that in current situation warrants a death penalty but instead they're being locked up for the rest of their lives uh in jail without the prospect of leaving jail, then I feel that that is uh a a greater deterrent because they know that they know then that they have no control with their lives it's if I know that you know if it's uh I will definitely get a death penalty if I commit this crime


then I I might be more compelled to, to do to commit it uh because I'll just die anyway yeah


but I think abolishing the death penalty and you know releasing uh a a offender is is two separate issue because I I feel that the death penalty should be abolished but I don't feel that you know they necessarily should be released into the system


err


would it not be better would it not be better for the victim to know that, err, the offender basically you know, is left to rot in a jail, as opposed to a quick death penalty which you know he may not


uh


no actually in the context of singapore the offenders are actually put to use and they they do task like for example baking uh which contributes to the society so they do bake for bakeries outside of uh the jail and they supply them cakes and breads for example


as far as I know you know coffee bean actually uses a lot of uh baked goods from from the jail , so they don't they don't have control over their lives anymore they just being, you know, put to work day in day out


ah, I, feel that it's a greater deterrent if you take uh I mean if the definitely abolished uh because, take circuit breaker for example you are stuck at home, we all had the luxury of the internet


and your phones, but if you don't have any of that you just confined to the four walls of your house you are going to, at some point of time go crazy, which is why uh, you know you have elderly people at the Chinatown who are flouting the rules and going downstairs to meet their friends to play chess something like that


because they the the lack of sunlight is uh something that you know negatively affects the human brain and I think that is uh


uh take take it another example for uh you went to uh BMT right, and you are stuck in confinement, and you had to wake up at a predetermined time everyday you can't say no to that you have to do


, you know physical exercises, uh, you whenever you're it's time to eat you told to eat whenever you're time to do physical exercises, you know you told to do so, time is not in your hand your life essentially was not your own imagine having to do that for the rest of your life until you're old and then you rot as opposed to just you know committing a crime


twenty five and then get death penalty that's it you're off the face of the earth, I feel, me personally as an individual who has been through basic military training, uh, stuck on Tekong I feel that sentencing to life is greater than uh greater deterrent than the death


in the truest of sense the the few months of confinement I had felt like jail to me


but I think circumstances dictate the person right if you want to commit a crime at that point in time that doesn't necessarily mean that you are a bad natured person


if, so you do agree that death penalty should be abolished


if you think that is a deterrent then that means crime rate will be zero, if if it's a strong deterrent


someone got mother instincts pretty good , so it does happen right for no good reason, despite the person knowing that there's a death penalty


uh you know waiting for him uh maybe you know people think that is the easy way out and so


but if you look at the nordic countries right they don't have you know this kind of , in death penalties but the crime's also very low


I mean that's where introduce capital punishment like uh caning for example, I don't think I don't think death penalty should be like the first instance you know I don't think it should ever be in the equation at all because


who who who gives us you know the right orders who gives the system the right to take away a life


but we we don't have such a system in singapore we don't have juries


okay, uh proposition that's then any more points,


yeah Marcus you want elaborate more, , to a certain extent I do agree with marcus but I also feel that you know the death penalty should not be abolished I mean should be abolished because


, I I feel that, we are humans don't have the the right to you know uh, take away human life no matter how bad it is uh,


then it then itself is like playing god already right, don't you agree marcus


okay, in three two one clap debate topic number one


okay but in that in that context you are going to say if it is legal, uh then from a moral standpoint is not very acceptable in term for the general public because from moral standpoint uh it's not a very acceptable


job is for people to have and even as said uh let's say if you have for example what if your daughter is the one desperate wanting to go into this trade just cause it's legal, so that that puts a whole stigma on the family as well as on herself for wanting to go into this just because it's legal


okay then if that is the case but there are other there are other problems, that comes about when you legalise sex work such as for example the crime that is involved so the major crime that is actually involved here especially when in countries where they have legalised sex work such as germany is the trafficking of women because due to the increased demand for the trade


so when that happens it's actually been proven when uh especially in europe that when you legalise such trades the trafficking for such women increases and thus uh even though it's not against their even though it's against their will


uh they get forced to do this so if they might be legal but still wrong in that sense because they were forced to do it by the crime syndicates and it's not even their own choice whether they want to enter the country or not for whatever reasons at all


uh no it's actually it's actually been proven like, expect at because they use it they use germany as a stat as a as a referral for that


and because germany did legalise it and when that happens trafficking especially for for such crimes did increase while they say yes true uh in terms of rape and all that it did decrease but because there are the demand was that it it was increased that's why I brought it up


the external factors for these are that are also the point that for example you say the laws governing in place for internationally not only in singapore, they are the ones try to say oh you should not legalised sex work because it's wrong to use that as the use your body as a profession you are just selling it off


I mean there are there are women rights out there who are fighting for, uh put it as


oh but it they should be able to choose because even though some of them they are forced to go into these because there are no, uh there are no other options for them but what if there are other options for them in that case then you by legalizing these you just try and tell them oh this is another option for you because nobody would want uh to to go into such a trade if there is another choice out there


there is, oh yeah but skill sets for such is different in each case what


it says for cobbler it let's say if you are using a cobbler or mechanic for example they just using your hands in doing external but then for sex worker you doing it using your own body use it internally the whole contexts of it is different already


because the whole purpose of the job is different


(mmhmm) but there are other there are other issues when it comes let's say you legally sex work for this so let's say for example due because like I mentioned just now there is a stigma of that uh for when you when you go into such trade be with be it voluntary or involuntary due to your circumstances


but all this plays a huge part on the person as well so let's say if you legalise it and then they they enter that trade because they have forced to, and though they have no other choice then it will affect their own they'll they'll affect their own moral obligation as well because not everybody eats


is willing to do it for that uh as no one in their general right mind would actually enter this trade willingly unless it's for a spec us specific selfish purpose


okay but ya personal choice let's say but if, you but if let's say they do they do consider both the micro and the macro it also plays a part as to why it shouldn't be legalised what so let's say for example uh if okay if you are willing to do it or as a as a career choice you would want is willingly to use willing to use your body for money then of course got nothing to say but a majority of the ones out


they they do not uh they are not willing, and because of that they are forced and then it might affect their own mental wellbeing for that as it actually it's been said that, most especially overseas maybe not in singapore but a lot of them commit suicides or have mental health issues because they are in this line and they are being judged by others


based on what they say about big damn being in this line at all


but it still doesn't justify the fact that


ya but if let's say, because singapore is a small country is it is easy to mitigate the risk but then if you put it in general terms not only in singapore it's actually quite difficult to maintain all to do all the things that you said in the regards to for the pros so if let's say you are trying to regulate it or you're trying to


uh do come up with all the preventions, if there are still there will still be people or or or syndicates out there who are who'll find ways around these to actually make this work to their favor because in general in general terms as itself the whole idea of it is


and the, the organised syndicates here would actually use it for let's say to do all this for their own favor and then if let's say you try to save tax trying to regulate uh in terms of what is being paid for it


there are there are plenty of ways come out to say that oh , there there is no there's not much to be paid because there isn't any much to be done whereas in fact there is plenty more like


wait wait sorry uh my app closed on its own, it it like it close and then when I open it it get to be came back to the


ya, just just debate topic one then back to the recording again, ya so it wasn't even saved at all like whatever I spoke just now


okay, ya ya sorry uh you were saying, yes


no but the thing is let's say if you when they legalise it there is going to be a proper demand for it rather than them operating out of the shadows because when you when you when is it when it is legal they are not able to bring that amount of volume of women


from overseas probably by trafficking them in because, it firstly it is legal so they cannot take the risk of having too many of such women coming in


yeah but the thing is if if you are talking about legal and the uh legalisation or decriminalisation, it's it's also the fact that I'm looking at uh in terms of globally not only in singapore because there there have been reports from both


from countries that have legalised it and countries that have not legalised it and it has shown that uh they have shown that legal prostitution has experienced a larger uh, incidents of trafficking inflows


and also that the analysis that is more prevalent in countries where uh sack where such, uh work is legalised then when they are not because like I said when when when it's legal they can properly bring the girls it under any under any reasoning at all all you have to do is just bring them in just say it [orh] they are here for a work where


and then can because they have already been tricked in by those people so they they can consider as human trafficking as well even though they are not so in the end they are still forced, and which brings us back to the whole stigma again


