I do not believe that we should, uh include these risk into the community whereby we are giving whereby we are allowing marijuana to be like uh panadol whereby you can just get it from any sort of uh drugstore any sort of seven eleven that you can find ah and uh second point


I would like to bring up is to counter your idea that uh, there are currently uh black markets or drug dealers dealing uh marijuana illegally across the world and by legalising marijuana


we'll be able to uh eliminate the presence of such such markets however I believe that there is uh that's actually quite a far fetched point because, by legalising marijuana it doesn't really stop people from it doesn't really stop the whole black market from uh


from actually wanting to produce for actually wanting to trade marijuana because there there would definitely be governmental constraints on the use of marijuana they'll be taxes there will be uh like what what we just discussed a lower high


a a a lower potency of marijuana hence the presence of the black market, is even for now is to, like people won't actually pay such a high price for marijuana that doesn't allow them to be high so by legalising


by legalising marijuana that doesn't provide high still will not eliminate the whole black market and hence the overall tax revenue the overall revenue gained by the government will still be vastly less, than uh than the costs of marijuana causing to the society


yes uh so, uh my point is it still shouldn't be legalised, because it causes uh it causes uh let me see ah, it causes a higher rate of action whereby people are more addicted to it and is still and the point that it eliminates the black market still doesn't uh still doesn't benefit the economic of the society in any way shape or form


your turn, thank you


legislations uh


okay


okay K uh yes I do agree with what you just said but uh what what you just said about the, well about hospitals being only allowed only allowing hospitals to be the ones dispensing uh things like marijuana and it is true that such measures are being in place now for uh drug such as morphine whereby it causes a high amount of


whereby it causes uh a lot of, highness highness in the person but it also decreases it also eliminate their pain ah but then I do not agree with your point that marijuana should be given a chance like alcohol because if we


if you look at the past uh drugs such as opium was actually given out was drugs such as opium was actually allowed in singapore or even in china in the past and what and opium is actually like cat like cannabis


it causes a lot of uh it people are actually extremely addicted to it and, uh the side effects are almost similar as well so being such being highly addicted to such a drug we have already seen the results of it people are uh people have decreased productivity people are staying at home more often people are just people just uh we just like to keep on


uh indulging themselves in uh opium, and I can put I can say the same thing like we can just we can look at these statistics in the past and uh say that being legalising marijuana will actually we're actually


provides uh the same if not uh slightly less if not the same uh if not the same side effects as what opium did in the past yes, sure


okay okay so in my in conclusion for me is that my standpoint marijuana should still not be legalised because, it will cost a more medical it actually increases the teen use of marijuana causing a lot of uh side effects to them in uh if affecting their learning in the long time in the long run sorry


and then it will also causes a lot of medical emergencies such as uh medical emergencies from traffic deaths, from driving while being high and uh it doesn't provide any any more economical benefits to the people and not only that uh I believe there are other other drugs available right now that can provide the same benefits as marijuana


for example morphine for pain or even diazepam for uh for seizures and, rapid muscle muscle spasms ah and hence not only these are points that I raised up we shouldn't be legalising marijuana uh last point that I would like to raise is that marijuana actually causes people to be extremely addicted to it which may lead to uh which may lead to


a lot of societal cause or even side effects there have been seen in the past such as we're having seen the past whereby opium was actually legalised and hence I believe that, to this day marijuana should still not be legalised


yes, uh okay so, so you uh (ppc), with marijuana not being legalised people are not


people are not allowed to abuse it people are not allowed to, create people are not allowed to uh, become high from it and hence shouldn't be use lah


and then it shouldn't be legalised,


I think you can start right


oh (ppc) okay right so I think technology creates, more problems than benefit for the society so I think that the above statement is fundamentally incorrect, just technology may create some problems for sure


but it is not acceptable to claim that new technology creates more problems than benefit there is no doubt that technology has greatly improve the quality of life life, that we know of today is now easier and safer uh easier and safer thanks to technology right so just think about it what happens when the electricity is turned off


or what happens when you the air conditioner or even the heater at night the colder countries are turn off, right what about the lack of entertainment provided by our phones and computers can we even imagine , you uh life without electricity forever and in fact I'm sure that you know this debate would not even happened without the help of technology so can and these are just like some of the many examples right what about the internet or even you know vehicles like the cars and planes


can you imagine travelling by foot of you know via a horse donkey or camel for hundreds of kilometres right so I think without technology our lives will certainly be harder, slower and definitely less enjoyable and cell phones have pretty much become a necessity for many people throughout the world in today's modern society where we use our cell phones to communicate with


uh our families or friends and even our colleagues and even strangers via like social media apps alright we use it for work, you know to check the news to update like our social media you know to take pictures for the important memories


to you know even order like food delivery to check the GPS so that we actually know like the direction of where we are going and like many many more ah so as such I believe that you know technology has you know most certainly increase the productivity of


you know almost every industry in the world and while I acknowledged that you know there are some problems that uh result from you know like the from technology such as like the use of like cell phones , I am you know still certain that the uh benefits like outweigh like the cost and that technology creates more problems that uh sorry more benefits than problems for the society


ya I think you can uh carry out


(ppc) okay so I think that I agree with you right so that uh we cannot deny that technology you know cause like problems such as like pollution or even a health issues that you mentioned earlier you know due to physical inactivity


or even like stress you know from the very the very fast pace of life that we have today , due to like greater interconnectedness and increase productivity alright but these problems are, you know due to some and I think is not due to like all types of technology and in fact I would say that in most of these cases right these problems are actually correctable or like able to be fixed


by more advanced like technologies right so for example pollution as a result of like cars and like other vehicles they pose a real problem for sure, right but as we can see that you know this problem can be fixed by using


technology such as like solar energy or you know hydrogen fuel cell so like for example if you look at Tesla, right so Tesla coming over the fact that electric vehicles is basically trying to solve like this problem where with like a new technology and in fact I think health problems from physical inactivity is


uh a very very valid example for sure right but you know thanks to technology the thanks to like the advanced uh advancement in technology that we have today, we are able to (ppc) perform a research to like very clearly identify physical inactivity or health related problems right and we are able to develop treatments for them


in addition if we you know were to look at like all the other medical advancements that we see today right we can clearly uh understand how medical technology has you know greatly benefited, society as a whole right for example in like hospitals rider surgical teams are able to conduct operations that are safer


right and more precise than before right thanks to technology and I think on your point on like the nuclear energy, right while I agree that you know technology can be abused can be dangerous and in fact can create like some problems right over for some technologies can create like some problem uh more problems than benefit


but at the end of the day I think the that idea of, a nuclear energy was to actually create like a sustainable source so you don't actually have to rely on fossil fuels and stuff but in fact it's actually you know some of the bad people who actually choose to choose the abuse it alright so not so much of like the technology itself so I believe that


you know basically like thanks to technology like we are actually able to like complete like out work or out task in like fewer hours, right we are able to have like a different forms of recreational like stuff like video games cell phones social media right and this increase in productivity gives us you know more recreational time for us to do like things that would actually improve our quality of life


ya uh I think that's that's it lah


ya okay I think that you know I I agree with you right too because uh even though technology may cause problems right but I personally feel that the benefits of uh technology you know undoubtedly like outweigh like these like problems or like these drawbacks


right because I think those examples you have named for, uh where whereby like technology actually cause like more problems than benefits right I can I mean most people can easily name like ten more examples where technology you know actually has like provides like more benefits and the cost or like that the problems


right so I think that you know these are you know there are definitely like very very real problems that can occur due to you know technology or due to the abuse of technology but I think that, these problems are you know in (ppc) most cases


manageable right by either by advance advanced technologies or like you know through like the law right so (ppc) I think, nearly every like hot technology, where is created to fulfill uh people's needs right and and to satisfy like they're ones right but with the involvement of new technology I think if you look at where we are today versus you know where we are a hundred years ago I think that people today will live in a world with


a better conditions I think very few people would actually, uh kind of like debate against that right and I think that will new technologies they come out as you know every second that passes right we have like a uh in couple of years we might get like the AR in terms of uh like viewing like a house and stuff being rolled up properly


where will get VR in terms of like directions and what not so, there's going to be like a lot of like new technologies that going to come out and this I think that I feel that this technology is actually it will help us make our lives like a lot more comfortable, right and I think that today right so uh like it's very clear that you know society has enjoyed you know the benefits of having like this for this modern technologies right but what is important is actually for


