![](https://i.imgur.com/CLvY2jA.png")
https://youtu.be/jwekCnPYsCs?si=rqxTiMQxWZQv81ni
the micro-expressions and body language cues observed for Desmond Tan and Edwin Tong in this video, with timestamps:
Edwin Tong (Minister for Culture, Community and Youth):
0:47-0:50: Starts speaking, maintains eye contact with the speaker (He Ting Ru). His posture is upright and attentive, indicating engagement and respect for the question.
0:53-0:55: Uses hand gestures while emphasizing "withdrawal must be seen in the context". This is a common gesture for emphasis and clarifying points in speech.
1:02-1:04: Gestures with both hands, showing openness and trying to explain the concept of "optimize capital".
1:16-1:18: Briefly looks down and to the side while mentioning "these are some examples." This could suggest some slight hesitation or a need to formulate his thoughts carefully, especially when he adds "I am not saying that this is what happened in this case."
1:22-1:25: Uses more closed hand gestures, bringing his hands closer together, which might indicate a focus on summarizing or narrowing down the point.
1:31-1:33: Nods while saying "And I think you heard me mention earlier," showing agreement with his own previous statements or reinforcing the point.
1:47-1:49: Nods again when concluding his response, indicating closure and confidence in his answer.
2:04-2:05: Steps away from the podium after finishing his response, a natural movement signaling the end of his turn.
Desmond Tan (Second Minister for Finance, Deputy Chairman of the MAS Board of Directors):
2:15-2:17: Approaches the podium, posture is confident and ready to speak.
2:17-2:19: Begins speaking, looking down at notes initially, then lifting his head to address the assembly. Posture is upright, indicating formality and authority.
2:26-2:28: Uses hand gestures to emphasize "MAS has not approved". The hand movement reinforces the denial and importance of this point.
2:30-2:32: Slight nod while saying "since middle of July," showing confirmation of the timeline.
2:33-2:35: Repeats and emphasizes "MAS has not approved", again with a hand gesture. This repetition and gesture highlights the key message he wants to deliver - that approval is still pending.
2:45-2:47: Broad hand gesture while saying "Chinese phrase to describe the situation," indicating he is about to explain something with an analogy.
2:55-2:57: Nods while saying "...is not approved yet," reaffirming the lack of approval.
3:05-3:06: Finishes speaking, steps back from the podium, signaling the end of his contribution.
General Observations:
Both ministers maintain formal and respectful body language, appropriate for a parliamentary setting.
Hand gestures are used by both ministers primarily for emphasis and clarifying points.
Desmond Tan appears more direct and emphasizes key phrases through repetition and gestures, while Edwin Tong explains in a more descriptive manner, using broader hand gestures.
Edwin Tong:
Lips Compression:
1:17-1:18: A very slight lips compression occurs right before he says, "I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case." This could be interpreted as a brief moment of tension or carefulness in wording, especially as he's qualifying his example.
1:56-1:57: Another very subtle instance of lips compression as he finishes his sentence "These are discussions for the future." It could indicate a slight reservation or that the topic is not fully resolved.
Nasal Flare:
No distinct nasal flare is observed in Edwin Tong throughout his speaking segment. His nostrils remain relatively stable and relaxed.
Tongue Jutting:
No tongue jutting is observed in Edwin Tong during his speech.
Eye Darting:
0:59-1:00: Very brief eye darting downwards and to the right as he says "...And not so much just to withdraw per se." This could be a fleeting moment of uncertainty or thought processing as he emphasizes this specific term.
1:16-1:17: Slight eye darting to the side just before he says, "I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case." Similar to the lips compression at this time, it could be indicative of carefully choosing his words.
Desmond Tan:
Lips Compression:
2:33-2:35: Noticeable lips compression while repeating "MAS has not approved" for emphasis. Here, the lips compression seems less about tension and more about conveying seriousness and firmness in his statement.
3:01-3:02: Slight lips compression right before he says "including the capital reduction plan." This could emphasize the importance of this point in the context of MAS approval.
Nasal Flare:
No distinct nasal flare is observed in Desmond Tan throughout his speaking segment. His nostrils appear to remain stable.
Tongue Jutting:
No tongue jutting is observed in Desmond Tan during his speech.
Eye Darting:
2:18-2:20: Very brief eye darting downwards as he starts speaking and looking at his notes initially. This is likely due to reading notes and then re-engaging with the audience.
2:43-2:44: Slight eye dart to the side just before he says "when I responded to her on the 6th of August." This could be a brief moment of recall as he references a specific date and previous interaction.
Summary of Observations:
Lips Compression: Both ministers show subtle lips compression at points where they are emphasizing key statements or being particularly careful in their wording. For Desmond Tan, it appears more linked to emphasis, while for Edwin Tong, it might be more related to caution in word choice at certain junctures.