I feel the that would still be the same case even if sex work not uh, but either way either way that's where that's where the pros and cons lie for each


no not only that what there is the stigma of those as well but because like you said to to those who are able to handle the stigma because they want to enter it willingly, what are the numbers of those okay in singapore yes maybe there is a higher number but then you see the don't openly talk about such what is their work even though these you they may seem fine with it but they do not actually talk about it openly because the whole stigma in the general population is still there


but, but it plays a part because let's say because let's say right now your your family is next door neighbour what are the odds then you find out oh she's been she's been operating as a sex worker what are the odds that you'll actually be okay with it


maybe maybe for out out of ten families maybe only one or two families'll be okay with it but out but the rest of the family but the rest of the people who are staying in the block they will definitely judge her and, and look at her weirdly or like say something behind her back


because all this plays a part as well so let's say if you do legalise it and then they find out that their that their next door neighbour or people living near nearby them is actually a sex worker they will actually be more afraid of such a person and not want to mingle which alienates the person in general


yeah but either way either way it won't be openly discussed


and in three two one clap, part two debate topic two, okay you may begin


okay uh this marcus to opposition here for topic of charity work should be made compulsory but I don't agree with that because ultimately when you are talking about giving up to charity, you are only doing it because you are wanting to give it out of your own goodwill and not because it should be mandated or forced that is the main stigma that comes out of it if if it is made compulsory and everybody has to do it then that defeats the purpose of doing charity


okay but let's say but what what what about those who, are not willing to do uh what those who are not willing to do charity but are being forced to because it is compulsory then that then that they will not be doing a good job either way because ultimately when you are doing charity you should be uh you should be wanting to do it so if let's say they are forced to it


because of whatever reasons uh for, for the because it's made compulsory then, then they will not they will just ruined the whole job and and then in the end ultimately it will just be more problems being caused rather than than being uh effective in the check and that work itself


I actually don't agree in that sense because every everyone could uh has a different view


for be it compassion and whatever not but then it's not only uh doing charity work that can because it's made compulsory it's not only that that can affect their views what if they do it more negatively what if


they view it in a more negative way because, uh when they when they keep giving okay so, they just find it oh ah I'm they they are not willing to help they are not going to be helpful cause it and then it works uh works against their their original intention in the first place


so let's say if they if they do like for example donations donation drives or whatever not, the one of the stigma is because you keep you do it because it's compulsory and then when they keep when you keep doing it it becomes a habit and then when that happens you keep giving more than you what you can afford to give so that is one one of the one of the views that they have


yeah okay but then there is also another argument it says that


for taking care of such people you are we have already we've already paid taxes so that that the one government should be the one that's been used to to do such uh to use the money that we have already paid for such facilities and then you don't require


any other taxes and any other any other, from from other people to actually help, to maintain such facilities because let's say


yes okay that that volunteerism, volunteering yes that piece is a huge part but then ultimately you see every single for all the for most of the charity out there every other month you see they'll be always asking for donations from the public, to try and keep things rolling for whatever reason at all so if you when you say that it's not it's not linked to monetary at all I actually don't particularly agree about that because from what we have seen


no, but eventually eventually it will lead to it because ultimately, let's say if you make it compulsory right then you'll have the surplus of workers being made already so ultimately when you have that surplus there already somehow or rather it will link to monetary as well


okay but that but like but most of those are, minorities so let


it'll ultimately it just boils down and we're just going back and forth regarding the same old few lah because, in terms of charity it's still a especially for this particular topic it's still a very vague idea in terms of whether is it monetary or is it


uh just using your actions rather than rather than money so, we are we are both now debating on uh, in a sense the same topic but different parts of it that's why that's


why like it's in a sense, but not achieving anything regards to this lah because ultimately we never know


but in that case if let's say they made it compulsory and then okay for schools yes maybe they might do they might have a certain point of it when when they when they force students like like you have it right like we had enough time but for national service as for and for the working force I don't think it should be made compulsory because


especially for working adults, uh when they already have so little time not not all of them are really, up to put their own time at uh extra time out of their rest to actually do such thing yeah I agree there may be a few who are more than willing to do it out of the goodness of their hearts and going to help others but majority of the people out there are not


that's why you can see that those who volunteer for such service to do to do such services are always the same old few and there's actually not uh uh not a lot of new faces all the time, unless they do it like social peer pressure or whatever not then that would be a point where oh yes they might actually tried out once or twice but it just because it's not uh that's because they try it out one doesn't mean it should do it all the time also mah


student curriculum yes but not for, uh once you leave the school once you leave okay you don't we don't say university because when by then most people would have their own uh they would have known their own what what they like what they don't like so let's say if you're talking about secondary school yes ah for it to be compulsory just to have a few of


whether they it's something they will want to do or not in the future out of your out of their own time yes maybe some people might like it but if it's forced then it defeats the idea in general, ah once you leave school lah because that's like you said when you do it in school let's say secondary school for example you were only doing it like maybe once a year or twice a year


and come on let's be honest here every why do we do when you did that how many of us for heart were complaining half the time more than half the time actually, let's say let's say you have a class of yeah okay let's say you give it exposure let's say uh let's say a class of forty goes how often do you think they are actually helping


let's let's be let's be clear here let's say for example out of the forty maybe only five to ten of them are actually helping and actually doing something what about the rest the rest of the class are they simply like sit there and watch and do nothing or run around making a fool themselves


because that's generally the idea of being forced to do it [what} let's say for , we take we take a normal on uh a normal like secondary school class for example, there are people like but but who are who are who perform well and like listen to rules and there are those who uh make monkeys in the class lah so ultimately those who help uh willingly


a small minority but ultimately it's uh making a fool out of himself or like uh doing something in general that, not basically defeats the purpose of doing charity work that


ya but then the thing is let's say if you make it compulsory then it forces their hand to do it all the time and then they would not have that proper planning to do it uh, because they had they had let's say for example you make it compulsory for all the class you have to plan for it what uh ten to fifteen classes so what they have to come up with a proper detailed plan every single time then


they would not bother, ya but you but you won't have but you won't have like a class you won't have like one school only having one particular charity to to do organisation to go to because


let if that is the case so let's say in a in a cohort like that you are going to send all of them down every single time and doing the same thing, then what !ow! maybe if they do it one time maybe they do it like one time yes I would say that that might work let's say they have one but then I'm pretty sure that they are like multiple multiple organisations that they can go to


(hmm) but then, even even even then it breaks out it brings back to the point where you say oh I don't feel like doing it cause I just don't like it in general maybe they tried it like out maybe the first twenty minutes to try it and then after that it just oh it just it it's not really their thing they just


don't feel like doing it because let's say if you do it in school and let's say you force him do it in school especially on their kids you force him to do it, let's be let's be clear however that you force a kid to do something they don't want to do or they don't feel an interest in doing and it backfires on them it's actually


quite a significant uh quite a significant fine for that when you actually force him to do things he don't like so by making it compulsory, it actually defeats for the longer term in the future cause when they grow up they say oh just because they forced me to do it and I didn't like it


because it's not something I want to do right now, or so uh, they would just have that stigma that doing charity work it's not a very good idea cause it's just a waste of their time


but when they are that young I don't think they have the capacity to think like or what is good for them what is not good for them ultimately they are still in school


ya but the general stigma


put it nothing over wrong ah should be fine


okay uh this is marcus and regard the opposition for whether the death penalty should be abolished and I think that should not be abolished because, while some while I agree that people do deserve a second chance but what if they used up the second chance already then then they commit a crimes again there has to be a


tougher form of punishment in that sense where let's say for example a murder maybe it might not be a first degree murder might be a second or third degree murder which might which's like unintentional murder, so yes that they maybe because it's third degree they might have a second chance of it but let's say in the future if they do commit a first degree murder or something then what just because they are in the system in jail itself doesn't mean that does that mean that they should just get to continue living because


ultimately a death penalty should act as a deterrent for such, uh for such actions to be done where people are afraid of their of committing the crime like that


but that the but the thing is so let's say so let's say uh, they actually think about it in in that sense right for for murderers you can say yes they are actually can say that oh they might just die at one go but if you look at it from a different perspective let's say if they are put in jail for the long term


uh let's say maybe twenty fifty years down the line they might actually have a chance of parole due to good behaviour and then when that happens what they going to just release back to the streets in case the parole gets granted, that I don't think that should be the case because if let's say you got stuck for fifty years in a in a prison system for example they are they won't