individuals and and companies even right to think about these consequences and ways to manage them so that you know we don't abuse technology and we don't create any like unnecessary problems that like like you mentioned earlier


ya for sure lah but I guess, at the end of the day I think it simply comes down to like you know uh are you more comfortable with life today versus you know life in like the nineteen fifties or like even before


they before like the industrial revolution before you know any form of like technology actually kind of like camera was invented and I think that most people would you know choose to believe that life today is a lot more comfortable


see despite like the problems that that we face lah ya so at least or at least that's my opinion, ya


ya okay


you can start


ya okay (ppc) so I think that the you know the idea that machines right will drive up your unemployment or drive down wages right are basically like what you mention effect like this the lower skilled workers right


that those with like the more repetitive jobs right so we'll actually mean imply that you know machines will, make humans and their jobs uh obsolete right I think that this this this title right has become almost and you know article of faith for many right so I think everybody uh everyone can actually point to instances of uh machines


reducing demand for certain workers right in fact with uh this uh artificial intelligence right technology improving rapidly right there is you know widespread worry there is a greater like widespread worry that


uh many humans would actually be simply made obsolete, (ppc) and I think that you know a lot of this news outlets are, full of you know eye grabbing might forecast of the percentage of jobs that will be replaced right but


I guess at this point in time I think a lot of those estimates are you know little more than like just guest work right because the truth is nobody knows how many uh jobs will be replaced by machines right so there is that possibility


that you know uh machines or even AI right rather than replacing workers right will mostly allow them to you know actually do their jobs more easily, right and even as you know jobs are some jobs are being uh eliminated new ones will pop up and possibly at higher wages right while this may actually involve painful and stressful like transition


for for these people who actually have to switch jobs right but it does not represent eh a machine apocalypse in fact it would be you know it would be exactly what happened during the industrial revolution right and


if you look at like the data right like the broader based trends right we also see that they do not show uh they do not seem to show a machine take over right so, before just before the COVID nineteen right US at like the lowest unemployment rate it like the last I don't know like the last twenty years or last like many decades right and based on


the employment data by the US federal reserve bank of saint louis right so for the prime age people twenty five to fifty four years old unemployment rates are eh sorry employment rates are healthy at about like eighty percent at that point in time right so


this goes to show that you know despite like this improvement in technology over the years right we still see a lot of people being like employed and some economists have also done studies, to to show a negative impact from machines right so for example twenty seventeen paper by


uh #daron acemoglu# and #pascual restrepo# claim that you know regions with more robots right lost more jobs between nineteen ninety and two thousand and seven right and if you find other papers in china they have similar stuff as well but you know these trends do not seem to


be showing up on like a national level so there are some people who may lose jobs but it's not everyone who you know kind of lost their jobs and in fact some countries which employ more of this industrial machines, such as south korea germany and japan right they have unemployment rates that are low low or even lower than that of like the US right so but despite this lack of evidence for like a machine take over in the present I think a lot of people are still worried about like the future


ya, ya is your your turn


right so I I don't disagree with like your point right so basically just to summarise what you mentioned was that , you know with the uh as a result of like technology you have firms like Uber right even like your google and your amazon and stuff coming up with like technologies that would replace like humans but uh would replace like some jobs for humans right but


I guess at the end of the day because if we look at things from a national level the fact that you know unemployment is low could be partially attributed to you know with like more technology we actually able to, create like more jobs right and I think that technology is not going to go away right and to you know thrive in this high tech future


what is important is to stop asking you know what uh machines will never be able to do right I think instead we should simply you know ask ourselves like, what are the activities that you know we humans right driven by like our deepest nature will simply insist right be performed by other humans


so over you know hundreds of thousands of years I think that the human brain has evolved right to excel at uh interacting with other humans and I think studies have also shown that, we are actually the we are actually most fulfilled like we do so right so these are the things that you know we need humans to do right for a reasons we can barely understand to articulate


so like using like your examples right earlier so let's say like a computer right may judge that might judge that, uh the evidence or like or AI like might judge the evidence in the criminal case perfectly but sometimes you know people still want a human judge to take responsibility for like such a witty decision


right so emotional recognition software today right machines that are able to run a emotional recognition software might outsmart like a therapists when it comes to, you know analysing like speech patterns or like coffee links for example right but sometimes you know when people go for like therapy and stuff or all you want to do is to be heard by another human


right and no matter you know how well uh like a a computer marks like the essays and stuff right school pupils like students actually, still want to have like inspiring teachers to learn from in school right not just from like machines and stuff so I think that there are many there are like many examples that you know we can list right whereby like the human touch in these jobs are


you know uh not replaceable by by machines right and I think that , basically so as as you know technology continues to colonise like most of the stuff right so the most price skill be those that you know we don't want this machines to perform or stuff that they cannot perform


right so what we should be doing is to actually you know stop trying to become like a knowledge workers and become like relationship workers right because at the end of the day, I believe that humans you know you need like some form of like human interaction and or this humanness basically which is something that machines cannot do right so this is probably what will allow us to retain like some market value and as a result you know humans will never be like


obsolete ya


ya I think for sure lah because I I feel that their you know basically like too many unknowns like as of now right and I don't disagree that technology due to the advancement of technology some of these machines will actually be able to, you know replace like those jobs that you have mentioned earlier right but I guess the only thing we can do like we humans right can do is to wait and see


how technology you know affect like the labour markets of the future and you know we should uh like adjust our policies accordingly right but uh the thing nevertheless you know I believe that the face to face interaction, it's very critical for our emotional well being right it's basically what makes us like human right which is why you rather talk to like a person than like a machine right and it's not because you know like online communication is bad or talking to a machine is bad but because our brains are basically custom designed right for in person exchanges


right and like one example is just take a look at how many people rushed out to meet their friends after you know the the phase two of circuit breaker so while machines may take over some jobs and transform some jobs right but I think it would not be able to transform the job of being like human ya


ya okay so I think the the word euthanasia originated uh from greece right which means like uh a good death, so uh euthanasia encompasses a various dimensions from you know active which is introducing some day to cause death


right to passive basically a like withholding treatment or supportive measures right voluntary to in voluntary and even you know a physician , assisted one right so uh request for


like premature ending of one's life has your contributed to the the debate about like the role of you know such practices in contemporary health care right and, this debate you know basically like cuts across like various complex and you know dynamics aspects such as like legal article human rights you know health


religious et cetera et cetera right but in my opinion I think campaigning to and might certain, people's like lives right doesn't does not end the suffering basically what it does is that you know it passes on the suffering to other similar people right who now have to fear that they are like the next in line


to to be seen as having like worthless lives right in fact so basically passes on like the sufferings to like some of the family members right and I think that people who have, yeah suit moreover I think if you look at like societies that basically authorized like suicide as a choice right for some people right basically what it does is that it soon


uh ends up like placing uh it soon ends up placing like pressure on on some of them to actually like you know do the right thing, to and and kill themselves so some people would see suicide as uh


a solution for some illnesses right and this basically ah undermines like the willingness of doctors and you know society , to actually show real compassion and address like the patient's pains and other problems right so in states that have legalized like assisted suicide right in fact you know most based on like studies right most patients requests for like the lethal drugs not due to pain


or in fact is actually not even due to like fear of on future pain, but actually due to concerns like the loss of dignity and becoming a burden on others right basically stuff that you mentioned earlier as well so this so all of these are basically attitudes that these laws encourage right so the solution is actually to


uh what's important is to care for people in ways that you know assure them that they have a dignity and that is a privilege and not a burden, right to to care for them as long as they leave and not to encourage you know such such mindset right whereby err like you fear that you know you you will become a burden on others and as a result you know you you think that it's better to like just kill yourself


ya


ya so I agree right and I think that you know it is err understandable right even though it's tragic that ah I think patients some patients in extreme


