Podcasts about singaporean

1.38 million Singaporean households are receiving $500 in CDC vouchers from today, with this latest tranche brought forward by six months from January 2027 to June 2026. The Government says this reflects ongoing concerns about cost of living pressures, even as inflation has eased slightly in recent months. But with global uncertainties still in play, from geopolitical tensions to potential energy and supply chain pressures, the outlook remains fluid, and questions remain about how much relief these measures actually provide on the ground for households. So how meaningful is 500 dollars in today’s context? And how should households be thinking about using them, amid further uncertainty? On The Big Story, Hongbin Jeong speaks to Assistant Professor Yeow Hwee Chua, Division of Economics, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore to find out more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we’re going to take you to a sleepy pocket of Japan’s countryside called Myoko. Located about a three-hour train ride from Tokyo, Myoko was said to be one of the oldest ski areas in Japan, where it once saw young skiers streaming along its neon-lit streets. That was, of course, during the economic boom back in the 1980s and 1990s, before ski-lovers swapped Myoko for other popular destinations like Niseko in Hokkaido and Hakuba in Nagano. But one Singaporean company is hoping to inject life back into the area by buying up ski resorts in Myoko and the nearby Madarao, and building an integrated township out of them. And that company is called Patience Capital Group. Founded in 2019 by the former head of Japan at Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund GIC Ken Chan, Patience Capital Group manages assets on behalf of institutional and private investors worldwide. The firm says it currently manages two close-ended funds. The first is a hospitality fund focused on unlocking value in the Japanese tourism sector, and that’s where the ski resorts come in. The fund, in particular, was said to have raised 39 billion yen from institutional investors ranging from sovereign wealth funds to a university endowment fund. The other close-ended fund, meanwhile, is a residential fund investing in mid-market residential assets located in the Greater Tokyo Area. Beyond that, the firm also has a lifestyle vertical that aims to create a suite of consumer experiences and businesses to complement its portfolio and encourage placemaking in its destinations. But how will the various business operations under Patience Capital Group come together to create viable recreational townships in Japan? Meanwhile, the firm says it is tapping into the Japanese tourism and residential markets given a rise in investors’ interest in the country amid relatively low cost of capital. But how much money is in the Myoko and Madarao areas exactly and what are the risks of pulling off a transformation project of this size? How sustainable is the tourism boom in Japan for long-term infrastructure projects in both the recreational and residential space? On Under the Radar, finance presenter Chua Tian Tian posed these questions to Ken Chan, CEO, Patience Capital Group.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The third of seven director interviews Wilson conducted at this year's Hong Kong International Film Festival is with the outgoing, reflective Ang Geck Geck, director of the semi-autobiographical childhood drama Ah Girl. Wilson connects with the Singaporean director over the long road to producing Ah Girl, the research with social workers that informed the script, the parts of her own childhood and family that are in the film, and her own Deep Cut Pick.Speak in Mandarin, English, or pretty much any other language in our FREE patreon, discord server, and our socials @ www.deepcutpod.com Timestamps:00:00 Intro02:32 Interview begins07:03 Research with social workers10:56 Child actors15:09 Language19:55 Personal history26:00 Ending of the film27:44 Next film28:53 Deep Cut Pick30:05 Outro

“Can lah.” “No need so kancheong.” “Steady or not?” Most Singaporeans switch effortlessly between Singlish and standard English depending on who they’re speaking to. But when it comes to the workplace, where should we draw the line? Is Singlish a uniquely Singaporean way to build rapport and connect with colleagues, or does it still have a place only outside the meeting room? We unpack the language, identity and office culture behind Singapore’s favourite way of speaking. Join Neil Humphreys & Audrey Siek — LIVE every Monday, Wednesday & Friday at 8am for Singapore Unfiltered.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Separate tray return stations for halal and non-halal meals have become a common sight in many hawker centres and food courts. But when you're clearing your tray after a meal, how much attention do you actually pay to the signs? Is it an important matter of respect and consideration, or something many people overlook in the rush of everyday life? We unpack a uniquely Singaporean dining habit and ask: how seriously do you take tray segregation? Join Neil Humphreys & Audrey Siek - LIVE every weekday at 7.05am for Breakfast BitesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A recent survey by the Institute of Policy Studies found a growing acceptance of Singlish among Singaporeans, with many viewing it as an important part of national identity that is worth preserving. But like any living language, Singlish is constantly evolving, shaped by new generations and changing ways of speaking. Does this signal a shift in what it means to be Singaporean? Steven Chia speaks with associate professor Tan Ying Ying from Nanyang Technological University and Dr Melvin Tay from the Institute of Policy Studies about how Singlish has changed over the years, and why change may not be something to fear. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After his breakout hit It's You went viral around the world, Singaporean artist Sezairi became one of Southeast Asia's most recognizable voices.In this episode, Sezairi sits down with Ming Yue for an honest and reflective conversation about his journey as an artist- from winning Singapore Idol to navigating the pressures and opportunities that came with overnight internet fame. Whether you discovered him through It's You or have followed his music for years, this conversation offers a closer look at the artist behind the songs and the journey that shaped him!

Ever wondered what bar consultants do, and specifically what they do if they're asked to build a bar inside of a 140 year old Singaporean national monument? Bobby Carey and Tom Hogan of Studio Ryecroft are here to answer that question and more, as they discuss their approach to realizing a high concept venue, building out luxury hotel bars, night clubs and the occasional Irish Pub, and the challenges and joys of working on projects across Southeast AsiaPLUS does washing a cocktail with Fruity Pebbles milk actually… do anything? Sother and Greg weigh in on a trend that may have jumped the milk-washed shark.Follow Studio Ryecroft on Instagram at @studio.ryecroftFollow Bobby at @runbobbycFollow Tom at @thetomhoganLINKSBecome a Regular: patreon.com/SpeakeasyRegularsFor resources on dealing with cold hard water agents in your community visit nouswithoutyou.la/ and @thenycallianceThe Speakeasy is now on YouTube! Tune in to “see” what we're talking about at youtube.com/@Speakeasy.PodcastCheck out Quiote Imports at quioteimports.com and use promo code “Speakeasy” to get free shipping at checkout.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

On What's Trending, Hongbin Jeong and Nazirul Asrar dive into Annette Lee's recent announcement on social media where she will give out refunds for disappointed viewers who watched her new film, "Dream Stall", during its opening week. On the back of this, the duo discusses the state of our local Singaporean movie scene right now, and whether we each have felt that a refund was needed after a disappointing movie. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has met his Singaporean counterpart Vivian Balakrishnan, who is on a working visit to China from Sunday to Tuesday.