Nasal Flare & Tongue Jutting: Neither minister exhibits noticeable nasal flare or tongue jutting during their speaking time in this video clip.
Eye Darting: Both ministers show brief moments of eye darting, mostly downwards or to the side. For Edwin Tong, these instances are slightly more pronounced and potentially linked to careful wording. For Desmond Tan, they seem more related to reading notes at the start and recalling specific details.
Edwin Tong (0:47-2:05):
Roundabout Answer & Ambiguity on "Capital Optimization" (0:49-1:30): Edwin Tong's initial response focuses on the concept of "capital optimization" as the justification for potential capital withdrawal. He states, "And the plan is to optimize capital. And not so much just to withdraw per se." This is a somewhat roundabout answer because it doesn't directly address how capital withdrawal can strengthen capital structure, as asked by the questioner (He Ting Ru). Instead, it reframes withdrawal as part of a broader "optimization plan." The term "optimize capital" itself is ambiguous without concrete examples in this context.
Vague Examples (1:05-1:17): When providing examples of capital optimization, Edwin Tong uses very general terms like "redeploy reinsurance" and "remove some of the risks." He states, "For example, these, these are some examples. I’m not saying that this is what happened in this case, but these are some reasons why you might have a capital optimization..." This section is vague and hypothetical. It doesn't clarify the specific strategy Income Insurance might be using, nor does it directly link these examples to the benefits for the public interest and social mission mentioned in the question. This vagueness could be seen as a flaw in providing a clear and direct answer.
Inconsistency/Ambiguity on "Assessment" (1:33-1:47): Edwin Tong mentions MAS's assessment: "on MAS's assessment, even after the withdrawal over three year over a three-year period, the capital adequacy requirements of the entity, the new entity, would still have pass master." While this is presented as reassurance, it's slightly ambiguous. "Pass master" is not a standard financial term, and it’s unclear what specific benchmarks were assessed and how robust they are. It sounds like a general assurance rather than a detailed explanation of financial stability.
Future Discussions (1:55-2:05): Edwin Tong concludes by saying, "These are discussions that obviously ought to be had with NE moving forward as to what proposals, which types of proposals that maintain and allow us to fulfill the social mission can be can be countenanced. These are discussions for the future." This ending shifts the focus to future discussions with NE (NTUC Enterprise) and acknowledges that the details and specifics are still to be determined. This can be interpreted as an admission that a clear plan is not yet fully articulated, and therefore the current answer is somewhat incomplete.
Desmond Tan (2:15-3:06):
"Not Approved Yet" - Ambiguity and Possible Inconsistency (2:17-3:06): Desmond Tan's main point is that "MAS has not approved the proposed capital reduction plan." He emphasizes this repeatedly. While this is a direct statement, it also creates ambiguity. It doesn't clarify why it hasn't been approved, or what MAS's concerns are. It also seems slightly inconsistent with the initial premise of He Ting Ru's question, which assumes a capital withdrawal is planned. Desmond Tan's statement suggests the plan is still under scrutiny and not a fait accompli.
Chinese Phrase - Potentially Flawed Analogy (2:45-2:54): Desmond Tan uses a Chinese phrase "八字都还没一撇" (bā zì dōu hái méi yī piě), which he translates to mean the deal is not yet finalized or even begun ("still required MAS regulatory approval"). While the phrase emphasizes that things are not yet set, it's a somewhat indirect and perhaps overly dramatic way to state that regulatory approval is still pending. It's not inherently flawed, but it doesn't add substantial clarity to the financial or strategic rationale behind the situation.
Repetition without Deepening the Answer (2:55-3:06): Desmond Tan reiterates "So this deal is not approved yet and is something that is still subject to MAS regulatory approval, including the capital reduction plan." This repetition reinforces the message of non-approval but doesn't add any new information or address the core questions about the benefits of capital withdrawal or the reasons for MAS's stance.
Overall Assessment:
Both ministers' responses, while polite and seemingly informative, exhibit elements of being roundabout and ambiguous, especially in directly answering He Ting Ru's initial question about how capital withdrawal strengthens capital structure while serving public interest.
Edwin Tong's response is more about reframing the issue around "capital optimization" but lacks concrete details and uses vague examples. His answer suggests a plan is in place, but the specifics and justifications are not clearly laid out.
Desmond Tan's response is more focused on the regulatory process and the fact that approval is pending. While direct in stating non-approval, it avoids explaining the underlying issues and leaves many questions unanswered about the nature of the proposed capital reduction plan and MAS’s concerns.
