger impression. In the middle of the debate where it is getting a little stuffy or a little heated, having one side that comes up with a quote that’s quirky

would probably lighten the entire mood and leave a very strong impression on the adjudicator. Yes, there was one particular debate about homegrown athletes and one debater actually said “would you rather get an Olympic medal and when you turn it around, at the back of it – stamped on it “made in China””. That was quite a funny joke to me.

11. As an adjudicator, what is one the most fundamental thing that you think any team should take note in a debate?

They should take note to enjoy themselves and try to learn from the process and not just focus on getting heated up and trying to win because most of the time, that might actually backfire. Also they should take note of etiquette. I think it is very important to maintain proper etiquette in a debate and never lose your temper or be rude in a debate.

12. What is one vital flaw in a debate that you will not tolerate?

I will not tolerate my debaters showing themselves to be unsportsmanlike. At the end of day, the other team is just doing their best as well and there is no point in hating them for any other reason or to treat them rudely. I always tell my team is any team is doing it to you; the best thing to do is to ignore what they are doing and be extremely polite to them in return.

13. What is the difference you have found in coaching both the secondary (River Valley, Saint Patrick’s, Nan Hua) and tertiary level (NJC) ?

I would say that there are many differences in coaching different schools. In River Valley, it is a school that I constantly taught at for many years and considering how long I’ve had with my debaters, some of them I’ve had from secondary 1 to secondary 4. Some of my debaters, by the time they hit secondary 4, their skills are really good. I still remember a couple of them that I am still in touch with. I remem-

ber this girl, by th ary 3; she got th sion. The length debater really m in secondary sc that did help. At depends on the College, not ma formed. In the f the team did n background, so pare them for no bate, but also them from scra that the tertiary lenging. It may b have only coach to move to the t honest, you reali bating do apply f

14. Do you thin determining fa bate? Or do ence/skill is no

I don’t think that factor in a qualit fact that in the thing that was end of three mo competitions to pends on how m the interim. Age factor, definitely schools where trained and perh debates, and g with friendly de the time. By the 2 – the under that you see mig debaters even a of course that w dent that did not

And precisely b thing that is so u prove your min when you are rea

he time she was in secondhe top speaker in the B diviof time you have to mold a makes a lot of difference so chools that was something t the tertiary level, it really e school. In National Junior any debaters were actually first place, around half of not have much debating it was challenging to preot only a higher level of dethat I would be teaching atch. I would definitely say y level is much more chalbe frightening for some who hed at the secondary level tertiary level but to be very ize that the skills set in defor both levels.

nk that one’s age is the actor in a quality deyou think that experiot dependent on age?

t age is such a determining ty debate. Especially for the e past, debate was somedone seasonally -- by the onths, there was not many o go for after that. It demuch training you’ve had in e isn’t really determining not. You would see certain the students are well haps, are exposed to mock go against other schools, ebates and invitational all time they are at secondary youth 14, some debaters ght actually be better than at the tertiary level. Though would be a tertiary level stut have much training at all.

because debate is someuseful -- it trains you to imnd and this applies even ally young.

Opinions & Perspectives

By Tan Wye Inn

Extracts of general insights from various schools

Zhenghua Secondary School

Raffles Institution

Victoria Junior College

Even though we were one of the few division 3 teams and lost by quite a big margin, it was nevertheless an enriching and learning experience. When you are competing against stronger teams, only then do you realise what you are truly lacking.

(Team B) As the four of us are in Secondary Two, this is one of our first few competitions representing the school and it was a great exposure for us. The whole tournament has been a very good learning experience for us, especially for the younger members of the team.

Today’s debate was insightful for us. And it’s quite unique and interesting to tie in with the theme of superheroes for the motions. This is actually the first time that we see a school doing this. While debating with other schools, we saw a spectrum of personalities and styles which we can apply in our debating, pretty educational.

Bedok South Secondary

Catholic High School

As we belong to division 3, debating with other schools in this tournament gives us a real idea of how the division 1 schools are like. It really opens our eyes to higher standards of debating.

We learn a lot in terms of content (new terms) and structure. We quarrel a lot but we cast out our problems and reason them out.

We have come a long way, but we still have a long way.

United World College (SEA) We debated with other schools in the two rounds, and they raised many good points which we can learn. There was good organization and structure in today’s tournament. Many people (ushers) provided us with a lot of help. As we’ve only prepared on one side (prop/opp), we get to hear arguments from the opponent which we know can be used next time.

CHIJ St. Nicholas

Methodist Girls’ School

Today’s debate was rather enriching, where we learnt about political issues etc.. When we first saw the theme of the competition, it was quite unexpected as we do not really see this in other competitions. We weren’t sure what kind of motions would come out. We enjoyed the organization of today’s debate. This school has put in the most money into a debate competition that we’ve ever seen.

We learn to be more resilient in face of different circumstances along the way, we just have to adapt. Even though we had disagreements, we learnt how to work together and contribute to better the case. At the end of the day, we’ll have to accept the result regardless of whether we have won or not.

It was quite fun, because we get to meet schools from different divisions. It was generally a good competition and learning experience. You get to know how other teams are faring and learn how to improve your weak points. It was slightly challenging to deal with the motions that we were not very familiarised with.

Nanyang Girls’ School It was quite enriching because I can identify the areas of improvement. Sparring with teams from other schools has enabled me to learn in terms of content, style as well as strategies. And of course, in face of strong teams such as RI, we learnt not to be intimidated by opponents and continue to be confident.

Global Indian International College This debate tournament has been a good learning experience for us.

It has been a platform for us to see, identify and rectify our mistakes. Usually, we are restricted to our own styles and ways of debating. In this competition, we see debaters from all over the country with their own styles and points. It was worthwhile preparing for this debate for one reason that we got to collect and read about a lot of information that we never knew and analyse some perspectives and principles on which the world works. Apart from the fact that we lost, I say that it has rather been our win to widen our thought process. To us, it is a major valuable experience.

Organising Committee We would like to

VIDEOGRAPHER Tan Wye Inn Ng Wei Ting Krist

PHOTOGRAPHY Liew Guan Ke Liao Ming Hui Liu Hao Yi

VIDEO EDITOR Samantha Siau J

AUDIO & VISUA Choo Hin Wing Yong Jun An The people who worked together to bring you this event.

TOURNAMENT ADVISORS Adrian Tan: Chief Adjudicator Nicholas Huang: Deputy Chief Adjudicator SENIOR HIGH DEBATE EXCO Sarah Loh: Tournament Director Natasha Sim: Deputy Tournament Director Clara Lim: Director of Communications and Liaisons Daniel Tay: Head of Event Management and Logistics Tan Yen Lin: Head of Publicity and Special Programmes JUNIOR HIGH DEBATE EXCO Sharon Li Xin Rui Tan Ying Ying Sonia Ong Wei Shan Ebelle Ho Ding Heng TEACHERS IN CHARGE Mr. Martin Chew, Ms. Cecilia Vaz

We would also lik

Special thanks to

thank the Special Programmes and Press Team for their contribution to the event.

R & INTERVIEWER

tin

Y CLUB

Jing Wen

AL ASSISTANTS

MAGAZINE EDITORS Tan Yen Lin (Chief Editor/Design IC) Ng Wei Ting Kristin (Deputy Editor) PUBLICATIONS DESIGN COMITTEE Cher Pei Sze (Deputy Design IC) Fena Lee Ming Qin (Coverpage Artist) Website: http://pheeena.co.cc Isabella Lee Yu Hua Liao Qing Yang Li Fan Xiang Wan Shu Hui Chan Kwan Hao

MOTION TRACKERS & JOURNALISTS Sim Yi Jie Lam Yan Ting Tyne Ng Si En Regina Ong Zi Shan Teo Nig Zhi Angelyn Sung Yu Xin Zeng Jin

ke to thank all ushers who helped out in the tournament.

o Principal Dr. Foo, Vice Principal Mr Gan and the school for their support