Beyond this month's talks between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump, there’s an epic tale that has been unfolding for decades. It’s a battle to be the world’s number one power and a much bigger story than the latest meeting of these two men. Kishore Mahbubani is a former Singaporean diplomat who served as president of the United Nations Security Council. For two decades, he has argued that the West fundamentally misunderstands the rise of China and its challenge to American supremacy.Mahbubani, who eventually turned to academia, now specializes in governance and public policy. In this conversation with Mishal Husain, he traces the story behind the Xi-Trump talks, the handshakes and the social media posts–and what may lie ahead.Mahbubani also reveals how his own successes were made possible by Singapore’s remarkable growth.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

MoneyFM 89.3 Saturday Mornings Show host Glenn van Zutphen talks with Singaporean musician, actor, playwright, Inch Chua. On The Wide Angle, we explore one of the boldest, most emotionally resonant productions on the Singapore stage this year: “Myles – Soulmate in a Box”, a one‑woman musical starring the brilliant Inch Chua, presented by the Singapore Repertory Theatre. Inspired by Inch’s own experiences with modern dating, heartbreak, and technology, the show follows a woman who — after being emotionally shattered — decides to learn coding and build the perfect AI boyfriend. What unfolds is a story that is funny, raw, contemporary, and painfully honest about the way technology shapes intimacy. We discuss the creative process, the music, the writing, and the emotional truth behind the show. We also explore the bigger questions:

Singaporeans used to have the highest number of cinema goers in the world. But the figures are declining in the age of streaming. Can local cinemas survive the digital age? Let's Talk, Singapore invites Ben Slater, curator of Classics at Capitol to react to listeners' comments and views on the future of the local cinematic landscape.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Like all Singaporean men, I had to serve in the country’s armed forces when I turned eighteen. To be honest, I approached the conscription, which lasted two-and-a-half years, most reluctantly. Like many other young men, I tried to do the minimum, obeying instructions to the letter—no more, no less. Some, however, threw themselves into their tasks and ultimately gained much from their experience, learning about leadership and endurance. In hindsight, I realize that this type of effort and positive attitude would have pleased God—much like what Joseph showed in Scripture. Despite being sold off as a slave and imprisoned later on, he fulfilled all his assigned responsibilities with the greatest dedication. Instead of resenting his situation, he took his role seriously, so much so that “Potiphar left everything he had in Joseph’s care” (Genesis 39:6). Joseph also ended up in charge of the prison—and, finally, all of Egypt. Centuries later, the apostle Paul would also urge believers in Jesus: “Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17). While our situations may be far from ideal, may God help us to be faithful in the tasks assigned to us, for we’re working for Him—the one who sees our true heart.

Singapore's total fertility rate has hit a historic low. But this conversation was never really about birth rates. It was about what modern life actually feels like for many Singaporeans today. The pressure. The exhaustion. The invisible weight of always having to keep up. And the quiet calculation so many people are running; about whether building a family here is something they can imagine, afford, or want. Minister Indranee Rajah leads Singapore's Marriage and Parenthood Reset. She is also single. And she has no children of her own. In this conversation, we go beyond policy. We talk about: - The invisible mental load women carry that no support system fully removes - ⁠The pressure parents feel before a child is even born - and why it starts earlier than most people realise - ⁠The women who have built lives they genuinely love - and aren't sure they want to give that up - What the public reaction to the word "detour" was really saying - What it means to lead this conversation as a single woman without children - The family she lost - and why their absence shaped her understanding of family itself - Whether modern Singaporean life still feels emotionally sustainable enough to build a family within Chapters 00:00:00 Minister Indranee Rajah: The Minister Tasked With Singapore's Future 00:02:50 Growing Up Between Two Cultures & Faiths 00:05:59 Her Mother's Greatest Gift 00:06:57 How Her Legal Mindset Shapes Singapore's Toughest Conversation 00:10:21 Why Singaporeans Are Rejecting the Life Script — Not Family 00:14:36 The Overachievement Culture That Made Good Enough Feel Like Failure 00:17:14 The Growing Pressure of Raising Kids in Singapore 00:21:08 The Invisible Mental Load Women Carry 00:22:31 The Woman Who Hid Her Fertility Treatment From Her Boss 00:23:37 Addressing Singaporean Work Culture & Fertility Stigma 00:29:56 Why Singaporeans Are Choosing Their Quality of Life Over Parenthood 00:32:07 The “Detour” Comment That Sparked Debate 00:35:37 Leading Singapore's Parenthood Conversation as a Single Woman 00:38:10 Why Baby Bonuses Don't Apply to Unwed Mothers 00:41:43 Why She's Doing This — Even When Everyone Says It's Impossible 00:44:47 What Makes Her Believe Singapore Can Change Follow Rachel here:  https://www.instagram.com/ms_rach/ Follow Minister Indranee here: https://www.instagram.com/indraneerajah/ Download the FSS fertility workplace support guide here: https://fertilitysupport.sg/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FSS-workplace-support-guide.pdf Write in to the team at hello@rachreflects.com.

