highly regard literature and it's it's very very important to have it as part of their subjects and and in definitely in their contexts in their countries if you were to take literature you will be highly regarded, but maybe in an asian context where STEM subjects are a bit more valued are are more valued ya we tend to not see people focusing much on literature


ya I I think we have come to a common consensus, uh, so let's just keep talking for another one minute on literature, right yes


okay okay sure , I think I think like very similar to you I feel like literature is a subject that is undervalued and especially an asian context STEM subjects hold a lot more value solely because their desire and and they look attractive and they seem attractive but


at the same time I feel that although literature might not, uh might not be , enticing from the start it might seem dry it might uh not look desirable in in secondary school or I think that's when the students take literature as they as as they involved into or they start to go into working worlds I think it's very important and it holds a lot more value


ya thank you do we stop our okay


so my sense today is as a society progresses there is little value in preserving its heritage and I completely agree with this statement because as a society is progressing is moving forward it's


it's uh trying to improve itself and grow further and and its heritage is is a very small aspect of of a society, and preserving it would not only just waste resources but also is is inessential as the as the efforts put in preserving the heritage could be redistributed in other aspects to help the society progress further and


I think what I'm trying to say is instead of focusing on the past we should be and completely be focusing on the future ya so this is my stance


so I'll touch on the point where you said heritage you defined heritage as culture right so let's let's take, that as as the debate's base today so culture is our heritage


and I feel that this little value in preserving, the cultural aspect of heritage so I'll explain why okay, you said students err in secondary school about the heritage centre to learn about their culture and I agree yes they learnt ah they are brought there but what value do they get out of going there today does he enjoy it do they do it because they're forced to do it


or do they do it because they have no choice they just have to go or it's part of their curriculum where they have to meet that requirement so these questions came to my mind when you said about students being brought to heritage centre right and yes I agree


that that we culture is an important aspect of our society but I feel that, it's evolved so much that we don't or we we know or we have very little knowledge on where it or how it even


came about on on culture especially because I'll give you an example where where a particular tradition has evolved okay so let me think of it about the particular tradition okay perhaps weddings that take wedding for example right so


I'm very sure culturally if we were to look at it it's supposed to be conducted in a very ritual traditional manner, but it has evolved so much over the past years past few years past decades that


that the cultural aspect of of a wedding is taken out and and people see it more as a as as a routine or assure of a habit that their parents did so they have no choice but to abide by, right so this is why I see that there is little value in preserving these cultures because people don't even know the meaning to it


unless they were to step into a heritage centre and and for myself unless ah there was once I stepped into a heritage centre and I realised oh !wow! this is what it means to to have this particular uh symbol idle in my house right so


I feel that that the value of having culture or heritage into our lives has is is , it has decreased tremendously and and that's the reason why I say as a society progresses there really no value in in holding back on culture because took ten twenty years down the road I don't expect to see someone who's culturally inclined to be following all the rituals and traditions


(mmhmm)


okay I hear you I understand what you trying to say


okay the summarise what you said you said culture is in, bottom right okay to briefly put it up culture is important yes , if okay you look at I feel like you should look at it from a society's point of view okay has this society done enough to let people know that their culture is important yes do they make efforts to to to show people


that they should , respect their culture their heritage and and understand why how it came about and and, what you should do to enhance it to, to grow their heritage into err ya to basically have a stronger understanding of their heritage yes


this can be seen through measures taken by uh heritage centre in singapore this can be seen by uh free entries for singaporeans but, when I went to speak to someone who was at heritage centre the the person the person who does the administration


she told me that it's so rare to see singaporeans come into a heritage centre, right so you can only uh let people learn something they want to learn it, if they don't want to learn it I think there is no point in wasting so much effort in trying to let them understand them that importance and she just move forward because clearly people are not interested


in in learning as much as they should be they're not interested in in learning so what's the point in in in preserving our heritage and as okay especially uh when it comes to


singapore's context right our heritage has evolved so much tremendously so what's the point in trying to preserve our heritage where it's just going to keep changing so how much would you expect someone to learn how like that that our heritage has progressed


or we started off as this as official report oh and then is on the road we moved in towards another another a trading for and then it keep changing so how much of heritage do you wish to preserve


okay , okay so so far my points have been about why I feel that we should be focusing on the future instead of the past right a personal experiences where I've wanted to try to discover my my my uh roots


and try to find out how my parents came about to settle into singapore because clearly you know it has been due to my age due to migration and things like the other factors like this so when I tried to search right what I found is


