the cost itself let's say people stick to using plastic instead of biodegradable items such as uh, wood paper and wood and paper if we take if we think about it


when we dispose a non-biodegradable uh, items there is much greater damage that will be done to the environment out in in the external environment, and there is more cost in the long term to clean up such waste and it will definitely damage uh any company's uh


uh, reputation as well


okay uh so I think now that we are talking about the health of the environment , we need to look at the sustainability of running uh


such businesses so one main point is that the larger the amount that goes to being green to maintain the health of our environment, it translate to utilising more sustainable methods to prevent us from wasting natural resources so wasting by reducing the by reducing the wastage of natural resources


we help to reduce the risk of them depleting in the long run, so if let's say more and more businesses were to go green and do uh simple uh, acts such as uh making uh


a conscious effort of turning off uh off his lights when they're not being used uh this, can prevent the waste of electricity and hence we can think of alternative forms of energy such as solar energy which more and more HDB blocks


are incorporating so either way the goal is to make these changes in order to preserve the natural resources that we currently have and to make it sustainable in the long run


okay so uh well we uh we all understand that the public is not necessarily one of the best uh motivations for us to go


entirely green however we need to know that as the saying goes uh Rome wasn't built in a day we need to look at it uh, step by step and how things have changed gradually over the years so


one example is that huge american companies like walmart and target they have incorporated small changes, by composting and recycling and as well as changing transportation routes such as uh to save gas when they are transporting their products


at the same time they are reducing packaging and stocking their shelves with greener products so if we talk about companies that are manufacturing coal oil and gas we can say that these small changes might have also been already incorporated in their business


their their transport vehicles may have already have different routes to allow the company to save on gas, the coal packaging might be even made with green products such that it is more sustainable in the long run so gradually I believe that more and more green initiatives will be taken up by these companies


so these businesses I feel that uh it is uh, it shouldn't even be a concern for them because, these days we there is a proliferation of online E-commerce business


many companies realise that they cannot rely on walk-in sales they take their business online and they put their products on platforms such as shopify, so they make use of delivery services to deliver their goods to customers


anywhere in the world so, if we were to say that let's say uh a small a shop a a shop uh along the road of that five thousand kilometre road the route would be affected, by uh big companies changing their delivery routes to a more greener one


and hence negatively affecting their sales the businesses would be able to, source for alternative uh platforms by going online to promote their business and reach out


to a similar volume of customers in order to meet their sales


okay so uh I believe what we need to take note here is that such uh, such people are actually err doing their job by delivering goods and they should have a sense of urgency to deliver the goods on time they should not be thinking of uh enjoying like services like uh going for a spa uh or uh


going for uh shops uh stay at a hotel, so uh this point seems to be uh, not uh not as uh relevant for people like delivery drivers for walmart and target


okay please stop then click submit


debate topic one


I believe that the cross island line shouldn't be built under our nature reserve because, because it would affect the it will effect the natural surroundings around it and it would affect the primary and secondary, uh secondary forest is a uh I I feel that it's a


I feel that this primary and secondary forests they are very difficult to grow because they have been growing for hundreds of years, so if the government were to build the cross island line under the nature reserve right it wouldn't be it will it will very detrimental to the, environment ah


I'm not sure how would how do how what what do you think about it


okay I understand your point I understand your I understand your and respect your opinion uh, but that, this this is what I want to argue so you said that even though the government has uh did lots of study they the contractors have said they have uh different different equipment green equipment and they are able to


do the activities in a environmentally friendly way but, ha but what kind of errors do this kind of uh studies have, you you never you never know a true impact until you feel the impact about fifty years later hundred years later it's just like global warming


global uh just like global warming like that global warning global warming when people just started industrialisation right they did not feel the effect they just started going and going going going and but right now right fifty years later right we are starting to slowly feel the feel the effects of a global warming so


for us I feel as a as a small country like singapore right, uh if you are able if you are able to even conserve a little bit of forest the government should do it, it even though even though it might cost a little bit more cost a little bit more to save the forests, I believe that the long term effects would be more than uh more more more than any short term benefits that this uh


building of this cross island line through the nature reserve would give yup


ah I I see where you're getting at so, so about disruption right I believe that this kind of disruption is uh, it's something that human human beings can get used to


it is only for the short term so let's say if it's for five years for even ten years, I believe five to ten years is a short term for this kind of disruption, which, can be something which we will slowly get used to, if you are able to if you are able to go into saving about saving


sorry if we are able to go into providing a better better future for our future generations through give it through conserving nature, through conserving two to three hundred years or even thousands year thousands of years of uh forest growth and even nature I believe that this five or ten years of a disruption


disruption to the houses around, to disruption this kind of temporary disruption to the nature surroundings around, it's uh something worth to be sacrificed for, for to, to be able to conserve this uh, major part of singapore


so that is why I still believe that, I still believe that the cost this kind of short term cost is, much more better, this kind of short term cost is much more better than just going taking a shortcut shortcut way and building the , cross island line under the nature reserve


K I see see where you're getting at but


then let me propose this uh counter argument so, I believe that you have been looking at the singapore's uh GDP GDP economic growth over the years right and you have uh notice how singapore has grown as a nation not only economically but also uh


economically but also in infrastructure and also politically as well right, so so just over the past year's uh singapore's GDP growth was about GDP growth was about close to a hundred hundred billion dollars uh, hundred billion dollars last year


so this two billion dollars in cost that you are talking about I believe that two billions cost at an additional cost let's say ah one one or two billion cost that will be overrun I believe that this can be easily justified with the preserving of our nature reserve


preserving our nature reserve through skirting the cross island line around the nature reserve, because right because right, as mentioned in my previous point, as mentioned in my previous my preserving the preserving, preserving the environment preserving the nature reserve would actually


would actually give you more long term benefits long term benefits uh for the environment because right there are because in the nature reserve it's like research has shown right, in singapore alone right there are actually hundreds of species hundreds of animal and plant species yet to be discovered yet to be discovered by scientists these plant and animal species right can actually go to a long way


to not only contributing to through the to to the good of humanity but also through through medicinal purposes through like science and research purposes who will help us uh advance our society forward, so if the government were to government were


to say !hey! let's just save a two billion dollar than any other additional cost just by just going under the nature reserve right I don't feel that it's a, I feel that it's uh I feel that it's a shortcut way of thinking because they're not they are just thinking about five year ten years ahead but not thinking fifty or a hundred years


ahead of time, so I'm not sure what do you think about the you know, uh, not not being able to preserve the preserve the plant and animal species in the our nature reserve


okay so that you are saying that the government has actually taken uh some initiatives to build you know a park connectors they trove paths in macritchie reservoir and also you're, you have also stated that they're uh been building eco bridges eco bridges to link one from a reserve to another reserve right


so I agree with you on that point yes the government, has actually taken this kind of green this kind of initiative to actually preserving our preserving nature, but but to reiterate my point or to further advance my point right, the central central nature central nature


reserve of, a central catchment central water catchment area right it's uh primary forest is made out of primary forest so what actually defines a primary forest right is that primary forest they, they have been growing for hundreds of years and they they are


they are untouched nature, so let's say if the government were to go, go underneath the nature reserve and and then they will, inevitably be touching part of the, the part of the untouched nature right


ah, for me personally I believe that whatever initiatives that the government will do like the greening of our communities greening of the neighbourhoods, introducing park connectors or even introducing a green park track would not be enough would not be sufficient to actually replace the damage that they will actually do to the main ecosystem itself


first because, I'm of the opinion that the the central central nature reserve right is actually providing, it's actually the main provision of uh, essential is essential air oxygen and even uh very good uh


uh carbon absorber for singapore itself so if they were to actually deforest and, maybe a small percentage of the reserve itself it might actually contribute further to global global warming so, I'm not sure, uh so I believe that


you know believe that global warming is uh part of the, know part of the contribution to the uh, the rising temperatures around around the world so not sure how what you think about that


ah okay so to summarise your points you are saying that the government is actually seeing this as a kind of a kind of


initiative to get the, get the public to actually actually switched from private transport more to public transport and more of the government's initiative to, educate people on more green initiatives, so


based on what I have just summarise right I yes I do agree with you I do agree with you that the government they have recently step up, step up their initiative to actually you know uh, put public transport as a main main form of transport for singaporeans and for people people people in singapore


and as well as, to switch from private transport to public transport but, on the initiatives but I I I would like to you know I would like to I I agree only to a certain extent, yes the government they seem to be making initiatives towards


getting singaporeans to, to go green to to be more environmentally friendly, but, right now till, this till this uh very age, till this very age I'm sure that you have taken notice of right in a supermarket itself