In managing in excess of S$1 billion worth of our clients' assets, we know what works and what will not work when it comes to the reliability and sufficiency of investment returns.To share our insights, we are pleased to introduce our "Investment 101" video series featuring Dr Peng Chen, Senior Advisor & Director at Providend. In this series, Isaac Ong, our Client Adviser, discusses essential investing concepts with Dr Peng, to provide you with a better understanding of the financial markets as you embark on or continue your investment journey.In this episode, Dr. Peng and Isaac discuss the reasons why people still invest in gold, and if there are benefits as compared to investing in equities and bonds. They also discuss the downsides, and if gold has a place in your investment portfolio or if should you avoid it altogether, as a Singaporean-based investor. Watch all five "Investment 101" videos here.When investing for non-negotiable life events such as retirement, we need to use an approach that offers the highest probability of success. Learn about our CEO and Founder, Christopher Tan's views on investing in cryptocurrency here.Learn more by reading our investment eBook titled "A More Reliable Way to Get Enough Investment Returns: Even During Times of Market Uncertainty".With a minefield of financial misinformation out there, we promise to be a safe pair of hands and a second pair of eyes to help you avoid costly financial mistakes. You can reach out to us here for sound advice tailored to your unique situation.Music courtesy of ItsWatR.The host of this episode, Isaac Ong, is a Client Adviser at Providend, the first fee-only wealth advisory firm in Southeast Asia and a leading wealth advisory firm in Asia.The full list of Providend's Money Wisdom podcast episodes from Season 4 can be found here.Did you know that our Providend's Money Wisdom podcast is now available in video format on YouTube? Follow us on our YouTube channel for new episode on Thursday at 8pm.

LG Han is the chef at Labyrinth in Singapore. Born to 3 generations of restaurateurs, food was never far from LG's mind. He first studied finance at the London School of Economics and worked as a corporate banker in Singapore before quitting to pursue cooking. He cut his teeth working for internationally renowned chefs in Europe and Singapore, gaining a passion for the restaurant kitchen. In 2014, he founded Labyrinth, encapsulating his roots and memories of growing up in Singapore. In 2017, his restaurant was awarded a Michelin star and in 2021 it was recognised amongst Asia's 50 Best Restaurants. In the podcast we will hear LG Han tell about his obsession for great produce, finding the perfect cooking technique and telling the culinary story of Singapore. He will also reveal his favourite places for all the great dishes in his hometown. The recommendations mentioned in this podcast and thousands more are available in the World of Mouth app: https://www.worldofmouth.app/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What comes to mind when you think of letting go? Perhaps you are trying to let go of unhelpful thoughts or beliefs or habits. Perhaps the best masterclass on letting go comes from survivors of illnesses that take away what we assume we have for life. On LIVE WELL WITH MICHELLE, Michelle takes us through the deeply human story of a Singaporean stroke survivor whose new book is an invitation to rethink letting go and returning home to ourselves. Michelle highlights lessons on coping with loss after major life transitions.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Despite the implications of its subtitle, this is not a travel guide to Singapore, although readers run the risk of becoming tempted to venture there. Author Lim Tse Wei begins this collection of essays with the candid admission, “I am a somewhat unusual cook. My main qualification for the profession is that I was born and raised in Singapore, where food is both secular obsession and national religion. I didn't learn to cook at my mother's side, or my grandmother's, and although my grandfather had been a cook for some years, we didn't speak of it in the family. In Singapore, good sons do not learn to cook.” Lim's dry commentary and insight introduces us to a world of striking juxtapositions, from expatriate French chefs preparing food for diners in Chippendale chairs to street hawkers who struggle to make a living wage, let alone one that would allow them to feel like full-fledged members of Singaporean society. He makes his grandmother's recipe for lou arh, braised duck, in suburban Massachussets and questions why anyone would export Tabasco sauce to Southeast Asia, “home of the most nuanced and varied chilli-eating culture on the planet.” There are a few recipes, some traditional, some not at all, included to illustrate ideas rather than to command us to act. And although Lim makes no attempt to be systematic in his coverage, he still paints a vivid picture of the city-state's culinary culture. Little Perfections: Eating in Singapore (Kitchen Arts and Letters, 2026) is available to purchase exclusively at Kitchen Arts & Letters.  This interview was conducted by Ernest Lee, PhD student at the University of Chicago. He researches the history of postcolonial energy through the lens of development, infrastructure and environment, with a focus on West Africa and Southeast Asia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Despite the implications of its subtitle, this is not a travel guide to Singapore, although readers run the risk of becoming tempted to venture there. Author Lim Tse Wei begins this collection of essays with the candid admission, “I am a somewhat unusual cook. My main qualification for the profession is that I was born and raised in Singapore, where food is both secular obsession and national religion. I didn't learn to cook at my mother's side, or my grandmother's, and although my grandfather had been a cook for some years, we didn't speak of it in the family. In Singapore, good sons do not learn to cook.” Lim's dry commentary and insight introduces us to a world of striking juxtapositions, from expatriate French chefs preparing food for diners in Chippendale chairs to street hawkers who struggle to make a living wage, let alone one that would allow them to feel like full-fledged members of Singaporean society. He makes his grandmother's recipe for lou arh, braised duck, in suburban Massachussets and questions why anyone would export Tabasco sauce to Southeast Asia, “home of the most nuanced and varied chilli-eating culture on the planet.” There are a few recipes, some traditional, some not at all, included to illustrate ideas rather than to command us to act. And although Lim makes no attempt to be systematic in his coverage, he still paints a vivid picture of the city-state's culinary culture. Little Perfections: Eating in Singapore (Kitchen Arts and Letters, 2026) is available to purchase exclusively at Kitchen Arts & Letters.  This interview was conducted by Ernest Lee, PhD student at the University of Chicago. He researches the history of postcolonial energy through the lens of development, infrastructure and environment, with a focus on West Africa and Southeast Asia. Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