US right such as those suffering from, a terminal or painful you know illness, may come to decide that death is actually preferable to life right because uh what it does is that uh basically like like you mentioned earlier might less financial burden on like the families and what not but I think that there that is not the only perspective that we should consider


right because if we permit like physicians to know engaged in this assisted suicide basically right I've my my fears that it ultimately causes more harm than good right because a physician assisted suicide


where euthanasia is you know fundamentally you know incompatible with like the physicians role as a healer, right and I feel that it would be difficult or impossible to control right and this will actually post like serious societal risks right so because the the physician himself or herself who performs ah euthanasia assumes this unique responsibility for


the act of ending the patients like life, right and in fact from the vulnerable groups perspective right so I think for this issue they're like various perspectives to to consider right from the vulnerable groups perspective right in this very profit driven economic climate


right I think it's also very unrealistic to expect that uh, like insurers are going to do like the right thing right more often than not they will probably do like like the cheap thing right so think insurers may like deny or even delay like approval of like costlier life saving alternatives right then uh


ya and then the truth is that you know with assisted suicide euthanasia is like the, public policy or being legalised right basically what this does is that they are like various dangerous loopholes and consequences especially for near the vulnerable uh in our society and as mentioned earlier so I think that if we were to like legalize it


right sometimes you create this impression of this unintended consequence right off basically pressuring some of like the vulnerable people who were , who are like terminally ill that they should actually choose to accept death right rather than to be a burden on like their families so some of them might choose you know euthanasia not so much because like they want to but because they are like unwittingly uh like pressured to do so


ya (ppc)


ya but I believe that you know legislators in several countries and jurisdictions have actually in uh recent years voted against like legalizing euthanasia where in part of like the concerns and evidence that I mentioned earlier


right so those this this jurisdiction include france scotland england south australia where new hampshire right so they have instead, opted to you know focus or to improve on health care services and to educate like health professionals and the public right showing why like some some of these people feel that euthanasia should not be legalised and I believe that you know from the


perspective of a lawmakers, right uh sorry legalising euthanasia could have a wide range of, profoundly detrimental effects right because basically would kind of like diminished the protection offered to the lives of all and there may be you know many other like long term consequences of


legalising euthanasia that you know we cannot yet like envisage right but we can be sure that you know some of these consequences could be you know quite quite dire and because I feel that in a while


this uh legalising euthanasia comes from like this initiative, while it is like nobly motivated I believe that it is actually wrong in principle right because essentially what we are saying is that we're attempting to kind of like deal with the problems of of human beings by killing them right which I feel that it's


it's uh not right lah in principle ya


oh oh should I start now, okay, it is true that with advancements in technology many ideas have been


successfully implemented which were thought of, as a dream in some point of time in the, and with technology many dreams like these have come become reality for example like efficient transport, uh speedy communication but there are also problems technology has brought into our lives in addition to making our last more


so first of all when all work is done by gadgets with minimum interference from men this has led to dormancy in men which has made him susceptible to diseases like heart attack et cetera, so in the past people used to rely on manual labour to


perform tedious task and err, currently there is err technology has led to damage the quality of life, at the macro level so lethargic has crept into the lives of people as they become more addicted to the comforts of technology and social networking has also replaced outdoor sports and computer games have now become the only indoor game at


disposal and secondly, computers and complex machinery coming into existence because of advancement in technology has led to a decrease in labour costs but also has led to unemployment problems, ya, so uh it is not just humans who are affected by technology advancement but also the environment so uh there are many like


ill effects of global warming caused due to the due to industrial developments, and , even though technology has helped in improving our lives over-dependence on gadgets has made, man


very prone to diseases so there are many advantages of course, but the disadvantages are grave so if the world, , is to be a better place, then technology needs to be in better hands


oh okay, err I think Wei-Qi you can talk now


okay K so I think what you said is that err technology does create problems but err the problem do not outweigh the benefits but, I think this is not necessarily true


because, err when technology is, then there can be more problems then, benefits, and one example of this would be nuclear energy so this is one that has pros as well as cons, so nuclear energy can be used for


many different purposes for example to generate electricity for defence et cetera and with the help of technology nuclear weapons have been developed so there is there are disaster consequences on health


in the worst case scenario if these nuclear weapons are utilised, the first, use of technology has been in the field of nuclear weapons and in weapons of mass destruction, so nuclear powers in the hands of notorious countries like iran and pakistan have has been an issue of global concern for the


decades decade like there's like a lot of there's a lot, being reported on the media regarding this, wars and uh the superpowers of the world, are now conscious about the existence of power with the third world nations


so these developments have transformed the world to an arsenal possessed by a nation preparing for world war, so technology itself, , is not just technology itself that creates problems but it's the abuse of technology that is supposed to be useful


but it can be misused, ya err I think you can continue


okay okay so even if like technology is not misused they can still be like, a lot of problems caused so you mentioned that uh nuclear energy is a renewable energy like the intentions


behind it were good but like, very bad things can still happen and an example would be the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, so it was the most severe, nuclear accident since, the nineteen eighty six Chernobyl disaster so this


started because of the earthquake and tsunami which is something that frequently happens in japan and cannot be like prevented and, aftermath of this was very, disastrous and, had implications for many years, after that, but there was like contaminated water and there were risks from ionizing radiation those radiation can not only can cost like immediate problems but also can


cause cancer in the long term, and also err they also had caused like thyroid problems so even though the intention behind this was good, there was still like negative consequences that cannot be prevented cannot be solved by technology and apart from this nuclear energy issue so another


example would be like information technology so Wikileaks is also a creation of, technologies so it's an archive of the tips and documents of various private and secret affairs of government which became open to public to mean so the views of american minister


about many nations of the world, uses attract to world diplomacy, and may result in relations among nations, so this this technology will need to like


relations between nations like can potentially lead to relations between nations, worst thing


I think it's true that like new technology in the future, and bring about many benefits like for example AIML, or VR et cetera but these new technologies, technologies can also bring about like many other problems


which have yet to be explored and it's like sometimes it's very hard to uh predict what kind of problems this can bring about like unintended side effects so


it might be easier to like predict the benefits, because like this technology were developed to, the intention of like bring about benefit, but sometimes like , what is not taken into consideration is the negative


side effects


okay, uh something happened uh just now


the recording stopped I I don't know why


oh okay okay so we suggest predicted that the rise of robots will bring about benefits in terms of productivity and economic growth , acknowledged the drawbacks that what


are expected to arise at the same time so (ppc) as a result of like globalisation tens of million of jobs will be lost, especially in poorer local economies that rely on lower skilled workers so this will therefore transmit to an increase in income inequality so uh according to analysis firm oxford economics up to twenty


million manufacturing jobs around the world could be replaced by robots, by twenty thirty, so each new industrial robot will actually wipe out one point, six manufacturing jobs with the least skill regions being more affected people from those jobs are likely to find like uh similar role in the services sector which at the same time have also been squeezed out by automation so this


even though they try to find new jobs then the new jobs that that they find are also becoming increasingly automated so they would, still lose their jobs, so uh this will cost like a damaging, increase in income inequality and uh in, regions where people more more people have lower skills


uh tend to have weaker economics and higher, unemployment rates in the first place they are like even more vulnerable, the lost of jobs due to robots and , while robots move out of factory, and into service industries


it still in manufacturing, that uh will cost will have the most impact especially in china where armies of workers could be replaced by machines so where service jobs are under they are industry such as transport


or construction rather than door automatism, and it's lower skill people who, are the most vulnerable so the more repetitive the job, is the greater the risk of it, wiped out and these factory workers are in danger of losing their jobs


uh Wei-Qi


okay okay I think like maybe at, macro level even though some jobs will be lost uh there are other jobs created and you said like, some studies show that, uh unemployment rates


did not increase significantly but , that is like on a macro level, but for an individual like, it is not necessarily the same so some of these, individuals who lose their jobs they, do not have other skills


and it might be very difficult or even impossible for them to, find other jobs so uh I think in some countries the the government put in place policies to held in like skill, retraining in order for them to find different jobs


but this, uh might not be true in all countries, and I believe it certainly not the case not true in the case of like uh poorer country so , to an individual losing their job, to machines like is uh significant event even if it's not significant to a country as a whole and uh like


one group of individuals that, could be affected would be like drivers so uh Uber publicly announce like, that venturing into the, car that their, venturing into driverless car with a goal of ultimately replacing it


army of human driven vehicles with a fully autonomous, so in the space of less than a decade, has like, transformed the entire global tech, see market they have took for century and like perhaps, will soon transform the very idea of a human driver


so today a thousand of miles have been, successfully driven by a self driving driving cars, and fits of autonomous vehicle, own by companies, like Uber who has enormous impact on professional human taxi drivers which are very common like all around the world


and also like autonomous trucks could also replace, like long distance drivers and other than that uh personal digital assistance like google now siri, Ecco and Cortana are leveraging similar technology


to recognise a human voice to understand and reason like ever more complex task and, perform an ever growing array of, so this would replace the traditional, human so at each step


technology is lowing the lowering the price and access and opening the universe, of those who can afford to access such capabilities so it does bring about benefit but this is done at the cost, of eliminating more and more


human jobs


okay you said that like err we should focus on like the more human kind of jobs but like is there really a limit to, what kind of jobs that machines can perform


so, uh for now maybe they can only like perform analytical roles or like more data related roles, but because, there is like a rapid development in AI , so eventually like, AI might be able to take over even like the more


human jobs , so one example like lawyers, so lawyers if you like, think about it like in general aids, seems that it's not easily replaced and judging from like the number of movies and