and even in a food and beverage outlets all over singapore right, I'm sure you have noticed that this initiative are not really, are not really ingrain into our culture yet because you can see like grocery stores still, still still are offering still are offering


still are offering uh free free plastic bags, free plastic bags to to to shoppers, but whereas in other countries right they are actually charging, per plastic bags, so so on the initiatives part right, yes the government I believe they are taking initiative but I believe that it is not enough not enough to make sure that singaporeans have this part of a green culture ingrained into them


so which brings us back to the main point I still believe that, the cross island line, shouldn't be built under the nature reserve because this is just like, a just like, this initiative is just like all the initiatives that the government has untaken, it's all about short short term five to ten years thinking but they don't think beyond


fifty to hundred years, I'm not sure what do you think about those kind of initiatives, ya


okay ya uh okay I understand understand those uh points that you have uh put forth, so I would like to actually actually I'd like to actually actually challenge one uh point that you actually made on uh public transport, so


you said that the government is trying to shift everyone to, trying to shift, slowly shift everyone from private transport to public transport but what do you say about the about the public transport public transport ministry in singapore constantly raising fares


provide good service to, the residents of singapore, so they said that they want to save costs by cutting under the nature reserve but then our, transport fares are still constantly on the rise and citizens are not happy about that


so what do you think about that


yep correct


debate topic two, for me for me my personal opinion is that uh men


it's uh not entirely helpless in the face of climate change yes climate, change we cannot control because it's uh it's a consequence of what what men has been uh doing for a hundreds of years but, I believe with the actually the advance of uh not only technology but also the advance in uh advance in uh human knowledge advance in uh in uh politics have advanced in the environment around us


I believe that men can actually do things to help themself cope with climate change


ah okay I agree with you with your points that the environment is actually more powerful with than us and also that, uh humanity struggles with actually the COVID nineteen pandemic but I actually disagree with you with you on


how are humans are just a subject on the an environment and they can, actually not do not do anything else to help themself cope with climate change, so my point my point here is that human beings have actually been surviving surviving well on their own from you know from when they were


when when they were primates to neanderthals to human beings they have actually been evolving over the millions of, years and actually surviving, several climate, several changes to the climate over the years so let me give you a very good example, and one very good example is that humans have already survived through the ice age


survive through the ice age even though it took them thousands of years they survive through the ice age and then after after several thousand of years there are there were several incidents where there were certain climate changes like when, like there was uh, there was an incident where a huge meteor huge uh meteorite strike the earth and then it actually cause the


cause a nuclear winter winter around the whole world but humanity also survived that, so I believe that humans they have a very strong tenacity to adapt and change accordingly, so even though even though climate change will see rising temperatures and when


that rising temperatures and and even catastrophic catastrophic uh weather disasters all over the world, I, I I believe that even though you have mentioned that, know the uh, with uh human's knowledge and and uh advancement in technology right I still do believe that humans can adapt and change accordingly to


accordingly if they are able to pool their resources together to, tackle what is at large


ah okay so I agree with you that you know with the advancement of technology right


for uh advancement, technology that comes at inevitable inevitable consequence of you know uh, where technology, has, advanced too too much that human, cannot control, but I would like to actually argue that


yes, I do agree with you that robots might, might, actually take over the human species one day and they might actually become a species by themselves one day but then, that's the thing about that's the thing about evolution, humans humans humans wasn't humans a million years ago


humans they actually evolve from neanderthal they actually evolved from primates, primates they didn't see it they they actually didn't see themselves uh, uh primates they didn't see themselves evolving to humans, humans they evolve to adapt change, so I believe that even though even though robots


robots will become a new species or robots might take over a lots of uh different jobs in different jobs in the in the human world, but I, still do believe that, I do believe that humans are they would be able to create more opportunities for themselves they would be able to adapt better to climate change it with the advancement of technology I do believe in space exploration


and space exploration as well, uh you even if, to live in uh to live in thousands of years later, finding other planets in the other planets in the solar system or even in the galaxy


to actually live in, to, tackle uh an issue like climate change


ah I actually yup to actually summarise your point right you are talking with the you are saying that the advancement of technology and the you know, the advancement towards space exploration and then coming out with this kind of initiatives, and this actually used to flaunt a country's wealth and power right


but, yes I do agree with you to a certain extent on those points but I actually disagree with you, to, disagree with you to on large extend that these advancement in technology and advancement in the space exploration actually causes a detrimental


effect to the environment yes they do cause a detrimental effects to the environment but if, the advancement in technology right humans can actually find, find better alternatives to let's say energy use, so I'm sure you have heard of uh in in recent years right


that, companies around the world and even countries around the world they are actually phasing out the use of coal, as a form of natural energy source they want to actually, france itself has actually banned, has, europe itself sorry europe itself actually


ban all all petrol vehicles, all ban ban all petrol vehicles by twenty thirty they are actually phasing they are actually going towards, going towards an all electric vehicle all electric vehicle model from twenty thirty onwards


so yes, oh yes even though advancement come come with the, inevitable consequence of a a little bit of a environmental damage and, with it comes with a a little bit of uh climate change but I do believe that, I do believe that all these all these initiative right they yup they come at a cost


but then they come at a cost for us to do better good better good to better cope with climate change like electric vehicles, like cleaner energy and like a faster faster advancement in uh technology to help us explores fake space


faster, not sure what do you think about this uh clean energy initiatives that the ah lots of governments are proposing


ah okay so I actually agree with you that, actually agree with you that you know the clean energy initiatives they are actually taking some time to actually roll out in uh majority of the countries


but then I disagree with you that these initiatives cannot come in time to actually the tackle these, this changes or this kind of detrimental changes that you are actually, uh telling me, so let me give you a very good example so do you know that do you know


do you know that, the whole world right actually progress from not knowing not not knowing how to fly, in nineteen O three nineteen O four, to over a hundred and twenty years later to, to flying flying to to exploring moon and even having an


having a probe, going outside of the solar system outside of the galaxy itself, uh, humanity actually progress their advancement through this technology right through the form of a through the form of a, uh


I'm sorry to say through the form of war world war one world war two, so is actually in in the interest of, interest of the government to find out what, actually it's uh is in the best, interest best interest of the people and in the best interest


of the government's itself, so this example right for example in world war two, right, world war two right the worst, the countries were looking were actually looking at world dominance so world dominance was a world dominance was kind of the the initiative that they were actually looking


to obtain, so with world dominance right economies economies right, change into war economies and they were very focused in coming up with different technologies, that they can trump their opponents in, so because of because of world war two right within a span of three years right they actually came up with jet engine propulsion for aeroplanes itself


so I believe right with the right initiative not not war I'm hopefully that we don't come into a world war world war again just so we can advanced technology but with the right, with the right mindset I believe that governments can actually governments can actually be powered by people


to come up with the right initiatives, I believe that with the right information with the right knowledge passed onto the people to the government and so I believe that they can come up with initiatives towards advancing and further increasing the rate at which clean energy clean energy initiatives are being rolled out to uh to all countries in the world


okay so to summarise you are saying that the government, uh majority of governments around the world are very focused on advancing their own selfish agendas and also because majority of them are are corrupted


and then we have still a majority of the population living under the poverty line and you actually stated examples of these uh countries who are actually living next to this uh land waste which uh would cause uh, uh, would cause inevitable pollution to the world yup


that, I actually agree with you I won't fault you on that but I actually disagree with you on, disagree with you on the governments having the, having all the power in the world to do whatever the want, so like we come coming back to the debate topic again we are saying that men is helpless in the face of climate change so men itself it doesn't just consists of me and you it doesn't just consists of a single entity doesn't just consists of a single person or let's say a single population