with the odds of them learning their mistakes let's say if it's the first time maybe but if it's the second or third time the odds of them learning their mistakes and actually are, acting on them to trying to be better chance are near zero already when that happens


no because uh no no it, it will it plays a part so let's say for example I because ultimate ultimately it might lead to that okay but I'll the the point you going to give here is that


uh use it as a final deterrent that should be the main that should be the main course because for the death penalty, might not it might be might not only be for the uh for the murderer itself or for the convict for the convict but it will also be for the general public out there cause let's say if you know there is a death death penalty they sentence to this particular person


you know that he is no longer in this world and he you know that he will no longer be, uh able to terrorise in for whatever he's be in prison or out


uh no in in that in in terms of general public let's say the public knows that or this this convict has, done a heinous a heinous murder or maybe multiple murders just because they are in prison doesn't mean they are paying for their time they've just been locked up in a room


uh be it isolation or with people and they are just there to go about their days but it


ya but in that in that case if the


but those are usually for the the good better behaviour convicts not say for example, uh not not for not say for the more uh more prone to aggressions or what because if you're talking about in singapore context the rate of murder is essentially zero or ya it's it's it's essentially zero so when you're talking about say


death penalties for for these yes is because of such a the the, the death penalty exists and you being taught that if the do a commit murder in singapore like that you'll get that, uh punishment to it also proves that it excellent deterrent even for drug trafficking if you if you traffic a certain amount of drugs pass a certain volume you get easily put to death


ya okay that that's a few months but let's say if you are talking about for example life in in imprisonment after a while the routine sets in order and then you are okay with that life already because you got no other choice then you are actually feeling comfortable about it in fact but what you are talking about here is


uh why why why they should why I think that it's actually a more why they should actually still be in effect is, because for justice for the people so let's say uh a lot of people for most people right they think oh life is sacred and all that


and that innocent lives holds more value over the lives of uh murderers or killers okay and when when an innocence it has been murdered for example uh they have not they don't have a choice in their, untimely death or opportunity to say goodbye or whatever not while while convicted murderers sentence of life in prison they can still learn the can still read they can still write they can still like do uh have a have a sense of normalcy in their lives after they get used to it


so that's why I think that capital punishment base on a big part of it is because to say that just because you did some you did something to uh you murdered someone I don't think you should have the time, in prison to to maintain such uh or to do such things because prison is still the same you are like you said you are able to do like help society and all that


but then the thing is they don't want such convicts to help society because of the of the whole idea of it just want them to to be gone from the face of the earth, so in terms of maintaining justice I feel that if you commit the crime that is bad enough you should be sentenced to death


no but I'm not saying that you I'm not saying that it's like one crime maybe maybe it's for one crime you don't deserve the death penalty yes I agree with you that there you might have a second chance but let's say for example no no no it's not abolished but what I mean is that just terms of it should be stricken of what what uh


what is set for men to deserve the death penalty, okay so let's say for example if they do it for the first time then yes I don't think they deserve it straight away unless it's truly heinous crime, if let's say to do it for the second or third time


then they should then they should uh have that that that they should be able to say oh he's committed to death because it's not the first time he has done this already, and stuff like that so it should not be abolished but I just feel that the terms of the death penalty of what constitutes a person being deserve the death penalty should be


better look I had to have a more to have a more, greater depth of looking at lah rather than just say you just commit the crime one time you deserve death no I don't think that but I think that it should be there as the ultimate penalty you do not deserve the type of life in prison because routine sets in after a while


ya but the thing but you look but you look at singapore the only kind the only most of the death penalties as been done here it's actually for uh drug trafficking


what are the odds that you see a murder happening in singapore


okay but then in that case it does happen but the odds of it is like, but the odds of it but the odds of it is like I said it's very very low because of the deterrent and drug


trafficking okay yeah I agree for drug for the drug trafficking laws in singapore it deserves uh to have to be better looked at okay to have a more uh then maybe haven't be more lenient rather than strict to death because you have a certain amount of you carried to the amount of drugs on you


and you are supposed to look at look at the circumstances of why they actually trafficking the drugs they also plays a huge factor they may be forced to they may be uh they do it against their wills as as stuff like that but also the fact that why it should not be abolished


ultimately boils down to the fact that not only is it uh not only is it, a final deterrent but it's also recognised throughout history in a sense as an acceptable punishment for the crime that has been committed if it is truly bad enough


ya but it place but then ultimately it place also that it boils down to the effect


uh of of individual countries already mah so let's say in singapore the death penalty is to exist with nordic nordic countries even australia for example they don't have the death penalties there are still crime rate there what there are still murders happening there what it's just that, they get thrown in prison and then based on the public stigma as well so let's say if the death penalty is there a lot of people will actually feel safer in that sense because you got to know that oh let's say if anything truly bad has happened you know that this person will no longer be on this earth you don't have to worry about them coming out anymore


it's actually like you saying that uh back down to social stigma of why of the of the of the countries they have in person lah


so out we can go back and forth in regards to why that death penalty should be abolished should not be abolished but like it all boils down to individual perspectives of what you are looking at in terms of uh how a society should be run or how a society should function if let's say


somewhat if if let's say the a lot of people think about this this way if let's say you get a life in prison, to a lot out there especially if you commit like really really bad crimes a lot of them think that [orh] it's just a slap on the wrist it's not going to be like anything stronger than that to them because they have already committed those where let's say you have the death penalty there


maybe to you it just a loss of life but to others it's just but to the rest of the society out there it just think that, ah he truly deserves that because when that happens you know that he won't be able to harm any more people already because even in prison itself there has been cases of murders happening as well


so let's say you murder someone in prison does that mean that you just continue staying in prison, no what it then what just cause you stay in prison already this is the worst punishment you can get staying in prison and then you murder someone in prison as well


does that mean that there should not be a far far better punishment for that, because ultimately he's still claiming lives the that convict or murderer is still killing people even in prison itself


oh but caning caning is just temporary you need something more swift and decisive


but that's why they have trials for that lor if that if for there have been multiple cases where trials eh in court even though the prosecution might have said they deserve the death penalty, but then when it comes down to it the jury might decide they don't need the death penalty at all they might give them some lighter punishment but if they yeah oh yeah we don't have such system in singapore yes


the uh judge is the one that decides but I'm just saying that maybe they should have that system in place to see to decide whether oh whether they should have uh a lighter punishment instead of capital punishment because the capital punishment is ultimately there as a deterrent, as a form of saying that if the crime is bad enough this is the ultimate punishment you are going to get you don't deserve to see the light of the next day


so while so while so while saying that while while saying that I just saying that , it should not be abolished but also looked at in other light to say that maybe especially in


singapore itself one might not deserve death penalty straight away but they may he may be subjected to other punishment first before being subjected to the death penalty because, I I also agree to the fact ultimately everybody deserves a second chance but less if they do use up the second chance for the same problem as well then they should just face it lah cause that will be the final punishment given out there


part one debate topic one


okay, so the opposition feels that schools should not consider subjective and non academic results for admission education in singapore is based on the principle of meritocracy where it provides equal opportunity by offering standardised testing


individuals with higher academic ability or who have worked hard to achieve good academic results should be differentiated and recognised individuals who are able to perform well academically earned themselves the right to admission to schools of their choice


quoting #rutherford hayes# there are complex jobs around and this jobs should be should be given to the right person who has the capabilities to do them and do them well thus the opposition feels that academic ability is important to differentiate these individuals


so secondly admissions based on academics also allow individuals to learn at a more comfortable pace, in the event when individual get admitted to a school based on co-curriculum or more generally subjective factors the individual may face difficulty in catching up with other students who have higher academic ability that in turn will cause more stress and the stress level of the individual to increase


in this case the principle of meritocracy provides efficiency whereby individuals with similar academic ability are placed together they learn better, so okay so for yourself the opposition


what do you think


okay so the purpose of education in singapore is to help students discover and make the best of their own talents to help them realise their full potential and develop a passion for lifelong learning, I understand your point of how schools should not based admission purely based on academic factors however you should not penalise students who have worked hard and earn themselves the right to go enter schools with higher cut offs


just because they put in their best whereas someone who probably like you mentioned might be slightly stronger in character, but, based on academic wise may not be stronger will be able to attend the same school as well