Despite the implications of its subtitle, this is not a travel guide to Singapore, although readers run the risk of becoming tempted to venture there. Author Lim Tse Wei begins this collection of essays with the candid admission, “I am a somewhat unusual cook. My main qualification for the profession is that I was born and raised in Singapore, where food is both secular obsession and national religion. I didn't learn to cook at my mother's side, or my grandmother's, and although my grandfather had been a cook for some years, we didn't speak of it in the family. In Singapore, good sons do not learn to cook.” Lim's dry commentary and insight introduces us to a world of striking juxtapositions, from expatriate French chefs preparing food for diners in Chippendale chairs to street hawkers who struggle to make a living wage, let alone one that would allow them to feel like full-fledged members of Singaporean society. He makes his grandmother's recipe for lou arh, braised duck, in suburban Massachussets and questions why anyone would export Tabasco sauce to Southeast Asia, “home of the most nuanced and varied chilli-eating culture on the planet.” There are a few recipes, some traditional, some not at all, included to illustrate ideas rather than to command us to act. And although Lim makes no attempt to be systematic in his coverage, he still paints a vivid picture of the city-state's culinary culture. Little Perfections: Eating in Singapore (Kitchen Arts and Letters, 2026) is available to purchase exclusively at Kitchen Arts & Letters.  This interview was conducted by Ernest Lee, PhD student at the University of Chicago. He researches the history of postcolonial energy through the lens of development, infrastructure and environment, with a focus on West Africa and Southeast Asia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/food

Despite the implications of its subtitle, this is not a travel guide to Singapore, although readers run the risk of becoming tempted to venture there. Author Lim Tse Wei begins this collection of essays with the candid admission, “I am a somewhat unusual cook. My main qualification for the profession is that I was born and raised in Singapore, where food is both secular obsession and national religion. I didn't learn to cook at my mother's side, or my grandmother's, and although my grandfather had been a cook for some years, we didn't speak of it in the family. In Singapore, good sons do not learn to cook.” Lim's dry commentary and insight introduces us to a world of striking juxtapositions, from expatriate French chefs preparing food for diners in Chippendale chairs to street hawkers who struggle to make a living wage, let alone one that would allow them to feel like full-fledged members of Singaporean society. He makes his grandmother's recipe for lou arh, braised duck, in suburban Massachussets and questions why anyone would export Tabasco sauce to Southeast Asia, “home of the most nuanced and varied chilli-eating culture on the planet.” There are a few recipes, some traditional, some not at all, included to illustrate ideas rather than to command us to act. And although Lim makes no attempt to be systematic in his coverage, he still paints a vivid picture of the city-state's culinary culture. Little Perfections: Eating in Singapore (Kitchen Arts and Letters, 2026) is available to purchase exclusively at Kitchen Arts & Letters.  This interview was conducted by Ernest Lee, PhD student at the University of Chicago. He researches the history of postcolonial energy through the lens of development, infrastructure and environment, with a focus on West Africa and Southeast Asia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/popular-culture

This week, we unbox a live local production centred around a profession that’s slowly disappearing in Singapore — but the stories, personalities and unsolicited comments that come with it definitely aren’t. It’s funny, nostalgic, deeply Singaporean, and unexpectedly emotional in all the right places. Join Neil Humphreys & Audrey Siek - LIVE every Tuesday & Thursday at 8am for Singapore Unboxed.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

HDB resale prices in Singapore have reached new highs, with some flats selling for over $1.7 million. But are salaries keeping up? Is public housing still affordable for the average Singaporean? Let’s Talk, Singapore invites Timothy Ho, Co-founder and Managing Editor at DollarsandSense to break down the rising cost of HDB flats, what’s driving demand, and whether the housing dream is changing forever. Join Neil Humphreys & Audrey Siek - LIVE every Monday, Wednesday & Friday at 7.20am for Talk of the Town!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On The BIG Show today, we asked for your voicenotes for a Singaporean pick up line but with a sexy voice.

Many mothers in Singapore today are balancing careers, caregiving, household responsibilities and emotional labour, often all at once. While conversations around equality have progressed, some feel that much of the pressure at home still falls disproportionately on women. Let's Talk, Singapore with Neil Humphreys & Audrey Siek speak with Sunita Sue Leng author of The Unlikely Motherhood Of Shaleni May Join Neil Humphreys & Audrey Siek — LIVE every Monday, Wednesday & Friday at 8am for Singapore Unfiltered.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Surviving on vibes and hard work? What it's like working as a freelance artist overseas. Synopsis: Every first and third Monday of the month, get a head start in your personal finance, career and life with The Straits Times. How does a Singaporean make her way onto London’s glittering West End? Nathania Ong made her mark by playing well-loved characters like Eponine in Les Miserables and Eliza Hamilton in Hamilton, putting Singapore on the world theatre map. But how did it happen and what does the life of a freelance artist overseas look like? In this episode, ST business correspondent Sue-Ann Tan looks at the realities and joys of working in the arts. Her guest is musical theatre actress Nathania Ong. Highlights (click/tap above): 3:12 Being initially rejected from every drama school 6:39 Nathania’s West End debut 10:54 Deciding to be an actress 18:00 Realities of working in London 22:13 Advice to anyone aspiring to be an actor 26:23 What’s next for Nathania Read Sue-Ann Tan's articles: https://str.sg/mvSa Follow Sue-Ann Tan on LinkedIn: https://str.sg/A86X Host: Sue-Ann Tan (suetan@sph.com.sg) Produced & edited by: Amirul Karim Executive producers: Joanna Seow and Elizabeth Law Follow Headstart On Record Podcast channel here: Channel: https://str.sg/wB2m Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/wuN3 Spotify: https://str.sg/wBr9 Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg Get business/career tips in ST's Headstart newsletter: https://str.sg/headstart-nl --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 Get more updates: http://str.sg/stpodcasts The Usual Place Podcast YouTube: https://str.sg/theusualplacepodcast --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX --- Do note: All analyses, opinions, recommendations and other information in this podcast are for your general information only. You should not rely on them in making any decision. Please consult a fully qualified financial adviser or professional expert for independent advice and verification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, SPH Media shall not be liable for any loss arising from the use of or reliance on any analyses, opinions, recommendations and other information in this podcast. SPH Media accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever that may result or arise from the products, services or information of any third parties. --- #headstartSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After weeks of Iran drumbeats - time for something a bit different. George Yeo is the former Foreign Minister of SingaporeEducated at University of Cambridge and later at Harvard Business School, he's a former Brigadier-General in the nation's Air Force, and one of its most distinctive strategic thinkers - a man whose career tracks the rise of modern Asia itself.Yeo served in government for over two decades, holding key portfolios including Trade and Industry.As Singapore's Foreign Minister from 2004 to 2011, he played a central role in shaping the country's global posture.Since leaving frontline politics, Yeo has become a widely followed voice on geopolitics, civilisational identity, and the shifting balance of power in Asia.We wanted to ask him about the view from Singapore.Singaporean diplomats are renowned for their coolheaded, realist approach. They are highly skilled - and they have to be.A unique fragment of the complex geometry of South East Asia, Singapore has to balance its warm relations with the West, its unmatched status as a trading hub, and the rise of the Goliath on its doorstep - China.