I believe that men itself is consisting of the ideologies of the thinking of the entire, entire of population, so the entire of population let's say seven billion people come together come together and think together as one


have one similar thinking that !hey!, all of us dying we need to do something about it I believe that with that collective thinking right they would be able to come up with solutions better they will be able to propose better initiatives to tackle climate change


and they will be able to combat climate change in the near future it's just that this this population right now right they need to have, that one particular purpose and objective for them to come to that similar similar consensus so that they will be able to


to be able to combat climate change right now right now I'm not sure what is that purpose, purpose purpose is because like you mentioned governments are corrupted they have their own uh own personal agenda but I believe in time to come right all this governments


can, uh would be able to have uh would be able to have their will have their shared common objective, I'm not sure what you think about that


ah okay so


debate topic three, I strongly disagree that going green makes good business sense this is because right yes uh corporations and businesses around the


world they can say that they are actually taking initiative to go green they want to be environmentally friendly for example food and beverage businesses, they want to introduce eco-friendly products eco-friendly packaging they want to sell they want to sell metal straws they want to sell bamboo cutlery but I do I believe that all these initiatives are they are just very


small initiatives towards, they're just very small initiatives right, but small but expensive initiatives be, which would actually be a very very huge detrimental, economical cost to these businesses in the long run ah ah I would actually like to hear your opinion on that


okay I I get what you mean you are stating that these businesses they are actually getting credit they are actually getting rebates for actually going green in their businesses, but I would like to actually propose one example that


singapore actually faced actually faced about four to five years ago so I'll give you the example of this particular businessman in singapore, who wanted to own a tesla electric car so he was the first person to actually own a tesla electric car in singapore but then right to actually bring in the tesla electric car to singapore right


he had to actually, he had to he wasn't sorry he wasn't entitled to the thirty thousand dollars thirty thousand dollars road tax rebate that was given to other cars that was given to petrol petrol cars right who are were deemed to


be less of a carbon carbon emitting vehicle he was actually charged an additional thirty thousand dollars, for the first tesla car in singapore even though he had the very good intention, very good intention of, uh


going electric so for the car dealer themselves right that, that wouldn't be that wouldn't make good business sense because they will, have to actually pay extra taxes just to bring in that particular electric car for that particular owner, so I would like to actually hear what you think about that


ah okay then okay then talking about supply and demand right, so let's go on to businesses supply and demand so, because of the recent initiatives by recent initiatives by schools by even businesses right to actually introduce


introduce uh this no straw policy for their drinks and even introduce like a recyclable cutlery right so, I, yes I agree that this is uh this this makes good business sense because it, in in a marketing sense right people can see that yup they are actually taking this good initiative to save the environment


but on but on economically wise, I do believe I still do believe that this this, doesn't actually make a good business sense because right if you are going deeper you are doing a deeper dive into the economics behind it right there are actually lots of companies jumping into this bandwagon bandwagon of producing metal straws producing uh bamboo cutlery


so when all these companies jump into this bandwagon of, producing excessive cutlery or excessive products, just for the purpose of going green right then it creates an extra, it, creates an excessive supply of this, products which defeats the purpose of going green in the first place


so so if you are talking about uh good business sense yes, businesses like F&B F&B businesses they stand to stand to stand to gain because these products will be cheaper but then if you are talking business sense ethically wise right these products


these products they are actually not making the environment greener because they actually, take more resources to produce, so I, I I would like to actually hear your argument on that


then I I I entirely disagree with that because as mentioned before right the research has actually


been done right to show that, to create one single metal straw or to create one single bamboo straw right actually requires two to three times more resources, than to create, to create one single plastic straw itself, so so right


if you require more resources to create one single metal straw or one single bamboo straw right then, then wouldn't it be more wiser to purchase plastic straws because they will be two to three times cheaper and two to three times cheaper to cheaper to produce instead of uh going green by buying metal


metal and bamboo straws because they require more resources produced, so so I I'm I'm still very confused to how going green can make good business sense in in in this case


okay so coming to the topic about, coming in a topic about uh actually countering this uh this this waste and actually coming to the topic about, businesses being uh not being put in a good light because of all this waste produce right then I will like like to actually bring you to this particular topic right here so this particular topic right here actually addresses the


the excessive waste produced from, plastic straw plastic straw or whatever, plastic plastic products we are using, the same consensus the same thinking can be applied to bamboo straws and metal straws as well, so let's say


let's say because we have excessive, supply of all these bamboo straws and metal straws then, then all these metal straws and bamboo straws right they are not used right, they will also be disposed of and they will be much more there will be much more expensive to dispose of


it will require actually more money long term, economically for businesses to for government to say !hey!, I I need to employ someone to dispose of all of these reusable products so, I'm not sure what you think about that because in in that in my own personal opinion I feel it's a


it's a cost in the long term economically


K I agree with you agree with you on making this production of reusable materials reusable straws and reusable consumer products and making, more sustainable in a long run, but let's let's


go to the topic about natural resources and about renewable energy, so talking about natural resources right governments governments around the world governments around the world are still like the united states they are still adamant on coal mining they are still adamant on offshore coal mining as well too because coal is cheap and they actually they actually don't want to drive down the


prices of coal and prices of oil they are actually taking it very slowly to move into renewable energy sources so right to actually produce all these uh, produce all these initiatives of going green right it actually requires the use of all these coal requires the use of all these oil that governments like the USA are producing so I'm not sure not sure


how how you're going to propose that these governments change their change their methods of uh over reliance on coal and oil immediately


okay uh I agree with your stand on companies taking different initiatives to actually go green


but then let me raise the raise this issue of, raise this uh problem with you stating that the, companies like walmart and target they are actually taking different transportation routes to actually go green, so why doesn't make business sense is because right


if let's say a certain truck from walmart takes takes a different route takes a different route than it usually does just because it wants to go green right, then, what if it affects the other businesses along the way because let's say let let me give you example a walmart


walmart let's say goes through one single route, a five thousand five thousand kilometre route and during the five thousand kilometre route right it actually benefits about, hundred businesses along the way because, because he fills up for petrol, because he goes into a grocery store to purchase his uh necessities to make that five thousand kilometre route


because he actually stays in a motel stays in a hotel to to get his living but because of his switch to a greener route, that these all these businesses right, all these businesses are affected because they did not get that get that money from that particular consumer


himself, and it's not only one truck let's say it's a hundred trucks a day a particular hotel right which relies on this, on these truckers on these truckers uh for on on a day to live living expenses right would go pass, so that doesn't make good business sense at all so I'm not sure what you I'm not sure what you


how how would you how would you propose a counter argument to this


okay I I agree with you on that so that can be true for that can be true for products for businesses with uh products but


what about businesses with services like those in the hospitality industry hotels or even uh attractions or even or even theme parks what what about them if yes they can go online to market their services and promote their services, they can even go so far as to provide


provide consumers potential consumers with a with a virtual experience of their of their, services but then right if they if they do not if they do not sell let's say a room night on a particular day that room night is perishable and it cannot be recovered


not, uh as compared to a product a product once produced it will always be there until its expiry date so, if we go green right this particular services, would be affected because let's say a mom-and-pop store a mom-and-pop store run by a couple or let's say a particular hotel service run by just a couple


who who just a couple on a five thousand kilometre route by made by hundred trucks a day, then this hotel this particular hotel, would be actually be affected because they yes they they can go make lots of initiatives to go online but


they are actually still affected by this, so how are they going to, know, save their own business because of this


part one debate topic one okay uh so my what from my understanding of the cross


island line uh the definition on based on what I research is uh MRT line to be built from Jurong to Changi, so it's either err around the nature reserve or uh below and so since I'm going for the proposition I'll be arguing on why this line should be built


below under the nature reserve so according to a straits times article is stated that the construction costs can decrease by within as compared, to around the nature reserve and a journey time is also shorter than six minutes and for this point I have to uh emphasise that


because singapore is a very fast paced environment so uh every second counts especially uh uh travelling time, and, a lot of based on statistics a lot of uh, uh commuters or in fact , office workers have mentioned that actually travelling time takes up most of their time when they actually travel to work or to and fro home and actually affects them a lot so


uh to say that since it actually shorten their time by a total of six minutes I believe by every day uh six minutes is actually considered quite a lot and thus uh, this island should be a this cross island line should actually be built under the nature reserve and it also state that it does not involve uh any like destruction of the private property which means uh around the nature reserve any private property will not be disrupted which


actually benefits the residents around and actually this cross island line is already been , are stated by the government saying that they will achieve uh through this option instead the around the nature reserve one and will be completed by two zero three zero and the last point I to make is it considers a fewer engineering challenges as compared


to around nature reserve so that's why I argue that the cross island line should be built under the nature reserve, that's the first point I've to make


uh it takes uh fewer engineering challenges, yes yeah okay


so would you like to counter my points or should I go ahead first, okay, yes yes


okay


so I feel that majority of uh what you actually counter back is about uh environmental, effects right so actually like, then uh why did the government actually choose this plan, so for that when I was with researching I was also uh kind of like thought about it like since there's so much environmental effects and singapore is such a green city a clean


city and we want to focus so much on the environment so actually why did they choose this plan instead of the other one and I thought about it and I think that it's because they actually weigh the pros and cons, beforehand before actually really arriving at this


decision because besides environmental effects I feel is uh a lot of other factors that may actually be affected so I I get where where you're coming from the environmental effects is a very serious issue where will lead to soil erosion and that it it will actually lead to a lot of


