err when let's say for social work you want to be you want to someone who has actually taken part in charities you know doing a lot of social work from a long time ago uh to to be the main candidate ya so I feel that okay


there's it should not be a overall policy to cover all, degrees or all admissions but we can work towards certain courses that, should have a stronger emphasis on non-academic factors for admission


okay so I would okay just let me go back to fundamentally why do we learn mother tongue uh I will assume that okay it would be something that, is part of our heritage is something that


in a way will make us not forget who we were but if you were to put dialects into consideration in my opinion I feel that it will be create in a more diversive environment


so if you look at it for example in china where, most of our dialects come from is because our ancestors move err came, err to singapore to look for a better life so they came from different uh parts of china as a Guangdong et cetera so at this at that point they brought along their their perhaps it's considered their mother tongue they brought along these dialects with them


and integrated with people from different dialects, but what you also have to consider is this, if we were to offer uh why were dialects not used is because, there is no standardised


commonality between them so how are you going to communicate err let's say I'm cantonese and you are , you're of teochew, err or, you are you uh your ancestors you are are teochew


so how am I going to communicate with you err when I can't understand your dialect err you may I may have learnt, err cantonese from err early age or in school uh let's put for as err for the sake argument err I was taught cantonese because it was my dialect in school and you were taught teochew because it was


err I feel that it does not actually benefit the both of us because we do not speak to each other in the err we do not understand the other party's dialect so I that which is why uh chinese is actually the mother tongue is because


okay err although we may have different dialects we are still able to , err mother we are still able to err communicate in chinese so my opinion is we should not, take dialects as our mother tongue yup


err okay uh yup oh sorry, err yup, so okay I do agree that okay mother tongue err chinese dialect can be offered as a third language but I assume that mother tongue the main mother err language err if we are to


teach in school as a mother tongue should still be in let's say for chinese students should still be in mandarin err why is it so is okay I feel at the end of the, day the, things that


are taught in schools should actually benefit the students in, err the most in their future okay so let's consider, mother tongue chinese mother tongue as a mother tongue language and a dialect for example cantonese as a err language mother tongue so if you were to ask only these two can be chosen which


can a student choose or which should a student choose uh in my opinion uh it should still be mandarin uh mainly in terms of commonality because all chinese would should be able to speak mandarin


err be it in singapore or any place else next would be the fact that, uh why is there a push to learn mandarin in singapore or even your western countries is because of a from a economics perspective we want to do business with the chinese or in china for example so


at the end of the day the amount of resources , a school has and the amount of time a teacher or student has is limited so I would disagree that you know if we only have a choice


we should let students take, a dialect as a mother tongue I feel that we should actually continue what we are doing we should actually make students uh learn mandarin err make chinese students learn mandarin but in from a social economics perspective of course we do not want to forget our heritage


we want to be able to communicate with our grandparents and I think at this err for this generation we still have grandparents who can't speak err can only speak dialects so we do not err want


the younger generations to be in a position where they are not able to communicate with their grandparents or the elderly let's say you want to do social work you can't even communicate properly with them err so for but if you stretch it out from in maybe not


five years but you stretch out into twenty or thirty years from a same perspective of communicating with your elderly will the dialects still be used I don't think so probably, in about twenty years there will be very little people who are still using dialects err probably we are using we'll be using


english and mandarin as a as a, main language so while I agree that mother tongue should be dialect should be taught I feel that uh it shouldn't be used as


the mother tongue language err it should be used as an elective where if you have an interest in understanding more about your heritage you know you want to know how the, err how cantonese sounds like for a certain statement as compared to teochew or hokkien it should be offered as an elective it should not uh take away resources


that should be can be used to err enable students to earn err to learn mandarin


ya err I do agree in terms of you know communicating with the elderly from a heritage perspective I think what you quoted if we do not take steps to actually ensure that err we preserve this heritage the


it may be lost but what I'm worried about is the fact that okay number one , how do we test a proficiency in a particular language you know we take for english mandarin or malay or we offer students you know there are the various test err in a chinese exam you take oral you take a written exams comprehension et cetera


but it is my understanding that okay , I think cantonese is still okay because it's in terms of the written word is similar to chinese but if you are talking about <mandarin>闽南语:min nan yu</mandarin> hokkien


there is no efficient test for it it's just a spoken language, which is why I think one of the largest users of in terms nationality of <mandarin>闽南语:min nan yu</mandarin> I think you called it it's a type of hokkien is actually taiwan


but they do not use it as their official language it's because, it is a bit difficult to transfer the spoken word into paper on paper so you may encounter issues such as you know how are you going to write legislation how are you going to write a research paper


where when you're you're supposed to use your mother tongue so that is one of the reasons err why they have not been using it which is why I also agree that, , mother tongue should still remain as mandarin a in terms of preserving our heritage


the dialects should be encouraged err students should be or people should be encouraged to take on a dialect as an elective course number one to preserve your heritage, next will be to communicate with


seniors and of course, to actually it's always better to earn uh learn a alternative language but you also have to consider, the fact that would it be if we offer it as a main mother tongue language will it create a more diversive society where you know the people who I hang out on err with most of the time are from people of same dialect


because we go to class the same class together we naturally we spend more time together next would also if there is a global push, for use of dialects let's say okay instead of pushing for mandarin


we push for a certain dialect will it be detrimental to a person who is looking for a job why do I say that right now why do we push for mother tongue is the largest language that we err are err the chinese are using is mandarin


but if there is a global push for you know preserving your heritage making sure that your dialect is your main mother tongue language , will it be detrimental to someone who has taken up


teochew for example but he goes to a interview err in a company whose main business is in err Guangzhou who I think they speak mainly cantonese , besides mandarin so


will it be detrimental to a person because his he only knows err teochew or hokkien he or but he doesn't he can't speak mandarin well and he doesn't know cantonese, so will it be detrimental to him or her so I feel that okay it should still be offered and encouraged as an elective but the main


err the main focus will still be mandarin mainly for, , I think purposes number one is it's easier to be test them it's easier to test your capabilities err in that particular language


and it's also makes the most economic sense because you err in generally speaking you want to be able to affect the most people, err, in a given time with the same amount of resources so if I spend the resources to teach a student dialect he may only be able to communicate effectively with ten percent of the uh people but if I were to use the same amount of time resources to teach him mandarin chinese mandarin as err a language he will be able to use it for to communicate with more people so that is my opinion it should not be offered as a mother tongue language or it should not be offered as a second language but it should be offered err and encouraged as a third language if possible


err, err prompt three of four


err okay so I agree in spirit but what I'm worried about is the practicality in, making students learn err outside the room uh classroom even though it may generate better results err


because I'm worried that okay when we try when we do something we should look at the results and not the intention, probably why it is done that learning is better outside the classroom probably there was a, there will be there is a study that says that okay we as compared to students who are learning outside they are more active and more enthusiastic et cetera but we do have to also consider the fact that uh what we we offer it on


country level or school level basis there will be a lot of problems , that may you one may encounter and may result in a detrimental effect even though the intentions are good so what do I mean by that okay so for example right now I have a learning in a classroom I only need one teacher uh probably if it's a lab I probably need a lab assistant


because my students will be seated down uh facing the front they will not be running around so uh, number one would be logistics err, whether I can, I do I need to hire more resources a few more err teaching assistants teaching assistants to actually handle the same amount of students because we are doing it outside the classroom and also this brings about a point where about safety


I will need to make sure that you know my teacher to or teaching err assistants to student ratio is maintained at such a rate that, especially younger children will not be running around err et cetera err next is time to actually learn outside the classroom uh probably you also have to factor in


err travelling even if it's just nearby just downstairs you know you need to gather your students you need to prepare you know you need to bring your whiteboards outside et cetera so uh time and logistics is, another another


another factor that we have to consider and of course money err of course this hiring of additional assistance you know, purchasing certain projectors that work better err outside where the there will be stronger sunlight et cetera all these costs money will we be passing it on to


the parents in where we may encounter a situation where you know , these are, students who are, not that well off they may not be able to actually


pay for the increase in cost, or if we the government were to, you know uh absorb this cost err what would it do in terms of the budget, will it be will it be better to actually put the funds to better use you know better facilities err et cetera yup so this is my first argument against learn moving the classroom outside


ya yup I do agree that there are merits to uh learning outside the classroom so like I mean taking natural science for example I think it's better to allow students to actually you know be


actually outside to learn about nature but what I am concerned about is is this statement a blanket statement that says that uh let's move everything to out be outside the conventional uh classroom


just not consider a cost I mean err let's not consider cost uh but what I'm worried about is number one if you look at students nowadays in terms of because of the competitiveness in the global economy, even though err just not take extra lessons for example probably


a student is uh in school from seven to probably around one to two, so if we were to move classes outside this would probably be