Jack McGinn and Nadia Budihardjo discuss how some gold producers are using nickel infrastructure. Plus: Cook floats 'seven cities' plan; Gas giants rally against proposed tax; and Singaporean trust buys Hedland property.

Nathania Ong is the first Singaporean to lead both Les Misérables and Hamilton on London's West End. But before any of that, she was 18, alone in a foreign city, rejected by every drama school she applied to in a single week. This is a story about the years nobody sees.. the flight home after every door closes, and the quiet season where you have to decide: Do I keep going, or do I let this go? In this conversation, Nathania opens up about: the rejections that almost broke her the stage fright she developed after going viral ⁠the best friend who talked her back from the edge and the philosophy that has carried her through every closed door since “Sometimes it's not no. Sometimes it's not yet. And what is for you will not pass you by.” Chapters 00:00:00 Introduction 00:01:29 Meet Nathania Ong: From Singapore to the West End 00:02:35 Growing Up in a House Full of Voices 00:07:11 The First Win That Changed Everything 00:10:00 Losing Singing — and Finding Herself Again 00:13:57 Five Rejections in One Week 00:18:00 “I Almost Gave Up” 00:19:47 The Second Chance She Almost Didn't Take 00:25:55 Her Greatest Triumph Wasn't Success 00:28:10 What Keeps You Going When Nothing Does 00:29:18 Why Rejection Feels So Personal 00:32:22 Becoming Éponine — And Redefining the Role 00:37:00 When Success Brings Fear 00:38:28 Stage Fright, Anxiety, and Finding Ground Again 00:41:04 Pre-Show Rituals & Becoming the Character 00:42:04 Creating Something Honest for Herself 00:43:33 What She'd Tell Her Younger Self 00:45:11 Advice for Anyone Chasing a Dream 00:45:38 Final Reflections Follow Rachel here:  https://www.instagram.com/ms_rach/ Follow Nathania Ong here: https://www.instagram.com/nattyong/ Write in to the team at hello@rachreflects.com.

Join Overland Journal Podcast host Ashley Giordano as she speaks with Juvena Huang, a Singaporean overlander who embarked on a 44,000-kilometer journey by Vespa scooter. In this episode, Juvena dives into her highest highs, lowest lows, and most powerful lessons learned along the way. Juvena also touches on why she returns regularly to India and the inspiration behind her latest project: hosting motorcycle tours in the Himalayas.

rWotD Episode 3277: Ayam masak merah Welcome to random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia's vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Friday, 24 April 2026, is Ayam masak merah.Ayam masak merah (Jawi: ‏ايم ماسق ميره‎; lit. 'red-cooked chicken' in Malay; Malay pronunciation: [ˌajam ˌmasaʔ ˈmerah]) is a Malaysian and Singaporean chicken dish. Popular in both countries, it is a casserole of chicken pieces in dried chillies sambal. It tends to be a home-cooked dish, so many variations on the recipe exist. Pieces of chicken are first marinated in turmeric before being fried to a golden brown then slowly braised in a spicy dried chillies, onion and tomato sauce. Peas are sometimes added to the dish, as are aromatic spices such as cloves, star anise and cinnamon bark, and it is garnished with shredded kaffir lime leaves as well as coriander. It is often paired with tomato rice – cooked with tomato sauce or paste, milk, dried spices, and garlic, onions and ginger.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:41 UTC on Friday, 24 April 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Ayam masak merah on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Joey.