if a student is not strong academically there are actually other schools that may be more suitable for them when they're if they're stronger in other non academic aspects for instance if a student is strong in sports, they can actually opt for to go to singapore sports school or if they're strong in the arts area SOTA school of the arts is also introduced recently to actually cater to the


preference and also to their, ability in the arts scene so, based on this point I feel that students who may not be as strong academically should not force themselves to schools with higher cut off whereby they might struggle as the learning curve may be very steep


to begin with, and especially in singapore the government has also provided a lot of assistance and resources to students who may come from like weaker families whereby actually, the, cost of entering schools let say private schools have also been cut down significantly


so in fact if a student is able to put in hard work and also to strive to score better to achieve higher academic scores and they are able to actually based on ability academic ability they should be able to enter schools


on their own accord so strongly I believe that we should consider academic factors for school admissions however the schools themselves can also train the individuals out for their character or even the personal


traits or even moral fact values that they should have I'm not saying that if is admission is based on just, academic factors the schools will not be training them based on moral factors


yeah


okay personally I feel that schools are just, or a place where students get to learn more efficiently so if the similar be similar group of people with same academic ability are grouped together is it provides higher efficiency as compared to those who may be differentiated


so I think that's also the reason why there should be bending involved, so that is more efficient in in the form of education


but okay that one is a subjective because if the person did not perform well and, decide, eventually heads to another school with lower academic ability it doesn't mean that the student


will be put down significantly by the peers, perhaps that student will be able to excel in the school and eventually still emerged top of his cohort his or her cohort eventually so all this does not mean that, entering schools with


say lower academic ability will affect your future, progress in the workforce it just means that for admission purpose for schools it should be based on academic factors, whereas in future the student may still go on an excel in life based on other areas


provided that, he or she has talent in other, non academic areas as well


yes, yes so I feel that, for this point whereby schools should consider, subjective and non-academic factors for admission it does not stand because different schools emphasise on different


things so if the student is stronger academically they can heed to a school with stronger academic ability it'll be useful to push the student further in that aspect however if a student is not as strong academically he or she can actually opt for other options whereby the student can find something


that he or she might be good in instead of trying to force themselves to go into a school with higher academic ability where they might suffer


, yes but if if you will actually come from say like and a family who with a lower income you will you you can also excel in studies and hit to a recognised school and prove yourself so it does not mean that students cannot be cannot


part two debate topic two


okay so


the opposition feels that chinese dialect, should not be offered as a mother tongue language mother tongue is effectively a second language in singapore's education learning the mother tongue allows student to be effectively bilingual


I do not agree that chinese dialects should be offered as another mother tongue language should chinese dialects be offered as a mother tongue language it creates diversity and the different dialect groups may not be as unified as opposed to them learning a shared mother tongue language which is mandarin chinese in our case


so having a common language creates greater unity and communication among the different dialect groups in singapore, so secondly, chinese dialects are also not as recognised in the world currently as compared to mandarin chinese


there are one point two billion people in the world mainly from china and taiwan who speak chinese compared to forty million people who speak Hokkien sixty eight million people who speak cantonese and just ten million people in the world who speak Teochew


quoting mister Lee-Kuan-Yew the value of a language is its usefulness not just in singapore but also in the wider world, so mandarin chinese is definitely used more widely in the world as opposed to dialects and it will definitely be more beneficial for individuals who can master the language well


so as well as third point there may be also not, very well established scripts written scripts for certain chinese dialects, such as Hokkien and Teochew and examination in the proficiency of these languages may prove to be difficult


for instance in schools when we learn mother tongue which is chinese we should be proficient in both speaking and written however for these chinese dialects most of them are actually just spoken languages, and thus should only be offered as an additional language instead of a mother tongue language whereby you should be proficient in both


speech and also in writing, so onto your point of cultural on heritage not being brought forward right the opposition actually feels that cultural diversity can be learnt through many other methods say like cultural fairs where students get to


engage in the planning of such fairs where they get to understand more about the heritage of, and also like say additional language lessons can also be provided however we shouldn't be compromising on the unity and also economic benefit of learning mandarin chinese just because we wish to promote this cultural heritage


so I would like to hear your points on those that I've brought up


okay, so the opposition feels that, definitely learning chinese dialect does have some form of economic benefit it just that from the, statistics that I have quoted just now


the one point two billion people in the world who speak chinese, far exceeds the forty million people or even sixty eight million people who speak dialect in comparison so the main point is that if


mother tongue since mother tongue is our second language and it can only be as one language we firmly believe that mandarin should be the only mother tongue offered for, for our second language and the rest of the chinese dialects can be offered as a say curriculum subject whereby students get to learn more similarly to like say moral education


uh physical education lessons chinese dialects can be an additional lesson that is within the schools, within the schools syllabus whereby students get to learn more about their heritage and also on the dialects K on your other point of how chinese dialects in fact actually increases


interest for the students whereby students will be able to actually act out some dialects, or act out a dra a script on the dialect, similarly right for students they can also act out a script or even act out a drama based on a chinese man mandarin chinese language instead of chinese dialects in that way they will also be more engaged in the subject


and also currently now there are actually many forms to learn chinese, say students can even watch more dramas or even they can learn through songs whereby chinese songs may be more popular as schools can also use that way to engage students more to learning chinese so I feel that for the point of chinese dialects in may not necessarily mean that students will be


more interested if they actually learn about chinese dialects, whereas like for chinese songs or even chinese dramas may even be more engaging for students instead okay onto on your other point of how the written written script for chinese dialects and chinese should be the same right


I beg to differ because for many dialect dialect, terms right they do have, different terms to describe different ways of like say eating even like speaking and all it's all different words so in fact there should be a proper written script whereby students get to learn if not right it will just be a spoken language and


like what I've emphasized once again it can just be a third language offered by the schools or even just an extra core curriculum additional language that students learn so it doesn't have to be part of their second language whereby they should be very proficient in it because


being theirs mother tongue and being theirs second language means that it should be for academic benefit or even just benefit for them so that they are actually effectively bilingual, and so last point that you you have brought up is about the Kampung spirit and the togetherness right


I've in fact I feel that if students were to learn chinese dialect and not chinese they wouldn't even be able to communicate in chinese to each other because, the dialects may dialect groups may differ and students may not even be above speak a same common language anymore so I feel that the togetherness and Kampung spirit


might not be the best way to actually, bring, people together whereas chinese is a common language and usually if you hate to say even even older generations right most of them uh also know chinese so I feel that chinese language as a mother tongue is definitely more useful than having chinese dialects


offered because it is too diverse, and many people may not be, different groups of, people may not be, able to communicate effectively among the different groups if they were to learn dialects so what do you okay


okay


part three debate topic three


okay, so the opposition feels that learning is best inside the classroom, because the classroom provides an, enclosed environment for students to learn and absorb information distraction is limited to a minimum in the classroom as opposed to having lessons outside where there may be noise disruptions and it makes it tough for educators to conduct lessons


students may associate being outside the classroom with play and fun and find it difficult to concentrate during lessons thus, being in the classroom in a enclosed environment actually set, makes it a good setting whereby students know and understand that they should focus and concentrate and will be able to learn better


so onto my second point, it is also definitely more efficient to learn in classrooms as the time spent outside the classroom be it travelling time or even time to organise the event compromises the actual learning time


so logistics wise it is also easier for educators to conduct lessons within classrooms as learning materials are more readily available, based on your point of how students should go out to visit zoos or have interactions with said animals basically currently the technology is so advanced in to save costs on traveling and also the time right


educators can also bring new technology to bring these animals to the whereby they can just be shown on classrooms as students will also be able to understand more about the outside world without having to physically be there to experience it so the opposition feels that


learning in classroom is definitely more efficient and at the same time students will be able to absorb more information given the same, amount of time that they have, and thirdly, if learning is all about making it fun and exciting for students


the the lack of discipline might arise among the students, so learning in classroom allows students to train discipline whereby they have to concentrate and learn in the structured, nature of a classroom, however if you were to go out and explore


for them right outside of a classroom means play and fun and they may not be able to sit still or even be able to concentrate for long period of time if their often exposed to such things in the long run, and also especially for most regular jobs in future it's also desk bound and set in an environment more suitable to a classroom so learning within the classroom will actually allow students to familiarise themselves and also prepare themselves for the working world


as opposed to learning outside whereby if they're so used to being outside exploring and or when they head to a very systematic and structured environment of a workplace they may not be able to, familiarise themselves as quickly or even adapt to the situation based on the time that they have spent outside learning the in the classroom