a scenario where we must increase the time per lesson because you need to do a bit of travelling you need to do a bit of logistic planning uh probably there will be more disruption so a classroom a class may actually take


the same class outside may take more time as compared, to a class taken in a conventional classroom so uh what does it leave the student will he be in school from seven to five after that he still has to go for his own uh tuition because the parents err


want the student to take an additional course or anything so this is also what I'm worried about , next is the fact that okay , the how should I put it


will this overwork our students err overwork our teachers for err from, this particular err, for this particular statement you know , so my what I suggest that okay there may be some lessons that is better conducted out of the classroom this I agree with it but for courses that


need not do so I will feel that may not benefit the students such as math and english or mandarin I don't see how a student will learn better outside he should be it should be still kept in a physical classroom itself


but if you are talking about, you know moving these math lessons outdoors I feel that uh, in my opinion there isn't any any, uh real merit to it besides just perhaps doing it in a less


stressful environment also from the statement it's best outside the classroom probably what we have also have to consider does it mean, uh not physically outside or what is it err it can mean virtually which is still considered outside the classroom which is what uh some students are doing right now the due to the COVID situation


so you also have to consider the fact that why do most I mean I'm working myself I can work I have the option to work from home err or to work in the office uh why do I prefer to go back to the office in some days, is I I feel that okay in the office or in a classroom for the sake of this argument is more conducive for me to study I'm sitting in front of a teacher I know I cannot drift off to you know use by personal computer


so that's one thing , so I feel that if it is talking about outside the class uh classroom, err in a virtual err environment, I am still I still disagree to a certain extent I feel that even if you consider it's only virtually it will still not benefit the student because err it's easier for them to drift off it's also harder for them to ask the question is because from a


virtual uh virtual environment, is perhaps it's difficult for a student to, , so called, , vocalise he his or her question so next is also whether by putting


it in a virtual environment, err will it extend the hours because err I mean for as a working adult I know that , instead of just working in the office from nine to six cause I now I have my laptop with me I actually work longer hours because I can have the ability to work longer now so this is also one of my concern


will we be uh overworking the students will we be, making a the learning environment less conducive if we put, lessons outside the classroom be it virtually


or physically next is also I go back to the cost if you talk about physically yup oh ya sure sure ya so, ya so if you talk about uh virtual or physically


will we be passing on the cost to the parents I think you have seen from earlier examples uh actual examples some parents also will not be able to offer err afford the


infrastructures the devices required or the cost the price you know of renting a a bus for the whole class to travel outside the school so you also have to consider is it


good to move out of the current situation, if we were to offer this to students, what if fifty percent of the students or their parents say okay I prefer to let my child study outside


as compared to the classroom the other half says oh I still want my student err my child to study in a classroom so where does it leave us do uh who do we choose because it's fifty percent fifty percent ya so that is also one of my concerns


thumbs up, part one debate topic one


uh it's my turn right so I will go ahead ya


so uh I disagree I think, the whole, technology, actually brings more benefits to society uh than create problems


uh one of the example I can think of, is during this COVID nineteen crisis, we heavily depend on technology to do contact tracing


can you imagine that in the old days where there's no technology, I think it's not possible to do contact tracing, and because of that if we are maybe twenty years ago, it will not be that easy to contain the COVID nineteen epidemic and of course while I don't agree that technology gives people more time and encourage them to be more lazy


I think ultimately it boils outs to the individual right uh it doesn't mean that you know what I what I choose to see is that technology actually creates


more opportunity for you to do the things that you like and it's really up to the individual to choose how he or she, plans to spend he spend their time , so some of us could make use of the time to go in front of the TV


to watch TV whereas the others could just take the opportunity to sleep , and come to think of it so why all the parties engage in all these activities uh they are actually deriving some form of you know pressure uh happiness from this alternative activities which is not possible


without the use of technology and not only that but I think technology actually drastically improves our way of life without technology I don't think today's debate is possible


we will have to meet up face to face and that is not desirable given that COVID nineteen is still around so I don't think that's uh technology actually creates more problem in fact it deliver deliver more benefits to society


ya that's all


uh I disagree because I don't think I, think it's really up to the person to determine how he or she wants to behave the technology is just a tool and uh as a tool it basically just


you know, either enhance the behaviour or inhibits that, ~cular behavior so the technology is not at fault so it's more like the person, uh who is uh doing it and uh what I'm saying here is that actually technology creates a new type of uh social norms so while in the past people value face to face type of uh interaction


uh what we are saying here is with the introduction of technology uh, there's more emphasis on uh things like online conduct, right and , you have online ragging and things like that so what this means is that human behaviour is evolving uh because of technology and I don't see that as a problem because the technology ultimately it just a platform


for all these various human behaviors to manifest themselves, , ya


uh I guess in the past if we rewind the same scenario back maybe thirty years ago we have the problem of people not knowing how to use the computer, so that itself the lack of


technology is also a promenade self so I think ultimately it's still uh change of behavior it's a behavioral thing and the behavior is changing in accordance with the type of technology that's coming online


I think technology can also offer a solution and uh there are kind there're various child lock, technologies available that prevent uh keep from accessing all these websites, and uh I think ultimately it is the responsibility of the parent to make sure that's the correct form of access is given to the children and we should not just let the children take control of their own uh how they part they want to do because uh like what you say


uh they will do all kinds of things funny things online, and I think it's also the same in the past because if the parents do not properly bring up the child the child would go out and mingle with bad company and uh whether you like it or not they will definitely


not being able to grow up as a well behaved adult they got got into the wrong company , they will uh start to do naughty things so I think it's the same it's just that the output of it is different because in in your example because of technology the outputs of that


naughty behaviour is actually assessing undesirable websites whereas in the past uh if the parents do not look after their children properly the outputs of that the consequence of that, uh behaviour is basically bad behaviour they may get into fights they steal things and so on and so forth


yup, hello ya so uh that's my point of view


I think technology basically creates , I think these are old crimes but uh is taken on a different form, all these scams they are always around, it's just that because with technology uh people are able to the criminal is able to scam large numbers of people at the same time because of the efficiency of the technology whereas in the past that criminal has to go one by one to try and scam that person so


I would say that this is not the fault of the technology but rather it's the productivity of the technology is being deployed by uh people in the wrong manner so that is what


why you see that's there is an increase in the number of uh scams , and in fact I think you know nowadays we also got a lot of loan shark messages on our phone illegal money lending type of uh advertisements on our phone and uh I think that is also a way


in the past uh these things also happen except that because without technology, it's not able there is so many people so ultimately, I think it is the responsibility of the individual


to guard against such things and not blame technology because if you blame technology you refuse to use it you lost a lot of productivity, uh in the end and that actually creates more problem


uh I think everybody will live with the nowadays people will rather live with


and you know the possibility of being exposed to such scams because after a while people recognise that this is a scam uh rather than to put their iphone or their google phones away because the inconvenience of not having a smart phone with you


outweighs the the risk of you getting scammed so uh ultimately I think given by the general preference of the public this technology it stills create more benefit for society than problems


I think the SMS is also a form of technology because uh without the SMS uh before the SMS era people actually rely on pager so I think this thing is uh advantage


and uh I don't see as a problem uh rather I see as a benefit it's just that you know people misuse this technology , and uh on your point with regards to technology creating a demand for anti virus software and etcetera I think that what this means is that it actually creates more job opportunity for the economy


right ya nowadays you need software engineers and things like that so these are kind of good jobs uh well paying jobs uh that the society has a demand for so ultimately I think because of this uh it actually deliver benefit to the society


because uh there is uh yup


uh I don't agree I think uh you are able to work more efficiently it's more convenient and , I think on the, company basis it definitely saves more money to have uh better technology rather than going back to the days whereby you need typewriters


ya


yup, part two debate topic two


I think we are running a bit ahead of the schedule right because I'm supposed to start at fourteen minutes


rather than seventeen , ya, so uh, ya, ya


I think the moderator says that the first three minutes we can keep quiet and plan and organize, ya err so uh , given that can we end it like maybe three minutes earlier


so anyway uh let me just play the opposition right uh okay I disagree, because while machines make humans and their jobs obsolete uh you see in a large number of cases uh it doesn't mean that the job is uh has vanished


in fact I will say that the job has taken on a different form if you put in uh automation type of equipment to automate your food processing operations


you definitely need to hire industrial engineers to maintain the machinery so in the past you may have rely on human labour to do the job for you


but when you automate the process and replace the labour with technology the technology also need, uh basically maintenance from time to time so , I will say that the job has not disappear but rather it has taken on a different form


and if you look at it from another point of view, if technology is used to automate the process, that means that's, the output will be much higher per hour, it actually creates more benefit for society as a whole so uh I disagree that actually


the, machines makes human and their jobs uh obsolete, in fact I think uh having the use of machines makes our job , much , easier to do so