On today's program, Singaporean champion Jazlene Ong joins us to talk about getting started in bridge, her number one bridge rule, and how she manages to balance her busy, busy life. Plus, she shares her top tip for developing players. But first, we kibitz!Find Jaz's videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@JazPlaysBridgeSUPPORT THE SHOW!! -Join the Sorry, Partner Posse at PATREON. Get AD-FREE episodes and other perks.BE PART OF THE FUN ...-Join our MAILING LIST. We'll email you a link to every new episode and occasional other information.-Send your bridge stories and comments to sorrypartnerpodcast@gmail.com.These links are also available on our website at sorrypartner.comFind all our recommended books HERE.-Take a look at our INSTAGRAM posts.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/sorry-partner. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Get a peek into the workings of the viral community choir and unpack the importance of finding your tribe. Synopsis: Every first and third Monday of the month, get a head start in your personal finance, career and life with The Straits Times. In this episode, Singaporean musician Aarika Lee tells host See Kai Wen her inspiration and journey in starting the viral community choir Sing Song Social Club. Through the choir’s inclusivity, people from all walks of life and ages - ranging from four to 90 years of age - come to sing together. No auditions are needed to join the sessions, which have grown from 30 to 400 participants in less than two years. Aarika also talks about why having a community is so important and discusses parallels between the science of trees and the psychological need of humans to feel a sense of belonging. Highlights (click/tap above): 0:00 What is the Sing Song Social Club (SSSC)? 5:30 Role of communities and how Aarika keeps SSSC safe 8:40 How the science of trees explains our need for community 15:40 Independence vs interdependence 20:50 Disagreements in SSSC? 23:50 How Aarika started SSSC, and the roles of the other founding members 29:50 Advice for those who want to find or start their own community 36:03 Aarika plays “This or That” Follow See Kai Wen on LinkedIn: https://str.sg/qfwqQ Host: See Kai Wen (seekw@sph.com.sg) Produced & edited by: Amirul Karim & Natasha Liew Executive producers: Danson Cheong and Joanna Seow Editorial producer: Elizabeth Law Follow Headstart On Record Podcast channel here: Channel: https://str.sg/wB2m Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/wuN3 Spotify: https://str.sg/wBr9 Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg Get business/career tips in ST's Headstart newsletter: https://str.sg/headstart-nl SPH Awedio app: https://www.awedio.sg --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 Get more updates: http://str.sg/stpodcasts The Usual Place Podcast YouTube: https://str.sg/theusualplacepodcast --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX --- Do note: All analyses, opinions, recommendations and other information in this podcast are for your general information only. You should not rely on them in making any decision. Please consult a fully qualified financial adviser or professional expert for independent advice and verification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, SPH Media shall not be liable for any loss arising from the use of or reliance on any analyses, opinions, recommendations and other information in this podcast. SPH Media accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever that may result or arise from the products, services or information of any third parties. --- #headstartSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The shockwaves of the ongoing war in Iran are being felt far and wide. The continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sparked a global energy crisis, one that could be accentuated by a U.S. naval blockade. Countries as disparate as Chile, South Korea, and Zambia have been forced to take extraordinary measures to deal with shortages and surging prices. But the war's effects are not just material. Washington's decision to attack Iran is accelerating a process already underway: the receding of both the inspiration and the reality of American power. That, at least, is the view of our two guests in this episode. Matias Spektor is a professor of Politics and International Relations at Fundação Getulio Vargas in São Paulo. Kishore Mahbubani is a distinguished fellow at the Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore and a veteran Singaporean diplomat, who served as his country's ambassador to the United Nations for over a decade. In their essays for Foreign Affairs, both Spektor and Mahbubani have sought to alert readers to changes in geopolitics that may be hard to see from Western capitals. The war on Iran, in their view, is misguided in its motivations and its execution. And its consequences could be hugely damaging for the United States, offering further proof that the world may be slipping out of the United States' grasp. You can find sources, transcripts, and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview.

After Prime Minister Albanese's whistle-stop visit to Singapore, the future of Australia's fuel supplies looks a lot more secure as the ripples from the Straits of Hormuz spread outwards. Last week Anthony Albanese met with his Singaporean counterpart Lawrence Wong in Singapore. The two signed off on a new bilateral trade agreement, under which Australia would guarantee Singapore's supply of liquefied natural gas, and Singapore would prioritise the flow of refined petroleum to Australia. Singapore is Australia's largest source of refined petrol. SBS's Naveen Razik secured an exclusive interview with Singapore's Energy Minister Dr. Tan See Leng about our energy partnership and the wider consequences of the current crisis in the Strait of Hormuz.

Series Summary The series brings together anthropologists, researchers, and practitioners to examine crypto as it unfolds across time and place. We follow crypto through its successive cycles, from early experimentation and speculative booms to moments of crash. These episodes highlight the value of an ethnographic lens to research the volatile landscape of crypto, showing how ideas of value, risk and trust are continuously reworked across communities, geographies, and cycles. Final Episode At a moment of industry soul-searching, host Al Lim sits down with venture investors Wei Shi Khai and Qing Ze (QZ) to take stock of crypto from Singapore and Asia. The conversation traces a long arc: from early idealism through hyper-speculation to today’s pragmatism, asking how practitioners make sense of crypto’s shifting meanings and futures. Topics range from privacy and censorship resistance to regulation, infrastructure, AI, and Singaporean governing logics, through to the role of anthropologists from an industry perspective. What does it mean to build in an industry that prides itself on being “the biggest collection of misfits,” and what might the future hold?     Guests Wei Shi Khai is Co-founder and General Partner of LongHash Ventures, with aggregate assets under management of approximately US$100 million since 2021. Shi Khai also co-founded and launched LongHashX, Asia's first globally focused blockchain accelerator backed by a Singapore sovereign wealth fund. Through LongHashX, he has overseen the acceleration of more than 70 early-stage companies and supported them in raising over US$250 million to date. Prior to LongHash Ventures, he was a consultant at McKinsey & Company in Malaysia, advising C-suite clients across the banking, telecommunications, and energy sectors on strategy, organisational design, and digital transformation. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Imperial College London. Qing Ze (QZ) is a community builder and investor in the Ethereum ecosystem. Over the past several years, he has been deeply embedded in the space — organizing ETHSingapore, one of Southeast Asia’s flagship Ethereum events, and contributing to ecosystem development at Gitcoin. Building on this foundation, QZ co-founded the Ethereum Ecosystem Fund, a $30M seed-stage venture fund backed by Ethereum pioneers. This fund invests in early-stage projects that advance decentralized infrastructure and programmable financial systems.   Series Host Al Lim is an incoming Presidential Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Singapore Management University and a PhD candidate at Yale University, where his doctoral research examines the social ecology of crypto in Thailand. He has published in Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, Urban Geography, and The Journal of the Siam Society, and holds an MSc from the London School of Economics and Political Science and a BA (summa cum laude) from Yale-NUS College. He also brings several years of professional experience in the crypto and AI sectors, including venture capital and ecosystem development.