TV shows about the profession being a lawyer is like, it can be seen as a pretty, good job it's like interesting, in high earning career with like, like social status attached but, hiring a lawyer is also like very expensive, and err


substantial portion of what lawyers to on a daily basis, actually turns out to be like more of a routine than in some of other profession so even though like some, bespoke legal work still requires humans AI can actually help to


to perform task from like, uh legal discovery which is the pre trial process in which lawyers decide like, what documents are relevant to, to creating contracts like they can even, argue parking fines and, handle divorce proceedings


so this means that like a substantial amount of work, that is done by a lawyer would be, uh removed or can be performed by a machine, and like some, lawyers especially the junior lawyers who are already trained in this


aspects would not have would lose their jobs and err other than this another group of affected workers would be financial analyse so like, being a lawyer working enough, finance sector has like traditionally been a high status high income job but like


increasingly AI is taking over because like computers can spot patterns and metrics, faster than even like the most eager human analyse so err similarly there will be like much fewer jobs in this uh area


and also less opportunities, so without, proper training like provided by the country or training opportunities provided by the countries, this uh people with this


particular jobs that are easily replaced by machines


oh okay okay so the right to die should be a matter of personal choice so we are able to choose like all kind of things in life, like for example who you marry what kind of, you do and I think that like when it comes to the end of like a person's life


but then you have a terminal illness or whether like, very old you should have a choice about what happens to you so , those in favor of euthanasia argue that a civilise society should allow people to die in dignity and without pain and should allow others to help them to do so if they cannot do it by themselves so like


our bodies are our own and we should, be allowed to do what we want with them so, so I think it's wrong to make anyone like, if longer than they want, and in fact making people, go on living when they don't want to, violates their personal freedom and human rights so it's immoral to force people to continue living in suffering and pain


so uh allowing euthanasia would prevent like cruelty and also protect human rights uh to allow uh terminally ill individual to end their life for example is the only, humane rational and compassionate choice


'cause uh the current prohibitions require a person with quick physical and uh mental suffering to, continue to endure their, suffering against their wishes which cannot be right like if they are going if they're suffering from like a lot of pain they should have the choice to like end the pain like they should not be forced to continue uh


endure enduring this pain, and the right to live and the right to, private and family life under the european convention on, human rights should be integrated broadly to include, decisions about the quality, of life


including decisions about, if the life is no longer one of quality, Wei-Qi


okay, so you said that like, err like, for euthanasia is not, not just about like uh ending someone's suffering because that suffering can be like ah transferred to like a family member for example but sometimes like forcing the person to live on flip side forcing the person to live can also like be


can also bring about suffering to the family, members because like the person who is forced to live like, can end up being a financial burden, so a survey in the, US estate of oregon where assisted dying is legal showed that sixty six percent of euthanasia requests involved patients who did not want to be a financial burden


to the new zealand based life information website, so inadequate funding for palliative care and pain management, and government's reliance on nursing homes or contribute to their despair felt by many who reach old age, or endure frustrating physical limitations


affected with like conditions , you said that like uh the solution is to provide like care for these people rather for for them to, see solutions as the only suicide but I think that uh that like can be a bit idealistic


at the moment because like uh at the end of the day , like countries are practical and ah, caring for this, people who are, , where has certain conditions and might not be able to contribute to economic


growth, not be a priority to the country so the country would not prioritise, when the country doesn't prioritise this uh there's inadequate funding for all these, care nursing homes, and the needs, but it needs to being very high costs which the


, which the family members like simply cannot afford, so uh I think what you said about, err providing providing, more funding for these uh services while uh it sounds good on paper


it actually like might not happen in real life, ya


okay okay I think in some cases err like for severely incompetent patients the continuation of treatment like might be deemed, of no medical benefit


might too burdensome so like if the, the quality of life that the patient will have, , if the quality of life, like is, like very bad maybe there is like no point in, saving the


patient so err, so uh another point you brought up, was like, err like medical professionals they are supposed to, save lives so it doesn't mix, for them to uh like


take life away from the patient, uh on the other hand if death is in the best interests of, some patients like, if the withdrawal of life sustaining, treatment, can be said to be of benefit, in the case then death like


a moral good for these patients, then if, the case like why is it wrong, to, intend to bring about this moral, so for example if a doctor refuses to withdraw life support from an incompetent patient when the clinical team agrees


that, inappropriate he does so like, , for no other reason than his realisation, that, part of his intention is that she dies a quick and, painless death so, far from being morally commendable his refusal should be viewed as incompatible with what is of real moral in


the best interests of his patient so he's, choosing to not like , withdraw life support for the patient , uh is like in his, selfish interest because he doesn't want to kill the patient and not in the interest of the patient


so provided that the circumstances are clinically, oriented like there's really uh, no point in the patient like continuing to, to live doctor should be able to like withdraw life, sustaining treatment when they intend to accelerate death


as well as to uh relive suffering, so the morally the distinction is like not relevant in this, so if, ending the life of severely incompetent patients, is, legally and professionally acceptable then involuntary active euthanasia should


also have the same status


but I think like consequences aside like , I think that everyone should have the freedom of choice, and they should, be able to choose whether they want to, to like live continue living or like die like why why is it that ah the country has a say in whether you know want to


live like it's your own body own life like why why is it that, err, you cannot choose to die in case like other people end up feeling pressured, that they should also die if they have like a terminal illness or something, so like in the movie me before you


uh there was this guy who used to be like, very uh popular, healthy active in sports, and uh he like got into a very terrible accident, and ended up like err


he he wasn't able to walk so he was like always on a wheelchair, and err in the end he chose, euthanasia because he felt that, like, the quality of life that he will have, after that incident is like, not


the kind of life that he wants to lead so uh there is no point so ultimately like apart from aside from all the like consequences et cetera I think the like main issue that, like should be considered is like, ah the individuals choice


like , everyone should be able to, like make, a personal choice on whether they want to


for me I feel like it depends on what the we we need to define what the purpose of the school is , firstly , and at what level this this from school that we are talking about is so


at least for primary schools and secondary schools I believe the main purpose of these schools it's for education it's for, pure academic learning and so school should not consider subjective and non academic factors when it comes to admissions


for, for students with less resources, for example, they may not have access to to other sort of non-academic activities outside, the school, and what they learn in school is usually just you know mostly academic things so it will give an unnecessary advantage towards those with more resources


also for the purposes of school for the purposes of school ah sorry , and also, schools uh students should generally be be categorised based on the level of academic results so as to ensure that the teachers and the education level can be better catered to that level of standards that they have


, hence streaming and if you were to consider subjective and nonacademic factors, it will end up students from, all levels of uh standards will end up, being being put together in the same school


and, resources would not be efficiently, directed


but if so then why even bother having different schools at all why even bother sending your school uh your your your child to a school on the other end of the island why not just, have different centres and schools around singapore and just, dump everyone in there like regardless of their academic activities that that would just not be and efficient way to utilise resources


but I'm not not saying that students should be deprived, of better resources in fact I'm saying that students will be better, serve by , by being streamed according to their academic abilities for example someone who is slower in learning will be able to benefit from dedicated a dedicated school which caters specifically to students with lower learning abilities for example the teachers may be trained in uh


perhaps some special needs or or certain areas of weaknesses that the students may have, in teachers will be able to will be trained to learn will be trained, to, educate these students in a way that is most effective to them if you were to put someone


one, who learns fast together with someone who doesn't, or perhaps someone just naturally, uh better in in a particular subject and someone who isn't the stronger performing students will not be able to


achieve their potential and neither with the, a lower level students able to do the same


but I think that is the government's job, sorry ya I was just going to say I think I think that would be something that the government will have to, to , implement the in terms of resources whether or not they are getting, they are whether or not they are getting discriminated against and so not getting the resources that they deserve I think that should be up


to, I mean if it's a public school then it will be up to the government to decide, like how to, best allocate resources to them, as for the social aspect, I I think the primary, purpose or, schools is still to instill is is still to educate students academically such that they will be better prepared to excel in life because as much


as as much as, non academic skills are important you need the foundational basic academic skills in order to, go in order to to do more I feel


so I I addressed that previously that I think that that is the government's problem to to resolve if some schools, require more resources than the government should be allocating more resources to those schools, even if it means that resources are not equally allocated


and another point I wanted to make is that for, if you base admissions purely on, academic or academic ability, it is a pure meritocracy system