I am lost because yes preserving our heritage is, important but and I and that's what I wanted to do okay so this is the reason why my stance is subjective, so that's what I wanted to do I wanted to understand how I came about whether I have roots in uh in in another part of the world things like that but I couldn't I couldn't find I couldn't trace back


how how my parents or my grandparents settled into singapore I couldn't do I I tried my best to do a research and to see, to see where I where it where my my ancestors are from but I couldn't and that's how I interpret heritage you know to be able to find how you came about so ah it was very disappointing


and I think that's that's where I came to a realisation that , I've tried so hard to preserve my heritage, I read it and I've made a lot of effort but maybe the world has just evolved a fair bit to to to for you to not be able to see how your heritage came about first thing and second thing


the heritage that is being displayed or or as being, broadcasted showed to the world especially in the singapore's context, it is what people want to see it is not , I feel personally I feel like it's not one hundred percent of the truth but it's more of like a people will want to see so they show the nice sights of things where where oh people who came into singapore they were business ah okay they they work very hard and and they they struggle and they came uh and they and they uh prosper


to to reach to the state where they are right but they don't want show the negative side of things where you know there were a lot of inequality where it was difficult to survive where there was war these sides are not showed, and I feel like these are other sides that people, what they see but they are not shown so if you're going to just keep showing what people want to see what is the point of preserving heritage right shouldn't it be authentic shouldn't it be original and and truthful and hold a lot more depth to it rather than it being on a surface level


and I agree so it's either it's either preserve everything


and have have weight or preserve nothing and just move on, so that's what I think and and I feel more for just feel of nothing let's just move on, and you are saying that we should preserve everything cause it's very important right so ya I understand where you're coming from and and as much as you I I hope


for it to be an idealistic situation where we can see our history and culture and heritage been preserved I feel that it's almost impossible and uh it sees likely to happen especially with how how fast the world is changing right now and so I feel that society


a massive society progresses there is little value in preserving its heritage thank you can I stop the recording


okay so I assume I'll start first yes


I strongly agree that investing in arts and museums is a waste of time because let's define arts and museums first right so, arts can arts is very broad and I'll I'll elaborate more on museum there are many museums in singapore it it ranges from different uh different civilisation museums to uh different culture museums and I feel that as what they are right now


people are not inclined to visit museums as much as , as much as I feel they should so uh why would you want to spend more money and invest in them when when it is a very small part of the society


(mmhmm)


okay I understand where you're coming from right and and you said that people or especially young people they tend to go to museums today these days to take pictures it said the purpose of having a museum though right clearly not


and and they glamorise museums and and and make museums look like it places to go to solely because they think it's nice to take, pictures and and if it's nice to take pictures I feel like investing on museums and arts industry should be minimal


because the purpose of it is to take pictures right instead of spending thousands and millions of dollars to buy artifacts and and historical figures and and monuments and and such valuable items that holds so much more value rather than just taking pictures


right so I'm not saying that that that that museums and arts are waste of money, but I feel like investing in them a lot more money could be used more productively in other areas so the money allocated to be spent on this area should be spending resourcefully and I feel that it can be redistributed to healthcare for example to improve healthcare or


uh it could be spent on disadvantaged, families right social work or or other area instead that needs, more effort to be to be put into rather than arts and museums which does hold some level of importance to some individuals but you know it's not the peak majority it's just a very small group of them


okay so you said that national arts council agency provides funding right uh I'll I'll I'll just share what I found online in a straits times article where they said in countries like US the arts


and literature are mainly ah support supported through private donors and foundations whereas in singapore is mainly funded by the state and (ppc), according to singapore cultural statistics report in two thousand and fifteen eighty percent of arts and heritage funding in singapore


was provided by the government through NAC and that amount is five, hundred and ninety five point seven million dollars it's a very huge amount right and apart from this , and this also include seventy nine point four million under the cultural matching fund which was supported by ministry of culture community and youth and and this is to match private cash donations to arts so


you you can see that although private, ah cash donations of seventy nine point four million was given to the arts and heritage send our charities it was matched through the ministry as well and on top of that uh NAC funded the rest a big almost about six times more right there's a lot of money


and and , ya people tell people say that that the government has to support a fair bit more, because are of very low donations that come in right, and some people from from the article that I've read I've just stated they also cited low awareness as some of their reasons for not donating because they said that they have no interest in art so why would I donate for arts rather than charity right so


ya so what I'm trying to say is err although although a very huge sum is being supported through government agencies that is a substantial amount that is coming in


through through ah, donations right and and I I would agree to the one to one match of uh whatever donation said come in which is being that matched by the ministry of culture community and youth but for it to voluntarily give


a good five hundred and twenty million more I think that's not necessary and that's where I think the money could be redistributed to much more useful resources right this is just to address your point on what you said and and now I I do have to put this final point across where


in that very article they also said that , arts and culture cannot be the preserve of, the elite if they are to enrich a nation so most of the time those who are inclined in art so can pursue arts on a long term basis they tend to be of a higher social economic status whereas low income groups children and those with


special needs meet more avenues through which they can be exposed to art right so, isn't it a bit unfair that so much of resources being put into art but only some get to reap the benefits of it shouldn't since since art is being a a medium that is used for everyone shouldn't everyone be able to assess it so if everyone is not


it's not everyone can't access it I feel that that is why they should cut on how much is being invested into art


okay, I feel like okay the way I am view art especially if I'm going to compare it to a country like US, it's a lot more liberal there right people are not constricted by what they have to do what they can or cannot do or they can or cannot say or paint or right whereas over here