, for accountancy for example in accounting, nowadays we rely on computers to help us to basic bookkeeping and that actually saves a lot of time and allows the humans to actually concentrate on the things that's really matter and for example let's say in a bank


a bank handle millions of transactions per day, and , the bank cannot afford to make mistakes on these millions of transactions so having technology there actually helps the bank employee better do his or her job


they are still needed because uh the human you need a human, to make sure that there's long irregularity uh the machine is there to actually help you do the job better rather than take away your job


so that is what I feel


, I disagree because I think if you look at pay alone I think thirty bus drivers


uh maybe equivalent to one software engineer so the job is still there maybe a software engineer may be cheaper than thirty bus drivers, just for an example but what this means to us consumers is that the cost of transportation is going down


because the transportation is being automated which ultimately I think is a good thing so that's the first point and the second point if you rely on technology


what this means is thats the technology will basically have later chance less chance of making a mistakes so if you have managed to put a driver-less car on the road the way I see it is that yes the taxi driver may lost their job


but what this means for us for consumers is that the taxi fare will go down, and the probability of road accidents will go down well so ultimately I think it will deliver more benefit so even though some jobs may be made obsolete because of technology but


what this means is that the machine actually ultimately delivers more benefit to society, compared to if they rely on human, so uh that is where I'm coming from


I think ultimately it's the responsibility of the individual to continue to be relevant in the society so, I think this thirty bus driver if they lost their job uh they should see as a opportunity


uh to upgrade their skills and try to do another jobs that the new era can offer and in fact what this means is that they may have the opportunity to increase their pay as well


so uh in singapore we have things like skills future credits our government is encouraging people to go for, skill upgrading so precisely is because they see that technology is making some jobs uh obsolete it is up to the individual too


actually upgrade to continue to upgrade their skills and hopefully at the end of the process they are able to get a higher paying job because ah even though they may lose their job as a bus driver but driving a bus for ten hours a day


it's definitely more, tiring then uh some you know maybe more tiring than doing a office job so that's what my point is


I don't seen it as a problem if let's say you are making obsolete a large number of uh low paying jobs and you replace them with a few high paying jobs so ultimately the GDP we should look at the economic output of this uh balancing exercise


so uh not purely just to get the number of jobs but also whether a particular jobs is adding benefit to society


, , ya I don't think so I think uh the, job is just different, and yes uh the twenty nine bus driver may lost their job but they can be


you know doing grab food or grab car right I think it's more less tiring being a grab car driver and it gives you the same amount of pay compared to a bus driver


(mmhmm)


ya I got not really nothing much lah add to this ya


, where I'm coming from is that's I don 't think the machine has make humans and their jobs obsolete, but rather because of the invention of machines uh the nature of the job has changed


and this actually allows people to go into higher paying jobs, and, I think it's a good outcome because, well what this means is that they managed to earn more pay and ultimately they can have better a better life


uh because of a better job so having machines this is one big benefit of having machines to help us with our role and the way another perspective I'm looking from is that's, the productivity of the entire economy will be improved


if uh there are machines uh there to help us uh what this means is that there's a higher output per hour and this higher output will deliver more benefit to society, and uh everybody will stand to benefit and uh if let's say we have machines helping us to do the work uh what this translate into is maybe cheaper type of uh transportation fare


uh cheaper costs per per unit of uh economic output so that is definitely better, and uh last but not least I think having machines to help us, what this means is that there's less possibility


of committing human error, and in things like driverless cars uh you want to reduce the number of uh, road traffic accidents because these are very costly accidents so if let's say a machine can do the job better than human uh which I believe so uh we should basically use this uh because I think human life is expensive and we should try our best to reduce the number of accidents


and uh I think there are driverless cars but there are also planes in fact if you take uh a flight nowadays , the flight will mostly be on autopilot and the the human pilot is just there to make sure


that's the system does not commit any fatal errors so what I'm saying here is that instead of the machine making our job obsolete it has changed the nature of the it has changed the nature of our job so in the past the pilots


is flying the plane, now, the pilots is no longer flying the plane actively rather is relying on the computer to fly the plane the pilot is there to supervise that the machine is doing the job properly so this will actually reduce the room for error


so that's all


I'm playing the opposition to this, particular topic, so uh, I do not think that euthanasia should be legalized , uh first of all there's a difference between uh letting the person uh reached the end of their lives naturally


versus uh, assisted uh suicide, uh in the first case the person is allowed, to die naturally and while I take note that's uh a terminally ill person may be suffering from a lot of pain uh


especially during the end stage , but I think that's uh technology has evolved and uh, there's medication available to actually alleviate the pain and the suffering that the person is going through and


another point is that I think, is the concept of consent trying to get the person to agree that's he or she wants to end their life properly uh when a person is terminally ill that person may not be fits


to make a proper a proper decision a legal decision to end their lives so again I think uh it's precisely because of that I think, euthanasia cannot be legalised uh normally people want to end their lives when they're suffering in pain


and things like that but, where I'm coming from is that legally this group of people they're not mentally fit to make that kind of decision, and of course the while the point that I wanted to make is thats uh the doctors are always involved but doctors because of the nature of their profession


they may not be in the right ethical position to help people end their lives because they are there to save lives not the end it, so I think trying to legalize euthanasia will put our doctors in a very difficult moral position


that's why I think that it should not be legalized I think the current singapore stands whereby allowing a person to to reach the end of their lives naturally uh is the best option you do not basically administer treatment to prolong


the life of the person but you also do not artificially uh end the lives of that particular person, so that's where I'm coming from


coming back to you I think , one of the points that I want to highlight is that even though the, costs of medical medical costs in singapore is high


uh everybody is able to afford it or most of us are able to afford the medical bill, the, government has put in very has done a very good job, making sure that everyone has financial resources


coming up with uh Medisave Medishield, type of uh insurance policies to ensure that uh most of us are covered, and not only that but I think uh in singapore there's a culture of uh taking on a life uh health insurance policies in order to reduce the cost of


hefty ah medical bills so I think ah this particular debate topic, uh we should not focus on the cost, it's not really a relevant point in the context of singapore ya and secondly I think coming back on the consent I still think that a person who's terribly ill


is not in a proper state of mind to give consent and because he or she cannot give consent that means that, if euthanasia euthanasia is legalized it's basically


equivalent to uh murder or killing that person, so uh, I think there is , by legalizing euthanasia, you are actually blurred blurred not defining the lines properly


and that will introduce a lot of confusion, and people may take opportunity of this particular, legal situation uh for their own means for example let's say uh


you know one person may want another to die because that particular person is the beneficiary of a big uh life insurance policy and he won't get a payout until that person die so by having uh the legalization of euthanasia it means that


there's always a loophole for people to take advantage of these things, and this is one thing that I I seriously disagree, and also , I think in singapore if you want to legalize euthanasia it's against the religious beliefs of uh many people especially the christians the catholics and I think now of the religion in the world


they preach that's you know that's a person should end their life if let's say they are in pain and things like that or at at least uh another human being should assist uh that person in ending their life so I I don't think that is the right


uh moral ground that we should start with, ya so, again I think uh we can let the person come to their end of their lives uh naturally without any assistance or we could withdraw the life support


so all these things are still different from uh actively trying to kill that person so there's uh there there's the difference and us I think charles also mentioned that, uh


how then they will think that there's no cure and it's better to end the journey here rather than prolonged the journey, , can you think of it let's say that person decided to end their life today and tomorrow they manage to find a cure for the disease that that person is suffering from


uh, then what this means is that you know, so what we're talking about here is a irreversible decision, so, before that person engage in this particular irreversible decision


we should not let the person have the option to choose, because uh such decision is irreversible once a person is dead, uh you cannot bring them back to life again ya so uh that's where I'm coming from


thumbs up, part one debate topic one


okay today the topic that we that I'll be discussing through is technology creates more problem than benefits for the society, I'm under the proposition team and I have to tell you that, in today's society we are using a lot of technology where technology makes it easier for people but at the same time you also


create some problem for us because we use topics to fulfill our peoples and need and satisfaction but we never consider what are the type of problems it come across, so if every solutions appears to bring another problem company must think about all these consequences


and side effect on how this problem arises I had I like to share with you some of the example which I have done during my research for example, now technologies make it easier for people to download musics but at the same time it's killing creativity because people singers artists have their rights on certain words and art


but because people download all these musics easily they cannot sell their album easily that's why artists are making losses they don't feel that there's any incentive, to so call sell of a product


and they're not making money , and technology is also making us lazier we have grab we have food delivery we have grab-food we have food delivery we have food-panda but not in the past without these apps we will bother to go down