I believe if you were to widen that schools discretion to subjective factors it gives them, it gives them a wide, a wider discretion and, it may just it will may I mean some schools may actually abused that discretion


so for example if someone's, uh parents are particularly well to do and donates more, to uh, to that school the school, can easily justify their decision to admit the student by saying oh uh he he shows leadership potential but how is anyone actually going to verify that how how are we going to measure leadership capabilities or other non or other subjective factors on on the other hand if you were to base it solely on


academic skills, it's it's black and white there there's no there's very little room for for abuse or for corruption even


but the same can be said for subjective or and non academic factors if I was really rich and I want my and I know that this school , and I know at this school excels in, I don't know uh ballet or something or some


dance, couldn't I send my kid for dance tuition, and wouldn't then my, my my kid be unfairly advantage


yes and also like I said subjective factors are subjective for a reason they they are, they are up to an individual's opinion how, who is that going to be measured and within that


allows schools a very wide, discretion


okay I I I also understand that previously you were I mean building on this point when you're talking about how they may not produce


the schools may not produce um, leaders for example may may not produce as effective leaders, , I think this is related to what you were saying before, I think your assumption that, academic results or rather focusing on academics means pure regurgitation is a flawed one


you can test, many other or you can test and build many other abilities apart from pure regurgitation when it comes to academic, results or academic abilities so for example you can build critical thinking skills you can also build group group work skills through projects and all that


and so it it doesn't necessarily have to be pure regurgitation


but I'm not saying that the school should not teach these skills I'm just saying they shouldn't consider these skills for admissions so you can build these skills to or the other, mean like group works or like or like debate sessions for example in a school


but ultimately, ultimately when, considering how we should admit those students those skills should take uh back seat it should not be considered


sorry you were saying that if you have an extraordinary flair for what , ya because those should be left, to not like, the the usual schools that we're talking about but, but rather, centres dedicated to their organisations dedicated to that


like for example dance school or you know an arts school, and the purpose of, school should still should still primarily be academics,


ya so maybe we could conclude, that I I I think both both subjective ah sorry both academic and non academic factors are important, , they ya it's just that at at admission point I I think personally I think that resources will still be better best utilise if you were to stream them according to academic but that doesn't mean that the school should uh fully negate importance of non academic


factors


but what is the purpose of of preserving this this culture what what relevance does do dialects have in our modern world


but, that is a very cyclical argument because as it is now dialects are already being phased out gradually because as you rightly pointed out this uh dialects like mostly used by the older generations and if you were to reintroduce it now wouldn't it just


what why don't we just let phase be phased out entirely than if you were to reintroduce it now then younger generations will have to pick pick up an additional language just to communicate as well, well and with regard to what you were saying about understanding your culture and on his your heritage and all that


but we can still do it in our the languages that in non in non dialect, languages so for example in JC china's studies in english that's offered or even in at the university level I can easily study about I don't know english history or whatever other something


else in an entirely different language I I don't see why preserving, the dialect itself is necessary to preserve of our our culture and heritage


okay but (mmhmm) go on


not that's not my I'm, not saying that we should we should be banning dialects but that it shouldn't be offered as a mother, tongue language because being offered as a mother tongue language would mean that, , if it it officialise it and it it basically


how do I put this, or rather you can learn dialects in your own time, outside of school, and going back to the point about culture and heritage does this, mean that we should learn to, like how people in the past used to communicate before


, you used to communicate with pictures like drawings and stuff, instead of using words I mean that's how language was formed right so does this mean that we should also learn to communicate in drawings because that is part of our culture and heritage


okay for your point about about calligraphy and all that, that that is my point if it's not it is not offered is not typically offered in school is typically offered as an outside your enrichment programme


, optional if you wished to go for it and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that for schools right now as long as you, have one mother tongue, that is enough to satisfy your your criteria, so it means that people can effectively choose to take on Hokkien instead of mandarin and that would still satisfy their academic requirements which means that they may not


ever learn mandarin at all or malay or, like whatever other, traditional mother tongues you have right now


but the, the debate topic is that it should be offered as a mother tongue language and not just as an additional module, , so the way I interpreted is that it should be it would take the like I said it would satisfy the requirement if you were just to take on the dialect instead of


the your current traditional language your mother tongue languages, , and also where do we draw the line then because, I mean you I don't think it would be right if only chinese dialects were to be offered as mother tongue languages but not


dialects of other other languages so where where do we draw the line and what what if even within the chinese dialect I I believe there are some very obscure dialects which, if like you know ordinary people along in in singapore would not be able to understand and how do you how do you


guarantee that this this would be done fairly, within a lot wouldn't a lot of resources be be use in order to, offer chinese dialects which again, from what I understand if I I'm understanding your points correctly it's it's purely for the preservation of cultural or heritage and for communication with the older generation as no other benefit to this is it worth the the amount of resources needed


but where do we draw the line what about obscure dialects what if one person from uh some from, some village in china says I also want my my dialect to be offered as a, mother tongue language how how would that play how do we decide what


what chinese dialects uh sorry I was just going to say how do we decide what chinese dialects offer and, and what dialects from other, what languages should be offered as well


okay another, what I wanted to make is that dialects are essentially variations of languages right eh I I believe that by offering it it we will it may create further diversification among society I think as it is now some people are being discriminated against because of language barriers


so by introducing yet another language in an official setting such as school where with people may potentially be able to learn it instead of, their , the the other languages that we have right now wouldn't it wouldn't worsen this diversification


what's wrong with this dialects being offered as a side subject outside of school why why is it so important that it should be offered as a mother tongue language in school


maybe I can summarise, basically uh chinese dialects are important and they they can be offered as mother tongue language but, not, not not replace our current languages


I I don't disagree that, some aspect of, practical learning is important, but I don't agree that learning is, best outside the classroom I believe to, I I believe that technical and, theoretical knowledge sorry theoretical knowledge is important first and foremost especially at uh


, foundational level when when kids are going to primary and secondary school, they need to know they need to understand why first before knowing how to do, with the real world, and, on a more practical aspect as well I believe if let's say young students were to just go for pure practical learning experiences it would be pretty much chaotic


I think many of them would would be too engrossed in the activity itself itself, and not, fully apply their minds to the situation, are of what their learning and on your point about regurgitation I I mean learning in the classroom doesn't have to be about doesn't have to be pure regurgitation you can still test critical thinking skills it can even


application of the knowledge, through questions such as uh, case case studies case scenarios problem , problem basically hypothetical scenarios in which students are required to answer


answer questions and and I think that would be that that would be , a better way of learning


but, the said books that they are studying from, would have been , research upon, and and written by, people who have gone through the practical knowledge ideally and I think that that should be the case in more scenarios


so it's that the textbook portion of it would already have taken care of the, practical aspects of, the the job or whatever topic that they are they are, uh, are learning and to build on further on the point of regurgitation just now, I I think the same thing can be said for physical activities


people could just easily copy what you are doing without fully understanding why they are doing it why they are doing that particular action or, ya, and and that that wouldn't be any different from regurgitating paper paper things


but that it that that is a very very very basic form of knowledge what about more complex ideas for example, economic theories how would you learn that, outside the classroom how would, I mean how would that be more beneficial than learning about their theories in the classroom first