, the fact that most of it is state funded, uh and also based on how laws and regulations are in place we


are not able to express ourselves to our fullest capabilities and potential, right and and our ah and our through us through ourselves right I feel like that is not possible


this is the like this is what I feel personally K so and and I I feel that's the reason why why when when when, in US when uh art the art scene is supponded supported through private donors and and foundations people are able to express themselves and voice themselves out freely whereas over here when it is being provided by the government agency you are not able to


express yourself the way you want to right so doesn't this, defeat the purpose of art itself I mean shouldn't isn't that what other supposed to be being liberal being free being able to freedom of speech right so when when you are not able to


to do that and and especially when it is your the money that you are pursuing art is being invested through a government agency doesn't that defeat the purpose of art, I it's just it's just my opinion okay and like what you said yes


there has been a lot more initiative now on how people can include communities into art and I do see it definitely I do see it where , there are local community groups or charity organisation said reach out for art therapy for children especially


but it's a very slow progress right and and my article that I stated was the figures that I stated the facts and ah the amount was in two thousand and fifteen so I believe that over the past three four five years the amount would have increased


or very much stay stay uh stay stagnant or increase definitely , and and that's a huge sum of money being put into, the arts industry arts industry so shouldn't we see, a lot more efforts being done rather than it being progressive or ya what's the reason of it being progressive and and how many more years and how much more money should be put into it for it to be to make a difference


okay I think we are done


do we need a prompt or we just start ourselves okay okay


okay uh, okay so the cross island line should be built under our nature reserve so let me introduce more about the cross island line so it'll be our eighth MRT line and it will be the longest fully underground line


for more than fifty kilometres long so it will serve existing and future developments in the eastern western and north eastern corridors, connecting major hub such as Jurong lake Punggol digital district and Changi region


so the phase one has already started err in twenty twenty it will be completed by twenty twenty nine uh according to the land transport authority so, how do we know that the cross island line should be built underneath the the nature reserve so the LTA commission at internationally acclaimed consultant to conduct a two phase environment impact assessment which were released to the public in twenty sixteen


and twenty nineteen respectively, and these also included the feedbacks and inputs of vital stakeholders such as nature groups heritage groups residents and plus, grassroot leaders so for phase one they evaluated the existing ecosystem and physical condition of the central catchment nature reserve as well as the environmental impact of the site investigation works within the central catchment nature reserve


for phase two they zoom into the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operations, as well as the required mitigation measures so after the phase two assessment it was then deemed appropriate for the cross island line to be built under the nature reserve due to the potential minimal environmental damage


okay so uh I understand your concern that whenever that there's a check on the suitability of the project there is already an harm


to the environment done but in order for, the cross island line to be built no matter to be under the nature reserve or around the nature reserve I'm sure that there will still be a portion of


there will still be damage done it's just that depending on the extent of it, so you might ask how is the damage minimised for the nature reserve and this is ascertained by doctor shawn Lum the president of the nature society of singapore


so he mentioned that that the LT A first approach members of the nature community for detailed discussions in june twenty thirteen an engagement that still continues till today


so the conversation between the LTA and nature groups, has been a careful considered and cordial one so over several, deep dive sessions they look through potential impacts and propose mitigation measures for construction along one of the uh along either of the two proposed uh sensed cross island line


alignments which is either to go under, or around the nature reserve so we start to highlight, the potential environmental impacts, as accurately and objectively as possible with everyone's committed to ensure that the diversity at ecological integrity of the central catchment nature reserve


and ensuring there is no impact, so finding a way to carry out vital infrastructure work without diminishing the precious natural heritage remains, important common grounds to not only the nature groups but also to the other vital stakeholders such as uh the residents and also LTA themselves so he mentioned that he was happy with the that the LTA is


committed to implement the proposed mitigation measures and uh for the nature groups, the president mentioned that he had all their questions and contents heard and look forward, to the continuing conversation so from there with the nature groups answered how did the


uh their land transport authority satisfy their concern so according to the report they mentioned that the two two kilometres cross island line train tunnel would be built beneath the uh central catchment nature reserve


and it is approximately seventy metres deep which is also equivalent to the height of a twenty five storeys HDB flat so the tunnelling of the, train will be done fully in the hard granite rock


so there will be no physical structure, on the surface, within the cross, ah within the central catchment nature reserve itself, so that would definitely be no there will definitely be no clearing and burning of the nature reserve so which helps to minimise the negative impact


to not only the to the environment but also the landscape of singapore so and I like to quote another person which is the the senior minister of state, for transport and health doctor #lam pin min# so he mentioned that the whole process of listening to different views and coming together to understand the different stakeholders' perspective


has given a new meaning to consultation so he valued everyone's feedback and is grateful to all who have taken steps, who have taken time to step forward to share their views uh not only from the methodology of the environmental impact assessment study but also to the eventual report so he also mentioned that