to to , buy our own food to have our own take away food, but right now we are just plain lazy we are just using the app at the click of a button we are waiting for people to deliver food to us , and we are also getting more anti-social because we are more engrossed in our games we play online games we like to chat with our facebook's


we like to go to online platform but we don't have the, human touch we lack the human touch because we don't really bother to , meet up with one another we are just staying at home at our cozy environment and we just send messages if we have any question we just do a whatsapp


we lack some human touch and as a result people are becoming more anti-social because of our excessive use for online communication these are all the points that I wish to highlight


and with that, I feel that technology actually creates more problem than the benefits for the society


now is the proposition's turn, yes yes


I feel that personally to a certain extent I agree with your point of view that actually with technology it actually help us to curb COVID nineteen , but at the same time it also bring about personal issues it encourage people to be more lazy to be more anti-social because everybody is just too reliant on the click of the phone and it's really I think it will be


come a social problem if this was not, it being curb, because imagine if there's somebody who just need to order things at the click of their phone they will never bother to be, their house and they'll, and if somebody can just do everything through their phone they would not even bother to mingle around with people to discuss about


problems and they will meet, face to face I think this is not good for the social behavior that's why under my impression I fear that technology, creates more problem perhaps more towards social upbringing because people are too over rely on technology they are so addicted to their phones


example is a smart phone if someone is so addicted to their phones they might neglect the facts that one day if they do not have their smart phone can they are they able to survive well, I think most of us cannot because we are too reliant on smart phone without our phone it's like we are losing part of ourself that's the that's the whole crux why I feel that technology creates more problem


so mike do you agree with me on this


but do you


but do you agree with me that because of technology people are becoming more anti-social


I think it's also stated in the news that kids they're so addicted, with their phones they are not able to lead their life in properly, you lock them in a room without a phone they are not able to focus on their daily routine so how do we actually control that


but because of technology before people can access undesirable articles I give you a I give you some example imagine a kids who has uh who is very good he has all the access to pornographic materials illegal things


how to do illegal stuff how do we so-called control that it's very hard because it's in a person's mind the person has as has to, this technology and because of this technology he or she actually do bad things how to ensure that uh this are we


~trol of course we can engage a police to catch them but the the source of the problem is because these people have access to technology so how do we how do we prevent such things to happen


but at the same time just now you mention about bad company this bad company the


chances of them getting bad company also increase because of this technological world, but let's say for example we have uh because of, technology we have increased scam because people are making use of uh are making use of technology to create cyber crime


just the recent trend of sex for credit cyber scam where people fall prey to credit scares they are under the assumption that they if paid pay by Alipay or Wechat credit they will be entitled to free sex or something like that and a lot of people has fallen prey to such crimes


that's, because of platforms online platforms on Wechat, online platforms of Alipay which makes payment so easy and people fail to consider that so in the other from my pool of thought I feel that technology also created new crimes what are your thoughts about this


ya but because this criminal has access to better technology so because of this better technology that they're able to access they're made they're able to create more crimes they're able to commit more crimes they're able to scam more people so in short isn't it creating


more problems because we do not have the tools to keep this problem in check we have to have safeguards to prevent people from been scammed but, unfortunately if you study the recent trend especially in singapore more and more cyber crimes have arise something like phishing scam


cyber crimes uh hacking et cetera why all this problem arises because all these cyber criminals are able to leverage on the use of technology and they're able to keep themselves productivity yes I agree, you but because of this it create a lot of social problem because we are not keeping things in check so what are your thoughts about this


I feel that it creates more problem because, imagine we don't have smart phone imagine if you don't have a smart phone we don't need to invest in better software


to prevent people from hacking we don't need to invest it anti-virus, and now we have to because of these advancement in technology we need to have medications to curb all this problem so in in the in this topic where they says that technology creates more problem I feel that that's the case because imagine if I have a smart phone I need to be concern


whether I'm download I'm downloading any uh , any malicious software in the past we don't have to be concerned of that because we're using uh phone which does not have smart feature and we can just use SMS nobody can hack our SMS now we have to be very careful because we if you download any malicious software


our personal information might get leak up our bank details might get pick up so in this case I feel that technology created more problems and we are and because of this problem we have to think up new solution to address this problem and that's the point of my view


actually I think that it cost I think it costs more money to the consumer because we need to pay for these people salary and that's why we need to pay for this anti-virus so we actually create more problem for consumer


do you agree


but for the individual basis it's more taxing for the individual because he or she now has more consideration security features and the types of anti virus they need to invest in the type of servers so it's definitely more costly


yeah


thumbs up, part two debate topic two


okay today's now the topic will be machine makes human and their jobs, obsolete and I'm I'm under the proposition team I like to share my opinion on this as a under the proposition team personally I feel that machines are causing people to lose their job why is that the case because


in the accountant in the lawyer or even a journalist machines can actually pick up information can pick up news, they don't even need accountants lawyers or journalists because this machine if they invented a machine that can do some proofread to capture some laws and they can even advise the individual


now you look at google home we have google home as a AI I just need to talk to google home google home can tell me what's the weather today how why is, food today how do I cook Char-Kway-Teow I mean that's what google home can do and because of if we have google home we can also have a google lawyer we can have a google accountant


and we can have a google news that's why it's, causing people to lose their job because people needs, to invest we need accountants to do those data entry, to do proper good proper bookkeeping but with AI AI can do


all of this bookkeeping on humans behalf and because of this he help on the, from the company's perspective it's very beneficial because it help them make money, but as an individual basis it's not beneficial because they lose their job


and, machine can even do it better than human because machine can learn powerful how powerful patterns from their data and through, there are less they can filter information using logarithm and input data whereas human brain cannot do that because we don't have so much permutations and combinations


in fact if you read some of the news even the gold champion, they actually lose to a AI computer because AI computers they can create so much permutations and combination which a human brain might not be able to a human cannot even thought of


and because of this type of automation jobs we are losing jobs people are losing jobs because everything is been entrusted to the to the machines, and that's why I personally I feel that machines makes humans and their job obsolete


that's my point as a proposition, and now it's mike's turn


oh is it oh yup ya it's okay can start first then later I will we will carry on, the debate because it's planned and organised and proposition with the


ya so you just plan and organize [orh] I will just follow up with further information ya


ya, ya


okay from this perspective I think I will disagree with you why I feel that's the way


I like to share with you example I think self travelling driverless system is uh is quite prominent right now , where vehicles right they will travel on their own without drivers I like to use this as an example true we might we might need to engage more more engineers to take care of this but I


let's say if you engage one engineer to do the job one engineer can take charge of twenty or thirty vehicles but without a driver for this thirty vehicles right, we will lose thirty jobs because this driver will lose their jobs


now it's a self driving system where the vehicles can run on their own by GPS they don't need drivers, yes if it created, jobs for people such as self software engineer system engineer et cetera but it's cutting more and more jobs and that's why I feel that


because of these people are losing their job because of machines because of the self driverless car


but where I'm coming from is because this because of the existence of this machine it's all it's causing people to lose their job that's why now this thirty drivers they won't have a job because of the, driverless system they can focus they need to find new jobs and


this new jobs might not be available because the job opportunity has shrink down imagine last time they just need one software engineer to take over thirty bus, this thirty bus driver where would they find a new jobs it's not as if technology will create new jobs for people


but my point is these machines are actually killing jobs away because now we are short of thirty jobs


we cannot ensure that this machine will create new jobs because there is no precedent that machine actually created, jobs for people new job opportunities for people people are losing more jobs, than are creating new jobs because of the development of this machine


that's the that's the problem we are encountering right now


I like to I like to go back to the example on the thirty bus driver and one software engineer right now this thirty bus driver they need to compete for one software engineer position, and the rest of the twenty nine drivers they will lose their jobs the job replacement is not so rapid they need to find new ways but


how easy it is for them to find new ways that's why machine is actually making human obsolete, imagine we have a robot that can do all sorts of thing driving house, work et cetera we don't need a maid and when we don't engage a maid people are are losing their jobs because maids are not required


and that's why I am still I still feel strongly that machine makes humans and their jobs obsolete


but what if their salaries are been cut because if they told them that I can rely on the driver-less car to deliver food let's say for example says it is run by GPS in the near future so this grab food delivery the driver cannot even find a grab food delivery job


because driverless car can deliver the food, and they can even engage machines to do the cooking for humans so they might not even need a cook or chef


so without a chef, without a delivery driver without everybody jobs are being loss they just need to engage software engineer to manufacture the robots, so it's actually making humans and their jobs obsolete


ya I think we should we should end it here, is that fine


summarize okay based on my summary I, I feel that machine is making human, their jobs obsolete because machines can take over the role as a accountant as a lawyer as a journalist and even doctors cook


they can represent factory workers to manufacture products with their robotic hands with their robotic hands and because of that yes new jobs might be created