I I I think we are both on the same page about needing a good mix of both learning in and outside the classroom and I think I think our only contention is whether or not, which which aspect should be , would should have the greater focus


and I believe by by focusing more on, outside the classroom experiences, how, so I mean but okay given that that is our point of contention I think we would have to take things to the extreme, and


if let's say a student were to go to a company and and asked about how a business is run sure perhaps he could manage the day to day operations but he wouldn't be able to understand, the the deeper and greater theories behind what he's doing the reasons behind what he's doing


so again I go back to my point about how I think practical knowledge goes towards the hows ah I mean like how meaning like how are you going to do this how do you do this and that, but, you need to be able to understand the whys of of of your actions as well


and I think even for sorry go on


okay


but for even for for example like the more soft skill kind of job so for example like sales were you require interpersonal skills instead of you know you don't really need to know much theory but for those sure you could perhaps do a decent job at sales without having


uh I mean just by just by practicing but, in order to, as to succeed at that I think you need a deeper understanding of like psychological concepts behind successful sales techniques, and and these would these would only can be only be learnt in theory I mean theoretically


but that is only sorry go on


but I think that is also based on the assumption that the student already has that sort of , initiative and critical thinking skills, to actually think about why he's doing what he's doing as opposed to just doing going through the motions just for the sake of doing it and by learning in a theoretical setting


at least the the students can be forced to, confront and be tested on, the explanations behind his actions, if let's say we were to have a less motivated student


who who, simply doesn't apply his mind to anything, and just copies some something that somebody else is doing how would that how would he be able to learn


what about for abstract concepts then at a higher level perhaps like, psychology or anything like that I mean I think the roles of researchers and and industry of academia is precisely built to to better our society to further our society


and if, people would not to focus as much on theoretical, aspects of uh, an industry or or subject I think chances are many of us would be stuck doing manual labour instead of furthering our society to to to go for


more abstract concepts that we apply in real life


I take your point about the the politician, but how do you how do you learn outside the classroom if it were some abstract concept some things just cannot be demonstrated some things just need to be learnt theoretically and there's no tangible way of learning learning that that thing


so again for example like psychological concepts or psychology as a as a topic


I don't (mmhmm)


I don't take your point about the doctor because I believe what medical what did medical industry deals with is still largely tangible


for the most part but, if let's say we're talking about mental health or like psychiatrist what they are dealing with is intangible so I, I mean again I think we both agree that a good mix is is the way to go but if let's say I I I am fully prepared to commit to the position that


someone who has spent seventy percent of his time in a classroom learning mathematical aspects of this sort of intangible abstract concepts, and then thirty percent out in the real world will be able to perform better than someone who spends seventy percent of his time


trying to psychoanalyse uh psychoanalyse some, a a patient with a like some sort of psychiatric issue and only thirty percent of the time studying the topic


but precisely your I mean I take your point I I I agree with you that these theories are formulated based on past experience so why would you not built on that past experience and fully utilize it why would you want to go out into the real world and have to build from scratch ease your risk again


okay so with regards to schools considering subjective and non academic factors for admissions I think it's very important, because grades are not the sole indicator for success in the singapore system you can be book book smart and book smart is generally achievable through regurgitation and route learning


so it is hardly an indicator for success because who is to say that everything we have learned in school so far, you can apply it in your life, right so what I think is important will be, you look at non academic factors, like your potential to


lead for example or your ability to do certain kinds of arts, or a special inclination for certain, social issues like , maybe for the environment or arts, you should be considered for that and uh be given enough resources and uh help


when it comes to selecting schools to better develop you for future institutions maybe at like university level, okay so that's my first point, uh secondly I think that uh what is important is that we should have more there are already specialise


scores like for example, the school of the arts, or the of science and technology, and uh we should generally move towards that direction where you have different indicators besides academics


academic factors like how well you are doing for, certain uh subjects because you may be very good at one but so far the system they have in Singapore is like a holistic kind of grading for example in PSLE to take into account the general key score, for O levels you take into account a general


LoneRfive if you have a particular inclination for say math and science and not particularly well for english you may be discounted for the fact, when it comes to calculating your app aggregate score and, selecting schools so on top of these LoneRfive and PSLE's scores I believe that there should be an a personal interview or like a segment where you can like in essay writing component where you can indicate your special interest or skills which


can be better developed in a particular, school or institution that you're applying for


in in my opinion when schools have uh when schools take into account different factors and abilities it is not just, just for purely education sake the purpose of putting all of the student in the school together is


so that they can achieve this holistic learning, together so a benefit of putting student with different academic abilities together in a class, for example like in #boon lay# secondary school they categorise they they, put the student into classes according to their CCA instead of academic result


as traditionally is, the benefit of that is that students get to bond with each other better because they spend both in class time and outside of class time to like you know have better relationship better bonds and besides that


when you achieve that the academically stronger students are able to help the academically weaker students and that's the benefit to build I don't know uh build, in work and built the ability to empathize and help people


who are less, who are not as good as you academically


that that is right but you have to agree that in the local settings that as the minister would like to put that every school every school is a good school, it is an indisputable fact that we have like good prestigious schools with better resources and on top of that when you've better resources you've better alumni better funding and


I don't think that students who are not academically performing should be deprived of those resources if you are able to contribute to the school with your exceptional talents you should be given the opportunity to because you may be a late bloomer as well


as you know someone who like does really well in polytechnic for example and you do not get the same amount of help when they have in primary and secondary school then it will not be like a leveling playing field


I think that is I think that is true but uh we have we have to take into account the fact that right now our system of like normal academic and normal technical


is segregating the students and when you put a bunch of students who are not doing so well together uh they may be other issue that come up let's say behavioral issues or certain like prejudices against them


where we like oh you're just another empty, oh you're just another NA kid you are not performing as us the NA uh express kid so we will not give you, these amount of resources and we will not allocate the best teachers to you that may also be an issue


so what about my point regarding the resources where if you group a bunch of students who are not doing so well together they may not be receiving enough funding and alumni help when it comes to being able to develop their other potentials besides in academics like


in let's say sports or in arts


okay


academic factor are also prone to abuse if uh like using your example as with the well to do parents when it comes to academic result it can be artificially inflated by hiring private tutors, or sending them to the best tuition center in the in the island on the island so that they can achieve that kind of academic results that not so well to do student cannot afford to do so so uh if you say that academic factors are a pure black and white way to


establish whether a student is worthy of a, a school position I think that is highly debatable


that is correct


it would give rather, indiscretion I'll prefer to use the word , flexibility where they have the flexibility to pick students in the cohort according to the different their different needs or their different abilities for example uh a school with just purely book smart an entire cohort of just


purely book smart students wouldn't be able to produce as many leaders for those who focus more on leadership, or like if you are very so very so academically focused, you will not be able to build things like I would I would dare to assume like like interpersonal relationships or even the interest to like other important issues like in the arts


so doesn't that lean very closely to non academic subjects like the ability to do art very well in a just uh like something that has been plan for in the art subject for example


so you are saying that we should prioritise academic factors like math science english and mother tongue as compared to if you have like an extraordinary flair for music and arts when it comes to school admissions


for other non


okay I believe that chinese dialects should be offered as a mother tongue language uh because I believe that dialects are important for retaining our cultural heritage and traditions


a young nation like singapore will continue to develop it's own culture and identity but it is also important for young singaporeans to to learn and recognize their community's history culture, heritage and on top like the most important of that language


right now most young singaporeans uh effectively communicate in the two languages their mother tongue and english , dialects add on an additional layer to the mother tongue uh as it preserves our cultures and heritage and if we do not do anything to protect that now once they disappear


it's highly unlikely that we can recover the same amount and depth of knowledge that we have right now for example folk folklores, stables nursery songs can be handed down from generation to generation in dialect and uh


not to say that this cannot be done in mandarin, but it's about preserving the culture and , authenticity at that point, in time where the for example the grandparents are passing down the story to their little grandchildren so can you imagine a time when no one in singapore communicates in dialects


think that would be like the end of an era and there will be is it will be very hard for us to try to rebuild that kind of culture again


dialects form as a, bridge or a way to, understands one's past where are one's root from and uh the language usually built on, different types of traditions different types of things that uh that particular group of people usually do for example food you would say that food


is very important to specific cultures because they represent different ways where you can prepare something and traditionally your ancestors the people that uh you descended from, prepared the food this way and uh language works in the same way


because language passes down like different tonal tonal uh tones and uh they are able to pass down different meanings and when said differently a particular story your particular idiom


would be completely different when they're spoken in different dialects one like a story that happens in for example the Hokkien dialect may not be available in Teochew or even in cantonese, and on that I have a second point where is uh about bridging the generation linguistic


gap so I think this is like a two fold kind of uh benefit where you start to teach dialect is that as a society we can we can reconnect to the elder reconnect the elderly to the society, so right now as we all know broadcast and the general media in singapore only uh utilizes traditional mandarin and this I believe has alienated like uneducated populations of elderly who are like accustomed to


communicating only in dialect and when you reintroduce dialects to uh local broadcast or even in school you have , you are able to bridge this, gap where uh maybe the young singaporeans are able to start reconnecting and communicating this important uh news updates policies to their grandparent