their the vital stakeholders' journey do not end here and they will continue to work together to deliver a good transport network, for all singaporeans


okay so I have, understood your point on


uh building the cross, uh cross island line, around the nature reserve and instead of under and understood about hear the natural and ecological impact, if the cross island line would have to be built under the uh


central catchment nature reserve but other to than the environmental and ecological impact I would also like to share some other concerns that the land transport authority and that the people have raised out


so other than, that in terms of commuters if you have if you would say they will also be more concerned with the travelling distance and time, so because the direct alignment of the train tunnel uh through the nature reserve


will take commuters, four minutes to get from uh bright hill, MRT station to the next MRT station, however if you were to build the uh cross island


the cross island line around the nature, reserve instead this alternative will take eleven minutes, just for the commuters to get from bright hill to the next station so the commuting time is actually increased by about two to three times so it's actually wasting


a lot of the times of the commuters if they were to take the cross island line to get from bright hill to the next station, so this is especially so when singapore is such a, fast moving country where everyone is about, being efficient and so if


they want to use the alternative way of mode having it, of going around the cross uh going around the nature reserve, it will make the whole nation very ineffective and inefficient so if they were to build it underneath the


uh nature reserve it helps to save up so much time it helps, everyone the commuters anyone that is working any industry or like family going out to meet their family or meeting their friends it helps to save up so much more time, if the cross island line were to be built under the nature reserve and another point I'd like to mention is regarding the alternative route that you mention


it is if you were to consider under the, uh to go around the nature reserve, uh as an alignment option this will result in three additional work site areas, with residual impact at uh with the residual impact on the visual amenity so what I'd like to mention is that it will affect the residents


in the nearing in the in uh residents who are staying near the nature reserve itself so if you were to build it underneath the nature reserve, you are only causing the noise pollution around nature reserve where more humans I suppose as they but if you were to build it around it you are going to cause a lot of noise pollution to the residents that are staying nearby so it will also affect


the visual amenity if there was to be so many construction going on just like the downtown line back in the days at around #bukit timah# area, and in the addition, there will also be a lot of dust generated from the construction itself so if you were to so to conclude if you were to build it around the uh the nature reserve around ah around then I if you were to build the cross island line around the nature reserve


there will be much more negative impacts compared to the positive impacts as compared to building it under, the nature reserve thank you


clap part two debate topic two, so for topic two it is about men being helpless in the face of climate change so I'd like to start my point by saying


although most people understand the threat of climate change they actually do, little to modify their own energy conservation behaviour, so one reason for this


gap between the belief and behaviour maybe that individual action actions seems un-impact full and therefore are not morally relevant to them to take an effort in participating in in helping in conserving climate change so because this is so as


as an individual individuals feel like they are just a needle among the haystack, so they feel like even if they were to do something, their contributions are very minor, and not able to change the global efforts and climate change and global warming headlines provide us


if you have realised at a far alarming at a far alarming increasing rate so don't you realise when you read the news nowadays you usually see the headlines to be about, an environmental change or like global warming or like the ice cap is rising or like the animals are dying or they are gonna be at the rate of


at at the rate near extinction so you realise that you always see this coming uh this kind of, headlines err these kind of environment err, this kind of climate change headlines on the newspaper on the TV and also on the radio so each day news reports and household environment


household environment activists warn of irreversible damage to the natural and the collapse of societies so the united nation even mentioned that we have twelve years to actually avoid


climate catastrophe so we are actually also amidst the world's sixth mass extinction which is the worst since the time of the dinosaurs so humans are definitely helpless


in climate change if you are too concerned over the issue the reality would actually take its toll, not only on the environment itself but most importantly ourself our mental health so this is especially so among the younger people


who understandably losing hope for their future, on a hotter planet so we are seeing the rise or what is known as climate or ecological grief, so this grief summarises feelings of loss


and the hopelessness despair and distress, caused by climate change and ecological decline ecological decline as shown in a twenty nineteen article by the guardian


okay err I understood your concern regarding that men are the ones


that cause climate change and global warming and that even a single person can have an effect in helping uh in improving, global warming so


uh as I said just now , actually uh they there's, psychologist even mention that , this is known as climate and ecological grief which is part of a


which is part of a mental illness so besides that, there are also many forms of helping climate change and I understand that that humans can do and one of them is recycling however the uh most common reason for not recycling or why humans uh why humans are so helpless


and they've cited singapore respondents from a survey by, the, national environment environmental agency was that they just had too few items to recycle and other common reasons given


were that they were being too busy, or tired and not having enough space to accumulate recyclables in the home so most of these reasons are also related to the convenience factor so yet another reason given was also the lack of consideration about recycling so


why are people helpless in terms of recycling efforts you would say uh this is so as about half of the people surveyed, do not actually know, don't have actually have the knowledge to correctly identify


which items can or cannot, be recycled so it could be that especially for the older generations they are not taught in school and there's no one that actually actively advocates or teaches them on what and what cannot be recycled