but more jobs are lost in the process just like the thirty bus driver and one software engineer , example which I share with all of you just now and I feel that because of this machines I'm under the impression that machines actually


is making human and their jobs obsolete because all those drivers are those hackers are not required in the near future these are been undertaken by the machine


ya press already, part three debate topic three


okay I like to start on this topic, whether euthanasia should be legalized I under the proposition team euthanasia is know also known as mercy killing is the deliberate ending of a terminally ill person and it's also known as assisted suicide it's when a mentally competent terminal ill person is


allowed to choose when to end his or her life with medical prescribed by a doctor when we see somebody who is a terminally ill and in pain and there is no hope of recovery what is the


first thing that we all we should think about with hope that the person suffering will go away or at least we want to reduce their agony or to lessen their agony, since this terminally ill person he or she has no chance of recovery we might want to do something possible to


give them relief from their pain, and because of that I personally feel that euthanasia should be legalized, because when the doctors are not permitted to have such a practice, they and they're not allowed to legalize this they can only watch the patient in agony


he or she might be in pain and wish to go away, and because of the all these legislation he or she can not prescribe lethal drugs to end his suffering in singapore currently ah euthanasia as suicide


are illegal doctors are not allowed to do so without the, without uh ah they're not, not to , prescribe lethal drugs to end the person's life


so because of that most of the, terminally ill person they have, to suffer in pain and because of that, those terminally ill persons they have to pay for large medical bills because euthanasia's are not legal and we need to prolong the terminally ill's persons they are taking up hospital facilities


in singapore where our hospital beds are very limited and we have high medical bills we should allow individuals to have the options to legalise euthanasia, and


because we ah we know that the patient has no hope of recovery, since he has no hope of recovery why must we prolonged the sufferings why must we incur huge medical bills there is a something that


I want everyone of you to think about, and because of that I think that we should legalize euthanasia, that's my point


to a certain extent I agree with mike's position that the patient himself or even the doctors


might not be in a position to decide whether euthanasia should be executed that's why I personally I feel that the laws should have some exclusion clause, to consider whether the patients are in a right state of mind to decide he or she wants to undergo euthanasia because not everybody is not able to make a clear decision


some people are able to make a clear decision and they are suffering right now by not legalizing euthanasia we are actually removing their rights, they have their rights not to suffer and they know that they are not able to survive in the long run as a terminally ill patient that's why we should


have the we should give patients the , options to decide the opportunity to decide whether he wants or he or she wants to undergo euthanasia , because he don't want to incur huge medical bills for their descendants


because he don't want to suffer in pain and because he know that his life will not be long and he do not want to take up valuable hospital resources that's why he want he hope to have this options and by not


legalizing euthanasias patients do not have such options , they do not have the opportunity to decide and on mike's ground that doctors are bounded by article rights whether they should save a patient and they should not decide the patient's fate yes I do agree on his opinion that's why I feel that euthanasia should be legalized


but with the patient's consents and with of course with the doctors' consents that, the disease he or she the patient is terminally ill under such circumstances then euthanasia should be legalized because as a person as a individual and


as a patient he or she should have the right to choose whether he want to undergo this suffering we should not take out their rights in doing so and that's my point of view as a proposition


okay with regards to mike's opinion that for terminal ill person he or she might not be in a good state of mind to decide, personally I feel that this point is not, very right because before they are able to make such a decision the doctor should be there to advise whether the patient is in the right state of mind and with the doctors


that the patient is in right state of mind he or she can then decide whether he want to undergo euthanasia I think that will be the right way of approach and we shall grant these patients a special right to think what they want to do because he or she has already know that


the terminal ill person might not be able to survive in the long run he or she right now don't want to, undergo such suffering that's why they prefer to have euthanasia and I like to give you an example of this epidemic situation of the COVID nineteen situation hospital beds are limited


and imagine such resources are being resolved by being reserved for patients who are terminally ill we might not end up having sufficient resources to cure the rest of the people who are not terminally ill


singapore is a is a place where we have limited land limited resources and whether the patient should undergo euthanasia I won't say it's mandatory, but at least we should let the patient decide because on moral and ethical issue the person will feel that he will want to undergo euthanasia because he don't want to take up valuable resources


they want to live give the give out the hospital resources to someone else and because if the individual is losing the hospital facilities he or she cannot get a cure in time the terminally ill person will feel very very guilty


and and, in order to avoid such circumstances we should legalize euthanasia because the patient will be able to decide whether he or she wants, to take up this step there are limitations in resources and also the hospital bills of course mike has pointed out that there are Medisave etc there are hospital insurance but not many people has this coverage


there are some people that don't have enough income to contribute significantly to Medisave, and we you cater to this group of people that's why we should have a option, for this small group of people to decide whether he or she


should be allowed to be should exercise their right for euthanasia because imagine the terminally ill patients has a huge medical bill he don't want to pass on the burden to his children to his descendants that's why he rather


go for this so, that there's enough I mean there's the descendants will have enough money, that's why I personally I feel that euthanasia should be legalized, not only on not only


on the patients moral ground but also, to give the person the rights


part one debate topic one, (ppc)


okay, anything else from you


nah I can hear you


okay so I guess, I'll start with my opposition, so the first, , point is uh obviously the loss of uh flora and fauna if you actually built it under our nature reserve


uh in this case is due to the access, roads that you require, for the placement of the equipment itself you have to excavate you have to do excavations uh which result in continuous fragmentation of the habitat of the nature reserve itself


so we do need, to, preserve what is, left of our nature reserve here in singapore because if you think about it the size of the nature reserve itself is not even big it's only two kilometre squared left of


the primary forest here in singapore which is about only zero point forty nine percent which is barely less than it's not even one per cent of the whole singapore, so , building this cross island line under our nature reserve would


still , impact on the flora and fauna of the nature reserve, so yeah that's my first point


okay


for my second point actually is the impact on the pollution, so obviously with all these constructions of the cross island line itself it would uh impact on the water streams


so it is it it's going to impact singapore's two most pristine water streams actually so, with all those construction going on all the debris or the toxic, uh materials that needs to be used to


build this cross island line, will impact the water streams within the nature reserve so examples of pollution obviously the contamination I mention so uh of the toxic waste


err this goes through, the drilling of and then the diesel lubricating oils, all this will impact the habitat, health so it's not just the animals but also the the the the trees also erosions


so with all the construction going on there will definitely be erosions of the topsoil, so uh, I still stand, the fact that the cross island line should not be built under our nature reserve at all


but in this case , even the national society, of singapore I think the NSS, actually came up with another uh proposition so instead of building under or even over our nature reserve


it's to deviate from the nature reserve itself meaning uh, I think it was to, uh have the line go up to Choa-Chu-Kang I think and then break down


uh instead of crossing through the nature reserve, so, basically it's not going to, impact our nature reserve if, we were to go that way


you know so we don't even need to think about, , like you mention uh, , regrowing the trees or bringing back the animals or whatsoever, ya


but I feel that it if it's at the expense of our nature reserve which is the only almost the only one left , it's not worth the destruction


because having to cut through the nature reserve itself would mean that we need to separate, uh the, basically the Bukit uh Bukit-Timah nature reserve which is already fragmented so if you want to further fragment it it's just gonna make


the flora and fauna very affected, ya , and then some more during the , the construction of the line itself is going to, cut through


areas where it's not open to the public so it's supposed to be preserved that area so the public is not able to enter it except for those, tracks those uh what forest tracks and all that yeah that's okay all the trails but not the areas where it's closed from the public so if


, they want to build this line, on our nature reserve it's going to uh create human interference, uh which will impact definitely the animals and this basically all the species that is living there


so I still believe it's not , the best idea, to build it either under or over, ya


I , I don't know how deep they going to build it under , but , maybe in twenty years time yeah sure but not in anytime soon and even then we are already losing


nature wise so, for me I still feel that, for the cross island line they should reconsider , , where it should be built to impact on the


uh the nature reserve, trying to come up with a different uh, proposal instead ya, so


ya, uh


okay and then, for me in summary the cross island line still should not be built under our nature reserve with the main reason that is it will impact the flora and fauna and the fact that it's not going to be the same again even after we regrow it or we replant it


it's uh, a loss that we shouldn't , , take or a risk that we should take just for the benefit of, , convenience basically


ya so I guess that's it


ya actually I I'm watching as in I'm listening to Farihin talk but it's like fragmented like that, okay so


I think is that your internet connection, I think we, I think it's your internet connection because you're like breaking up a bit funny thing


okay we can hear you clearly but we cannot


yup can


no but if you think about it uh singapore itself is really very accessible, I I don't even know how many stations we have but we have like I don't know more than fifty sixty stations, I I I didn't really read up on it but with so many stations uh I mean MRT stations LRT stations bus stops