I believe that as a like when you learn when you pick up a dialect when you a language you learn more than just the individual word and pronunciation you learn about the culture you learn about how things are done in a certain way or why this group of people tent to believe a certain kind of things for example


uh like in the Hokkien community there is a strong inclination for taoism and uh where where you believe many different gods and this may be because and this may be translated in the the language that they speak and they use different kinds of


honorifics or, like you may see you are able to study that on the textbook but you will not be able to experience and learn it for yourself, if you do not if you are not, familiar with the language


and also, yeah about about reintroducing the language to, reintroducing the dialect to uh the younger generation it it's precisely my point you should not let the language die out because is not something that it is


no longer in fashion or it's outdated and you should just throw it away because it contains so much more than that, it is not just, a way of communication is also about passing down different meanings in your generation and on like with regards to your point you're just saying letting it die out meaning that the current group


elderly should not be taken into consideration they are not as, important as the young, emerging english mandarin speaking, uh young singaporeans


I mean technically we are already during that when we, study calligraphy and we study like uh special arts art paintings during art lesson and I think that on your point offering it as a mother tongue is in like additional option that you can take and it is and I would I would recommend it as an


additional mother tongue language an option when you are given that option, it opens up many different opportunities, instead of just like saying that okay, schools don't have to do it you can find someone else to do it it can be more on like a casual basis in primary or secondary school level and it may not be contributed it may


like it may not contribute to your PSLE or O level scores and but student should be expected to maybe attend the classes if they are interested and then you can , teach them how to use it on the more like conversational, level for social settings instead of like you know the typical like your mother tongue and english where you have to write essays and I don't know if you lah comprehension questions


I'm I'm not advocating for a complete abolition of the mother tongue but I'm saying that uh it can be offered as like a, third language like we do for french, or err german where you can just learn it as like a


you know like on top of your english and mandarin and you can have, extra dialect and the benefits of that is very diverse for example if you are intending to pursue a medical career or even uh in law where you have to speak to uh many different elderly patients or elderly clients


it will be beneficial if you are able to connect to them and it will feel more personal instead of uh business like and uh may you may be even help your work even more you will be able fine out more about their illnesses find out more about their case , I think it has only benefits and what there is very little cost


is not


with regards to the point about the dialects of other languages I I would like to point out that MOE actually has given the flexibility for students to learn other indian languages there may not be dialects per say, but it's a very loose definition because cantonese is an official language in hong kong and Hokkien is a also consider as an official language in taiwan so dialect as a form like you can interpret it as uh like a separate language all by itself


so for example indian languages in singapore they are already being offered in different like if you if you like, to put it the indian dialects are already being offered for example like you have Bengali Hindi Punjabu Punjabi, they are these are all like different languages


different indian languages that are being offered, right now so I don't see why that it like today has not, that are precedents for uh, chinese dialects to be to be reintroduced into the in reintroduce into the society and schools and


with regards about your point uh about uh it completely replacing mandarin I think that right now its a, growing is a is a is an growing trend may be see that, students are not performing well in their chinese language because they speak mostly english english at home so I think is also because


young young chinese singaporeans just treat it like a school subject it is not part of their life not part of their culture, and when you start introducing dialects where they can start actually using it in, places to speak to the elderlies, speak to their grandparents speak to their distant relatives it becomes like a living language


as part of their lives instead of like a, skill to be mastered and regurgitated during the exam, so and if you want to talk about it like economically like they can do businesses in many different places like hong kong and taiwan


I think I think a good way to, I think a good way a good starting point this is definitely a negotiate and debatable


starting point would be to start off from the, uh major dialects in singapore we have the Hokkien Teochew cantonese and, Hakka and if you want to include more of the different dialects like there can definitely be processes where it can be like raised


so right now is we are not saying that these are the important ones is just saying that we should start introducing them so that people can start using them in their daily lives


I think that is a that think that's a long shot because it you you are learning different languages to connect with your culture and to be able to communicate with people more effectively if you would like to run with the argument you could say for , like chinese not learning malay or the malay not learning chinese like there will be this stratification or like segregation of different groups but


all in all I believe that, as, singaporeans our first language, we we learn english as our core language to be able to communicate with different cultures these dialects and mother tongue should be an additional way to reconnect back to your culture and to ground you as a person this is these are your roots


and you'll be able to continue like according to the chinese continue your heritage and roots and pass it down to the next generation


because this provides an opportunity for uh students to be exposed to it if uh if, otherwise they will not be exposed to it and school provides a good setting for you to practise as we all know language is like, the language is better learned when it is uh being like use frequently and


and when you're using it in conversation, so when you pick it up in school you're more likely to uh, speak it to your classmates practice it at home and hence better understand the, like what I said earlier better understand the language as like a living, living language that you are using it in your daily life


okay so in my opinion learning is best outside the classroom because uh it provides authentic hands on interactive and uh it builds on the theory that has been covered in the classroom


in my opinion the purpose of school is to prepare students for live so there are about uh prepare for their life beyond school and in today's society it is more it is there's more to life than just


memorizing different theories or memorizing uh different meteorologies methodologies on doing things so we need more specialize skills we need more self awareness so by incorporating learning experiences outside the classroom you can


enrich the student's educational experience by showing them real live applications of the theories that they have been taught in school so we like hands on activities or like uh to show them that !hey! you can use this theory in real life as well, so I think this will set them up for success beyond in life beyond learning in school beyond the grades learning outside the classroom uh is different from uh learning in the classroom because the students would be encouraged to employ more critical thinking skills


how to apply theories and concepts they have learn in the classroom on to real life problems that you actually face and I actually found this report publish by oxford in two thousand and sixteen which uh finds that learning outside the classroom


actually contributes significantly to raising standards and improving pupils personal social and emotional development so these all ties in nicely to my point that students will be able to develop as a better person and gain more success in life


beyond school


I think that uh I'm not saying like by stating that I believe that learning is best outside the classroom I'm not advocating for a total abolishment of learning in the classroom I believe that you have to start off somewhere, you can have like a simple half an hour session learning about the theories of Pythagoras Pythagoras theorem but I think is best for student to understand and internalize the concept when you bring it outside the classroom when you show them like !hey!


in this particular situation when you are in an engineering company this is when you need to use this Pythagoras theorem and this is when you will be able to apply their skills and see how their theories, and how this is acceptable and how you can apply your knowledge in real life with regards to case studies I believe that while you can like in your mind’s eye put yourself in the shoes of the person in the case study


it is not entirely possible to entire entirely possible to uh just remove the entire learning like the learning experience so, when I believe that when you experience the situation for yourself you'll be able to understand it uh understand what you are learning better and you'll be able to come from like an empathy point of view instead of be like


okay the books says this should, work so I think it would work


the thing the thing about physically copying in action you would I I I would reckon you would pickup more from that than just copying and pasting from the textbook, because you are actually doing the action for yourself you're facing the same problems that


people would usually face when they are doing that exact same issue, when they are facing the with the same issue that that create more opportunities for learning and more chances for you to learn the required skills let me just site a very random but close the heart example your parents uh like ones parents would


say that oh okay, do not touch the boiling kettle and you not knowing like, what's happening or what a boiling kettle is you go ahead and touch it you learn only through experience and not through words so I think experience will compliment that particular section where you were able to learn


the theories better you understand like why is this needed or how you can apply it in real life and set you up for success


you can learn about the for for economic you can learn about the theories in school and you can actually visit a real life economist and get, the opinions of the real life economist this is how we are actually building it, and , and this is how we actually apply it to the society in real life and you can actually see for example maybe you talk about money exchange that's also an economic topic and you can go to the money changer and be like hey what is your profit margin


or !hey! how are you building your uh buy rate today


I, yeah this is exactly my point you have to understand the why and you wouldn't be able to fully understand the reason behind applying a certain concept when your are not in the person's shoes you don't know like, like okay the way to solve this


problem is to use method X but so you learn that in school but you wouldn't be able to understand why you have to use method X where you are not in that particular situation and be like okay this is the reason why I need to use method X because I'm facing this this this problem