Both responses could be interpreted as strategically avoiding a detailed or potentially controver
sial explanation of the capital withdrawal plan at this stage, opting instead for general assurances and procedural updates.
the micro-expressions and body language cues observed for Desmond Tan and Edwin Tong in this video, with timestamps:
Edwin Tong (Minister for Culture, Community and Youth):
0:47-0:50: Starts speaking, maintains eye contact with the speaker (He Ting Ru). His posture is upright and attentive, indicating engagement and respect for the question.
0:53-0:55: Uses hand gestures while emphasizing "withdrawal must be seen in the context". This is a common gesture for emphasis and clarifying points in speech.
1:02-1:04: Gestures with both hands, showing openness and trying to explain the concept of "optimize capital".
1:16-1:18: Briefly looks down and to the side while mentioning "these are some examples." This could suggest some slight hesitation or a need to formulate his thoughts carefully, especially when he adds "I am not saying that this is what happened in this case."
1:22-1:25: Uses more closed hand gestures, bringing his hands closer together, which might indicate a focus on summarizing or narrowing down the point.
1:31-1:33: Nods while saying "And I think you heard me mention earlier," showing agreement with his own previous statements or reinforcing the point.
1:47-1:49: Nods again when concluding his response, indicating closure and confidence in his answer.
2:04-2:05: Steps away from the podium after finishing his response, a natural movement signaling the end of his turn.
Desmond Tan (Second Minister for Finance, Deputy Chairman of the MAS Board of Directors):
2:15-2:17: Approaches the podium, posture is confident and ready to speak.
2:17-2:19: Begins speaking, looking down at notes initially, then lifting his head to address the assembly. Posture is upright, indicating formality and authority.
2:26-2:28: Uses hand gestures to emphasize "MAS has not approved". The hand movement reinforces the denial and importance of this point.
2:30-2:32: Slight nod while saying "since middle of July," showing confirmation of the timeline.
2:33-2:35: Repeats and emphasizes "MAS has not approved", again with a hand gesture. This repetition and gesture highlights the key message he wants to deliver - that approval is still pending.
2:45-2:47: Broad hand gesture while saying "Chinese phrase to describe the situation," indicating he is about to explain something with an analogy.
2:55-2:57: Nods while saying "...is not approved yet," reaffirming the lack of approval.
3:05-3:06: Finishes speaking, steps back from the podium, signaling the end of his contribution.
General Observations:
Both ministers maintain formal and respectful body language, appropriate for a parliamentary setting.
Hand gestures are used by both ministers primarily for emphasis and clarifying points.
Desmond Tan appears more direct and emphasizes key phrases through repetition and gestures, while Edwin Tong explains in a more descriptive manner, using broader hand gestures.
Edwin Tong:
Lips Compression:
1:17-1:18: A very slight lips compression occurs right before he says, "I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case." This could be interpreted as a brief moment of tension or carefulness in wording, especially as he's qualifying his example.
1:56-1:57: Another very subtle instance of lips compression as he finishes his sentence "These are discussions for the future." It could indicate a slight reservation or that the topic is not fully resolved.
Nasal Flare:
No distinct nasal flare is observed in Edwin Tong throughout his speaking segment. His nostrils remain relatively stable and relaxed.
Tongue Jutting:
No tongue jutting is observed in Edwin Tong during his speech.
Eye Darting:
0:59-1:00: Very brief eye darting downwards and to the right as he says "...And not so much just to withdraw per se." This could be a fleeting moment of uncertainty or thought processing as he emphasizes this specific term.
1:16-1:17: Slight eye darting to the side just before he says, "I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case." Similar to the lips compression at this time, it could be indicative of carefully choosing his words.
Desmond Tan:
Lips Compression:
2:33-2:35: Noticeable lips compression while repeating "MAS has not approved" for emphasis. Here, the lips compression seems less about tension and more about conveying seriousness and firmness in his statement.
3:01-3:02: Slight lips compression right before he says "including the capital reduction plan." This could emphasize the importance of this point in the context of MAS approval.
Nasal Flare:
No distinct nasal flare is observed in Desmond Tan throughout his speaking segment. His nostrils appear to remain stable.
Tongue Jutting:
No tongue jutting is observed in Desmond Tan during his speech.
Eye Darting:
2:18-2:20: Very brief eye darting downwards as he starts speaking and looking at his notes initially. This is likely due to reading notes and then re-engaging with the audience.
2:43-2:44: Slight eye dart to the side just before he says "when I responded to her on the 6th of August." This could be a brief moment of recall as he references a specific date and previous interaction.
Summary of Observations:
Lips Compression: Both ministers show subtle lips compression at points where they are emphasizing key statements or being particularly careful in their wording. For Desmond Tan, it appears more linked to emphasis, while for Edwin Tong, it might be more related to caution in word choice at certain junctures.