so a significant proportion mistakenly classify as recyclables item which should either be disposed of, or be treated as reusables so some of them examples include contaminants such as soiled paper food packaging which about sixty seven per cent of the singapore household mistakenly recycles


tissue papers, and styrofoams which should be disposed of as general waste, but was thrown in also thrown into recycle bin as well as soft toys bags and shoes which are reusable and not suitable for


recycling so what should have to have been done what should have been done is that the latter, should be donated instead if in it if they are in good condition instead of being recycled, so why are men so helpless is because they are not actively advocated


and even though if they have if they would want to contribute a little by recycling they would realise that they will actually cause, more harm, or effort to the government in helping them to risk in helping them to sort


the items that can be recycled, so this, wrongly recycled items actually contribute to the high contamination rate of the recyclables collected from the blue recycling bins that you can actually see around ah around the lobby


of your uh HDB flats, so there is so even though they want to uh like for example as an individual they want to help but actually they're actually causing more harm, in the recycling effort of the country and err in addition the survey found that about sixty percent


of singaporeans , mistakenly thought that the recyclables had to be sorted, by type before being deposited into the blue recycling bins so this goes to relates to with another finding that forty three per cent of singaporeans were also unaware that recyclables deposited into the blue recycling bins were actually sorted at


material recovery facilities after being collected so there's no need to pre-sort items that are deposited into the blue recycling bins because the contents for the blue recycling bins will be transported to the MRF where the sorting takes place so I think some


a lot of singaporeans actually do not know that there's such sorting service so whenever they feel like they want to help they feel very helpless because they do not know how to sort the items but actually the singapore government government has already assigned an agency to help sort these items thank you


so uh I understood your concern beside, uh the recycling part I mention you also mentioned about the uh heavy use of, plastic and plastic being uh plastic


if burnt is actually very harmful to the environment and you mentioned that they could actually bring their recycle bags to do the, supermarket I understand that and that you are saying that education level in singapore and other countries could actually be improved uh I can totally relate to that but


I'm not sure about other countries but especially in singapore per se uh , I'm sure a lot of singaporeans know that in order to cut down plastic they can actually bring their recycle bag or let's say especially during the circuit


breaker where only take-away is allowed, actually a lot of people and government actually advocated for singaporeans to bring their, uh plastic container, to actually get the food from the uh food vendors or food stalls so that they do not do not need have to waste their the limited plastic containers that they have in store


so this actually helps to save down the use of plastic of single-use plastics especially I'm sure a lot of singaporeans know that especially through the wide campaign messages on TV on the radio on the newspaper and also


pasted at your lift lobby and the bulletin board, but I'm sure a lot of people know but, it actually very inconvenient for singaporeans especially to always bring out a recyclable bag and also to bring out their plastic containers and one of the other reasons I find that it's not relevant


for singaporeans is that because the majority of the people in singapore don't really do that they mainly use single use plastic so if it's not the norm on the mainstream way right singaporeans actually do not follow and find it a hassle and


singaporeans love to be Kiasu and Kiasi so they like to uh fit in the crowd so if it's not the norm people they will find it, and much increased effort to actually bring their recyclable, bags or


plastic containers but another point that I also like to bring up under climate change is that another part of climate change is to actually encourage people to save water, as it is as it is a limited resource that will run out in the future if we do not conserve it so


but even when government and environmental advocates environmentalists advocate such message why are, people still not doing it and are feeling helpless, in conserving water so this is so as


water is used in private, so excessive water can go unnoticed for example many, people admitted that they always leave their tap on when brushing their teeth until someone or their partner or family member asked why


and number two it is also cheaper water is relatively cheap compared to other utilities and so making financial savings less of an incentive and perceive abandoned so few people remember a time before clean drinking waters was available on tap


or have lived through a drought, so thus I would say that men are helpless in the face of climate change thank you


okay so I'd like to start so going green makes good, business sense I totally agree on that


so in today's increasingly competitive landscape more and more companies are realising that being sustain sustainable is more than an environmental gesture it makes it actually makes long term economic sense


I would agree that as as a business student in polytechnic and in university I realised that in the past five years, a lot of companies not only in singapore but also the uh small medium enterprises and also the multinational corporations are actually adopting or going green in their company efforts


this can be done through their daily practices of producing goods and services, this also could also be done perspectively under their corporate, social responsibility in where the employees, help, take part in initiatives to save the environment and by going green


so there are actually top ten reasons that I find out that companies oh why companies should care about sustainability according to business insider so, the main, the first concern the main reason


the first and main reason is about cost saving so sustainability is first about improving the bottom line mentioned by emily Raina a project manager for the environmental defence fund corporate partnership program


so she works with the climate corps a programme that places MBA students in companies such as McDonald's Verizon and Target, to build the business case for energy efficiency but identify ways to slash electricity


and gas use, so since two thousand and eight uh they have actually uncovered energy efficiency opportunities from changing light bulbs, to replacing old computers and shockingly that will actually save one billion in net operational costs over project lifetime so you you could see that if