wouldn't these are not, things that can only be learn theoretically wouldn't you gain more experience, by actually seeing ten hundred different customers, than reading about hundred different, customers I believe the experience first hand and you actually get to overcome that problem at that particular point in time isn't you will start to learn more about that particular theory so let's let's bring it back to maybe more academic subject for example math


for example math right so what happen is that a problem that I use to see is that students often do not know like in real life I study , I know that a hundred CM is a, meter right but they do not know what that actually looks like in real life


how was the length what is a possible length of a table, some of them could come out with the answer of ten meters, because they know that yes the convention is one meter two hundred CM but they do not know like, in in the real world practically this is when we use metres and this is when we use centimetres so when you start to build in aspect like this where they start to see it in real life they will be bow to understand it better and hence be able to convert it in their mind's eye


and remember all these learning experiences outside of the classroom


in


to show an and my point exactly if it was just a purely academics right like he will just copy off someone else's work and, just not think for himself like because you know you just copy and paste the standard answer I think what you are assuming here in your argument is that learning outside of the classroom does not involve uh like does not involve teachers or parents so up an important point would be that when it comes to learning outside the classroom there would be


sufficient guidance either from teacher, parents or someone in the industry that can guide them through, why they are facing these problems and you actually see them in the flesh in real life, this is like maybe like different proms or guiding guiding points be like why do you think this person is thinking what he is thinking right now


so imagine you are standing here right now, look at this situation how will you deal with it


that sits even more nicely with my point about how like would you for example would you vote for a politician with twenty years of experience or would you vote for an academic who has twenty years of experience studying different economies and


different uh governing styles obviously one that is obviously one that has who has more experience who has been on the ground, who has understand all the experiences of the different types of people and being able to apply his solutions to the societies problems so what I'm trying to say is that students are able to learn better


when they get all these experiences ourselves the kind, classroom instead of just reading it purely from a textbook


for example, this is why I think medical student also go through like uh housemen ship uh medical student also go through uh


like intern period where they get to view these patients first hand for themselves and gain this experiment before they become fully qualified as a resident or as a doctor, this should be the same for , regular student of schools where they experience the topic first hand and like for example psychology like


uh instead of just reading it through the textbook reading it through the textbook you learn about, what uh, these patients say we learn about what these patients are, thinking but you will never be able to draw those theories out for yourself or understand it better when you don't actually see that particular patient all you are doing is postulating different kinds of theories or like uh your own assumptions so my point my


my point is is like if you see the patient on the spot you will be able, to apply what you have learned able to you know it's like a when you see someone face to face you be able to take all of these different past and different roots when every single time every line every single like line of conversation you get to apply all of this and gain experience per said


I think that is that itself is also like theoretically many things are theories because they have been tested and experimented so uh if you were to take it to maybe


the real extreme let's say like uh if physics where you have like all the little particles and cause you're supposed to learn about in theory first wouldn't it be more realistic to see it in real life when you see each particle each each particle like, I don't know crashing and banging into other particles and I


understand the concept behind it rather than reading about it and applying like random formulas that have been pass down from generations, with like very little understanding,


because is, not building from is not building theories from scratch is about learning it's about, understanding these concepts happens better when you experience it first hand it is not about you, just ignoring all of the theory, and go out and venture on the road unventured and uh finding out this new theories on your own


part one debate topic one


okay so uh actually what mandy you have stated is more on like, err the basic life that people are reliant on internet err


I will says that err I cannot totally disagree with what you have stated but then again I do not agree with the statement of in the age of internet TV and newspaper have become irrelevant that's because most of the time err


when we read the news that is on the internet , the source might not be genuine and whereas well if we refer to the TV and a newspaper what we can be sure is that there will not be any fake news and


being unreliable news err on the internet err I feel that if I will look out for the critical information I will still goes to the TV and newspaper because their source are much more reliable


and also we still have many elderlies who are not very tech savvy in using this internet thing so, to be inclusive I feel that err TV and newspaper are not really that irrelevant if you notice that during those err saturday sundays monday and thursday there are a group of people who will be


waiting for the newspaper this have the people who are waiting for the the the results of the Toto four Ds or the lotteries so, this is very important to them if you go out go down to the Chinatown areas you can spot people selling newspaper by shouting so is is like if


this is not relevant there won't be any people doing this this is what I see and of course one more thing, there are still people who have this habit of reading newspaper you go to the coffee shop you see in the morning they'll just order a cup of coffee and they just sit there and they have look through coffee this is life this is something that they cannot do without so I feel that


this is pretty much still very relevant so with or without internet TV and newspaper is their life so it's not going to make any difference , err perhaps about route err searching for err roads uh map like err food all these things they have their own ways but I believe that err internet is not their primary source in this case


okay ya you you do make a point on your side that is err like not so relevant err in this era but still like I will stress on my point that because there are still a group of people who are not tech savvy they really err


has no knowledge about how internet works I would say probably they don't even have internet access they might still be using those analog phones that they cannot err surf the net through their phones unlike what the youngsters are doing these days , they might still rely on newspaper and televisions on informations


and day to day err habits so, it's more like I still stress on this inclusion ah , we have to include these people until really these people are wipe out then probably if that's when it become irrelevant but until now I feel that err it is still back pretty much relevant it is not that err


not up to the stage whereby it is no longer , no longer err useful to the people, so another another group of people who are like you know they are probably blind but they are listening to the news through television getting their information through radios and televisions so these are the people who err don't really


don't really get the information from internet yes internet do have some functions whereby they can read to you , but that is provided the phone is err helpful enough to them so my point here is to be inclusive to elderlies and disabilities err disable people so is still to me it err I still that is irrelevant err as as it is still relevant sorry


okay so, but, you see err actually newspaper provide err


a lot of informations and general or knowledge, and not only this newspaper also have news about countries I know all this can be can be found on the internet as well but how many of


the information on the internets are genuine are real, you get me or not because in err what we have seen err lately right there are a lot of err articles that are not real people just make up the story just to in order to to attract more people in reading their article


so I believe that they get pet paid for for for such a err views you see so people are becoming money-minded greedy to get people to to read their articles and


they don't really care about the the the details that they are sharing it they don't mind sharing fake err informations they don't mind telling people things that are not true just to actually attract more people err


to read the article so I find that is it's actually sometimes you can't differentiate what is real or what is what is unreal over the on the internet, whereas on the TV and newspaper right one thing for sure what they are reporting they have genuine facts to to support their their their reports so


when it comes to certain information that is very sensitive if you go to the internet you might get misleaded or even influenced so, I strongly still feel that for critical information I will still go to TV and newspaper for for real facts and reports ya so


ya because I I I just feel that is is not not not safe enough to to get information from the internet, ya


K yes yes err maybe err in the near future lah but right now I still feel that err newspaper is the the the more (ppc), how to say the something that makes me feel more well inform because err because of the of the facts that they carries


and then you actually err I feel that reading news newspaper is a good habit especially it doesn't hurt your eyes I mean right now if through the internet all this you like you know you will you keep looking at those err blue ray lights you know so it's like it's not that that healthy in a in a way err


also if we were to cut newspaper totally we are actually err like decreasing err I mean getting more people out of job know these people has been working, for the newspaper company for so long you know err to to deliver the newspaper to people so there is there's a actually a string line of people err at work to get newspaper to your door you see so err to actually totally wipe out newspaper I feel that is not very


err not a very wise choice because there are so many people's livelihoods err affected, and ya and what else this all more about employment ah so


if we were to to to remove the newspaper than the unemployment rate will increase again not very good during this period yeah, so


err


part two debate topic two


okay so err I do not agree with the statement that people has the right to remain anonymous when portrayed in media just because err you are probably people who wants to


be unknown are usually people with hidden agenda they they might be out to, err, to actually they want to attack some people


but they are not using their own personal identity or they might just be the one err passing fake, messages fake informations , to disrupt the world disrupt the the the society and yet they do not want to face the the law


so this group of people are are the one making use of this err statement that people has the right to remain anonymous, in media like err mandy you you you have touch on the the PDPA err section


err yes people has the right to protect their personal information , but if you wish to make some statement or to provide some information in the media I feel that you have no right to, to remain anonymous let's says err a journalist they report on a news article they do not go


go without say it stating that they are they are anonymous they will sign off their real name that's because they what they have reported is a genuine fact that they have actually obtained from a reliable source so there is nothing , to be afraid of you know there's this saying that if you are you are if you are doing something right there's no need to be afraid of other people in finding out who you are so there there must be something fishy going on right if you