Danny Lum is a Singaporean strength coach and sport scientist specializing in applied performance research. His work explores strength diagnostics, isometrics, and power development, and he is widely published and recognized for connecting sport science with practical coaching. In this episode, Danny explores the intersection of sport science and real-world performance. Danny shares insights from his research on isometric training, PNF stretching, and velocity-based training, emphasizing how different methods complement rather than replace one another. The conversation dives into squat depth, unilateral vs. bilateral training, and the role of variability in power development. Throughout, Danny highlights a key theme: effective training is individualized, phase-dependent, and built on understanding how the body adapts. Today's episode is brought to you by Hammer Strength. Use the code “LILAJUSTFLY10” for 10% off any Lila Exogen wearable resistance gear. For this offer, head to Lilateam.com Use code “justfly10” for 10% off the Vert Trainer View more podcast episodes at the podcast homepage. (https://www.just-fly-sports.com/podcast-home/) Timestamps 0:00 – Welcome to the Show 2:42 – Journey to Sprinting 5:10 – Strength Training Insights 14:38 – The Power of Isometrics 15:44 – PNF Stretching Explained 24:54 – Programming Isometrics 28:46 – Unilateral vs. Bilateral Training 36:33 – Velocity-Based Training 44:20 – The Importance of Variation 52:42 – Research on Isometric Strength 1:07:38 – Yearly Training Plan Danny Lum Quotes "When you lift heavy weights, if you have maximum intent, even though the external movement looks slow, there is rapid neural firing. It doesn't necessarily mean that slow movement during heavy lifting means you are not having a fast neural firing, which is relevant to sprinting." "For sprinters, when the knee is lifted up at the highest point, they don't just allow the leg to drop passively. They actually start developing force and hammer down right from the highest point. That is where your hip flexion angle is about 90 degrees. So if you're not strong at that position, then you're not maximizing the amount of force you can develop through the full range of movement." "If you're going to do static stretch during your warm-up, you might as well just perform isometric contraction at that position as well. That helps to not only activate your muscle, but you actually microdose isometric training every day." "You're strengthening your muscle at the long muscle length, and that long muscle length is where the muscular-tendinous system is most vulnerable. If you are not strong at that range, then your risk of injury just increases. But if you can get yourself stronger at the long range, you're actually protecting yourself." "If we are talking about loading the tissue itself...loading the muscle and tendon tissue, then doing unilateral work is probably going to benefit more because you can actually load the quads more by doing single-leg squat as compared to double-leg bilateral squat." "Having a variety of load actually gives greater adaptation. I think that why that's the case is because you allow the person to have a little bit of velocity focus and a little bit of force focus in the training." "If I contract rapidly, and I sustain for three seconds, because that allows me to build to a higher peak force, my strength actually increased more, and I also significantly increased my rate of force development. It allowed me to get the best of both worlds; both rate of force development and peak force actually improved." "Isometrics actually improved running economy more than plyometrics. My theory behind it is that runners, while they are running, is sort of like a low-intensity plyometric. So with a higher-intensity plyometric versus isometric, which is a totally new stimulus, they actually adapt more with the new stimulus as compared to plyometrics." "Today, the athlete might be able to lift 100 kilograms for five reps before he feels fatigue, and on a bad day, three reps. If I standardize in the program five reps every day, then on some days he might be overtraining, and that's where velocity training provides the advantage. I'm still getting him to lift at his daily maximal of effort, but it's self-regulated." "I don't really go too movement specific. Usually, I'll be more general in that sense because I prefer to build up the physical capacity rather than being overly specific. But having said that, most of the exercises have to be relevant to how they function." "Isometric training is probably the best way to improve angle-specific force generation capability. On the other hand, we also know that tissue adaptation is greater when training at longer muscle length. So you're actually stretching the muscle and the tendon a little more, and that will result in greater improvement in hypertrophy as well as greater tendon stiffness." "As they're closer to the major competition, I'll replace the dynamic heavy lifting with isometric training. I won't replace everything, but I'll replace part of it just so that they can recover better with a lower level of fatigue, so that leading up, they won't have a fried central nervous system." About Danny Lum Danny Lum is a Singapore-based strength and conditioning coach and sport scientist known for his work in applied performance research and athlete development. He has held roles in both academic and high-performance sport settings, blending research with practical coaching. Danny's work focuses on areas such as strength diagnostics, isometric training, unilateral vs. bilateral force production, and optimizing power for sport. He is widely published in peer-reviewed journals and is a frequent presenter at international conferences, bridging the gap between sport science and real-world coaching practice.

My guest today, TW Lim, is here to explore how nation food constructions have played out in Singapore through the hawker centres the country is known for. TW writes on the relationships between politics, history, and culture and how they have shaped eating habits in Singapore. By day, he writes about technology, but he also writes about food and value, or the "regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something."  While known to many other countries as a "food paradise" over the last 50 years, TW unpacks how Singaporean food worth and value is decided upon in a country where is food identity. In his new book, Little Perfections: Eating in Singapore, he looks at the development of hawker centres, home kitchens, and restaurants of Singapore that gets at the culture and business of food in Singapore.  In today's conversation, we look at the early government policy of Singapore and its lasting impact on the development and maintenance of hawker centres, grappling with notions of authenticity as economic and cultural values around food and eating shift through time, labour and wages for multi-generational hawker workers, and how Singapore as a food paradise holds up a mirror to the food habits of USA and Asia. Resources:  Website: https://humblescrivener.com/  Newsletter: Let Them Eat Cake

This episode features an insightful conversation with Chin Han, the Singaporean actor whose career bridges Hollywood blockbusters, prestige television, and international cinema. Known for his sharp intelligence on screen and his ability to bring nuance to morally complex characters, Chin Han has become one of the most recognizable Asian actors working today. We explore his journey to major roles in The Dark Knight, Mortal Kombat. SAVE 17% ON PLUS  

Michelle Martin speaks with Dr Chen Shiling, Founder of the Happee Hearts Movement and Straits Times Singaporean of the Year 2025, in this deeply moving conversation on purpose and impact. She could have been a successful nephrologist but instead is using her medical skills to step into the gap she saw for inclusive healthcare. We explore what “high-quality healthcare” truly means for adults with intellectual disabilities - and where the current system can fall short. Dr Chen opens up about what it really takes to unlock healing for those with intellectual disabilities, as we ask: what must Singapore do next to truly leave no one behind?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Artificial intelligence is changing the way we work faster than ever. Many workers are asking the same question: how do we stay competitive and relevant in an AI-driven workplace? Join Bharath and Sharif as they break down the AI-Ready SG initiative, a programme by NTUC designed to help Singaporean workers adapt, upskill and confidently integrate AI into their daily work.From AI training pathways and practical masterclasses to career mentorship and support for AI tool subscriptions, the initiative aims to give workers the skills and tools they need to thrive in a rapidly changing employment landscape.Find out more on how to stay confident and relevant in your career with NTUC. #EveryWorkerMatters==========Don't forget to like, comment and subscribe to our YouTube and other social channels to never miss an update. Thank you for your support and we look forward to sharing more exciting content with you soon!