uh companies adopt by going green they can actually save up so much more money so it actually makes a lot economical sense, secondly it also affects consumer demand so being green not only save some money but it also creates new revenue opportunities by attracting customers who care about a company's environmental footprint


if you have realised recently ah, during the especially during the lockdown singaporeans are actually uh there are surveys that shows that singaporeans are actually more concerned about the environment and are supportive of


uh especially local brands, that have a green initiative or are going green so apart from a few greedy businessmen the rest of the world actually cares about the environment and everyone thinks about how their action could impact nature


so it also means that many people will support businesses that follow practices that don't hurt the environment so if people know about how sustainable, the business is they would actually prefer them over other companies out there so it is not the businesses' primary motivation but it is also a bonus for being a responsible business owner thank you


okay uh I understood your concern and okay so regarding the


environmental certification that you mentioned in the united states uh I understood that you said that the rent is actually increased by three percent for its tenants, so I like to link back to but not uh to uh I would like to link back to the context of singapore so according


to the building and construction authority of singapore which is also known as the BCA for short they also have such uh they also have a similar certification which is called the BCA green mark scheme, so this scheme was uh was initiated to drive singapore construction industry towards more environment friendly buildings so I'm for I'm


sure that even though I could not find any statistics but from your US statistics they said that, this kind of green buildings actually increases the rent but I feel that it actually creates, a very good impression for consumers they are actually it is a retail space they are actually shopping in a green mark building or they're they are actually dining over there or if it's an office building uh the


people will feel good, if they are working in the office in a green mark building because they know that the environmental impact they are causing it's much less compared to a building without the green mark certification so in regard to this is also known as the risk mitigation so with energy costs rising


and uncertainty in supply, it is important that companies start rethinking on how they obtain and use their inputs because the world runs in a circle, and anything that you throw away will come back to you


as a business it is essential that you follow practices that help the environment, it allows sustainability and you also impact other people with your operations so you need to focus on how to stay sustainable so that others will follow suit as you so this in terms lead to leadership also because traditionally companies adopt


uh sustainability strategies in order to comply with government regulations and avoid fines in the past however now leading edge corporations are embracing the concept of sustainability in order to be part of the conversation on environmental policies uh


companies can also pave the way for their industry and differentiate their company from others, because if everyone in your industry doesn't follow sustainable practices, no one would feel pressured to start


however if you lead the way every one else will follow suit, and the other businesses might even copy your model if you prove that it is possible, so many business owners don't care much about protecting the environment since their primary since their primary focus is on increasing profits so if you show them that a company can do both


you actually set a positive example, and I'm, I'm aware that such green building or having green practices actually help to increase costs, but actually in another sense it doesn't because of tax incentives so


according to the america's area development federal state and local governments they offer a range of financial incentives for undertaking environmentally responsible activities, so that might be a increase in cost of rent or changes in SOP but there's a decreased actually decrease in taxes so this includes investment production or consumption based income tax credits


accelerated depreciation for certain capital expenses and exemptions from states or local sales tax and cash grants, so we'll think this back to singapore, actually a carbon tax was introduced since first january twenty nineteen by the national environmental agency so any any industrial facility that emit direct greenhouse gas emissions equal to or above twenty five thousand


uh of uh carbon dioxide, annually will be required to be registered as a taxable facility and to submit a monitoring plan and an emission report annually so, what do you


what would be the difference then so the taxable facilities actually have to pay a carbon tax, from uh from first january onwards for the reckonable, uh greenhouse gas emissions so the carbon tax is currently set at a rate of five dollars per tonne of


greenhouse gas emissions from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty three however the singapore government would show review, the government tax rate the carbon tax rate again by twenty twenty three with plans to increase it to between ten and fifteen dollars per tonne of greenhouse gas emission


and this actually encourages companies in singapore to go green, in order to avoid paying the additional carbon tax thank you


okay I understand your concern regarding uh for companies going green that it requires much more effort and that there's always uh and another point that you mention of like, going green by going paperless has many has some negative imfact uh negative impact such as uh of like hacking and loss of data


so one of the other point I would like to bring across is employee retention so you mentioned that there's much more effort but I feel that, working for a biggest cause actually excites employees so it is one of the softer measures uh to wrap your head around but if you talk to someone where sustainability is embedded into the corporate culture of the company it's actually a selling point to attract and retain workers


so if not for anything else you will at least have positive feelings about the company that you are running you know that you are heading in the right direction and companies are making money without stepping on other people or damaging the environment


you will actually feel good working for that company compared to a company that do not follow any sustainability practices you'll feel that, you will feel that it's not worth, putting in so much effort for the company as you feel like the money that they earn has actually stacked through has actually exceeded a lot of people's


boundaries so besides there are also lot of sceptics when you talk about sustainability so if you prove that it's possible, everyone else will change their view of companies going green and actually adapt, to it so besides


there's also it will also affect your brand reputation and publicity so fostering positive consumer relations, show sustainable initiative generates brand value and improve the company's image so showing your care about more than just a bottom line will undoubtedly


undoubtedly impress potential clients and customers in fact a in a survey of fifty three thousand people the national marketing institute found fifty eight percent of them consider a company's environment impact before buying, so


and uh it also helps to keep up the competition so in other words I encourage companies to go green thank you


part one debate topic one


okay I understand that, uh there were experts have been consulted and that there have been uh research and test to to evaluate whether uh there are actually what are the environmental impacts and some of the how it would affect the nature reserve however


I take the contrary view that the cross island line should not be built under the nature reserve simply because, the whole point of a nature reserve is actually to preserve the area such at is to protect, the uh biodiversity


and the ecosystem found in a nature reserve, it is meant to be untouched and not to be, not to be affected by human development, the moment we even do any sort of survey or, evaluation


we are actually disturbing the environment already even though it was just a minute or just a small area or even if it just underground, it is still will it will still affect the biodiversity and ecosystem of the nature reserve because it is no longer undisturbed the central catchment nature reserve in singapore it's actually the largest patch of primary rainforest we have in singapore it is an undisturbed rainforest


and it's a highly valued ecosystem in singapore also known as the green lung of singapore, it will be a pity for it to be affected and it won't be it won't it will no longer be called the undisturbed rainforest and it will never regain back to its undisturbed state


according to the singapore park and trees act nature reserves are set aside for the propagation protection and conservation of trees plants animals and other organisms of singapore, whether indigenous or otherwise therefore the moment you affect you affect this by doing some sort of a development be underground and even doing some site investigation here and there I feel that you are actually affecting the biodiversity already as animals are highly sensitive creatures


small things like vibration change in pollution change in habitat will affect their lifestyle, therefore I feel that the cross island line shouldn't be built under the nature reserve


and I understand that the the original plan for the cross island line is to have a four kilometre stretch directly across with two KM directly underneath the central catchment reserve


while the alternative plan that was proposed is actually a route that will skirt around the southern perimeter of the central catchment nature reserve, covering areas such as thomson and lornie road , so this alternative route that actually skirts around the nature reserve it's actually outside the perimeter of the nature reserve therefore it will not actually affect what's going on in the nature reserve itself and even though you say that the route is actually seventy metres deep underground


it will still cause things like vibrations and even like there's always the chance of chemical pollution and toxic chemicals being leaked out into the habitat and these will still somehow affect, the the ecosystem the biodiversity of the wildlife in the in the nature reserve itself as well one of the possible ways that it will affect is actually


siltation which is an increase in water pollution there'll be more there'll be more soil erosion and more fine sendiments and particles that could enter the water bodies within the nature reserve this has a significant impact on the wildlife especially the fishes and the


ya basically the fishes it could potentially reduce the fish population by up to fifty percent it within the nature reserve as well as this will cause things like clogging of fish gills, reducing the quality of the habitat affecting the visibility prey abundance of the fish and hinder population growth especially for the recovery of endangered species


and as we all know in the wildlife there's always this thing known as a food chain or the food web where every species is actually part of a of a bigger chain of events that either a prey or predator, if one of these species get affected it will affect the other species as well and it is over time it will have a significant impact on the ecosystem therefore you may think that even though


that the the the, impact of building the cross island line directly underneath is very small and it could be mitigated there is still some form of impact, and it shouldn't be taken lightly, this defeats the whole point of a nature reserve


because the nature reserve is to protect, and if you are setting aside area to protect the area if you're setting aside the area to protect the wildlife then you shouldn't even been doing anything even though it's underground seventy metres deep is still will effect it one way or another


I understand your point the the direct route saves some time about seven minutes compared to the route that skirts around the southern perimeter however I feel the seven minutes it's just a small price to pay


we all of us has twenty four hours and that we sometimes uh spend a bit of time doing other things here and there and seven minutes it's not a very big difference, in addition, if the route which skirts underneath uh goes around the southern primary perimeter of the cross either of the nature reserve it actually have the ability to serve areas such as thomson and lornie


and by if there's also the possibility of building MRT stations there at thomson and lornie areas to serve the residents there as well increasing the connectivity of the MRT network residents may complain about the dust and pollution


but, okay so even though that it will cause noise pollution and things like that after after it is finished building it actually provides greater convenience to the residents there as they're allowed they're able to take the MRT and serve the area as well thank you okay


part two debate topic two


so I understand your point, that humans and men are helpless in the face of climate change and there is nothing an individual can do to help prevent or reduce the rate of climate change, however I take the contrary view that indeed men can do many things to actually reduce and to prevent


climate change and global warming from happening in our world today, the global warming is actually a problem that is accelerated by humans, because of the industrial revolution, and development and globalisation


the amount of carbon dioxide levels, have raised significantly in the last hundred fifty years by about fifty percent to be exact , this is a problem caused by humans, but because it's a problems caused by humans humans can also do something about it to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions and many other ways that they can


do to just uh reduce the impact of climate change, individuals may feel that they are hopeless there's nothing that they can do, and whatever they do is just negligible however


if everyone plays their part and everyone is united in this course when everyone do something, a small action will become a big impact if everyone does it together, I quote from mother theresa