costs being incurred but uh this is where I want to uh try to counter counterpoint what you mentioned where they actually served uh additional help to the residents where uh they can actually board the MRT uh, faster right if they, move it around but like because uh like if they actually do the thing around the the nature reserve it may actually cost a lot of disturbance to the residents


in terms of like uh air quality where it may actually be the air quality actually be worse instead of underground and it may actually like cause like you know you know the COVID-nineteen situation now then everyone stay at home right so


it may actually like you know their view will be blocked a lot of construction sites to have that much greenery cause now it's like all construction, and stuff so I guess it may actually affect, the mental well-being and maybe the physical well-being of the residents staying nearby and uh this is why I feel that the this the this that uh cross island line should be built underneath the nature reserve and where the the one the point that you actually mentioned about the walking distance


uh where , like uh it actually takes like two KM to walk right uh I feel that uh maybe you can take can take it as exercising I don't know they are exercising uh maybe like morning afternoon you know after the


go from work then they walk to and fro since the government is also actually promoting about some uh health fitness, thing ah so ya they want uh the uh our residents to be more active or active SG yes that's the word active SG then I want to ask about the last point where you say there's an increase in sales for the buildings cap or clarify what's the point again


increased sales in terms, oh because there's more population around is it


ya yes, okay uh I should agree to the point that you actually mentioned that uh more sales will actually be generated lah but uh I feel all in all like because , the government actually chose this uh plan ultimately in the end so I believe


uh they did take into consideration the environmental factors and because of the other uh factors that are actually being uh addressed also such as the residents as I've mention that's why they actually chose this in the end because besides residents I believe the


uh people who are doing business there uh people who actually taxpayers there also be affected because their houses may actually be demolished just to actually facilitate the building of the cross island line


around the nature reserve and it may cause a lot of uh confusion among the residents lah because you know their homes are being demolished uh just for this uh situation so I think that the government actually took into consideration the people's welfare that's why they actually chose this and I believe this is the best option


ya I I get what you are coming from like


in fact animals or plants or, a lot of species have been actually wiped out because of uh civilisation, but the fact that because of presence of humans right that's why uh I believe that that's why they they they didn't have the chance to live on lah but I want to say like


I feel that the government when he they are actually doing the since uh it's gonna be done by two zero three zero right so they still have time to actually you know implement it and act it out maybe they should actually you know when they are actually doing it maybe they when when actually going underneath the the nature reserve


they could actually take precautions or measures to to really ensure that uh to minimise the damage of the wildlife uh animals species the entire nature reserve because you know it's really uh rare in singapore, and uh


I believe if they if the government wants to do it they can do it but it it just takes more, effort manpower and energy to actually think of ways on how we can actually you know you know do it do it without actually harming the nature reserve so much


and the government itself you know they have so many resources I I I don't believe that they can't do it lah so when I actually received this uh, uh statement when I'm I was supposed to go for proposition actually feel that it's actually a balance of both


where we can actually you know do the the we can actually uh build the MRT line uh wherever as long as the environment is not damaged because I feel that the focus of this is really how much effect the is going to cause to the environment


part two debate topic two, okay so man it's helpless in the face of climate change okay again I will have to


find a climate change which I based it on of the oxford dictionary lah so uh it's a change in our global or regional climate patterns and usually it's usually a commatated with a negative impacts to the environment, and so my first point I'd like to argue is helpless so


climate change is a ongoing err problem in this uh society so since it is already a ongoing problem right is so we're definitely helpless towards it because since is in so many years that this thing on this issue has been reoccurring many scholars has talked about it many uh


many like presidents or like news news articles have been talking about climate change but it seems like we have no solution towards this uh kind of issue so I believe that the word helpless is definitely good in this context so the point I'm going to argue is a man is definitely a helpless in


the face of climate change and because uh , the presence of humans when we actually conduct human activities such as industrial commercialization on fact agriculture that is already incorporated with technology


and this actually cost a lot of pollution which which actually leads to global warming where there's a rise in CO two in the entire, atmosphere and actually cause our zone layer to deplete that's why yes actually affecting uhour our society as a whole so because uh


the the presence of such activities is because of the need of uh human survival so actually without this kind of activities right such as like what I mention or the industrial staff all the technology stuff where we have to, actually really need to generate electricity in order to survive because you know now in twenty first century no one can do without


I mean we all we all will die without uh you know tablets iphones technology basically so, , because of the need of of this is a necessity humans is no longer uh whether it's a one it's a need that's why the humans don't really


care whether I would I would say like maybe majority of humans really care whether it actually affects the climate because, the fact that they are so helpless because it's a need that's why climate change it's really totally out of their reach and it's involves a survival it becomes a daily activity a daily routine


I believe that they are really helpless in the face of climate change so this is the first point I would like to make where it's a necessity to survive uh to to achieve uh cause harm to the environment based on the activities that we generate in everyday life


okay because , just to summarize a points again uh you mentioned that, , men actually have this more responsibility they had the uh they need to actually uh through different solutions such as mitigating


rebuilding uh rainforest and urban less electricity on their own hand but I have to say that uh man are actually selfish in nature and, uh that is my my based on my belief lah and I feel that even though based on like statistics as an increasing trend of people


or recycling using metal straws instead of plastic straws bring their own cutlery out reducing plastic or in fact many of them, , actually join like environmental campaigns especially in singapore where they uh actually join uh join in and actually contribute and make an effort to build awareness about this environment but I feel that all this are just based on


trends and they are just jumping onto this bandwagon where because it's trendy that's why they want to do it because based on what I can remember from the metal straws era where everyone was using it, then err suddenly everyone stopped using it because okay this is uh a real life example from uh one of my friends lah so


like, like I I can't I can't remember when was the metal straw era but llike she actually started using metal straws bring out metal straws physically on her own by you know by metal straws you bring out you need to, bring out a brush to wash also right so everytime she bring out she had to take like the the straw and a metal straw then added they need to like wash before you use and wash after you use then after after wash to stop using it then she started to like use back the plastic straws again because she said it was to


it was too is too is too much of a hassle to point some and I and I feel that this is just like people want to go to trend that's why they do it but actually people I feel that the most of our population they don't feel that


they are morally obliged to actually contribute and save the environment to actually stop climate change because , I I believe that no one taught them so and they're be like oh why me other people can do it what why everyone I'm not doing it but only me so it's a kind of like


I will say , people won't be morally morally obliged to actually save the environment uh naturally unless there's incentives to it for example if , let's say uh like companies if they actually produces less uh carbon emissions per year or something they can get less uh tax uh income tax and they actually do it


but, but uh understand like some people actually do it for the sake of really wanting to save the environment but I feel mostly people are just, they are just , incentivise to actually do certain things based on rewards and my point about uh man being selfish is uh that's what I want


I'm trying to argue where, people weren't really want to uh uh you know save the environment and this is why I believe they are really helpless in this phase of climate change because of I guess it's a human nature to do so


I understand from point I do agree the part where where organisations to actually you know I'll take the first step, to uh actually uh make people uh more willing to want to recycle and uh ya and I I seen a lot where in korea where their culture is so you know there are


the plane and they're so well thought because you know the the society environment factors actually caused them to you know be willing to recycle the fact that they actually like bring out their own rubbish and go to the nearby recycling bins and just sort out like really personal sort out the materials


for them this is why I feel that that's why I'm bringing my next point where cultural plays a very big role in this , , helplessness in climate change because as you said just now where singaporeans they they they actually just take plastic bags for granted because you know until she just provides them with that but I feel that even if organisations uh really


they stopped bringing plastic bags uh I feel that uh know singaporeans will do a typical thing which is to complain complain and complain, and then this is where they become unhappy and I feel that this is why the organisation do not want to you know make a change about it because they know that no a culture in singapore


singaporeans is too I don't know if I can say this self-entitled is, so so , ya I feel that is a culture plays a very big role in this uh part as well lah, but uh I'd like to add uh one last point about this uh idea of eco anxiety which uh actually bred from one of the BBC news news articles stating that a significant proportion of people all around the world


were actually worrying about climate change and these are form of anxiety is also known as eco-anxiety and they they before they sleep they just start thinking about uh they cannot they're helpless uh in in this phase of climate change and that's why they actually very worried about this entire


uh the climate change issue that the worst going to end and no there's no more sustainable uh environment for the future generations to carry on, and you know they they I I I feel that this uh idea of he's very very relevant to uh every single one of us okay maybe majority where they feel helpless in front of this because they know that individually they can't uh change much


yeah and the blurred, the fact that you know that they can't change much makes them feel worried and, and like you know us being humans we feel very useless, and the fact that this uh idea of equal anxiety even exists means that you know we are very indeed quite helpless in front of climate change so they are that that is the the one of the points that I want to bring across in terms of counter arguing your environment uh your your stand where


instead uh said that , men are not really helpless but you know this situation exists so I just want to bring up to you and uh you know like you know about it


part three debate topic three okay , okay so going green makes good business sense I would I would say that again starting off with definitions uh business sense I would I would I think for this uh argument I will mostly focus on marketing strategies and how actually helps to profit for the business


and from what I interpret from going green it means to actually uh, uh you know use green strategies green technologies and uh instead of the basic kinds, and based on the harvard article that I've actually uh read for my research


I think going green actually helps the business a lot because you know you can differentiate the products from the normal kinds of products that uh normal businesses sells so it's like green products and this will help to attract uh eco-conscious, consumers into the market and in fact uh it may actually draw attention from the public as well as something that is uh quite unique and not much companies are actually doing doing it uh currently and based on statistics it it stated that consumers are like more willing to pay


for eco on for green products as , uh so, here is an example where you know uh that this article states that you know tuna fishing kills uh a lot of dolphins but so the company decided to sell the incentive stating that there's there's actually dolphin safe tuna where they actually do not kill uh dolphins


did do not kill dolphins when they are actually fishing for the tuna okay this is not really relevant to uh the green products but I would like to state this example that you know, the dolphins uh dolphin safe tunas products are are actually are more popular than the normal normal uh normal tuna products where the dolphins are being killed when


the tuna's being fish and it shows that the consumers are willing to pay more as long as it does not harm you know other animals and this like I would like to bring relevance to this uh green products where you know consumers will be willing to actually, buy green products because they know if they will not harm the environment uh further and it stated uh based on the statistics lah and in order to actually


uh you know make this a green product business work they need to uh ensure that the competitors around them, the who are also doing green products do not uh copy their same solution their same strategies and they're kept off the way you know and they're always like kept at a competitive edge so


I feel that overall the points I just mentioned green green go~going green really does uh make good business sense because you know as uh the the strongest point I want to emphasise is to really differentiates the products and really attracts consumers


who are really eco-conscious and they really care about how they consume their products how do you actually use their products so ya that is the point I would like to make ah


yeah it's more expensive and consumers are like still willing to buy, so ya


okay so err you are stating that actually it makes them lose trust in the company itself is it, okay oh, okay I think I would like to uh build up since you're talking about the brand image right


I actually I want to talk about this brand image thing so basically brand image is kind of like a marketing term where how the company is positioned and how is it presented to the consumers itself and I feel that a lot of new startups new companies they could actually use going green


this this kind of strategy to actually build err entire new image of themselves because , we have a lot of like a new startups, or or in fact even current ones like uh H&M where they actually released the eco-conscious collection okay uh it's it's stated that like they actually received backlash from the community as well but after which they did recover from their losses for a bit lah but


I want I would like to say that because as long as the company, uh initiates to uh have like this kind of uh uh you know green image in order to produce a green products I I feel that I believe that the consumers themselves will actually see the effort that the company is trying to put in and probably would want to you know be their long term customers


cause I feel when once you go green right you know there's no turning back it's like vegetarian like that I eat vegetarian then you don't like no go back to eat meat okay this is what I learned from my friends lah, okay then like I I feel that once you you go green you will actually be more conscious about looking at products that you know really products that actually made of made out of sustainable materials and you will tend to actually look at the you know the logos the actually what kind of materials is made of that kind of stuff


and I feel I feel this will be very good for the company itself as as a long time if they do not uh actually suffer from any you know image distortion like you know being falsely accused or whatsoever


it'll be beneficial for the company a long run still uh definitely you know have , a very huge a large base of consumers that actually support their products uh eventually which is also known as a brand loyalty where uh consumers once they actually you know follow this brand and they know that it's always a eco conscious brand they will actually do it for it for


follow it and buy products from this company itself for a very long term, so I feel as as as I say again is good uh for brand identity or brand image for startup companies or in fact or present companies that, are actually thinking and wanting to uh change to a going green business so that's my point about uh brand image


brand image


yes yes ya


okay, ya


okay I will give you like uh there's a lot of small uh MNCs in singapore who are trying to you know uh join the trend and trying to you know start a business amidst all the competition


around and because as I as I mentioned previously the point I brought up where they can actually differentiate themselves uh what I actually trying to put across is that because uh, if let's say there's so much competition all of the stores are similar in terms of the products and stuff I was thinking maybe the green products could actually help them to put on a different position in terms of the market on in the market position


strategy and actually uh draw more you know attention from consumers and singapore and I feel that talking about consumers, there's increasing trend of uh eco-conscious uh consumers in singapore


and I believe that with this uh increasing demand from the market, the supply should also increase as well so that's why uh I believe that you know uh going green should actually you know help the business profit better especially in terms of singapore I mean in midst of this uh COVID-nineteen situation where you know not much people


could actually shop around and stuff so maybe in this situation going green won't make a lot of sense uh but I'll I'll say this exception only lah because you know, you know in in in this uh period we are just uh think about survival not that much about you know our wants which is going green and being uh eco-conscious so


that aside I would like to actually you know state some benefits of uh green branding based on some uh research that I've done so , it stated like in fairprice you know the demand for like eco-friendly kitchenware are


materials has increased by fifty fifty percent over the past three years and the increase of demand of uh you know environmental conscious you know toilet papers made of you know environmental uh environmental friendly uh materials


that's why you know this statistics show that you know there's there's still a demand from, from consumers that uh you know uh they really want to go green that's why I feel that it's helpful for the business itself and I would like to you know add on the point that you mentioned about the developing countries like you know when when


people know that people know that the companies are actually, doing such acts, but, I feel that as consumers when they they know that the the the companies are doing such acts


we still actually buy from them so, when I actually talk about this I feel that you know again man are selfish in nature, so, ya like they, I would say when they're buying clothes or the product is good everything is good then they're good to go it's environmental conscious or they're good to go and it's stated there it's environment conscious I don't really care whether it is Anot


that kind of stuff, I feel that it's just uh again I would say maybe it's just a trend that people are trying to jump on and obviously there are you know environmental conscious consumers out there, but I feel that uh maybe majority of them are really not


so regardless when the companies go green I feel that's gonna benefit them because I'm looking it at in terms of profits and not really you know the entire uh mindset throughout it's just really how much profit they have gone to earn and


and for and uh for say the since the consumers really just you know buy products, and and finding these products interesting find these green products interesting they will definitely uh generate more products for the company lah it will generate more profits for the company sorry


part one debate topic one


okay so basically you have a few point right first is that building the cross island line under the nature reserve would save cost, it will also save time for commuters to travel around the


the MRT and lastly what was the last point, okay, fewer engineering challenges to build under the nature reserve, okay so I'm gonna state my points first before like I encounter your point later on ya okay so I believe that the cross island line should not be build under our nature reserve because okay I'm gonna


we know some of the pros and cons okay the pros first about going, around the nature reserve instead of going under the nature reserve, so first is that if we were to go around the nature reserve it will serve, additional residents and give more choices to those already served by the MRT line and improves overall accessibility of the rail network


okay uh, pause there before I continue right all these points is I derived it from an article from, if I'm not wrong it was from the straits times so he secondly uh it also improves the the robustness of rail networks as commuters affected by disruption in one line will have easy access to the other you know the other line so if we were to go around the nature reserve


it will provide more opportunities for more residents to, you know have access to the MRT and then secondly , uh if if we're if this train were to like stop halfway, while it's moving


having to okay so if if the train were to stop halfway right if the train would to stop halfway if it was built under the nature reserve it means that they have to walk about two kilometers in the tunnel or the forest itself to reach for help which is really far because two kilometres you know it's like


our two point one NAPFA run you know so that's really far and thirdly there will be zero environmental impacts to the nature reserve which I think this is the most important point if we were to go around the nature reserve instead of under the nature reserve


and lastly it will allow for intensive redevelopments of areas around thomson-lornie and adam-road which will increase GDP and government reserves from land sales, so like these few points that I've stated is why I think


it will be of great advantage to go around the nature reserve instead of going, you know under the nature reserve


ya , okay I can counter your points first ah so okay so just now you you mention about it being, hold on ah, you mention about it being cheaper right


okay, and another one is it being faster so even if it was it was faster right, if ever if the MRT ever breaks down that would mean that the commuters have to walk like really far to reach for the to the next station to which will help so it's like


it will take up even more time, if we were to build it uh under the nature reserve so it doesn't really make sense as well in that sense, but, I mean I get your point I understand your point because I mean MRT don't, break down every single day but it does happen like every fortnightly so I mean I mean we can we have to take into account about that as well because once you build that MRT line then


you know you can't you can't rebuild it again, so I think that's one point and then second point is, it being like cheaper, I think it it being cheaper I don't know it can be counteracted by the fact that


uh if we were to make it cheaper there will still be environmental impacts to the to the surrounding areas that the MRT line's gonna be build at because, like and with that being said right with the environmental impacts


this may also lead to more cost if there were to I mean, because there's a high chance that with, with it being built under the nature reserve, there will be a loss of, hold on


there will be an increased risk of soil erosion so with that being said like soil erosion means that okay, if we were to like because once you once you build the cross island line you have to remove like a lot of trees and by removing a lot of trees there won't be any roots to hold the soil together so with that you will increase the soil erosion risk


and then this will lead to it having like siltation problems and siltation problem is a huge major issue that the PUB is really concerned about, because, uh siltation will affect the water quality in the within the reservoirs and uh the best practices for erosion avoidance and ya and if we were to build that then we can't avoid that erosion


probability happening and then uh, okay siltation is a serious problem and is treated seriously and an example okay so I would I would uh use an example of erosion caused by disturbance of nature environment which is one which is at the sime trail erosion site


so the sime trail is a method that has been existence since nineteenth century along it's length there are various examples of erosion due to excess water run off from the road, then the most serious case of erosion occurs at the location of Petaling


hard, where the Petaling trail joins like the the sime the sime trail water run off has contributed to gully erosion which if allowed to continue will bring a nearby, a a nearby plant into great danger of toppling


and this plant is basically also endangered, so not only do we have like erosion problems but you also have, you know we we are killing a tree that's already, already like endangered, so that's why, I would say with that being said


balanced that money itself then like you know, it's not really it's not really, uh effective, okay I'll stop here first , yup


ya, uh so basically if, if you were to build around the nature reserve then like, that means we can have more MRT lines so if we've got more MRT lines then we can like, build


I mean people can you know have access have more of an access to the MRT trail, MRT the MRT track so I guess that would increase sales, especially uh, it it like in terms of the buildings that are surrounding this MRT track


ya and it's like easier more convenient access to the MRT and usually when your house is located near the MRT line you know the the the the price of the


the HDB's more expensive


okay ya I think I agree with that point that, it the the MRT line shouldn't you know affect the residents that are living, living at the current their current homes but I don't I if I researched properly I don't think it


hold on ah I forget, I don't think it will affect many residents I don't think there's a lot of housing estate over there okay but ya but even then, there are still residents lah so I agree with that point but okay I want to bring another point so it's like there's a


the disadvantage of having the, a cross island line built under the nature reserve is that, there's four kilometres of sterile MRT stretch would which would serve zero residents, and especially you like with that four kilometres of MRT stretch right


there are potential safety concern so if the train stalls along this four kilometres stretch or if there is a fire, then that will be that will be really horrible and then , it also okay so another point I want to bring up about is that


with with the cross island line built under the nature reserve, this place, is actually uh what ah it has been gazetted, for a clear reason because it wants to conserve the fauna and flora, so against the spirit of intentions of the both of the park and trees act


so there's actually a parks and trees act by the national board and according to that act one of the reasons nature reserve has set aside, is for the propagation protection and conservation of the trees plants animals, and other organisms of singapore where the indigenous or otherwise and if we were to just disregard this act it like sets a precedent for future infrastructure projects to ignore gazetted heritage areas so it's like you know we can just beat the rule just as long as


it serves the greater majority or something like that I feel like they should have maybe addressed why why for this you know MRT line it's so important that we can you know just ignore, the the fact that there's this law about protecting the forest and why why do we like why why do we do why am I arguing that


we have to protect the forest is because in singapore there's only like I think two major uh nature reserve so one is this one which is central catchment nature reserve and the other one would be the Bukit-Timah nature reserve, and if we were to have


even a like a slight or moderate impact, it would affect a lot of species at the central catchment nature reserve it is home to at least four hundred thirteen species of plants two hundred eighteen species of birds thirty mammals twenty four freshwater fish species


and seventeen species of amphibians and like I said just now there was also like endangered plants there are located in, at the the central catchment nature reserve, so it's like if you if you if you just like disregard it and then like plants or animals that are endangered are at risk is is it really worth it is that really like worth the cost


cause, once these like species are gone they're gone you know


so, ya I agree I think ya we take it into account all these factors i'm pretty sure that government would have, accounted for all of the the points that we have just spoke about so like the environment the people that they the the MRT line is gonna serve


and how they are going gonna move and you know conserve the nature that is around the MRT line, so ya I agree with your point and ya I think the government would , would take into precautionary measures especially for you know the silation problem the soil erosion problem as well so ya I think is a really well balanced like argument


in terms of what you gonna do, for this, uh nature reserve cross island line


part two, debate topic two


okay, so your point so like summaries you point so the point is that what you're saying is men as helpless in face of climate change because, we contribute so much to climate change through our activities like technology using our computer tablets


and all that but, I believe that managed not helpless in the face of climate change because, okay so firstly uh I would like to add on to your point so, uh, I feel like men is firstly like responsible


to , combat the you know combat climate change and, help out in climate change because human emissions and activities has cost around hundred percent of the warming observe since nineteen fifty , according to the intergovernmental panel on climate change's which I PCC fifth assessment part and in in in it's two thousand thirteen fifth assessment report


the IPCC stated in its summary for policy makers that there was between a ninety five percent and hundred percent probability that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures was due to humans from nineteen fifty one to two thousand ten


the industrial activities borden civilizations pen upon such as budding of fossil fuels for electricity as race atmospheric, carbon dioxide levels from two hundred and eighty parts per million to four hundred twelve parts per million in the last hundred fifty years


the panel also concluded that there there's a better than ninety five percent probability that human reproduce greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observe increase in of the temperature over them


past fifty years and that's , like since the industrial revolution in eighteen fifty, so even though we have contributed so much carbon dioxide I feel like it is our own like make more responsibility as men to also help to


you know curb the number the amount of greenhouse gases they're we're producing right now, and how that's to uh because, we are already committed to some level of climate change and was willing to climate change usually involves a two pronged approach which is firstly reducing emissions of stabilising levels of heat trapping greenhouse gases and atmosphere via mitigation efforts and secondly


true adapting to climate change which is already in the pipeline so it's like, to adapt to whatever is going on right now so we have two options to do and I think most a lot of countries have been doing that, (mmhmm) so firstly I would say like mitigation how do we mitigate we reduce climate change involving the by reducing the sources of these gases


so we can you know burnt less fossil fuel for electricity heat or transport or enhance the sings that accumulate and stall these gases such as oceans forced and soil, so how do we enhance this sings it would be true like


you know rebuilding the forest instead of cutting down a lot of the forests for you know land and commercialization purposes, you know like I I believe uh if I remember correctly eighty percent of the the amazon forest is like cut down


so the goal medication is just to avoid significant human interference with the climate system, and stabilised the greenhouse gas, in a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change and ensure that food production is not threaten and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner


so that that's my first point is that we can mitigate, we can mitigate through like you know a few of these examples which I can give later on but you want to count down you first


okay I think I agree to some extent your point that , uh like on an individual level we can't do much because as you said like, after a while it gets you know tedious to wash your straws and realize like oh it's so much easier to use plastic straws instead but if everyone has like the same mentality that oh why am I doing this is and not the other person doing that then everyone would not even like start


using metal straws at all I think that is during that that era that you said, like, at least during that period of time plastic straws, uh you know there are less people using plastic straws and


not organisation sorry uh companies actually picked up on that so we can see that uh where mcdonald's if I'm not wrong mcdonald's KFC or the fast food restaurants and some drink stalls they stopped providing straws


because they know that people are right now are using metal straws instead so that is a huge jump from like, providing metal straw to I mean are providing classics straws to not providing plastic straws at all and and especially from a like we've such a large scale


uh not much skill like like such a large company you know they are responsible for like, the disposable of the disposal of so many plastic straws I think that is a huge step, and uh, personally I believe that the the plastic straw era was


was actually one of the, was one of the best I mean not one of the best but it was a huge jump from not doing anything to do to actually doing something on an individual level, because in singapore I I agree with you like our recycling system isn't as well developed


as compared to some other countries for example japan or australia, cause , for example a NTUC or like it goes no no NTUC or like, you know the neighbourhood like supermarkets they always provide plastic bags and they


from my experience they give out plastic bags really generously, like and like you know like just two cartons of milk they give one plastic bag another plastic bag for a carton of eggs so it's like, and that is because like people don't usually bring out recyclable bags


so I feel like, if we were I don't know like educated more on that and like more of us or you know or if supermarkets itself take the initiative to not even provide plastic bag, then that will be then that would actually force people to not bring I mean to bring the others to bring their reusable bags instead because that's what


that's what I see for my, from my past holiday in australia I went to like almost all the supermarkets that I went and all the departmental stores they don't even provide plastic at all so I was forced to actually buy a reusable bag so that can shop in australia


it not like there's no way you can carry your stuff, so I think , in order for individuals like us as he said are selfish right so we need, large organizations large companies like the supermarkets to


to take the first step and do something about it and we don't necessarily need incentives, like if you force people to do it, they have no choice but to do it so ya that's that's my counter argument for that men selfish


I think I I agree about the anxiety thing cause, I know a lot of people think because I think it's because people look at climate change as this really huge issue and they think that oh we can't do anything so it's like, and then we can't do anything and the temperatures are just rising in the water is just rising and then you know we can't do anything at all so I'm gonna bring up a point about you know the government setting an example so one of the main one of the main things that people can do it's like go from the top down approach


so if the government has uh you know set out uh a good example for example in singapore the government has invested in research and development to explore other renewable energy options uh I'm sure you know they they know that I mean


singapore is so signing so solar, energy is a good viable option given singapore's high average and also solar radiation so currently, less than one percent of electricity consumer singapore is powered by solar energy, but the aim but the singapore government is to raise that percentage to about twenty percent by twenty fifty


and some examples would be would uh some examples on how the government's is gonna do that is you know through the HDB initiative which is to install solar panels on rooftops of high rise public housing development and like


uh what is that I think there was a green certificate uh you know, I forgot what's the exact word but yeah there's a green building initiative where companies, you know if if your company has invested in some green initiative you have like tax rebate or something like that if I'm not wrong


so like if the government, set up set up this example of having you know, havinng what uh, having plans to do something about climate change it shows that we can actually do something about it instead of burning fossil fuels and


or maybe like people think oh we need save electricity which is good, but, if we were to use electricity that is powered by solar, solar energy then we'll feel you know less guilty about it I guess, so ya I think to summarize we have a few points that are quite strong


part three, debate topic three


okay so to summarise to summarise that point it will be going green makes good business sense because it differentiates their products and basically if you have a greener product it will be more expensive right


still willing to buy it because of uh it being green correct, oh okay so I want to counter that point because sometimes companies may because I know I mean


in general right now in this environment everyone a lot of companies are really cautious about the about going green, so I I know a lot of companies have been like advertising about their products being like eco-friendly or like it's sustainable however I would like to bring a point that I found this article says that there may be some customer backlash from you know


uh advertising that your products are are green when actually your products are not green so companies may intentionally or unintentionally make false claims regarding the environmental friendliness of their products which is a process known as greenwashing


so a product that insists it has no added no added chemicals for example could be criticised for it's wrong choice uh choice of wording, since even naturally derived ingredients consisting of uh like you know natural ingredients also consist of chemicals substance so if you say oh I didn't add any chemicals in this product it's kind of like a wrong


it's wrongly worded and then, you know the people won't trust your products anymore because you you wrongly worded that so if customers if consumers become aware that a company is engaging in greenwashing the company may suffer harm to it's credibility


so, like for example uh I would like to bring an example of zara so recently I've read this article about like zara being, you know they advertised they advocate a lot for it being like very eco-friendly


but actually it's not really so like for for example their clothes they have like this price tag thing and they put the the logo of like the sustainable logo or something like that but actually that sustainable logo is is only for that price tag itself like the material of that price tag and not actually the clothes


so people might be like misled to think like oh the clothes's very sustainable that's why I buy it, but in the end when they go home and like you know research about it, we learnt that oh it's actually just that price tag that paper that made that price tag that is sustainable but not the actual clothing so it's really misleading and this like would then people like me would think like oh they're just like jumping on this bandwagon of like oh I am very sustainable but actually


they are not really sustainable in that sense so like now am I I I'm more cautious of like, of like uh buying things at zara now, so it's like it affects your credibility lah basically


yes yup, so okay then uh then I'll just bringing another point or you wanna say another point


are you sure okay


okay, okay I agree I agree that you know company's having a green front, would, you know build up that customer loyalty and like, oh what's the other word that you said uh err ya brand image


but sometimes like it can mask, you know like let's say for example cause you brought up about that H&M that going green initiative ya it's like for that for that example right the about the backlash


first of all they come up with the initiative like you know like hide the the underlying problem that they had which is why they they had a backlash so it's like even though they they tried doing to go green, but they still don't even they don't even fix their you know their


their like how they make their clothes it's still they use still they still use like, chemicals and, like, and you know exploiting like child labour if I'm not wrong and labour from like uh what's that called third third world countries and they don't even pay their their staff and things like that so it's like uh


it's a front that they put up, that people when people recognise that oh it's a front that they just put up then you know it doesn't really make good business sense for them if they don't try to change themselves internally first before you know putting up a front


so in that sense I don't think I feel like big companies if they want to go green they need to, market themselves properly I mean not market themselves properly but, do an internal like I don't know a rebranding internally like


paying their their labour what ah the labour people, like better money better pay and then after that going green then that would make a very good transition however if they do that, that would mean like they have to spend more money isn't it like they have to spend more money hiring people and paying having uh paying them more money or something like that


and then going green also means like oh you want to have like organic cotton or something like that that would that will be much more expensive in a sense and like, more much more expensive and I don't know if people are oh ya but you did mention about people willing to pay the price for it so it's like ya


so I agree for the what's that called uh like clothing, fashion business with what you have said for your points, I want to bring in like another point about like, you know companies, who are going green so for example owners and developers cost will be one of the biggest obstacle for property owners and developers thinking of going green designing and building green buildings is reportedly thought to cost roughly ten percent to thirty percent on top of the cost of


a building a perception that some that could make some owners and developers hesitate in addition in US where a lot of big companies are situated at the cost of receiving the certification itself can be prohibitive, suffocation include the leadership in energy energy and environmental design which is more commonly known as LEAD and it's run by nonprofit US green building council and energy star and environmental protection agency programme and it can cost


from several thousands dollars to over one million dollars just to receive that LEAD certification as quoted by forbes article, so multiple studies have shown that building certified as being environmentally sustainable have higher rent or lease rates than their non green counterparts


but, they did sell for sixteen percent more but then it's still really expensive and if and if I were to think you know from a small company perspective like a small startup would you spend that much money just so that


you can be situated in a building that is green, because if you are a small startup company wouldn't you allocate that, funding, to other areas to uh better your success of your company instead of you know having


your office located in more environmental friendly building I think that is you know not an effective move, if we were to start from the beginning, so I agree that big big companies should do that if they have to resources to and usually they will do that but for how about smaller companies which


so I feel like you know it's not really a good business sense to go green in that sense


ya I agree that I think it's it's a good like business trend I mean it's a good it's a good thing for marketing itself, so, I think I I will agree the whole part that about about being green for marketing purposes


but if you were to think like internally right like if you were to go paperless, cause I know like a lot of companies are going paperless right like for our bills it's mostly online now if you want to have paper you have to pay like one dollar for it so you know such, such moves internally can pose a lot of disadvantages such as data risk so for example if employees do experience the theft of laptop computers then sensitive information would be leaked out and you also need like training course


you need to train them you know how to properly store this data online instead of having it just being filed somewhere in a storage container or something like that I think it's much safer to have it you know on paper instead of


through like you know digitally so I think ya, I feel like uh like internally is not really the best cause but externally like like what you said like marketing itself, I think it's good for business but I feel like, you know internally that's where like business usually happens cause it's from the inside to the outside you know what I mean so ya


I agree that's all thank you


ya, prompt one of four


okay uh I think sex work should not be legal, firstly uh, sex uh work can be uh


can be used as uh human trafficking and uh criminalizing uh uh, adult voluntary or consensual sex including the commercial uh exchange of sexual services uh is go against uh human rights and uh


also uh go against uh personal autonomy and privacy so in short, uh government uh should not be telling uh consenting adults who they should have sexual relation with or and what terms


so criminalizing criminalization exposes uh sex workers to abuse and exploitation by law enforcement officials such as police officers human rights watch, had documented that in criminalize uh environment police officers harass sex workers extort bribes and physically and verbally abuse sex workers or even rape or coerce sex from them


so, human right watch has uh consistently found in research across various uh countries uh that make criminalization, uh


sex workers more, vulnerable to violence including rape assault and murder by attackers who see sex workers as easy targets because they are stigmatize and unlikely to receive help from the police


criminalization may also force sex workers to work in an unsafe locations to avoid the police and undermines, the sex workers' ability to seek justice from crimes against them sex workers for example in south africa uh said that they did not report any armed uh robbery or


or rape to the police they said that they are afraid of being arrested because their work is illegal and, that their experiences with police is being harass or profile and arrested or laugh at or not even taken seriously


so even when they report the crimes sex workers may not be willing to testify in court against their assailants and the rapist for fear of facing sanctions or further abuse because of their work and status


criminalization has also negative effect on uh other human rights and in in countries that ban sex work uh sex, workers are less likely to be able to organize as workers advocate for their rights or to work together or support or to protect themself


so sex work, is a consensual exchange of sex between adults, human trafficking and


sexual exploitation of children, are a separate issue, but both are serious human rights abuses and crimes and they'll, should be always be investigated and prosecuted yeah ah over to you uh Shaiful


okay I don't think , sex work should be even uh open to teenage who are above sixteen I think the legal age in singapore if I'm not mistaken should be twenty one and above for sex worker to be


uh you know to operate in Geylang places such as Geylang, but having said that some sex workers are are although they advise their clients to uh get protection when they're having sex but some of them do not so


these , sex workers are exposed to err, err diseases such as uh aids STD uh gonorrhea ya things like that so it makes them vulnerable uh to these diseases and


is uh uh not uh healthy for them and also uh to the, clients who doesn't uh wish to wear a protection such as a condom so I strongly err


disagree that the sex should be legal and uh if it is err not err if the guidelines are not err followed or adhered strictly, and furthermore there are a lot of uh


foreigners who come to singapore err just to earn a quick buck you know places from, china vietnam err indonesia india myanmar thailand, you know they come as tourists for one month they work in a a sex brothel in Geylang and you know god knows whether they they're they're whether they're clean or not so they they're also you know exposed to our local


community err to all the diseases that they might have brought from their homeland, because they are not tested and they just you know come here for err one a few weeks err less than a month and they will go back when they earn their money


so I strongly disagree that the uh sex should be legal and if it is, if they if it is to be legal then there must be uh uh government have to step in have to legalize it have to make sure that they're clean before they're all they can uh offer uh services and but right now I'm sure it's it's not legalized that's why it's very


in a way not the not control and ya I think it should be it should not should not be legalised back over to uh you Saiful


okay ah uh no doubt you uh have this uh guidelines in place and to ensure that the sex workers are uh go for regular screening so on and so forth but


uh, local sex workers yes they will comply but foreigner work sex workers I do not think so you they come as freelance you won't know that , they they may come as a tourist or even uh work in other uh industry uh but they moonlight has sex workers and yeah you won't know you know so the chances of getting a contacting a disease is uh rather high compared to those uh


uh a local legal sex workers so, uh there must be a regular policing by our government to enforce that uh these are not abused by the foreign uh sex workers


so that uh the local community err who visit these uh local brothels will not the get, uh diseases which, uh they they will not know and uh some of them may be uh under aged


also you will not know you know so, there there are cases uh where uh a lot of uh foreigners are are being caught uh you know doing uh freelance sex or things like that so I I strongly uh opposed to sex work being legal and


uh, err even for a teen teenagers or evenuh those uh child uh that you mentioned in the, uh US uh those are uh paedophiles and they're equally as dangerous as well so uh all the more uh uh children young children should be uh not be exposed to any form of uh sex and they should be protected as well


so uh as far as possible the government should uh step in and enforce, these uh rules and regulations in their local community in any country they they are uh in so to protect the young and the vulnerable


okay


okay uh, having err, I mean having you said that uh yes uh agree should be legal but again the foreigners who come in they will not say that they are coming to offer sex services of their they will be stopped at immigration there's one thing for sure so yeah


I I I strongly disagree err sex should be legal


prompt two or four


okay uh while it is good to make charity compulsory but I I doubt so because uh if if it is if charity is made compulsory people might see it as a nuisance and


not be as willing to give to charity so people should be given a choice and be able to spend their money, or use their time for what they think is right so if charity is compulsory people won't be giving out of care and kindness just because they had to do it so I believe that charity should not be made compulsory


we are supposed to be cheerful givers of our money and talents not forced givers, if people were forced to give money to charity they might become very bitter or resentful so the joy of charity can be from the blessings of freely giving whether uh in a form of money


or you're volunteering err your time to help others, yes I agree that uh is good initiative by #ngee ann# poly and uh institute of higher learning uh to make uh it compulsory for their students to perform charity work but


uh why at such a later age if you want to make charity compulsory you should start from a young age from upper primary or even secondary one so, if if it is at a later age some of the uh teenagers they they are you know if their nature is not uh


uh giving and uh like to do charity work and they're forced to do it it become a chore to them it become a nuisance to them and some may not like it while some may like it so , it it you cannot you cannot force it on them


it has to be it has to be built up from a young age so it has to do something with our upbringing as well so I believe charity should, come from the heart, and not the force to perform yeah over to you Saiful


okay uh okay I agree to a certain extent that the uh charity should start that a young age but uh, to start at seventeen years old okay it's not too late


but but not all are, as you've mentioned earlier is only SMU and UNISIM so what about the rest of the uh institute of higher learning err NUS NTU, err you know so


is charity, err should like I say again should come from the heart and yes it's good to, err make the students do charity work but err they have to do it because it's part of their curriculum


but having said that uh uh charity is uh giving to charity shouldn't be made compulsory since we live in a free market economy so people can give to charitable organisation if they wish especially err those with err


err income tax incentive so if giving, to charity becomes err compulsory then situation would be just as bad as requiring all citizens to have health insurance or, to pay a fine on your income tax return


to to the extent, so charity is uh is part of the material social and spiritual fabric of the people so it is the result of social awareness and cultural consciousness


but the essence of charity is voluntary donation okay to help someone or to further adjust a cost and charity will not lose its very meaning if it is, made compulsory


so, , charity err, should be, uh, practice by everybody on one hand but not everybody


err n~wants to do it it is good to to promote charity in our local community and but not all are willing to do it some may have the time some may not have the time some may have the


err monetary means to help out some may not have, because they are struggling each day to get by uh, err especially those err lower income earners yes they want to help but as much as they want to help but they have to help themselves first before they help others correct so you should not impose charity on err these people


anduh uh it should be, err the willingness and coming from the person itself from the heart ya over to you Saiful


okay I


applause to the students in #ngee ann# and SMU who does charity work, uh but the, it's only these two uh institution that are doing the charity work and


that's why err in singapore you have err several charity organisation they they rely on volunteers to perform err charity work, for those err, who are in need so err of course err it's good to perform charity work but not all can


sacrifice their time or or, err, the money to to do charity work some err, err that's why you you you see the s~familiar faces going to the same charity organisation doing the charity work for others so


charity work should be, coming from the person itself who wants to contribute to the society wants to contribute to those who are less fortunate than them and it should not be made compulsory it should be


err coming from the person itself who thinks that performing charity err work is good for him or her and err like what you said err, uh starting from a young age yes I think the government should advocate err charity work err


err compulsory err if they really want to push for it but at this point in time I don't see err the government pushing very hard on on this apart from uh #ngee ann# and SMU or uniSIM that you've mentioned so


so charity is back to its uh you know should be giving out voluntary not expecting anything in return so that's really a charity work uh because


like what you've said uh they need to perform eighty hours so that is err is part of their curriculum so there is no escape for them on that for the students itself but I'm I'm talking about the society as a whole


they should err attract more err people to perform charity work rather than make it compulsory yeah


prompt three out of four


okay , those who support the abolition of the death penalty should reconsider their stand okay the government has a duty to curb crime, and the laws of the countries should be allowed to do so so in two zero one six the crime and safety report by the US department of the state bureau


of a democratic err security described serious crimes such as assaults and robbery involving weapons as fairly common in malaysia, so with the escalating number of serious crime in the country it is worrying if no significant measures are taken


a jail term will not be a deterrent to those contemplating committing such a serious crime murderers kidnappers rapists and drug lords should know that if found guilty they will be given the death penalty


this would make them think twice about indulging in brutal criminal activities, some countries and states that once abolish the death penalty will force they will revert to the punishment when they could not curb the rising rate of crime and their society