, there seems to be no reason or a strong reason, why we should even build the cross island line to begin with and the fact that if they do still want the cross island line they want to build build it right through our nature reserve is


seems too selfish, uh, uh in terms of how, this was being assessed, or, how this was this idea was even, uh got through, even got through to the uh the final the the decision to carry this out


so basically uh, the cross island line uh yes is convenient for others, I mean for us, but as it is already


uh, very very convenient, so, no idea why we should even build this cross island line, under our nature reserve, which will impact the soil the flora the fauna


even, when it comes to the, fauna itself the animal extinctions in singapore we used to have leopards and tigers and whatsoever or even the horn bills we used to have the horn bills now it's like extinct in singapore, so creating this cross island line


I mean impacting the the our nature reserve, , because of this cross island line, will definitely bring, uh, the extinction or even, uh, the endangered endangerment of the remaining animals that we have


which to me is not good enough reason to build it and impact the nature reserve, ya


but I feel that even with, uh, the current situation, where there is quite a rampant , amount of uh MRT breakdowns and whatsoever


adding more lines, to it uh, uh will just increase, the , the uh the the what's the word ah


the dependency of our public transport, you know they'll be more to manage more lines to be managed and and more stations, so all these is, , pretty much unnecessary and then building it under our nature reserve is now not


only going to impact uh human beings it's going to impact the basically impact impact mother nature


part two debate topic two


okay so for my first point on why I oppose this topic so man is actually not helpless in the face of climate change , , basically from the impact of


uh, uh, the for example the the re-vegetation itself we can say the impact that's is much cooler where there are trees so we can take the example of uh mister bastille and his wife uh who resides in


brazil so what this couple did was they replanted, like an entire forest, uh which is about a thousand five thousand seven acres,


what started from, only zero point five percent left of the forest so basically, backdate to twenty years ago, this couple actually saw their homeland, for, where they came from basically being very barren and only like zero point five percent of trees left they actually decided to okay we going to replant our forest and bring back all the


, the trees and bring back the plants the trees the animals and so on so forth so twenty years down the road or probably last year this was an article from last year, they actually managed to rebuild the whole forest again and then they invited about five hundred endangered species and I mean they're home to five hundred endangered species so


uh not only they bring back nature they also help, to slow down climate change the area where the trees were built or the forest was rebuilt actually became cooler


, because obviously we know uh is uh I mean trees actually transform CO two to oxygen so, clearly we can see that, uh one, small, action from man


actually help in reducing the climate change not really reducing but slowing down climate change so if you think of it as , as a whole or as a bigger picture if everybody were to do it hand in hand


it can actually uh stop climate change or I mean climate change won't even happen, so ya I don't, think, man is helpless as long as we have the right with the people with the right mindset


uh clearly there's already so many we have a lot of ambassadors we have a lot of NGOs uh organisations basically working towards uh their goal is towards, uh preventing and uh slowing down climate change so we just need them


remaining mass, to, actually do it, as well so yeah that's my first point


okay , I'll go to my second point uh basically on the recycling impact I ended uh from your, argument the fact that for some countries for example singapore we cannot stop


suddenly our development, but, even in cities we can, , we can work towards, uh


slowing down and removing climate change, as a whole the first step obviously is the three r's if you've heard of it before which is reduce reuse recycle, so this was an effort done last time by the government and all that so I think we need to remind them


again and we have we need to have more initiatives more efforts uh put in to make sure that it's at the back of everyone's mind, to, recycle something or to reuse something instead of, going it throwing it straight to the garbage


that which disposal, because for example you if you were to recycle, aluminum cans that is like ninety five per cent energy saved to make new aluminum cans from raw materials so that already is for example minusing of


the impacts of climate change or minusing of, uh the , the the the reason for climate change itself, so there's no burning of burning of fuel or anything like that to, to to to make aluminium cans


as for steel and tin cans that's about sixty to seventy four percent energy saved, paper is sixty percent, , plastics and glass is a third of energy saved if you were to recycle it


but the thing is you know all this obviously the combustion of the waste itself to uh basically the energy that is needed to , to create all these materials it minimises the global warming because, uh the emission of the CO two sulfur and nitrogen that impacts the climate change actually


actually will be stop sorry, through the recycling uh, uh the recycling act, but


we still need every we still need the the the voices the big voices on basically uh governmental bodies to keep reminding everybody so it's at the back of everyone's mind to recycle and then actually with our efforts


we can we can actually stop climate change, but it's the mindset that everybody needs to have that climate change can be stopped is not something that we are helpless in we have to keep striving


to , to be mindful of in our everyday actions like down to for example the straws, so we stop uh like McDonald's stopped giving out straws I think other fast food chains also stopped giving out straws


and then there's a big effort in using uh using reusable straws like a wooden straws and uh metal straws and all that, , so all these small things actually help in uh slowing down the climate change and eventually it will stop climate change so we shouldn't be too uh negative in our mindset and then uh feel that whatever we do climate change will still happen the the I scared so


would keep melting and all that so, we have to have a positive thinking, ya


when okay if you talk about supermarket plastics and uh food packagings and all that, there are a lot of initiatives out there I think we just need to make people more aware and then


push towards that actually we I think in singapore, there's one store or one supermarket the local one local supermarket there do not use any food packaging so if you want to buy a uh your rice you actually bring your own containers or


or paper bags or whatsoever and fill that in instead of buying a bag of, rice uh same goes to, nuts, same goes to herbs vegetables


, down to fish and meat they don't have uh individual packaging for those kind of things, so, I know it's a bit of an inconvenience to the normal people or to the masses but if we we we get these people to have a more mindful


mindful mindset have a more mindful mindset on it this can actually be a success so we would need like big supermarkets like NTUC Sheng-Siong giant to actually keep pushing for this uh for this sort of thing where you don't have


, small food packaging and instead go for ya obviously big cargoes and all that use, you will still need uh plastics or what we don't need plastics but you still need materials to, contain those items but when it comes down to selling to the consumers you don't need packaging if you think about it you can just get the recycling bag and then bag all your stuff okay for ice cream you need a tub


uh that that that's when you can use recycled paper tubs instead of plastic, , and then if you think about all the frozen items they don't need to be frozen in plastics they can be frozen in newspapers and stuff like that so it's just


uh making more effort in, , in being mindful, to about being mindful about nature so that we can reduce the climate change or stop climate change basically it all boils down to the mindset of everyone uh man is not helpless in the face of climate change we can still we can still impact


uh mother nature because basically we're one of or we're the strongest species in the world so whatever we do impacts, uh the nature yeah


so that's how I end my, debate I, you're left with few seconds anyways,


part three debate topic three


(ppc)


okay , my first point basically going green makes good business sense firstly you need to define what is business, sense good business sense, good business sense means you have a really good business proposal business plan that brings


profits, to the business or or the idea, so going straight to that point whether it's profitable is going green profitable that's the first question, , for any startups uh startup companies and all that uh maybe it make sense


to , start straight going green, but they have to think about the materials they need they need to have green materials they need to, , they need to work in a green environment so all these will be extra money so it's actually costly to even get uh to even


switch or to even start, going green , for example those uh right now our electric, city we're using easy you just plug and then we have electricity, , but going green means you don't depend on the countries


uh, electricity we actually uh, depend on solar or what other alternative power like solar and wind, , if you want to use solar power you have to install, solar panels that's already a


money incurred, uh if you want to use wind power electricity then you need to have all the windmills and then, is it uh, sustainable do we always have the sun do we always have the wind


so yes it is a, good idea to go green because uh we are, are uh, socially responsible you feel, better basically if you go green, but does it make good business sense no business wise I feel that you will lose a lot more money than you gain if you were to go green


so that's why I oppose this topic


, that's it, okay and then, for my second point is the fact that, , ya okay it attracts the younger


generation but if you think about the the prices compared between a company that doesn't go green and a a company that goes green, it's a vast difference meaning actually


for example if you go to a shop there is green, or greener than the other shop, the price uh, is much more expensive, so for example if you go to NTUC, you buy a packet of rice is much cheaper than if you go to a shop that is


that, promotes going green, , that promotes going green being more expensive than the other, so, for normal people like us we will obviously or like big families we will obviously go for a cheaper alternative so in the end it's the big businesses are the ya basically it's the big businesses who


gain more profits from those small, companies that go green, that's, my one point and also going green what does going green means it means that


, you use the word environmentally friendly or eco-friendly or recyclables blah blah blah, but the thing is in truth, uh most of the, uh


materials or most of the products out there uh is neither environmentally friendly nor, eco-friendly, ya because of, the fact that this just false advertisements and scams


to make people feel that they are doing something for the environment but by right all these big companies are just using those terms, to push for more sale, so by right


when you actually go green, it does not make goods business sense but if you fake it uh basically if you put false advertisement ya maybe people would think you are doing good to the to mother nature or to the earth and then it will sell


but it's a whole different thing when you say you actually going green because there's an article, , from the economist I think I, I have quote that for the, entire world


to go green, it takes forty five trillion dollars, US dollars, so forty five trillion dollars is a lot of money err and for a company that is even for big companies big MNCs I don't think they have forty five trillion dollars in their pocket to just


make that switch and they makes no uh no good uh, you know basically it means a bad business sense to fork out such big amount of money, just to go green, when basically uh they can still keep selling their products or their items because uh they are already making money so why should they why should why should they make the switch when


uh they are already earning more money and instead of spending money to go green, you know did you understand me ya


but we see it everywhere that, , if you check the back of a packaging oh recycled plastic uh eco-friendly plastic or eco-friendly people blah blah blah but, manufacturing it those products itself will definitely mean that they didn't go green what does going green means means you don't use uh


, you don't use petroleum you don't use the raw materials, to to, to function your company uh function your uh manufacturing of your products, meaning you use solar power you use wind power basic you there's no burning of fossil fuels or so whatsoever that's going green what's going green you don't use paper to to sign


, contracts or do you you don't use receipts you use e-receipts you use, uh, e-invoice and stuff like that, that, that's what going green, actually means


so if you actually do all that there's also, , risks that come with it not only, is it costly in the start but the risk of, , losing your data so for companies that is going green that means you don't use paper right so you would use


e-receipts e-contracts e-invoice, , even uh going down to the purchasing itself you don't even use paper money use uh online transactions whatsoever so all these transactions all this


uh transactions all these receipts all the important papers will now not be in paper form where you can chuck inside, a fire proof storage to make sure your documents or your important documents are all kept properly


you actually have it on your computer, or on your hard drive, but what happens when , your backups fail what happens when your hard drives fail, it even boils down to


uh, your information being, stolen that's easy that's easier now for hackers to just, try to hack into your system and then get all your information so at the end of the day you lose more by going green


than, maintaining the traditional way of doing business, I feel , that is some even even when you go, for example the aviation


uh aircraft maintenance you ya there's there's some using e uh tech-logs to write down what they've done on their aircraft because it's , is a


it's a necessity or it's, ya it's a necessity to jot down what you've done on the aircraft, so, traditionally you write it on paper, and then the engineer send it back to the uh data storage for them


to store it and it has to be stored uh for at least five years, uh because if if anything happens to the aircraft for example, touch wood accidents and all that they have to retrieve back the data they have to


boil down to what was the maintenance done who was the engineer blah blah blah so, using, electronic, you you risk the fact that you will lose this data from hackers from I don't know viruses and all that so


if if you think about it , in the bigger picture even aviation we don't use, uh we, refrain from using e-tech logs and all that because saving it in paper


is, uh much more safer in that sense, and you don't get into trouble with the authorities because even the authorities ask you to keep it in paper form instead of


part one debate topic, one okay, so uh the cross I I feel like the cross island line should be built under our nature reserve as to preserve uh the current state of the


the nature to preserve the nature reserve lah cause uh we need to, protect the earth because the ozone layer is it is healing but we should not do things that would further open up the ozone layer again


hello, yes I am, oh goodness gracious okay , ya okay uh so I'll just restart the whole thing lah so basically the cross island line should be built under our nature reserve as to preserve the nature life there and


uh like because singapore it is a growing population but we should not cut down all the trees and basically made the whole island a concrete jungle because we still need trees and


lives and living things to to preserve our nature, can you hear me, okay ya, so that's my first point lah


okay uh so what I feel is that yes it will it will still destroy the flora and fauna however, however if you do build it under you can still rebuild the flora and fauna above that


that uh cross line rather than if you build it like, like outdoors like like how it is right now like overhead MRT tracks and stuff I highly doubt that the flora and fauna would still want to be around the noisy


cross island line and uh the vibrations that it gives uh if if it's outside rather than under the nature reserve


uh I feel like with the amount of , cross island line we have that is underground that the, the government knows how to properly dispose of these materials and chemicals rather than to irresponsibly dump it uh


like how some countries do it lah like for example like singapore is really into, uh protecting the earth like, uh the way we dispose our rubbish also we give out clean chemicals and basically singapore is going forward with a with a clean


way of life rather than trying to build something and still exploiting our, our, nature in the every for the end result


okay but the I guess the main point of the cross island line is to have, uh shorter period of travel so that's why they wanna like with that they want to build it underneath the nature reserve and still have a shorter period of travelling


okay but my point still stands that once we rebuild the so called nature reserve after the cross line is built then it will re-invite all the flora and fauna and


it's it's a long term thing like the flora and fauna will stay there long term and like they will feel that you know it's more uh, how do you say it undisturbed than to have it


uh so called how to say, to have it there and I I, what I mean is like okay yes


it will be disturbed but it's only for a period of time but it will re-invite all the flora and fauna back as if uh, nothing actually happen lah and it's a win win situation like we the us humans will win and the flora and fauna will still win in the end


okay uh uh


uh, how you want, so I don't have like enough points to debate on like I I my points are done so I guess now we should just like openly debate


the five minutes or something I guess to summarize on what we have discussed


can you hear me, okay, so for in summary for my point lah I will still like stand on the building of of it building under the nature reserve


because uh it it will be a a disturbance to the flora and fauna but it's only for a short ya ya I'm putting my point lah it it'll only be for a short period of time and uh


it it would it will benefit us humans and it won't disturb it the flora and fauna will still will come back in in the end


sorry


okay, okay, uh while I don't fully disagree with your point that we like we shouldn't touch on uh


uh the nature reserve at all , it's, all in all we just want to benefit the humans for the long for a longer period than


how do I say it, like even though the flora and fauna is disturbed and


they will come back eventually they will come back maybe not all of them but, okay wait


okay uh I'll try and bring the microphone closer to me lah okay so is it clearer now, it's full bar


it's full bar though


okay, uh, so I'll uh I guess I'll just repeat what I said since it wasn't as clear I don't fully disagree


with your idea because ultimately we want to preserve our uh very little uh, uh, nature reserve that's dead however, it's for the good of the humanity and the end result is that our flora fauna will come back even though we build it like even though we disturb it for a few uh months or years to build the cross island line but


ya lah they will still come back lah basically ya maybe not all of them but majority of them


like ya ya we have a lot of lines but we it's still it still takes quite awhile to travel from places to places so ultimately I think the only reason like yes it's selfish that we want to make this cross island line is to have shorter


time period of travelling because like even with the new blue line uh it takes it yes it takes a shorter time but, it's it's a


it's still quite uncomfortable to travel that far and long, with the very uncomfortable MRT seats that we have also and building it like under the nature reserve is the probably the only convenient and fastest way to travel from point to point


part two debate topic two


okay so basically , man like I fully, agree on this sentence that man is really helpless on the face of climate change uh one reason is because although we have a lot of advertisements saying that uh you know we should reuse reduce recycle we should cut down on our water usage and electricity usage


the earth is still the ice caps is still melting the, world is still not healing as properly as it should be, and


even the former UN climate chief christina she also argued that the only way we can save the planet is with relentless stubborn optimism uh to, me what she's trying to say is that no matter how much we try to save the earth


it's it won't be able it won't be able to be saved, uh, so what I feel is that uh, uh there's so much we can do but


but very little we can change to the health of uh, the, climate, can you hear me ya


okay , I I've read the article about that couple but that's the that's the benefits of living in a country that is uh that has a lot of space but


when it comes to for example, singapore we, the whole the whole world is a growing population and you have to house the many humans that are being born, and uh, to be able to house the the the younger generation that would grow up and have their own homes and ya that's it lah basically that so yes


we should preserve and so called rebuild our nature uh to slow down climate change but I highly doubt that we can stop climate change because uh


us man we are growing and we are uh so called we we don't we are trying to find healthier cleaner, options to live but there's no running away from plastics because we need to package somethings and uh


but you know with being staying at home currently like there's a surge in the need of containers and that's plastics and then the the need of boxes and that's cutting down trees so uh


even if we do have this little amount of people that do take care of, the earth and uh rebuild on the the jungles and the forest there is still thousands and millions of people that are still


that needs this basic boxes and and plastics to use to purchase all our groceries to receive all our items to ship out items so basically


the it's a good idea like we have a lot of organisations that do take care of the earth but ultimately this uh, I highly uh, feel that the there's no hope in stopping climate change at all like maybe slow it down but the uh I don't feel that climate change will ever stop


okay , but I agree there are a lot of movements like reduce reuse recycle and all that but ultimately ya, plastic they they decompose very they take years to decomposed and that's one of the basic necessities the human needs like even supermarkets they need plastics to package their items and


like for example sure chilies and uh those vegetables we can use those uh netting uh packaging but ultimately uh stuff like uh, uh noodles rice and ice cream or or that other stuff that


needs to be packaged it's it still uses plastic and only a very small amount uses the, the decomposable plastic the eco-friendly plastic and even that plastic is very expensive therefore uh, the companies who want to save costs they still choose to use the


non decomposable plastic that's why I highly doubt that uh climate change will stop it it it can slow down if they find cheaper alternatives to decomposable plastic but I


strongly feel that it will it's ever going to stop climate change


okay so, okay okay can


part three debate topic three


okay so going green definitely makes uh good business sense like my first point is cause definitely the world is trying to go towards living in


uh I, going green basically like they want to uh preserve mother nature and so called slow down climate change and the


one way to do it is for businesses to start going green and this would attract the many areuh youngsters and people our age uh who


are trying to look for cleaner and greener options uh to, so called take care of mother nature because she is not


she's not doing very well right now with the COVID situation and the many pollutions that the other first world countries uh are, giving out like gas emissions and all that


so ya that's my first point


okay


as to, to what you, mean by good business sense I think is to attract uh, customers and I feel that it would attract a lot, of people in their forties or younger because uh a lot of us are more interested in


conserving the, mother earth conserving nature and going green so basically , this uh what I mean what I feel that this sentence means is that


creating a company a green company that sells uh uh that offers green energy for example like what you said uh solar energy and kinetic energy it's a good idea for


people and maybe for instance uh maybe businesses that help , people build this uh solar energy in you know like those DIYs how to create your own energy that's one of a good business sense and how they can earn from there like it's not necessarily


based on their profits but I guess more on attracting customers and uh the attracting customers based on uh their mindset on changing the climate and going green


yes ya that's it


okay ya I I understand that part but I guess uh when it, companies go green they want to attract more customers for example like if a restaurant is not Halal and they make it Halal they want to attract more customers so that's probably all the mindset these businesses have is to attract more than to have the


constant amount of customers they already do like yes it they still do attract customers but they want to attract more so basically , yes they they profit from that too but they there's a there there might be a possibility that they lose money because maybe some of their customers disagree on going green uh because of the price that they would have to pay


but uh, I think majority of the population right now is uh more interested in going green than convenience because uh you can see that that it's advertised everywhere


to go green so, uh it's a good business sense business sense to attract and to change, as for profit and for mother nature itself so like what you said maybe businesses they just say and not do it uh hopefully it's not the case for some businesses lah cause it's like that's exploiting money already


uh okay I agree with your point lah that uh we still need hard copies and all that but you see even in hospitals we are trying to go green and not use paper entirely so for example uh what


we have done for the patients and all that it's all on written form, but uh the, receipts and the procedures all that we've done that uh doesn't does is not necessary, to be on paper we do it on the computer lah so basically you you don't entirely go green but at least you still head towards that green going green mindset


because uh it's uh we we are not uh, unnecessarily using paper for that sense if things can go on the computer and be backed up on hard drive and uh it would be such a waste if you do lose it we then why not go green but not


entirely green lah like we still need we still need the hard copies and, uh to show as proof for example if you need to go to court and all that we still need it printed and to be seen in black and white for the judge and all so it is a good business sense


but to go entirely green uh, I doubt so


part one debate topic one


okay ah allow us some time to, prep first ah


(ppc)


, okay I think I need I'm going to start soon


oh Si can you hear me, okay that's great so , the motion for today is that, technology creates more problems than benefits for the society and for me I'll be the proposition and for you you will be the opposition so maybe I can start off with


I'll just give a brief intro lah I I think we have to agree that technology surrounds us, in every manner and regardless whether we like it or not it's going to be with us for, for probably and uh for the for the rest of our life so


from our personal laptops tablets phones to behind the scenes technology even back-end technology and, industries like like health care medicine science education everything technology is here to stay


and it's always expanding so maybe we can focus this uh, debate on like the good and bad and then we'll see and then maybe towards the end we can decide whether , whether it creates more problems or


more benefits for the society, so, I think in terms of our health, uh according to the, american association right


prolonged use of computers tablets and cellphones actually lead to digital eye strain and I think even for the both of us we have to agree with that because we spent eight hours eight to nine hours for our work staring at our laptop on the way home


on our lying down our bed during our free time we are also always constantly, straining our backs our neck just looking our eyes glued to the cellphone so it actually costs , like blurred vision if uh with prolonged


prolonged , prolonged use of the, these digital devices causing us dry eyes headaches neck and shoulder pain even for myself right now I'm having very bad and severe neck and shoulder pain


for the past three weeks because of work because of because I'm, aware that I've been staring and using my digital devices for so long, ya and it and in terms of health


it also, causes muscular skeletal problems there's a study in two thousand seventeen by harvard it's uh that, found a clear association between self-reported addiction to smartphone use and neck problems and take just taking a glance let's say going to work taking the public transport you'll see nine of ten people are glued to the to their phones so these things are


I would say not too good for health lah, ya, okay so so for my first point I would just like to summarise it's more on how technology creates health problems to to us ya


(ppc), okay thank you Si, , so okay earlier you talk about the question that you posed to me regarding whether technology creates, more problems than benefits for the society so right now maybe for the next two to three minutes I'll be talking about whether it creates more problems or less problems so first of all


I think, maybe we can start off with the middle first right now I think technology creates as much problems, as benefits to the society so let's say like spreading, or of of misinformation there's I believe that there's as much misinformation at falsehood straw man fallacies on the web


as much as there is their facts so, and and you and you talk about like minimising the the uh the problems and maximising the benefits so that we can move forward as a society that's true also but it really depends boils down to the individuals on how they utilise the technology in place seated in front of us


so let's take , during our parents' time our grandparents' time when technology, wasn't so advanced the the, the number of cases about cyberbullying or like health issues surrounding this whole tech bubble right is is not there and even like things that are so so severe like suicides


leaded by cyberbullying or even like spread of leaked footages that people like privacy everything all these all these problems that, technology has actually created for us


but most people I would say most people are responsible users but there are always this black sheeps in society that just just their mind just snap and, just one mistake


the thing about technologies is like just one click uh one tap and that's it the whole world is going to the whole the whole world is going to your privacy your your private, confidential information is going to go everywhere there and and there's almost


no point of return like the moment you make a mistake and that's it and, it's all gone and that's why like how do we quantify this problem, , even if it's let's say for one person but then it can, effectively just ruin this person's entire life like looking back


there's no way it's gonna be erased erased from from the internet, and stuff so so that's why, I I I would say there's this fine line to to, to differentiate like whether whether it's more problems or more more benefit I think it it boils down to the individuals and for some people it can actually create more problems people who are responsible people who are very let's say people who are very careful


very careful and very clear of the rules, about , tapping onto technology I think they they will be able to to do well and it takes a lot of education and a lot of government intervention


so that so that and so that slowly we can we can work towards that society that actually taps on technology, just for its benefits and actually like what you said earlier maximising the benefits and minimising the problems but as of now I would say that technology actually creates a lot of problem for us


we can boil down to the nitty-gritty details whether it's more or less but I think the in what's what is more or less I I think, because just just for this debate right more or less ya


my's my stand is that I need to fight for, technology creating problems whether it's more or less I think you will have to agree with me that it creates a lot of problems so I think that's enough to to know that it create ya it creates a lot of problems for us and


and we need to, use it with a lot of uh precaution, back to you Si


[orh] Si would you mind if to to summarise your points, ya


(mmhmm), okay thank you Si, I in fact I totally agree with you on how the technologies helping us with


assisting us and being part of our daily life to make things so much more efficient and to to to keep things going when when , when we have a when we when we are living in the middle of a pandemic like that so of course in terms of


having alternatives it's uh and giving us the uh giving us alternative to actually carry on our daily life sort of as per normal all these things are is how the technology actually helps us and provides us with so many solutions


but , so on the point on how, taking us out into let's say like early I talk about health problems and, how technology actually affects human life humans the human race in a certain way on about how let's say let's look ya into the the softer aspect in life about let's say social interactions


so, so let's say if what if after this pandemic and people get so convenient and so used to this lifestyle it's because I can just literally what I did I woke up I set-up my laptop, I don't need to change into business where I don't need to wear all my shoes and everything is so convenient and what's going to happen right after this am I going to become lazy will will will I not want to in fact I because I don't even need to leave the fact is that I don't even need to leave my room now to to have a to have such a meaningful and fulfilling conversation here so


part two debate topic two


okay I think I'm going to start soon, so the second motion for today is scientific research should not be constrained by


ethical concerns once again I'm the proposition and silas is the opposition,


so uh maybe I can start off by saying all good science it's is subversive and it challenges believes pushes the boundaries of existing structures of knowledge and also pushing for a future that is very different from our current one