Dening Lo is the best Singaporean ultra runner. She has won 8 out of the past 10 races she has competed in. She has just finished 3 at the Asia Trail Master Finals, series that culminates in a final of the best runners in Asia and she took a podium in a hard fought battle with runners from across the region. We cover:- Her back ground and how you got into ultra running. - What is it that makes her a great ultra runner?- Inspiring women. Mum with 3 kids, how do she juggle training and family- In the past 2 years, she's won 8 of your last 10 races. Incredible record. What have been some of her highlights- How has being part of a running club has impacted her performances- Low lights. What have been some of the hardest or most challenging and why- Why she loves racing in Indonesia.- ATM finals: - Expectation going in- How the race went- Feeling to win- What's next?Follow Dening on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/godeninglo/?hl=enEndurance Asia soacialsWebsite: https://www.enduranceasia.com/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUHv2YWma06vKwlzs53WZ5gInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/enduranceasiaFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/enduranceasiapodX (Twitter): https://twitter.com/enduranceasia_LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/endurance-asia/

Emoji Speak: Communication and Behaviours on Social Media (Bloomsbury, 2023) by Dr. Jieun Kiaer provides an in-depth discussion of emoji use in a global context, this volume presents the use of emoji as a hugely important facet of computer-mediated communication, leading Dr. Kiaer to coin the term 'emoji speak'. Exploring why and how emojis are born, and the different ways in which people use them, this book highlights the diversity of emoji speak. Presenting the results of empirical investigations with participants of British, Belgian, Chinese, French, Japanese, Jordanian, Korean, Singaporean, and Spanish backgrounds, it raises important questions around the complexity of emoji use. Though emojis have become ubiquitous, their interpretation can be more challenging. What is humorous in one region, for example, might be considered inappropriate or insulting in another. Whilst emoji use can speed up our communication, we might also question whether they convey our emotions sufficiently. Moreover, far from belonging to the youth, people of all ages now use emoji speak, prompting Kiaer to consider the future of our communication in an increasingly digital world. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Send a textSupport the showEarly Access Podcast: https://arsenioseslpodcast.podia.com/community/topics/195018/posts/676331-podcast-topic-the-three-s-s-of-motivation-expectancy-esteem-and-efficacy

If you'd like to see full video of this and other episodes, join the Reel Notes Patreon at the Homie ($5/month) tier or higher. Each episode is also available to buy individually for $5 (Buy it through a web browser and not the Patreon app. You'll get charged extra if you purchase through the app.) You also get early access to episodes, an invite to our Discord server, access to the Reel Talk archives, and more! My guest this week is Singaporean rapper-producer Mary Sue. We spoke about Bugonia,  No Other Choice, the Singaporean movie theater experience, the work of Stephen Chow, Kanye West, and Earl Sweatshirt, how his time in the army led to him making music in earnest, honoring his heritage and putting his own spin on hip-hop, and the creative process behind several of his project, particularly Porcelain Shield, Paper Sword and the bloomcycle-produced EP Unintended Self Expressions From Selling Reflections On The Internet. Come fuck with us. Porcelain Shield, Paper Sword is available wherever music is sold, streamed, or stolen. Unintended Self Expressions From Selling Reflections On The Internet is available exclusively on Bandcamp. Head to Sue's Bandcamp page to cop both. Follow Mary Sue on Instagram (@sweetmarysue) and Twitter (@marysueraps).  Reel Notes stands in solidarity with American immigrants against ICE and the oppressed peoples of Palestine, Congo, Sudan, Tigray, and Haiti. Please consider donating to the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, the Palestine Children's Relief Fund,  The Palestinian Youth Movement, The Zakat Foundation, HealAfrica, FreeTigray, and/or Hope For Haiti. Protest, fight back, and fuck the system.  My first book, Reel Notes: Culture Writing on the Margins of Music and Movies, is available now, via 4 PM Publishing. Order a digital copy on Amazon. Follow me on Instagram (@cinemasai), Twitter (@CineMasai_), TikTok (@cinemasai), Letterboxd (@CineMasai), and subscribe to my weekly Nu Musique Friday newsletter to stay tapped in to all things Dylan Green.  Follow Hearing Things at hearingthings.co or @hearingthingsco on all social platforms.   

Stephen Torrence joins Vince Fakhoury Horn to share his experience teaching generative AI in Bhutan and explore the audacious vision behind the Gelephu Mindfulness City — a million-person city being built by Bhutan's King to prove that mindfulness, technology, and economic development can coexist.

In this Conflicted Conversation, Thomas speaks to veteran Singaporean diplomat Prof. Kishore Mahbubani about his thesis that the 21st century will be remembered as ‘the Asian Century', and how the West can prepare peacefully and optimistically for China's return as the fulcrum of world history. Drawing on his books Living the Asian Century, Has China Won?, and Can Asians Think?, Prof. Mahbubani explains: Why the 21st century will be the Asian century and why this need not require Western decline How colonialism shaped Asian self-perception, and the need for intellectual decolonisation How other countries can adopt Singapore's model for success His meeting with Fidel Castro, Hafez al-Assad, and Yasser Arafat The hypocrisy of Western power and diplomacy How the United States keeps the UN weak on purpose Why Pres. Trump's China realism has been a good thing The threat of war in Asia Follow Prof. Mahbubani on X: https://x.com/mahbubani_k Join the Conflicted Community here: https://conflicted.supportingcast.fm Find us on X: https://x.com/MHconflicted And Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MHconflicted And Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/conflictedpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Conflicted is a Message Heard production. Executive Producers: Jake Warren & Max Warren. This episode was produced and edited by Thomas Small. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices