Pull and push factors affecting school relocation in Singapore: the past and the present

Pull and push factors affecting school relocation

in Singapore: the past and the present

Jessie WONG Yuk Yong,

Independent Educational Researcher, Vancouver, Canada

HO Kwok Keung,

Senior Audit Analyst, Audit Commission of Hong Kong

TOH Kok Aun

Head, Science Education & Technology, National Inst. of Education, Singapore

Abstract

In history and at present, some schools have been and are still being relocated for one reason or another. Putting all the factors together and sorting them into categories: some are pull and some are push factors. Relocation of schools has seldom been fully documented and researched. One reason is, perhaps, there are a lot more other important issues in education that have more direct impacts on education, and on people than relocation business. This paper attempts to argue that school relocation deserves more serious attention than it has usually been given, and it affects the people as well as the education of the children as much as any other changes in education. It also seeks to unravel the theoretical and practical reasons, which influence the location and relocation of a school.

Taking the history of school relocation of some old schools in Singapore, especially those built in the late 19th and early 20th century, it can be noticed that these schools might have moved 3 to 7 times in history. Most of them have achieved a rather stable location today, unlikely to be subjected to relocate in the near future. It may be argued that these schools have arrived at an equilibrium stage. The reasons for relocation of these schools have been identified as mainly push factors, such as poor building, noise problem, congested environment and the lack of space for expansion. This paper also discusses the planned relocation of schools in Singapore today under the main program, called PRIME. It can be noticed that Singapore has developed a very neat system of education today, including its plans for school improvement, expansion, upgrading and relocation. The factors for school relocation are certainly different in the past and at present. However, we can certainly learn from the past to make future decisions regarding school relocation. An ideal school location is one that provides an ideal learning environment; relocating disturbs the whole school population. The final result of this study shows 6 categories of factors and their relationships with each other as shown in the outcome space diagram.

Introduction

There are many factors affecting a school to be relocated. Ho (1995) wrote about relocation of secondary schools in Hong Kong several years before and after 1990. He discussed relocation of schools at that stage as a result of urban planning and demographic change due to the rapid growth of urban centers and other geographical factors. On the broader sense, this kind of change is man-made and planned. The authors suspect that in most developed countries, relocation of schools is mainly under the charge of an administrative body such as the Ministry of Education. The instruction and plan to relocate a school, therefore also comes from this governing body. In the case of private schools, there are different rules governing the decision and process of relocation.

In the late 19th century, most schools in Singapore were privately owned. Relocation of these schools was therefore private issues, and mainly due to insufficient space, that a new school was badly needed. In this situation, the owner of the private school would apply for the school to be government aided in order to have enough funding to build a new school, usually resulting in relocation. The government would usually offer a new site, and thus the school was relocated. This was the common way to relocate a school in the old days, from the 1880s until Singapore’s independence in 1959. There was no case of overall planning to relocate all the schools requiring a new space and environment in those days. Most school relocations could be considered as pull and push factors arose in a piecemeal manner.

However, there were some programs and good activities associated with upgrading of schools in the three decades after 1960 (Powell, 2001). The Ministry of Education has been the body in charge of schools in Singapore since independence. The process to relocate a school is very different from the olden days.

Geographically, the relocation of schools, similar to the relocation of business, would follow the theory of relocation of cities in some ways. Decline in school going age population would force a school to close down or to relocate (Flemming, 1980). On the contrary, an increase of young population such as the growth of new towns, would generate new schools. Some of these new schools could also be old ones being relocated.

A new factor has recently affected the relocation of some schools in Singapore since 1999. This was the plan to provide information technology infrastructure to schools. It has never occurred before anywhere in this world that a perfect planning was drawn to rebuild, expand and relocate schools in order to provide up-to-date information technology infrastructure for teaching and learning. The results of the effect of such a planned relocation could be seen several years down the road. If this plan proves successful, it could add new knowledge leading to the future planning of school relocation for a specific purpose.

Brief history of the relocation of schools in Singapore

Relocation is not the main agenda in administering education in the State in any period of time. Historical records of some schools show evidence that relocation took place for several reasons: school expansion, increase in student number, forced out of urban development, lack of facilities e.g. building/classroom, congestion, noise problem, unsafe building, and government grant of new site for relocation.

In the brief history of educational development in Singapore, many policies were implemented, many issues resolved and many problems remain unresolved even after the Republic gained its independence in 1959. It was only the first major step to build more schools during this period (P.W.D., 1984, p.6). A five-year program based on the 1956 White Paper included the accelerated school building program with the objective of providing a place in school for every child of school going age (Yip and Sim, 1994).

After this period of expansion in building schools, providing a place for every child has never been a serious problem in Singapore again. On and off new schools were built to cater for the needs of the growth of population. It was a result of the establishment and growth of new townships throughout the last century. Occasionally, decisions were made to relocate some schools to better areas according to educational policies of that particular period. Older schools were also restored and new schools were built in some areas during this process. However, building of schools in a major way was never a necessity or a plan again. Only a few schools were relocated since the major expansion of school project in the 1960s. Lack of space, town planning, major change in urban demography were reasons for relocation.

Fairly recently, relocation of a few schools took place for the reason of moving the boys and girls school together; moving the junior and high schools, and junior colleges next to each other. It was a re-organization rather than a planned relocation. The reason for the move could be several, including the aim of providing more opportunities for these students to mix and learn from each other, as well as providing more chances for male and female students to mix with each other. There has been a serious national concern about too many young people staying single or marrying late. The long-term aim of school relocation in this case, is certainly positive to achieving this aim.

At the close of the 20th century, the challenge of information technology in education, a new concept in school relocation to reconstruct, merge or relocate schools in order to provide sufficient information technology infrastructure for each student in the nation has taken place (http://www.moe.edu.sg). In 1999, the Ministry of Education had a new 10-year plan to relocate and expand schools on the basis of upgrading and improving the information technology infrastructure. This most recent plan is affecting a considerable number (290, about 81% of the primary and secondary schools) of schools. It is a very well structured and planned, nation-wide reconsideration of closing, upgrading, expanding, merging, rebuilding and relocating schools (Powell, 2001).

Method

There was very little written about school relocation, even less on the factors affecting it. This is an historical cum phenomenographical study of factors affecting school relocation in Singapore. This study began by conducting a literature review on relocation of schools, then factors that affect relocation of cities and organizations that may also apply to the relocation of schools. A search on the history of education in Singapore was conducted with the main focus on the rebuilding and relocating factors. It was followed by a study of the details of the history of 8 selected schools, 5 of them were built between 1850 and 1890, 2 were built in the 1910s, and one relatively new school, built in 1956. They were randomly selected from all schools built before Singapore achieved its independence in 1959. Historical information was gathered from history books, school web-sites, as well as educational documents. This information was examined individually to tease out the factors affecting its relocation. Phenomenographic research methodology was applied to compare and group them in a hierarchical order. The outcome space diagram that represents the factors affecting school relocation in Singapore, forms the main result of the study.

Phenomenographic approach

Phenomenography is a qualitative research method. The approach aims to reveal different factors affecting the relocation of schools, in a similar way as it aims to reveal different ways in which people experience and understand phenomena in their world (Marton, 1988). This approach has usually been applied to analyze interviewed data concerning a phenomenon (Wong & Gerber, 2001). There is no reason why it can’t be used to analyze historical data.

This is the first time the authors believe it has been used to study historical data in a qualitative way. Combined with an historical research method, phenomenographic researchers experience historical information and analyze historical data to find out the number of ways in which the phenomenon is understood. There is no need for phenomenographic researchers to use a large sample for their study. They believe that whatever phenomenon people encounter, there is a limited number of ways in which it is understood. It is the categories of descriptions and the development of an outcome space diagram that demonstrates the relationships amongst these conceptions that constitute the main result of the study (Gerber, 1993).

Method of analysis

Dahlgren and Fallsberg’s (1991) approach of analyzing phenomenographic data was modified and used in this study. The following steps were followed:

1. Familiarization – the researcher read the historical accounts very carefully, to get acquainted with them in detail.

2. Condensation – the most significant statements in the records are selected to give a brief but representative version concerning the phenomena.

3. Comparison – the selected statements are compared to find sources of variation or agreement.

4. Grouping – answers which are similar are put together.

5. Articulating – a preliminary attempt is made to describe the essence of the similarity within each group. This will be done several times to establish credibility of the analysis.

6. Labeling – the various groups are being labeled.

7. Contrasting – the groups are compared for similarity and differences.

Results: relocation history of some old schools in Singapore

In this section, the authors wish to present a short summary of the relocation history of the eight schools studied as the basis to the background knowledge regarding these schools. Some old schools in Singapore have had as many as five to seven moves before sitting comfortably at the current location over its more than one hundred years of history. Newer schools built after independence have seldom been relocated.

Schools founded in the 19th century

1.Gan Eng Seng School

This school was an example of the old school which had moved seven times till today. It was opened in Telok Ayer Street in 1885 to offer free education to the children of poor parents in the vicinity. Mr Gan Eng Seng was the founder and owner of the school. It was first located in a shop-house. It became an aided school in 1888. In 1989, the government gave a site at Telok Ayer Street. It then moved from the shop-house vicinity to the actual school building in 1893. By 1937, the building was too old and could not be repaired. The plan to build a new school at Anson Road did not go ahead due to the war. In 1938, Gan Eng Seng School became a government school. In 1941 the old school was truly unsafe and had to be abandoned. Alternative accommodation was hard to find, but eventually the Education Department decided to house the school temporarily in the Sepoy Lines Malay School in Park Road, where it was given the morning session. There was still insufficient space, and the primary classes had to be accommodated in a section of Pearl's Hill School close by.

When the War broke out, the school was closed. It was reopened and relocated at Outram school after the war in 1946. In 1947, it was shifted to Waterloo Street. In May 1951, Gan Eng Seng was relocated to Anson Road. The school was again relocated in 1986 to the new building in Raeburn Park and officially opened in 1989. Since then, it stays there (http://www.schools.moe.edu.sg/gess).

2. Anglo-Chinese School

The school, opened in 1886, relocated five times in its history of 115 years. It was first located in a shop-house at 70, Amoy Street. Bishop William F. Oldham was the founder. It experienced an increase of student population from just 13 to 104 the following year. Therefore it had to move to a bigger building in the first Methodist Chapel established on Coleman Street then. The secondary school was moved to Cairnhill between 1925-1929. In 1947, Dr Herbert H. Peterson, the principal, embarked on an ambitious campaign to relocate the school from Cairnhill to Barker Road in 1950. After several decades, plans were drawn up for a new campus at Dover Road between 1987 and 1989. Anglo-Chinese School (Independent) was relocated to Dover Road in 1992. Anglo-Chinese Secondary School (Barher Road) remained at Barker Road. The Dover Road Campus was big enough for further expansion. With its new infrastructure and large land area, the school would not need to relocate for a long time to come (http://www.acs.ach.edu.sg)

3. St Andrew’s School

The school was started on Chin Chew Street in 1850. It was the work of two Anglicans. In 1862, the Anglican Church adopted the school. In 1863, it was relocated to Upper Hokkien Street due to the need for a better building and more space for expansion. In 1872, it became a grant-in-aid institution and moved to Victoria Street. The government gave 4 acres of land on the then Government Hill, with a frontage on Stamford Road. In 1875, the first building was ready and the school moved in. In 1934, this site was too small for the growing school. It was relocated to Woodsville. The school was closed in 1940 because of the war. It started again in 1946, a junior school was added. In 1978, a proper St. Andrew’s Junior college was opened in Woodsville. In the 1980s, the plan to develop Potong Pasir, with a 4.18 hectare site earmarked for education, gave St. Andrew’s School a chance to relocate its premise to a more spacious location. Thus the new St. Andrew’s Secondary School at Potong Pasir was opened in 1986. In a history of 151 years, St. Andrew has been relocated five times. Each move was to a better location. Today, its new campus has rooms for expansion for the time being, perhaps for another 10 years. ( http://www.saints.com.sg)

4. Fairfield Methodist School

The school has 113 years of history, founded in 1888 and located at Cross Street. It was known as Telok Ayer Girls’ School then. In 1912, the government provided a piece of land at Neil Road to construct a new school. The school was thus relocated to 178 Neil Road and was renamed as Fairfield Girls’ School. At the same location, the school was renamed as Fairfield Methodist Girls’ School again in 1958. Since the campus was inadequate and the facilities became substandard, Fairfield Methodist Girls’ School was then relocated to its Dover Road site and became co-ed. It was restructured under its new name, Fairfield Methodist Primary and Fairfield Methodist Secondary School. It has undergone a drastic expansion in 1990 at this location. This school has been relocated 3 times throughout history. It is believed that it will stay at its current address for many more years to come.

(http://www.moe.edu.sg/schools/fmps/)

5. St. Anthony’s Canossian Secondary School

The school has a long history of 122 years. However, it has a different history of relocation from the other schools discussed so far. It has only moved one time from its first location at Middle Road to its current address at Bedok North Avenue 4. On the other hand, it has changed names several times. In 1879, it was known as St. Anna’s School, situated at Middle Road. It was changed to St. Anthony Boys’ and Girls’ School in 1886. In 1894, the boys’ and girls’ schools were separated. In 1906, it became St. Anthony’s Convent. In 1994, it was relocated to Bedok North Avenue 4, leaving behind the congestion and noise problem of Middle Road. (http://www.moe.edu.sg/schools/sacc/)

Schools founded in the 20th century

1. Chinese High School

The school relocated only one time in its long history. It was first opened as Hua Chiao Middle School on 21 March 1919 at Niven Road. Six years later (1925), it was relocated to Bukit Timah Campus in a luxurious 79 acres of land, standing on a hill – one of the best locations for a school. It survived the Second World War, and continued to expand its infrastructure. Today it is one of the best-wired school in Singapore, with modern computer and telecommunication facilities. (http://www.moe.edu.sg/schools/sch7309/)

2. Paya Lebar Methodist Girls’ School

In the initial years, it was a branch of Anglo-Chinese School in Boundary Road. It stayed in Boundary Road vicinity until 1930. It was moved to Kampung Sirah and then moved back two years later. The school was relocated to its brand new campus and premise at 296, Lorong Ah Soo in 1986. It is one of the most popular schools in Singapore, being excellent in all fields of education. It has moved 3 times in its history. There is no plan to relocate the school in the near future. (http://www.plmgss.moe.edu.sg/)

3. River Valley High School

It is a younger school that has been relocated 3 times. It was first opened at the premises of Seng Poh Primary School in 1956. It was the first Chinese school set up by the government, known as Singapore Government Chinese Middle School. In the same year, it was relocated to Strathmore Avenue in Queenstown, and changed its name to Queenstown Chinese Middle School. In 1961, it was relocated to Jalan Kuala, and renamed River Valley Government Chinese Middle School. The school achieved its name, River Valley High School in 1980. It was moved to its new campus at West Coast Road in 1986. It has a complicated history of changing names.

(http://www.moe.edu.sg/schools/rvhs/)

The Outcome

The phenomengraphic analysis ensures a valid outcome of the phenomena under study, presented in an outcome space diagram. With all the historical information about the relocations of the 8 schools, many factors, both pull and push factors have had played a vital role in deciding when and where each school had been relocated. While all the factors differed from each other, they were associated to each other in some ways. And they could be grouped under just 6 different headings. These 6 groups are:

1. When/time factor

2. Urbanization and growth of the city

3. Ownership, change of status of the school

4. Unsafe building, for the better

5. Establishment of secondary school

6. Government planning/intervention

According to this study, these groups of factors represent the limited number of reasons why a school was relocated. It could be used as the basis of future study of factors affecting school relocation. The following outcome space diagram forms the main result of this study and shows the categories of factors and their relationships.

Insert Figure 1 here

There are 3 parts in the outcome space diagram. The main result is shown as the central column. It shows the 6 categories of factors affecting school relocation. They are organized from the lower or less complicated level to highly organized level. Therefore it begins with the time factor and ends with the factor related to government planning or intervention.

The time factor explains the location and relocation of a school as determined by time, by history, and by the advancement of society. Therefore in the early history of Singapore, schools were located and relocated around the city area. They experienced, over time, relocation further and further out of the city to its peripheral area. This can be explained as pure history. The city was where people lived, and therefore schools were located there. Level 2 is related to level 1. Soon after Singapore experienced growth and urbanization, the demand of land, congestion and noise problem as a result of progress and development, forced the existing schools in the city to move further and further away from the center.

Level 3 and 4 examines the social factors. When a school building became unsafe, the children had to be moved until the building was repaired and became safe again. It happened in early Singapore that the unsafe school was beyond repair, and the location too small for a new building, then the school had to be relocated. Sometimes, the school opted to be a grant-in-aid institution in order to rescue this situation, and resulted in a change of status. This could allow the government to offer a free site, which determined the location of the new school. The ownership of the school, for example, the missionary schools, had options of using missionary land, church and so on. In a way it determined the location and relocation of a school in the past.

Level 3 and 4 are social factors, therefore, it could also be located between level 1 and 2 in the outcome space diagram. There is no significant reason as to when these factors should affect the relocation of any school. Careful analysis of the 8 schools under study shows, however, that some of the schools had experienced unsafe buildings, and change of status and therefore received government’s free land for a new site before the schools were displaced out of the city as a result of urbanization. Therefore we should read the outcome space diagram in a flexible manner: the ordering of level 3 and 4 should be exchangeable with level 2.

Level 5 and 6 are factors associated with planning of the ministry of education or the government. The plan to establish a secondary school related to an existing primary school is usually planned by the government. This development occurred later in the history of a school. In the olden days, the Colonial Government did not have any comprehensive plans to relocate existing schools. However, there were several programs initiated by the Singapore Government in the 1970s and 1980s, which had resulted in some schools being relocated. The major plan, known as PRIME, which was fairly recent, has resulted in many schools being relocated. Therefore it is fair to say that Level 5 and 6 are more sophisticated factors involving large scale planning. Schools in Singapore are affected by these 2 factors to relocate only in more recent years.

The left column indicates whether a factor is categorized as pull or push factors. Pull factors are considered as an attraction to relocate. Push factors are considered as forcing the schools to relocate. Some factors are denoted with push and pull and some as push or pull. That means sometimes these factors are both push and pull factors, sometimes, they are either push or pull factors depending on the individual case.

The right column attempts to categorize the factors into 3 different categories. Level 1 and 2 are considered purely geographical; Level 3 and 4 are considered social, and level 5 and 6 are considered the results of government planning.

Arranging the factors in such a way in the outcome space diagram allows us to see the phenomenon of the factors affecting school relocation in a meaningful way.

Discussion and summary

By analyzing and synthesizing the history of school relocation in Singapore provides us a basis to argue that school relocation had not been given its due importance, and the knowledge on why schools had been relocated was not organized. There was irregularity of such discussions in the past (Ho, 1995). This paper has done the job to organize this matter in a way it should be. The result of this study has its importance. It provides new knowledge on factors affecting school relocation, which has never been fully documented. At a glance, it tells us that push factors were the major players resulting in a school being relocated in the past; pull factors are more dominant in modern decision for relocating an existing school.

It is common knowledge that a school is just an organization consisting of physical buildings and run by people. It can be relocated due to some reasons in the same way as a family or any other organization, moving from one place to another. Whether it existed in the past or present, a school is subjected to relocate at some point in time, due to some reasons. On the other hand, a school only exists where there are students. When a school is situated in a location faced with aging population and few children of school going age, it has to decide to close down or to relocate to a new place (Shaw, 1990). This is one thing that forces a school to relocate. It happens anywhere in the world throughout the history of education. This is called a dying school, just like a dying city when a city could no longer function as a city.

The 6 categories of factors revealed in this study had affected the relocation of schools in Singapore in the past. Some of the factors such as insufficient space for expansion, school buildings beyond repairable condition, bad environment (noises etc), urban development, etc. were more dominant in a less developed situation. Probably they are still the main factors affecting school relocation in the less developed areas of the world.

The situation in Singapore has changed dramatically since its independence. Not all schools today are near perfect, but the fact is that all schools provide a reasonable good learning environment. Some schools will still need to be relocated for some reasons, however, the overall situation is stable. The ministry of education launched the PRIME program in 1998. In a big way, this program will result in many schools to be relocated.

How many times is a school likely to move in its life-time of, say, about 100 years? This study concludes that there is no straight-forward answer to this question. An analysis of the history of school relocation in Singapore reveals that some old schools in Singapore had been relocated as many as five to seven times within a fairly short period of time. Then they appeared to be stable and remained in their sites for a longer period of time until today. Newer schools built in the 1970s and 1980s seemed to stay in their initial location for a longer period of time.

How frequently a school was relocated seemed to have a direct relationship with the time in history. In the earlier days, a school had to move within one or two years after it was set up. Then within another few years, it might move again. Not until the 1960s, then a school could remain in their site for 20 years or more before it needed to be relocated. One explanation for this is that a decision to relocate a school had been more and more carefully considered as time passed. A site for a school today would have to take consideration how long it could stay before there would be a need to relocate it to another site.

This study tries to answer several questions regarding school relocation in Singapore. It has certainly achieved its objectives. However, there is still scope for further study in this area.

References

Dahlgren, L. and Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative approach to social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 8(4), 150-155.

Fleming, M. (1980). School closing policy report. Ohio: Cleveland Public Schools. (ERIC document no. ED 191931)

Gerber, R. (1993). A sense of quality - qualitative research approaches for geographical education. In H. Jager, (ed) Liber Amicorum Gunter Niemz. Frankfurt Main: Johann Wolfgang Geothe University Press. pp. 38-51.

Ho, K.K. (1995). Relocation of secondary schools from the urban area: the Hong Kong experience. Hong Kong Educational Research Journal, Vol.10, No.1.

Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography: exploring different conceptions of reality. In Fetterman (ed), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: the silent revolution. N.Y.: Praeger. Pp. 176-205.

Powell, R. (2001). Architecture of learning, new Singapore schools. Singapore: Akimedia.

Public Works Department (1984). 25 years of school building. Singapore: P.W.D.

Shaw, K.E.(1990). Financial aspects of school closure in the United Kingdom. Journal of Education Finance, 15, pp.558-571.

Wong, Y.Y.J., Gerber, R. (2001). Conceptions of self-directed learning of social studies teachers in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 21(1), pp. 75-87.

Yip, J.S.K. and Sim, W.K. (1994) Evolution of education excellence. Longman: Singapore.

http://www.acsbr.net

http://www.acs.ach.edu.sg

http://www.schools.moe.edu.sg/gess

http://www.saints.com.sg

http://www.moe.edu.sg

http://www.moe.edu.sg/schools/sch7309/

http://www.moe.edu.sg/schools/fmps/

http://www.moe.edu.sg/schools/rvhs/

http://www.chs.edu.sg/main/ind2001/

http://www.plmgss.moe.edu.sg/

http://www.moe.edu.sg/schools/sacc/

Bali's Airport Makes List of 12 Ugliest Airports In the World - An Excerpt

Ngurah Rai International Airport ( DPS) - Photo by Oxymanus


Bali's Airport Makes List of 12 Ugliest Airports
Travel + Leisure Magazine Names Bali to its List of Least Lovely Airports.

Bali News: Bali's Airport Makes List of 12 Ugliest Airports
(2/20/2010) Travel and Leisure Magazine has given Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport the dubious distinction of naming it to its list of the "12 Ugliest Airports in the World."

The Magazine's Karrie Jacobs, contends that Bali's air gateway has "gone out of (its) way to acquire the uncanny placelessness that typifies the modern airport."

Her criticism come amidst demands by Bali legislators and the island's governor to create more Balinese touches and architectural finishes in the course of current modifications to the facility.

Also joining Bali on the list of 12 "ugly airports" are Sofia (Bulgaria), New York's JFK, Washington Dulles, Atlanta Hartsfield, Sheremetyevo International (Moscow), Narita (Tokyo), Linate (Milan), Lynden Pindling International (Nassau, Bahamas), Paris de Gaulle, El Paso International and London Heathrow.

A travel sage once claimed that every airport faithfully represents the destination that lies beyond the terminal. If that is true, Bali's naming to Travel and Leisures' inglorious list should be a matter of real concern to the Bali travel industry.

_______________________________________________________

90% of Indonesian Museum Not Fit to Visit
Indonesian Minister of Culture and Tourism, Jero Wacik, Declares 2010 'Visit Museum Year.'
(2/22/2010) Indonesia's Minister of Culture and Tourism, Jero Wacik, says that 90% of Indonesian museums are not fit for tourist to visit.

"The condition of our museums is concerning. 90% are not well managed and are unfit to visit," says Wacik. Because of this, Wacik is calling for more attention to be paid to how the country's museums are managed and operated.

To help focus greater attention on the museum sector, Wacik has declared 2010 as "Visit Museum Year," adding: "At this point in time, 90% of (our) museums are unfit to visit, so I have named this "Visit Museum Year.' That is how we work."

The Minister hopes that persuading more people to visit museums will automatically cause the management of museums to improve. "Let's see what happens next year after this program is completed. I hope that in five year's time all (our) museums will be fit to visit," explained the Culture and Tourism Minister.

Minister Wacik contends that museums must begin to be operated as places to seek inspiration and study, becoming permanent records of the nation's development.

The Ministry has established a program running through 2014 that is intended to improve both the image and the collections of the country's museums. Wacik also concedes that museums are a popular destination for foreign tourists visiting any nation.

Simultaneously with "Visit Museum Year" the Ministry of Culture and Tourism has also launched a national movement of "Love Museums" to enhance the appreciation of museums among the Indonesian general public.


© Bali Discovery Tours.

______________________________________________________

Alexander Haig, former secretary of state, dies - Excerpt

Alexander Haig, former secretary of state, dies

By ANNE GEARAN
The Associated Press
Saturday, February 20, 2010; 9:26 AM

WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Alexander Haig, a four-star general who served as a top adviser to three presidents and had presidential ambitions of his own, died Saturday of complications from an infection, his family said. He was 85.

Haig's long and decorated military career launched the Washington career for which he is better known, including top posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. He never lived down his televised response to the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Hours after the shooting, then Secretary of State Haig went before the cameras intending, he said later, to reassure Americans that the White House was functioning.

"As of now, I am in control here in the White House, pending the return of the vice president," Haig said.

Some saw the comment as an inappropriate power grab in the absence of Vice President Bush, who was flying back to Washington from Texas.

Haig died at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where he was surrounded by his family, according to two of his children, Alexander and Barbara. A hospital spokesman, Gary Stephenson, said Haig died at about 1:30 a.m.

In his book, "Caveat," Haig later wrote that he had been "guilty of a poor choice of words and optimistic if I had imagined I would be forgiven the imprecision out of respect for the tragedy of the occasion."

Haig ran unsuccessfully for president in 1988.

"I think of him as a patriot's patriot," said George P. Shultz, who succeeded Haig as the country's top diplomat in 1982.

"No matter how you sliced him it came out red, white and blue. He was always willing to serve."

Born Dec. 2, 1924, in the Philadelphia suburb of Bala Cynwyd, Alexander Meigs Haig spent his boyhood days dreaming about a career in the military. With the help of an uncle who had congressional contacts, he secured an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1943.

After seeing combat in Korea and Vietnam, Haig - an Army colonel at the time - was tapped by Henry Kissinger to be his military adviser on the National Security Council under Nixon. Haig "soon became indispensable," Kissinger later said of his protege.


Nixon promoted Haig in 1972 from a two-star general to a four-star rank, passing over 240 high-ranking officers with greater seniority.

The next year, as the Watergate scandal deepened, Nixon turned to Haig and appointed him to succeed H.R. Haldeman as White House chief of staff. He helped the president prepare his impeachment defense - and as Nixon was preoccupied with Watergate, Haig handled many of the day-to-day decisions normally made by the chief executive.

On Nixon's behalf, Haig also helped arrange the wiretaps of government officials and reporters, as the president tried to plug the sources of news leaks.

About a year after assuming his new post as Nixon's right-hand man, Haig was said to have played a key role in persuading the president to resign. He also suggested to Gerald Ford that he pardon his predecessor for any crimes committed while in office - a pardon that is widely believed to have cost Ford the presidency in 1976.

Years after serving as one of Nixon's closest aides, Haig would be dogged by speculation that he was "Deep Throat" - the shadowy source who helped Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein break the Watergate story. Haig denied it, repeatedly, and the FBI's Mark Felt was eventually revealed as the secret source.

Following Nixon's resignation, Haig stayed with the new Ford administration for about six weeks, but then returned to the military as commander in chief of U.S. forces in Europe and supreme allied commander of NATO forces - a post he held for more than four years. He quit during the Carter administration over the handling of the Iran hostage crisis.

Haig briefly explored a run for presidency in 1979, but decided he didn't have enough support and instead took a job as president of United Technologies - his first job in the private sector since high school.

When Ronald Reagan became the 40th president of the United States, Haig returned to public service as Reagan's secretary of state, and declared himself the "vicar of American foreign policy."

His 17-month tenure was marked by turf wars with other top administration officials - including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and national security adviser William Clark.

Two months into the new administration, Haig was portrayed as pounding a table in frustration when the chairmanship of a crisis management team went to Bush. Despite the clashes, Haig received high praise from professional diplomats for trying to achieve a stable relationship with the Soviet Union.

In his book, Haig said he had concluded during a 1982 trip to Europe with the president that the "effort to write my character out of the script was under way with a vengeance." He resigned days later.

Describing himself as a "dark horse," Haig sought the Republican presidential nomination for the 1988 elections. On the campaign trail, he told supporters about his desire to "keep the Reagan revolution alive," but he also railed against the administration's bulging federal deficit - calling it an embarrassment to the GOP.

Haig dropped out of the race just days before the New Hampshire primary.

During his career in public service, Haig became known for some of his more colorful or long-winded language. When asked by a judge to explain an 18 1/2-minute gap in one of the Nixon tapes, Haig responded: "Perhaps some sinister force had come in."

And later, when he criticized Reagan's "fiscal flabbiness," Haig asserted that the "ideological religiosity" of the administration's economic policies were to blame for doubling the national debt to $2 trillion in 1987.

Haig is survived by his wife of 60 years, Patricia; his children Alexander, Brian and Barbara; eight grandchildren; and his brother, the Rev. Francis R. Haig.

---

Associated Press writer Jennifer C. Kerr contributed to this report.

Belinda Yeo - The Ex Radio DJ - An Excerpt

BELINDA YEO - “Today's deejays sound fake “

THE sun may have set on the Sunshine girl as far as her radio days go, but her retirement from Radio Corporation Singapore last year after 40 years in the business has not dulled Belinda Yeo.

Listen to her: 'Today's deejays are fake. They sound fake, they have neither the knowledge nor the passion. They are all into glamour and fame, divas for adulation.

'(Back then) we did everything ourselves. Today you have programme directors, so you don't bother to find out more yourself. I find the current crop of deejays do not enrich my life with any information.'

NO MINCING WORDS

Never one to mince her words, nor waste it, her four decades in broadcasting is now behind her freelance work, training newbies and wannabes in speech and articulation for radio presenting.

Classmates in university remember Belinda Sunshine Yeo clattering into the lecture hall in a short skirt, can-can petticoat, coloured stockings, heeled boots, and ribbons flailing from her hair.

It is the 1960s, of swinging pop and fashion, and independence.

'I was too advanced for my time,' Belinda Sunshine explained the mental picture.

We are in The Attic, her younger brother Bobby's all-import record shop in Novena Square 2.

The moniker 'Sunshine' stuck from her days in St Andrew's where the Pre-U student was a cheerleader for the school's rugby team.

That beam from Singapore's original rock chick would go on to infuse radio waves for 40 years. From RTS to SBC to RCS (Radio Television Singapore, Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Corporation Singapore).

She is reticent to give away her years. When pressed, those red fingernails drew the figures 6 and 0 in the air, 'You know, when you reach (60)...' leaving one to surmise you are cut loose.

Early radio days, she raved all night, stopped by sarabat for breakfast after and was at the turntable in the studio for the 8am news. The names roll off, Shangri-La, Xanadu, Ming Court's Barbarella.

For a rock chick, her lingo is retro, 'the gang', 'our haunt', 'in my heyday', 'the hubby'.

The hubby part is little known.

In private, Belinda Sunshine is a Mrs Lin, married 23 years to one of the music pioneers of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra.

By choice they have no children.

'You know, I am always on the go.'

She's stayed with the first love of music and radio a solid unbroken 40 years, un-publicly retiring only last year, an institution herself on Caldecott Hill. Like Brian Richmond, another familiar, confident, reassuring voice to rise to and drive by.

The girl is a veritable archive of the last quarter century when it comes to radio news and hit parades and celebrity gossip.

When quizzed on upcoming German rock group Tokio Hotel, she sussed that 'It's not a hotel?'

She admits to be up on MTV only 'to the '90s', her preferred sounds, Megadeth, Metallica, heavy metal, and rock.

Belinda Sunshine is a 'Katong girl' and grew up privileged. Both grandfather and father were bank compradores - Chinese middlemen for Western companies and banks.

'You know in those days a bank compradore was something, my grandmother's feet never touched the road.'

There followed colourful anecdotes about the childhood in a Peranakan household.

'My grandmother would go from the bungalow house into the car, the driver would drive her everywhere and then back home, she never set foot on the street.'

Belinda Sunshine's mother was the daughter-in-law favoured to comb and dress the old lady's chignon (bun). Meanwhile, the old man, grandfather would reach for his gun.

'My aunts were quite flirtatious, and if by dinner time there was no sight of them, my grandfather would get out his gun.'

She was called 'Baby' and said, 'Actually my full name is Baby Belinda Sunshine Yeo.'

On air she is simply Belinda Sunshine, starting as assistant producer on RTS to final gig for RSI (Radio Singapore International).

A not much recalled fact, she kick-started Perfect 10 (with Florence Lian, Suresh Menon, Dahlia Zee, Philip Chew) and 'In a year we killed Zoo Radio' (the station from Batam that all of Singapore was hooked on).

DARLING OF THE AIRWAVES

The darling of the airwaves, as she was dubbed, also earned her chops as announcer for the Prime Minister's (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) rallies in the '70s in the National Theatre.

'I was the backstage announcer and then I would escort Mr Lee onstage.'

Other famous people she met and interviewed - oh hundreds - are of Mr Lee's vintage and likely to ring a bell for only babyboomers. Elizabeth Taylor, Cliff Richard, Eartha Kitt, Roger Moore, Helen Reddy.

Most memorable has to be Ricky Martin, who planted one on her.

'You know I'm quite a chi-cha-por (overly chatty woman). He noticed me, said I was cute, pinched my cheek and kissed me on the mouth!'

She thanks Lady Luck - not for the Ricky Martin kiss - but for a long career with no major glitches. And for the strength to lug a heavy duty tape recorder and spools of tape on daily rounds.

'The only difficulty has been language, like Jackie Chan, who took me aside to the Jubilee Hall toilet to say 'ngor (my) English no so good, can kong kongfu (speak Cantonese)?'!'

Now a part-time duty announcer with MediaCorp, she also grooms the future generation of broadcasters.

If she could, she'd love to man 'a pirate radio station - like Radio Caroline - and play all the banned stuff'.

'I would rock the world.'

We could take a shine to that.


- By : Sylvia Toh Paik Choo, Thu, Apr 10, 2008, The New Paper

Malaysia's Richest

Malaysia's Richest Record Better Fortunes Last Year, Magazine Survey Reveals

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 16 (Bernama) -- Malaysia's 40 richest people recorded an increase in their fortunes as they were collectively worth RM156.7 billion as at Jan 15, or 63 per cent more than the RM96.3 billion a year ago, on the back of a recovery in the stock market, a "Malaysian Business" survey reveals.

However, according to the fortnightly magazine's survey results released in a statement Tuesday, their combined wealth was still less than the RM171.9 billion recorded in 2008.

The benchmark FBM KLCI has risen 44.3 per cent since its last survey as the world strives to get back on its feet following the global financial crisis.

The full list of the 40 tycoons and details of their wealth were published in the magazine's Feb 16 issue. As in the previous year, the wealth of the Top 40 was assessed based on the value of their stakes in listed companies as at Jan 15 this year.

The survey also revealed that close to half on this year's list recorded jumps of 50 per cent or more. There are also more billionaires this year - 22, eight more than last year.

Tan Sri Robert Kuok, the Kuok Group patriarch who relinquished his "Sugar King" crown last year, still tops the list with a wealth of RM42.76 billion, up RM16.1 billion from RM26.6 billion a year ago.

Media-shy and telecommunication tycoon Ananda Krishnan ranked second, clocking in at RM27 billion.

IOI Corporation Bhd's Tan Sri Lee Shin Chen was third with a wealth of RM11.92 billion, followed by prominent banker Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow at RM10.86 billion.

Genting Group's Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay, valued at RM10.38 billion, leapt a full 10 spots to five. This was because he assumed a large chunk of the wealth of his late father, Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong.

Hong Leong Group's Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan took the sixth spot at RM7.09 billion while Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Albukhary of the Albukhary Foundation, valued at RM6.01 billion, settled at seventh.

Others in the Top-10 ranking were Lim Goh Tong's widow Puan Sri Lee Kim Hua, Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King of Rimbunan Hijau Group and Tan Sri Vincent Tan of Berjaya Group.

There were five newcomers to the list, namely Lee Swee Eng of KNM Group, brothers Datuk Shahril Shamsuddin and Shahriman Shamsuddin of Sapura, Datuk Seri Nazir Razak of CIMB Group and OSK Holdings' Ong Leong Huat, who makes a comeback to the list after a one-year absence.

-- BERNAMA

2010 Winter Olympics - Vancouver

The 2010 Winter Olympics, officially the XXI Olympic Winter Games or the 21st Winter Olympics, is a major international multi-sport event held on February 12–28, 2010, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, with some events held in the resort town of Whistler, British Columbia and in the Vancouver suburbs of Richmond, West Vancouver and the University Endowment Lands. Both the Olympic and Paralympic Games are being organized by the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC). The 2010 Winter Olympics will be the third Olympics hosted by Canada, and the first by the province of British Columbia. Previously, Canada was home to the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, Quebec and the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, Alberta.

Following Olympic tradition, then Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan received the Olympic flag during the closing ceremony of the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy. The flag was raised on February 28, 2006, in a special ceremony, and was on display at Vancouver City Hall until the Olympic opening ceremony. The event was officially opened by Governor General Michaëlle Jean - from Wikipedia

Dating in Oman - An Excerpt

Loving Couple in Kuala Lumpur - Photo by Oxymanus

You are in a popular restaurant in Muscat when you notice a beautiful Omani woman dressed up in her best abaya but alone in one corner of the restaurant texting away on her phone. She finishes writing her message and places her phone back on the table.

Moments later a young Omani man, who is sitting on the opposite side of the restaurant to the woman, picks up his phone after a text tone goes off loudly. He smiles and starts replying; the woman meanwhile sips her drink and toys with her pasta.

Maria, an expatriate from the UK working in Oman, thought this was just a coincidence until a second after the young man put down his phone, the girl’s loud doorbell-style ring-tone announced she had a reply. The messages continued throughout the meal until the girl paid her bill and left, the youth following minutes later.

After raising the incident with some local friends of hers, Maria was surprised when they said these types of encounters were becoming increasingly common as young men and women try to date or get to know each other without risking damage to their family name or distress to their traditional parents.

‘Reality-in-Oman’ is a young and popular Omani blogger who is married and thinks there are a number of problems facing young people in Oman when it comes to finding a partner. “One problem is that dating is looked down on. Good girls don’t date and good boys never marry girls who have been in previous relationships.

The idea of absolute purity and innocence seems to be most dominant when it comes to selecting your future partner, which is not possible,” she said.

‘Reality-in-Oman’ feels that it is a lack of communication and understanding between young people and their parents that cause problems for those trying to date. She finds the kind of secret relationships like the one described above to be unfortunate.

She said, “Some-times the hardest part is not finding love, but finding a healthy relationship that allows two people to grow. “Once love is found, young people face another huge obstacle that they have to pass, which is presenting that love to their families in the hope of receiving a positive response. Instead, many couples are faced with angry parents who reject the marriage proposal. Hence, you find couples looking for ways to deceive their parents into believing that the guy just happened to see the girl somewhere and fell in love.”

Baidha al Sikaiti, a PR manager in Muscat, thinks that with the increase in people attending private schools and studying abroad, along with the influence of media such as cinema and television, young people are being exposed to a more Western culture than before.

They try to balance this with maintaining their own culture and values.

She said, “Dating is not something our families accept, as it is not part of our culture, but people do date here, and it has become the norm.

“Valentine’s Day is a special day of celebration that all men and women look forward to, as it’s nice to receive flowers and gifts from someone special. There is nothing wrong with dating, but it is very important to have your limitations as well as respect for yourselves and your family.”

Malik al Kuwili first fell in love with his future fiancée in 2003 after they got talking at a family function. Outside of the event their relationship continued to grow as they called and messaged each other via their mobile phones. It wasn’t until 2007 that Malik dec-ided to propose to his girlfriend; when he did, she accepted and asked him why it had taken him so long.

With no safe place to meet, the couple see one another at family functions and other social gatherings, but made the decision not to date in public.

Malik said, “I don’t want to bring a bad name to her by going out with her in public. Since we know each other well, that is enough for us. Besides, concepts like Valentine’s Day do not bring much excitement to our relationship.”

Despite this, some of his family members disapprove of the match, as she does not come from the same community as him. In response to this Malik hopes things will settle peacefully in the future.

But Malik is not the first person to face problems when it comes to the tricky world of love and romance. Salim had to seek the court’s intervention to marry the woman he loved because her parents did not agree to his proposal, even though the woman did. Salim said that despite six years passing since the couple managed to marry successfully, he does not enjoy a good relationship with his in-laws.

Tuwera al Mazrooe, a student in Muscat, does not think it is hard to find a date here as people will often approach others for fun, introduce themselves and start a conversation.

Tuwera thinks that the current cultural attitude in Oman makes it difficult for children to be allowed to date unless their parents are very open-minded. She said, “People need to be a little more broad-minded and not link up two people just because they are talking.”

Some names have been changed to protect identities

Excerpt from : The Week, Oman

82 nd Oscar Awards 2010

Actor in a Leading Role

* Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
* George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
* Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
* Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
* Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

Actor in a Supporting Role

* Matt Damon in “Invictus”
* Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
* Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
* Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
* Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

Actress in a Leading Role

* Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
* Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
* Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
* Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
* Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

Actress in a Supporting Role

* Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
* Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
* Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
* Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”
* Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”

Animated Feature Film

* “Coraline” Henry Selick
* “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Wes Anderson
* “The Princess and the Frog” John Musker and Ron Clements
* “The Secret of Kells” Tomm Moore
* “Up” Pete Docter

Art Direction

* “Avatar” Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg; Set Decoration: Kim Sinclair
* “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Art Direction: Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro; Set Decoration: Caroline Smith
* “Nine” Art Direction: John Myhre; Set Decoration: Gordon Sim
* “Sherlock Holmes” Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
* “The Young Victoria” Art Direction: Patrice Vermette; Set Decoration: Maggie Gray

Cinematography

* “Avatar” Mauro Fiore
* “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” Bruno Delbonnel
* “The Hurt Locker” Barry Ackroyd
* “Inglourious Basterds” Robert Richardson
* “The White Ribbon” Christian Berger

Costume Design

* “Bright Star” Janet Patterson
* “Coco before Chanel” Catherine Leterrier
* “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Monique Prudhomme
* “Nine” Colleen Atwood
* “The Young Victoria” Sandy Powell

Directing

* “Avatar” James Cameron
* “The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow
* “Inglourious Basterds” Quentin Tarantino
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels
* “Up in the Air” Jason Reitman

Documentary (Feature)

* “Burma VJ” Anders Østergaard and Lise Lense-Møller
* “The Cove” Louie Psihoyos and Fisher Stevens
* “Food, Inc.” Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein
* “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith
* “Which Way Home” Rebecca Cammisa

Documentary (Short Subject)

* “China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province” Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill
* “The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner” Daniel Junge and Henry Ansbacher
* “The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant” Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert
* “Music by Prudence” Roger Ross Williams and Elinor Burkett
* “Rabbit à la Berlin” Bartek Konopka and Anna Wydra

Film Editing

* “Avatar” Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
* “District 9” Julian Clarke
* “The Hurt Locker” Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
* “Inglourious Basterds” Sally Menke
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Joe Klotz

Foreign Language Film

* “Ajami” Israel
* “The Milk of Sorrow (La Teta Asustada)” Peru
* “A Prophet (Un Prophète)” France
* “The Secret in Their Eyes (El Secreto de Sus Ojos)” Argentina
* “The White Ribbon (Das Weisse Band)” Germany

Makeup

* “Il Divo” Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano
* “Star Trek” Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow
* “The Young Victoria” Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore

Music (Original Score)

* “Avatar” James Horner
* “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Alexandre Desplat
* “The Hurt Locker” Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
* “Sherlock Holmes” Hans Zimmer
* “Up” Michael Giacchino

Music (Original Song)

* “Almost There” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
* “Down in New Orleans” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
* “Loin de Paname” from “Paris 36” Music by Reinhardt Wagner Lyric by Frank Thomas
* “Take It All” from “Nine” Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston
* “The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett

Best Picture

* “Avatar” James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
* “The Blind Side” Gil Netter, Andrew A. Kosove and Broderick Johnson, Producers
* “District 9” Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham, Producers
* “An Education” Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey, Producers
* “The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier and Greg Shapiro, Producers
* “Inglourious Basterds” Lawrence Bender, Producer
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, Producers
* “A Serious Man” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, Producers
* “Up” Jonas Rivera, Producer
* “Up in the Air” Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, Producers

Short Film (Animated)

* “French Roast” Fabrice O. Joubert
* “Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell
* “The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” Javier Recio Gracia
* “Logorama” Nicolas Schmerkin
* “A Matter of Loaf and Death” Nick Park

Short Film (Live Action)

* “The Door” Juanita Wilson and James Flynn
* “Instead of Abracadabra” Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellström
* “Kavi” Gregg Helvey
* “Miracle Fish” Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey
* “The New Tenants” Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson

Sound Editing

* “Avatar” Christopher Boyes and Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
* “The Hurt Locker” Paul N.J. Ottosson
* “Inglourious Basterds” Wylie Stateman
* “Star Trek” Mark Stoeckinger and Alan Rankin
* “Up” Michael Silvers and Tom Myers

Sound Mixing

* “Avatar” Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson and Tony Johnson
* “The Hurt Locker” Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett
* “Inglourious Basterds” Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti and Mark Ulano
* “Star Trek” Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson and Peter J. Devlin
* “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson

Visual Effects

* “Avatar” Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones
* “District 9” Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
* “Star Trek” Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

* “District 9” Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
* “An Education” Screenplay by Nick Hornby
* “In the Loop” Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
* “Up in the Air” Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

Writing (Original Screenplay)

* “The Hurt Locker” Written by Mark Boal
* “Inglourious Basterds” Written by Quentin Tarantino
* “The Messenger” Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
* “A Serious Man” Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
* “Up” Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy

Text of President Barack Obama's first State of the Union speech

An Excerpt

Text of President Barack Obama's first State of the Union speech on Wednesday 27 January 2010, as provided by the White House:

___

OBAMA: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the president shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression, at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable — that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted — immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades — the burden of working harder and longer for less, of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for president. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Ind., Galesburg, Ill. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children — asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope — what they deserve — is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills, a chance to get ahead, most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."

It's because of this spirit — this great decency and great strength — that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency, that embodies their strength.

And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.

But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular — I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans, made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.

I thought I'd get some applause on that one.

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy, 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. And we're on track to add another one-and-a-half-million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right — the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its work force because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from, who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight.

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do — in small businesses, companies that begin when — companies that begin when an entrepreneur — when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession, and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pa., or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit — one that will go to over 1 million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Fla., where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services and information.

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities — and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America.

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. They will. People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.

We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade — what some call the "lost decade" — where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion, where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs, where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious, such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations — they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America.

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right.

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history — an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy — in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries, or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate.

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support 2 million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a national export initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia.

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.

Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform — reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another 1 million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years — and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.

And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs — because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child-care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment — their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.

This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. Yes, we do.

Now, let's clear a few things up. I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage, patients who've been denied coverage, families — even those with insurance — who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying — Democratic administrations, Republican administrations — we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our first lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. Thank you. She gets embarrassed.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office — the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress — our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans and neither should the people in this chamber.

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it.

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let's get it done. Let's get it done.

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

Now — just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree — which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year — when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. But understand — understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing and jeopardize our recovery — all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument — that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. A novel concept.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust — deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — to end the outsized influence of lobbyists, to do our work openly, to give our people the government they deserve.

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why — for the first time in history — my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Democrats and Republicans. Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naive. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony — and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side — a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of — I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators.

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town — a supermajority — then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together.

This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait.

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in relitigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and for the world.

That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008.

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption and support the rights of all Afghans — men and women alike. We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al-Qaida, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government — we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform — in Iraq, in Afghanistan and around the world — they have to know that we — that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades — last year. That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people — the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's nuclear security summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C., behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation and stronger sanctions — sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.

That's the leadership that we are providing — engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease — a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan, why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran, why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. Always.

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it, if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a civil rights division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do.

We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws — so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system — to secure our borders and enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.

In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America — values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe, values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by, business values or labor values. They're American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions — our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government — still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change — change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change — or that I can deliver it.

But remember this — I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard, to do what was needed even when success was uncertain, to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going — what keeps me fighting — is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "... are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "USA! USA! USA!" when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment — to start anew, to carry the dream forward and to strengthen our union once more.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

_______________________________________________________

Barack Obama's Victory Speech After Being Eelected President ( 2009)



Below are Barack Obama's remarks as prepared for delivery tonight in Chicago:

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our
founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited
three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that
their voice could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay,
straight, disabled and not disabled â€" Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve
to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come
to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation's next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House. And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of
politics â€" you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to â€" it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington â€" it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their
families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to
knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than
two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of
the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our
lifetime â€" two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave
Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers
who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough
for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to
repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America â€" I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you â€" we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know
that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you,
especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years â€" block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek â€" it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder
and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot
have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers â€" in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.
Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House â€" a party
founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the
Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have
held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, "We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection." And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn â€" I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the
forgotten corners of our world â€" our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
To those who would tear this world down â€" we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security â€" we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright â€" tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America â€" that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who
cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except
for one thing â€" Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons â€" because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America â€" the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the
progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs
and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a
democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves â€" if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time â€" to put our people back to work and open doors of
opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth â€" that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.