so the opposition feels that to make it, more efficient and also for students to actually build up on their discipline it is more effective to learn within the classroom whereby there's a structured nature and also an enclosed environment for them to learn in


okay, so basically I understand that some points that you have brought out, means that the students should be heading out to experience firsthand say machineries or animals so that they can understand and even experience the


real life things in firsthand so they can understand it better but I would like to highlight to you that in fact most subjects that are taught in, schools right are actually pretty technical and it is definitely more


useful for the students to learn them in a classroom setting first before they even head out to even experience anything or even more so for some other subjects whereby there is no physical things involved, in the subjects itself for example mathematics for example languages that the students learn for mathematics there is no way that the students can experience said they can


like, touch any animals or they can experience with any machineries so all these subjects are definitely classroom based where they have to learn it off a textbook they have to learn via a whiteboard teaching lecture so that they can understand or even get the technical terms of it


and more so for like say machineries that you're brought up right in fact for the students to even head out to experience or even understand how the machineries work the first, consideration that students should, understand is that they should understand how the machineries work in the first place so that contributes to safety as well so the opposition feels that no matter what


before they even experienced anything that is out of classroom setting right they will definitely have to go through this in classroom setting where they understand what is safe for them how machineries work how theories work before they even can


go into the second step of how to experience it to understand how it work physically, so from my side right I actually feel that, no matter what learning in the classroom is still the first step to go before the, students get to experience which is the second step of learning okay and just based on studies ah okay based on these studies of programme for international student assessment PISA


K run by OECD singapore has in fact the second highest, achieving students in international education rankings with teenagers coming top in test like mathematics in reading and science, that's right all these studies that have or even the stats have shown that results have shown that conventional classroom setting is actually the most effective way for


students to learn whereby the students get to grasp the subject matter faster and they get to understand the theories better so, opposition for outside we feel that no matter what we understand that heading outside, to learn is definitely more fun however the fun element right shouldn't outweigh the effectiveness of learning in a classroom


what we believe is that learning is still best inside the classroom and whereas heading outside the classroom right will be a it's just a way for them to experience more fun things or even to experience like the physical aspect of, using machineries or even understanding animals but the first thing that should come first should be the learning in the classroom via textbooks via lectures or even educators who actually can share with them more on these points before they actually head out to do the physical things that should only come second


so do you agree with this statement


so uh so yeah part one dot debate topic, what


okay, okay so err our first debate topic is whether schools should consider subjective and non academic factors for


admissions so I firmly believe that non-academic factors should have higher weightage for consideration instead of favourably focusing on, academic achievement to filter students for school admissions


firstly we must be cleared that firstly we must be cleared at why are we getting an education in the first place so we are getting an education so that we can be more employable, will increase our employability by employers of the future


and there is no doubt that an education it it is inextricably tied to employability research has shown that the higher trend is shifting towards less emphasis on academic factors and more towards a person character and attitude


my statement is supported in an employed study in polytechnics and ITE review committee's report that is published in two zero one, for, where non graduates in the civil service who perform well and are ready part for larger responsibilities will be able to progress faster in their careers based on work performance and not academic performance


since this is the trend displayed by the largest employer in singapore which is the civil service where they are actively filtering out candidates based on a person's quality and not academic performance, so my point is that school admissions should closely mirror the employers' selection


criteria, hence I firmly believe that qualities like confidence attitude towards learning, conscientiousness or either passion to study should be given more weightage in school admissions so we do so we do not accidentally filter out the gems in the studying in a student's cohort


so onto my second point if we focus too much on academic factors while screening for school admissions it will inevitably caused our students to be overly academic focus


and they are likely to ignore the rest of their personal development, for example the ability to communicate or working together as a team, creativity will also be stifled out as the focus will be on regurgitating model answers and the students will even


not think out of the box so as to be able to score high grades if this is the focus of our education system in filtering their students for school admissions I think that we are not adequately preparing our future workforce or challenges in the future


so, so what do you think of the two points they're just they're just spoke, yup


okay, yeah so, so I just ah let me just summarize what you have have spoken for your two points that we are spoken so firstly I agree with you that meritocracy the spirit of merit meritocracy is important in singapore


and also agree that your yeah equal opportunity should be given to to students however this equal opportunity should not come in the form, of a just uh, just placing all the academic


academically inclined students in one cohort, rather if a good school, were to, filter students based on character and qualities instead of just purely academics then I think it will be a good plan


and people of different academic abilities will be able to blend and learn from each other, and ultimately they are able to benefit as the school and not just, a, cream of the crop gathering together and leaving the rest of the


cohort behind, so I thought that so I thought that the, schools should really consider, should consider placing less emphasis on non academic factors in that sense of raising the overall standard of their students cohort by itself as a whole


so on your second point on learning at a comfortable pace where people of similar capabilities are placed together yeah so similar to the first point if, everyone of their same academic academic capabilities are placed together they will not benefit much because I firmly believe that uh the weaker ones academically weaker one should learn from the academically stronger ones and


whereas the for the academic stronger ones they could learn from the academy weaker ones but everyone has something to give so, by mixing the cohort, of this group of people together we can foster a a more interactive


group, where one can learn from each other instead of uh creating that social divide based on academic results, oh this is my counter argument for your uh few points that you have rise, okay so uh let me just go through


two of my points for, proposition for these uh topic okay my third point will be, other than a student's personal qualities I believe their characters should also have weightage


in terms of filtering of students for school missions as what we do not want to see is highly intelligent student to be given more opportunity for education however if he or she lacks the moral values I don't think we want to


have that kind of scenario in play so such opportunity should be given to another who may not be as intelligent but at least he has uh he's kind he has a good heart and his moral values this is is in a right place


although one may argue that it is hard to gauge a person moral values through regular screening by at least this an I believe this important factor to take note and consider of, K so my last point will be is uh I do not think to to sum up my proposition point my position


I do not think that what we want is a society of leaders with only good academic qualifications or excellent academic qualifications what we want is a all rounded individuals leaders to lead singapore into the uncertain new world of the twenty first century


K so yup


okay so I get your point so I believe there will be a trade of so perhaps what uh we would like to see the future is that schools should not solely depend on cut off points for, to to


to amid students but in fact based on their non personal achievement which I have being saying, to to really, to really admit students that and give uh ample opportunities equal opportunities for students of different backgrounds even though


some may not be as uh, exam smart or, a grade may not they may not score uh full grades as as what they are pure subsequently by believe such people should be given additional chance to proof themselves in a non academic


, okay so you are saying ah bending is their crucial, to group, students with uh, similar academic capabilities together but how about those that will be left behind just that they did not perform well in just let's say for example primary four you have a


during our primary school we have uh streaming exam, so, just that that day they could not perform well during the exam and just because of that this person is streamed to let's say e n two like that would it be fair for


for the person just that he did not just that he did not have the stars are not aligned uh during the day of the exam if you will to stream it based on academic grades itself


yeah,


so you are saying that uh, even though if his grades did not meet the let's say the cut of point of secondary school a and he did not manage to make it to that school of his likely instead of able


, excel in life even though he did not make it to that particular school right is that what you're trying to say, for your previous, why


okay


of, but now the issue is that right now most of the budget as as what is spoken by doctor #jamus lim# in the parliament most of the budget is spent on all the top notch schools lah


I don't want to mention any names so most of the budgets are spent over there so the quality of education I will presume be of a higher standard, that, most of the the rest of the schools, that yup yeah so


, yeah yup, yeah so the problem is they they do not have if they do not prove themself academically they will not be able to make it to


the top notch schools so I what my point is that the top top notch schools should give equal opportunities and should consider non academic achievement, to filter out students who enter their schools because what they are providing is higher quality education since I assume that


with more budget allocated to these schools the quality of the achievement will be higher and the chances of producing future leaders in our workforce will increase substantially as well so for the top notch schools I believe they should consider, should have focused less on academic


factors and instead more other non academic achievements or personal qualities or characteristic instead, so that's my point , that's my proposition point yeah


part two debate topic two


okay so K so I shall start first under proposition so todays uh topic of discussion is whether chinese dialects should be offered as a mother tongue language in school


so so let's let let's set the contact right first chinese dialects so right now we have two mother tongues I believe so is english and chinese so if let's say currently if I'm my race is chinese so


my mother tongue offered to me may be chinese and of course english is is compulsory as well so let's say for other races, like the malays or the indians they would learn uh tamil, or, the malay language so o I


I think we should set the context right first so let me begin off with I firmly believe that chinese dialect should be offered as a mother tongue language in school, so let's say if you are cantonese then I believe it should be taught as a subject or mother tongue object and if you are Hokkien then Hokkien should also be offered as a subject


so let me list down some of the benefits of offering chinese dialects as a mother tongue language in let's say uh in the secondary school context to kids think simple, so one of the greatest benefit you are provide is that you will prevent culture dilution in our next generation where I personally or I believe you also do personal personally observe that our dialects and ethnicity our chinese tradition


is, faced dilution in that sense if that is no further emphasis placed on it, cause right now if you look around you go to childcare sector shall we go to secondary schools to walk around I believe that most of the students communicate using english and chinese is


they're just biting their teeth and learning chinese so they're they're able to score good grades but less lesser and let but lesser emphasis is placed on the chinese language, so if nothing is done, this will ultimately lead to the weakening of our chinese cultural based in singapore


and a lost of our intrinsic identity among singaporean chinese so as I briefly mention my second point is that too much emphasis, is already placed on the english language such that interest in chinese dialects and chinese language are declining at an alarming rate


so one of the negative points that you will lead to is that our pioneer generations will feel left out because they're main of communication is in dialect or even in the chinese language, so


uh over to you I would like to hear what the opposition feel about my points and also to your points yeah


okay


okay, so on your first point I believe that what you're saying is that if chinese dialects are, are offered as a mother tongue language it will create diversity, among the chinese I guess but however I I I do not conquer with your point because I believe that if one dialect is exposed the other dialects it will


cultural, ideas traditions and workforce, the the so called the Kampung spirit in singapore so I don't believe that it will create diversity but instead it will create the togetherness that we need for singaporean for singaporeans students to stand strong together instead of diversity


so on to your second point I'm somewhat agree with you that dialects are not recognised as a common language, and like what uh mister the late LKY has said that uh language should be learned and used for economic benefits however I although it is not recognized as a


as a language but they are, millions and millions of uh I believe chinese nationals with with the same uh dialect group as let's say Hokkien I believe there's I mean billions or even millions, uh people in china that


speaks Hokkien and another few millions that chinese speak cantonese and and the other, so so call what and and Hainanese and, so forth and so on so I believe that it will still be on some uh economic benefits because we know that we all know that china is a rising power in the future so if we are able to speak


the chinese language which is similar to them and if we are able to speak at the same dialogue as them I thought that they will bring us a competitive edge as compared to, in terms of doing businesses as compared to our neighbours like let's say


uh malaysia or indonesia who do not have as rich as uh chinese tradition or chinese dialects uh tradition like us so I believe this will bring on economic benefit as, truly to what, what your thoughts so so thirdly I understand that chinese


dialects is difficult to be test to be to be taught as a written language or even it is easy to be taught as a spoken language because it works the structure is somewhat similar to the chinese language however the written form


I think it is the same as the chinese language just that whether is it simplified or, or they followed the the olden days, uh writings so it is the same as the chinese language or similar


so I believe that we do not have to be proficient in the language but what we want is for students to gain appreciation of the subject and even though it is offered as a mother tongue, I also


think that it should not be examiner examinable it should not be given a grade or a b c d to differentiate uh students but rather it should be used as a learning tool to foster more interest in the chinese language


so this brings me to my next point on, my third benefits of offering chinese dialects as a mother tongue language, so I firmly believe that the chinese dialects should be offered as a


mother tongue to flame the students' interests and competency in the chinese language where most of us are seeing that this interests are dying down, and the competency the overall competency of the chinese language in


our younger generations seems to be on the low side so as as what I've mentioned before both the chinese dialects and the chinese language belong to the same language family this will help


to flame to increase the students interest and enable chinese to become a living language instead of just something to get a, a grades to pass or to even go to, a, better school based on a grading of a b or c


so I believe what I want to see what the proposition wants to see is that dialects can be used as an effective and accomplish unconventional teaching instrument to actually allow the learning of chinese language to be much more


fun and interactive so some of the things that we can do some examples that I can think off my mind is to get students to act out a script, in chinese dialect or to even translate a Hokkien movies some of the popular Hokkien movies to chinese


to increase with the aim to increase the students competency in the chinese language, I believe such a method is much better than just, giving chinese lectures and handling the text handing the textbook students and you got tech it some of the proverbs or adverbs or some of the the chinese characters in in our classroom settings


I think that dialect should be used so my point is that dialect should be as a, offered as a mother tongue to complement the chinese language, instead of thinking it as a as a as a single subject by itself


so that's my third point my fourth point is that studies in the US there are several studies which are conducted have shown that the mastery of two, the more languages is beneficial to the development of the cognitive ability of students during the age of five to fourteen years thus the picking of the picking up of english chinese and even dialects as a so called third language is beneficial to the cognitive development of


our, next generation this is my fourth benefits of learning chinese dialects so onto the fifth onto my fifth and last point as what I've mentioned before I also believed that's also economic benefits in learning dialects


because of the rising power in china, so, that I've already elaborated when I was arguing the point on, chinese dialects are not able to bring economic benefits to


the students in the future so that's, my so that's my some of the points that I have onto you


yeah okay okay, so okay on your point that uh using dialects as a teaching, tool to encourage students to learning chinese through our, uh there will direct activities I understand that it could be subjective and some students may be more receptive


and some may be, may not so that is rather subject so let's not going to that but on your point on Kampung spirit on, learning, on using chinese language as a main form of, on, communication so as what I said in my first point


that, in the start of my speech is that the chinese language is currently rarely use by the students in our, by our younger students in singapore right now if you, walk the ground most conversations are carried out in english and this is the trend that what the proposition would not like to see in our future generations so what we are proposing is to allow chinese dialects to come in as a bridging language


to increase, the usage of chinese and also dialect to have so that the tradition is kept on and the chinese language is also is added, advantage that a chinese language is also used at the same time so we are so called so so what we are doing is trying to kill two birds two birds at once though


by using by placing more emphasis on the dialects offering it as, a, mother tongue and of course to that what I've mentioned before it need not be examiner it can be just like a


moral, education kind of kind of syllabus I believe that it will be helpful, for for our, younger generations so lastly let me just sum up so what what our what we wanted to see what you want to achieve by


a, debate topic is to we want our younger generations to more our roots so we do not want any dilution or any loosing off identity since right now the main emphasis is on english language, so we we do not want a younger generations to be confused on who they are whether they're singaporean chinese or singaporean or chinese american


if what they're been using is english and is not our main native language okay thank you


part three debate topic, three


okay so, so our third topic of the day is learning is best outside it's done best outside the classroom so we totally agree with this point that learning is done best outside the classroom, so learning outside the classroom


let me just start off by saying that learning outside the classroom can help educators not only students to create the enthusiasm for learning students enthusiasm for learning and it will also help to expose students to real, world, context so students will have a fun and interactive time during learning as they're not constrained by traditional classroom settings on the contrary with books tablets or lectures or one day lectures just given by the teachers


sometimes students may be bored if the tradition may be bored if such traditional classroom settings uh are used most of the time so for example just let me give you an example so instead of learning


our primary school students learning about animals, and, ya physical adapt adaptations for example, but now, snakes shed their skin or, how , how, the tigers have claws for hunting so on and so forth


instead of learning through such animals through the textbooks I think students would prefer, or, would enjoy learning much more, by visiting, the zoos instead who actually have a hands on and to really view the animals in real life and


completing assignments and questions during their visits to the zoo so I believe that learning outside classroom is is able to achieve such a result as compared to learning within the classroom, so my second point is that students who experience learning outside the classroom


will benefit from, increased self esteem and will, subconsciously become more, engaged in their education so evidence suggests that learning outside the classroom can help raise the student's achievement improve classroom behaviour


and improve the engagement, of, students be preschoolers or students with new teachers and including those students that are hard to engage in the classrooms environment so I would like to support my point


with an report published by Ofsted which the UK government department of education which concluded that learning outside the classroom contributed significantly to raising the UK's, standards and improving the pupils personal and social and emotional development


secondly in two zero one six a school travel forum in the UK conducted an independent research study to find out how school trips and learning outside the classroom impact the development of students, they found a sixty percent they found that sixty percent of teachers noticed an increase in students confidence resilience and wellbeing after participating in a school trip and sixty one per cent of the students achieve higher than their predicted grades


so these are my first two points I like to hear what uh proposition uh, uh point of view on, the topic on the, third topic that you are debating yup


okay


okay, so what you are hence just summarise what uh you're saying so firstly you are saying that, , learning in an enclosed environment like in a classroom setting there will be less distraction, and, the students will be more focused and


good grasp uh, what is being taught by the teachers faster due to this lack of distraction uh I don't believe that that is the case cause especially students that that are younger like, our primary school


our primary school students I don't think they have the discipline yet especially for just for for the sake for uh debating or let's say just take it as primary school students I don't think they are disciplined to really sit still and and just absorb what the teachers are just explaining through


who are, upon slides or, maybe just uh reading of the textbook and explaining the concepts within the textbook, whereas I believe that when learning is done outside the classroom where the things that are described in a textbook actually comes to life I believe that this will capture


these younger students attention much more, than purely reading it on the, book, so notwithstanding that there may be distractions outside but, at the end of the day we we want to be very outcome based


at the end of the day of course to keep these distractions at a minimum and to really focus on the objective of learning outside a classroom of course the, will, the educators will have to set certain questions to make sure that they achieve and to make sure that the student's answer collaborate in outdoor environment and to answer the question so that at the end of the day learning is being done effectively


I believe that such an environment is uh much more conducive than a traditional classroom settings where the person the students soul may be there but at the end of the day whether they are actually absorbing, or learning things this is we we we may not know the the final result that and so secondly on


the efficiency of the, learning and the travelling time logistic arrangements these I noted that, at , it will be quite troublesome or time consuming for for teachers to to actually arrange the logistic arrangement to travel


out like let's say to the zoo, to arrange for such a learning journeys for the students but perhaps a good start will be to start off by learning outside of the classroom in the school, while in itself so we not we should take baby steps and not uh


, and not go right away, or go to like overseas to learn uh maybe to go to uh very far away, we should first start off the school school compound let's say to learn about plants maybe uh first step will be to bring the students out to some of their gardens in in the school whereas


staying in their , beauty of the nature to first arouse their their interests first and may perhaps next step would be to bring in the back then to the back to the classroom we focus them, and to explain the theories behind the textbooks and stuff where the students have just fresh uh impression or images or pretty images of what they're about to learn in their mind I believe that these will


be efficient in in teaching the students of, uh learning in the, it will be an efficient way to achieve the learning outcomes at the end of the day, so this you also mentioned that there will be a lack of discipline and that the future of jobs are desk-bound this this I don't agree uh entirely or you totally because I think that the future of jobs are not desk-bound and


that's what we have seen in this COVID situation we are required, or forced to work, outside of a classroom setting we we are able to work at home, or we are able to work at a cafe we are supposed to work remotely and not fixated at a spot or in a enclosed environment we can we should be able to work anywhere we can


I believe that's the the future of our, job so it is good from young, to expose our, future leaders or future employees or employers, start from young to allow them to adapt to allow them to absorb learn and work also called work or learn outside of enclosed environment to foster or to inculcate the discipline required so that they are able to transit to


the future of their work which is not at all desk-bound, K so so I do note that the constraint of learning outside the classroom can be costly in terms of however despite what I said I do note that there there will still be


constraints and such that uh the teachers the burden will fall on the educators to maintain discipline and the costliness that the logistic arrangements or, even more manpower is needed to keep the students to maintain the student safety especially when they're outside the classroom which is not enclosed


so there's a study which found that while most teachers wish that they could offer more learning, the outside the classroom opportunities sixty seven per cent this is from a UK study by so sixty seven per cent cited cost and organisation as their primary deterrents


however so so the the main key focus will be that there should be, the trade off must be actively balanced out with classroom and out of classroom learning and out of classroom learning should be given more priority so let me give you an example to learn how to use a machine


it is better will you agree that it is better to actually go to the lab or go to the factory itself to learn how to operate a machine using via hands-on method rather than just learning, to operate, a machine in an enclosed classroom


uh we I don't think we are able to learn as effectively as really experiencing the things outside of classroom on a firsthand basis, so overall so that that supports my point that the learning part is really done best outside the classroom so just uh back to you


on do you have any, views on that yup


yeah, correct, yeah and to


okay so so will you so even if learning in classroom even if, let's say what is the difference between, uh showing a video or giving a teacher giving a lecture in a classroom versus uh, a student that is uh


at home and doing an online lecture so wouldn't you feel that uh classroom settings is uh, overvalued uh, overrated such that this style this learning this uh, such learning such theoretical learning can be done based on


our, own pace at home so I think if the answer is yes it can be replaced through working from home then what are the alternative the alternative is that learning is still done best outside of the classroom so you may argue


that mathematics or such things that have no physical form may not be may not be applicable to learning outside of the classroom but I I don't really agree with it I mean mathematics is everywhere if if we take a closer look at it and most of our studies on


or case problem solving problem solving questions in our maybe primary school or secondary school resolves around solving a real case study, in the environment and and in the in the real world itself not in the classroom the complex problems exist in the real world


so if the educator is able to put in the extra effort to show case what is the problem that the our future generation and the next generation will be facing in the real world and then I guess, bringing them bringing these real life complex questions is really is a a good step ahead is a good step towards learning outside from classroom and this supports my point on that


so lastly I I believe that I believe that uh intrinsic values for learning outside of the of the class or intrinsic benefits that arises from learning outside the classroom found out who is the the cost of the the logistic cost or the cost fornicating discipline


and it well results in reduce behavioural problems, and students who have a more accepting attitudes towards a cultural differences and they are allowed to visit countries of a different background to experience their culture diversification and this will in turn it to a more well rounded individuals in the future in our next generation thank you


, okay so the first debate topic is literature as a subject that has no practical value so in my opinion I feel that it's it's uh something that I resonate with


cause I strongly believe that literature is something that is is not very practical I mean we can always learn all the important stuff such as mathematics science which can help you get a job next time, but something like literature has no practical value because it's it's not valuable there's no proper grading


I mean just like arts I think is is really not practical for academics so if you want to be a doctor or even be a scientist next time so there's no point in studying literature as a subject because it has no practical value lah


okay but why do you think we need to express our self creatively do you think it will help you secure a job next time when you graduate from maybe uh uh uni a local uni this creativity what is this creativity you speak about do you think it can help you get further in life do you think it can help you secure a well paying job maybe


to become a civil servant do you think they will ask you during the interview how creative you are do you think they will question your subjects whether you you've done well literature and arts and drawing do you think, that is not something that is is practical you see because once you go for interview they will look at your grades how well you did for math


science or even like something that is more valuable that is tangible you can see a proper grade and it's and it's something that is very practical when it comes to furthering your studies or even for foreign further career goals lah, that's what how I feel


okay I see but being practical we do not need creativity in your daily life do you think that if you learn literature in maybe your uni or you specialized like in english lit do you think that will be applicable in today, do you think that kind of creativity will help you in in a form of expressions but that can be also be learned through through math or through even your life skills when you're going out to work you don't really need to learn literature as a subject because it has no practical value it cannot be traded off like say you are unemployed


do you think you can learn whatever you learn in literature, to to get you a job to to get you your pay for the day it cannot be exchanged cause it's not tangible it's just a idea or something that is that can help you to express yourself but it's not tangible you don't really see it and there's no physical value to it


I see I understand the point about like you mentioned like albert einstein but do you really think that without literature if he didn't I mean study or even major in english with literature he wouldn't have accomplished what he has done


I mean that it might be too far fetched to to think about lah because no one knows that I mean this kind of subject it's it's really hard to say it's just, literature is about the power of writing it's about understanding the philosophies in life understanding the deeper meaning in english


probably english literature books stories but that doesn't say that he wouldn't have accomplished all that he has done if he didn't have such creativity or even had studied in english literature, so it's really something that is really debatable but I strongly believe that it has no practical value because I do not see the purpose in in being creative in thinking out of the box I mean literature does not give you the soft skills or hard skills you need next time


when you want to further your studies when you apply to be a, to work in maybe in civil service it doesn't get you far because there's no advantage if you have literature or not you have studied literature of not because everyone will have other grades or other achievements to show off and that is not something and studying literature is not something you are


you can be proud of or you can even show results for because it's not graded it's not it's very very tangible and it's not something that is of practical value


okay it's interesting proposition that what whatever points you bring out but I think we're straying away from the the main debate topic of literature as a subject


because literature as a subject is, is is compulsory in school, from when you started out in primary school that is something compulsory but as you choose to as in you as you go up to to secondary school then it becomes optional so then you ask yourself


do you think really is practical if you can choose between like a major in literature and the major in history but then for students who choose to major in literature, how do you think that will help them for future career pursuits then


do you think that will be a cutting edge against, those who major in history or even those in geography that is more more useful and more informative educational and that is something I'd like to to discuss lah because literature


as a subject it's it's just really to give you more thought thought processes to help you think about what what if what what happen something to think about about previous literature book, or even like writings by by professors and academics but then again if you choose to pursue this as a career


to major in english literature as you go down further the further career path I think that it's really practical, not practical and something that is is really, it's a tough choice if you want to compete against all the formal academics the professors and you have nothing to show for if you choose to major in english literature