Nasal Flare & Tongue Jutting: Neither minister exhibits noticeable nasal flare or tongue jutting during their speaking time in this video clip.
Eye Darting: Both ministers show brief moments of eye darting, mostly downwards or to the side. For Edwin Tong, these instances are slightly more pronounced and potentially linked to careful wording. For Desmond Tan, they seem more related to reading notes at the start and recalling specific details.
Edwin Tong (0:47-2:05):
Roundabout Answer & Ambiguity on "Capital Optimization" (0:49-1:30): Edwin Tong's initial response focuses on the concept of "capital optimization" as the justification for potential capital withdrawal. He states, "And the plan is to optimize capital. And not so much just to withdraw per se." This is a somewhat roundabout answer because it doesn't directly address how capital withdrawal can strengthen capital structure, as asked by the questioner (He Ting Ru). Instead, it reframes withdrawal as part of a broader "optimization plan." The term "optimize capital" itself is ambiguous without concrete examples in this context.
Vague Examples (1:05-1:17): When providing examples of capital optimization, Edwin Tong uses very general terms like "redeploy reinsurance" and "remove some of the risks." He states, "For example, these, these are some examples. I’m not saying that this is what happened in this case, but these are some reasons why you might have a capital optimization..." This section is vague and hypothetical. It doesn't clarify the specific strategy Income Insurance might be using, nor does it directly link these examples to the benefits for the public interest and social mission mentioned in the question. This vagueness could be seen as a flaw in providing a clear and direct answer.
Inconsistency/Ambiguity on "Assessment" (1:33-1:47): Edwin Tong mentions MAS's assessment: "on MAS's assessment, even after the withdrawal over three year over a three-year period, the capital adequacy requirements of the entity, the new entity, would still have pass master." While this is presented as reassurance, it's slightly ambiguous. "Pass master" is not a standard financial term, and it’s unclear what specific benchmarks were assessed and how robust they are. It sounds like a general assurance rather than a detailed explanation of financial stability.
Future Discussions (1:55-2:05): Edwin Tong concludes by saying, "These are discussions that obviously ought to be had with NE moving forward as to what proposals, which types of proposals that maintain and allow us to fulfill the social mission can be can be countenanced. These are discussions for the future." This ending shifts the focus to future discussions with NE (NTUC Enterprise) and acknowledges that the details and specifics are still to be determined. This can be interpreted as an admission that a clear plan is not yet fully articulated, and therefore the current answer is somewhat incomplete.
Desmond Tan (2:15-3:06):
"Not Approved Yet" - Ambiguity and Possible Inconsistency (2:17-3:06): Desmond Tan's main point is that "MAS has not approved the proposed capital reduction plan." He emphasizes this repeatedly. While this is a direct statement, it also creates ambiguity. It doesn't clarify why it hasn't been approved, or what MAS's concerns are. It also seems slightly inconsistent with the initial premise of He Ting Ru's question, which assumes a capital withdrawal is planned. Desmond Tan's statement suggests the plan is still under scrutiny and not a fait accompli.
Chinese Phrase - Potentially Flawed Analogy (2:45-2:54): Desmond Tan uses a Chinese phrase "八字都还没一撇" (bā zì dōu hái méi yī piě), which he translates to mean the deal is not yet finalized or even begun ("still required MAS regulatory approval"). While the phrase emphasizes that things are not yet set, it's a somewhat indirect and perhaps overly dramatic way to state that regulatory approval is still pending. It's not inherently flawed, but it doesn't add substantial clarity to the financial or strategic rationale behind the situation.
Repetition without Deepening the Answer (2:55-3:06): Desmond Tan reiterates "So this deal is not approved yet and is something that is still subject to MAS regulatory approval, including the capital reduction plan." This repetition reinforces the message of non-approval but doesn't add any new information or address the core questions about the benefits of capital withdrawal or the reasons for MAS's stance.
Overall Assessment:
Both ministers' responses, while polite and seemingly informative, exhibit elements of being roundabout and ambiguous, especially in directly answering He Ting Ru's initial question about how capital withdrawal strengthens capital structure while serving public interest.
Edwin Tong's response is more about reframing the issue around "capital optimization" but lacks concrete details and uses vague examples. His answer suggests a plan is in place, but the specifics and justifications are not clearly laid out.
Desmond Tan's response is more focused on the regulatory process and the fact that approval is pending. While direct in stating non-approval, it avoids explaining the underlying issues and leaves many questions unanswered about the nature of the proposed capital reduction plan and MAS’s concerns.
Both responses could be interpreted as strategically avoiding a detailed or potentially controver
sial explanation of the capital withdrawal plan at this stage, opting instead for general assurances and procedural updates.
![[+]](https://sgtalk.net/images/bootbb/collapse_collapsed.png)