, I mean your quote by charles dixon it's it's something that is more abstract and it might not be really practical in this context but I feel that, not straying too far to all the creative writing and and really down to what the significance of english literature really means is is really to give you the the thought process as a student but as you as you try


and, I mean you set further goals for yourself you set, like career paths and you, it might not really be practical at all for a young student who wants to have a proper career, and to compete with the others as as the world becomes more competitive I mean


sometimes grades are not even enough you, you don't even need your like the As in the math and science anymore and what more do you need literature for do you think it will not even provide you a cutting edge by then like in maybe in five to ten years' time when everything advances it's not practical at all because it's not it's not there's no results you can show for


I mean, even if you score your best As and sometimes it's not even enough to have your to top your class for math and science sometimes you need even additional math or even your languages your linguistics as well so this creative like english lit studies is really not practical and is not


doesn't seem justifiable I mean now compared to even the the next graduates the next generation that is yet to graduate in maybe five to ten years time, ya


okay so the third debate topic it's about the topic of how investing in art and museum is a waste of money


because you come to think about it investing in arts and museums involves the state funding I mean there's every country has its own art arts and museums I mean in singapore we have the singapore arts museum at #bras basah# they have national arts museum but it is but how often do you think museums make money


I mean you can invest like maybe I don't know how much the, the funding are per year, but let's say like if the government the state funding invest a million dollars per year, do you think they have enough income or footfall to really earn back the money invested in these museums I mean these museums are not just selling tickets I mean do you think they really have enough people to earn back throughout the exhibitions or even through the shows the talks


cause arts and museums do not earn money at all, these arts and museums are just an outlet for for the creative people to to showcase their works but how often do you think people go and visits museums or is it just a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere


for example this like state funding could be spent elsewhere such as through our education or even to the defense budget because art is a, intangible object that we could not fund enough because there's no end and there is no limit and there is also no results


you can study arts as a arts major I mean your career path will be showing your works in the museums after that but how often will you earn money at all, because arts is not a proper career to begin with you cannot earn enough money and such you're wasting the state funding and such investing in arts and museum is also a total waste of money


okay that's quite interesting but don't you agree that arts and museum is not the only way of education when there's so many other ways you can be educated you can read you can write you don't need to go to watch uh, a museum play or even to do arts there's so many ways of education and this amount of money spent into education through the museums is a waste of money because you can I don't know teach the next generation through other forms of creativity


that mean you can go for other lessons like robotics coding you don't need that way to be educated because there's no virtual or there's no tangible outcome you can see deriving from, arts and museum and there's a lot of money being spent inside because state funding consists of the majority of the investments to arts and museums


and with that important funding they need to see returns and if there's not enough returns there's not they're not making money then what is the point really is it to open a museum that loses money every year, rental is expensive I mean in the first world country why are we investing things in things that do not make money arts do not make money museums do not make money do you think they are doing well in sales do you think that so many people are going just to just because they


they want to be there or do you think the schools are forcing them to be there in schools do not encourage museums or schools do not encourage, organize museum tours then these museums will not will not survive at all but I strongly believe that this is a waste of money in such investments because this money can be brought to better use in maybe in our education system I mean engaging better teachers or even overseas trips as well


okay that's that's interesting but I've also been to the Kaohsiung pier and don't you think that it's uh it's just an outlet for people to, to express their creativity but do you think they actually earn money I don't think they do


in singapore let's bring it back to local context I mean we have different budgets and different even in the parliament there's this education budget so if we withdraw the education budget who suffers the most the children the next generation so if we withdraw the arts budget who suffer the most no one


because there's no tangible assets and there's no tangible like results on the people I mean students maybe who are exposed to arts may not be as creative, but they can exceed their creativity in other forms, or other shapes I mean they do not necessarily needs to visit the arts or even go to museums that mean there's other avenues that this money could be put to better use for example mean now in the outbreak of the COVID this essential art budget can easily be moved to to the to the healthcare


to the healthcare budget I mean now I mean we been through the circuit breaker where all the non essentials are closed so what was close first the museums don't you see the the point it is not essential it's not important so what happens if you don't go to a museum for two months during circuit breaker nothing happens you see


because you can even do things online can watch a, watch a play see exhibitions online you don't need to even to go to a museum there is no purpose in going to a physical museum so this budget can be can be sent to uh maybe to the to the healthcare which can be put to better use because it's


arts and the museums are non essential and there's really no point and it's a total waste of money when you can spend on better use on public services for even for the next generation for the education


no there was no statement it was ten million people


I see I mean they can always find a job elsewhere I mean it doesn't necessarily say that their livelihoods affected when they can easily


find a alternative job, or maybe those who are working the museums like the the attendants or mean they can easily be transferred to another career, I don't think it's the issue but the main issue is in local context this spending on the arts and museum is not necessary when there's other creative outlets that they can even like I mean museum can be


is is obsolete already there's no point having a physical museum or even having arts as a, a uh avenue of expression when there's so many other ways you can can find a creative outlet to do so mean in terms of livelihood you can easily find another


job I mean there's you don't need to be stuck in a job just because you you've done something since young it's not a career path but it's a career choice you can choose, you can always choose a alternative, so back to my previous point on how investing in arts and museums a waste of money


I mean you asked me for proposition where an alternative, for for this creative outlet I mean I'll suggest, maybe making it virtual I mean we're talking about technology we are talking about or going, going virtual going technology going VR I mean that's something different and something more creative and


and, and something that is probably cheaper than having to to fund the museums rental the the cost of people, and labour costs is really high, every year, so it's something different something that is more tech, more tech savvy something more advanced looking forward to the future


I mean that would impact the education schemes as well lah, and that would be something different


okay I mean, ya definitely there's many schemes I mean if you really to to really close the arts and museums there has many schemes in place to help all these people transit to proper jobs so so I think that's where these the list of considerations here but the most important is to really move the funding elsewhere


, okay so the second debate topic is as a society progresses there is little value in preserving its heritage


this is a very interesting topic I mean we are in singapore we are the first world country I mean every year we see so much progression I mean in terms of like education or in terms of upgrading and progression so I really feel that as a society progresses there is really no point in preserving heritage


I mean you seen so many heritage sites that I mean there's this Lorong Buangkok and, it's the only Kampung left in singapore I mean that land is so precious and so valuable that if we were to take away the heritage we could build new BTOs new houses and that could be our


our next generations homes so why is there a need to preserve that kampung when there's I mean there's so little families staying there now I mean we can easily move them to another site I mean give them another HDB to stay in and that land they are staying in can be easily scrapped because there is no value in keeping the heritage anymore


I really believe that if we do not move all this heritage places I mean there's really no point it slows down singapore's progress as a nation, I mean especially in the terms of upgrading and and construction why do we need to keep on with this heritage it slows down the whole communities progression I mean we we keep harping on like the old singapore playgrounds like the #toa payoh# dragon playground


then there is really no progression because the land, is valuable in singapore we are land scarce so that kind of land is is really valuable into building the next singapore maybe like a JTC hub or something that is is commercial viable something that


you can bring in money for I mean can create jobs bring money for the economy so there's really no point in preserving this heritage why do we need heritage if we are looking forward to the to the future, heritage is old it's about looking backwards how do you want to move forward in singapore if you keep looking backwards and like to reminisce on the on the past the heritage we cannot move forward if we are always looking backwards ya


okay but I beg to differ we we don't really need to have a physical, heritage has been preserved to have her history mean you can read about it in the books you can read it on the internet you don't need to preserve it, in the physical form because we have land scarce we do not have enough land to begin with