I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples, a person, who is actually very uh very enthusiastic for climate change to reduce climate change can do many things to raise awareness to voice out to spread the word


and people will be educated about it and people will join the cause and soon , more and more people will be interested in this, when there is a very huge cause and there's many people doing it the impact will should be very great and with a great impact there's actually many things that people can do to actually help reduce climate change


I understand your concern that it is actually that there are many difficulties and , difficulties with regards to recycling especially in singapore and I agree with you that there is a lack of awareness and a lack of education on how recycling can be done properly and effectively in singapore what are the procedures that people will have to take


and the things that they need to be mindful of, and this could lead to people being, uh, people not knowing how to recycle properly whether they should sort their items or what items can or cannot be recycled, and this causes a big misconception and also could create more problems rather than help


the situation therefore I think that, either more can actually be done to actually educate the public and to raise awareness on how recycling can should be done properly to help to do things to save the environment


if you look at countries like japan they actually have a very good recycling system in place and most of their citizens actually regularly, sort out their their trash and their waste and to and to recycle those items that can be recycled


they have a very, green culture where they actually, recycle as much as they can and they reduce waste, so not in I feel that in singapore that the culture is actually quite lacking in terms of going green, and more can be done


in order to, to teach and educate people on how to recycle properly another point that I would like to make is that, uh for example plastics alone you just looking at plastics only two percent of plastics


can actually be recycled to some things of similar function at eight percent, of plastics is actually recycled to be downgraded into something of lower quality, the remaining ninety percent of plastics cannot really be recycled it actually incinerated or thrown into a landfill


this only shows that it recycling, uh no matter how effective recycling is, uh is not the most effective way, it it does play a part but there are other things that can be done as well and one of the things is actually to reduce the consumption of plastic to reduce the consumption of disposal plastics to be exact


as a lot of plastics that we have are actually used in disposable items things like plastic bags from supermarkets uh plastic water bottles and drink bottles uh plastic disposable items there are many of them in our house and around us


these are the things that we use it one time and we throw them away, and this actually we actually consume a lot of all these and we generate a lot of waste, plastics from the very beginning, are actually highly pollutant the moment plastics enter the environment they start polluting


a lot of carbon dioxide is actually, emitted, from just from the extracting and transporting of natural gas in order to produce plastics, and even more is actually produced, to refine to produce a plastics


additionally plastics are not biodegradable and they take very very long to decompose possibly hundreds of years, therefore they actually harm the environment when we keep using them erratically and throw them away so the simple solution is just to cut down on usage cut down our consumption and this can be done by


for example bringing our own reusable bags to the supermarkets instead of using, uh the plastic bags given to us, bringing our own food containers to the food court or the hawker centre to order our takeaway food instead of using a new container every time


these are ways that we can actually reduce the amount of, plastics that we consume, and by reducing plastic consumption , the demand goes down and the supply will eventually go down as well


this will ultimate lead to a reduction of plastic is being produced and reduce the a lot of carbon dioxide emitting to the air and help reduce the impact on climate change, therefore


uh everyone can play a part just just imagine if everyone, in singapore, brings their own uh own reusable bag to the supermarket, the amount of plastic bags that can be saved can be reduced significantly


even if they do not bring their own bags all the time but if they bring it most of the time for example, they still save put enough impact, so you may think that is it may be helpless alone, but if everyone does it everyone plays their part the impact can actually be quite great


I think that it it all comes down to a matter of the human mindset the individual mindset the individual perspective many of us uh many singaporeans may not are not in the mindset of saving and going green yet that's why I think that more has to be done to change our culture towards a cleaner and greener environment in singapore


part three debate topic three


ya I understand your point that uh going green makes good business sense because of the cost savings, however, I would like to disagree and I would like to dispute this point, because, uh yes I agree that business is all about making money about profit and loss


however in order to go green there's a, significant amount of initial cost that has the company has to bear in order to change their operations and their procedures, to go green for example changing their existing SOPs just the procedures the systems that are already in place for many years installation and maintenance cost of the new systems and a lot of this costs


are quite high especially and they have to pay up upfront, which leads to a higher increase initial capital and this would affect the the balance statement the profit and loss of the company as a lot of this uh cost have to pay up upfront it will take some quite some time before


the cost savings actually come in and before uh it actually breaks even therefore it will affect the cash flow for the first few months or years, right after the new systems have been implemented, so this are really difficult especially for smaller companies uh small medium enterprises as they already may not have such a large enough financial budget to actually uh fork out the price of going green initially


in addition uh just an example like buildings that are considered green building for example in the united states where there's something known as the certification for buildings that are that have the leadership in energy and environmental design also known as LEED


the the this is the way that it can certify the building especially green building and it has multiple tiers, uh to show how green the building is and how how much does it, actually helps the the environment


and the higher tier the certification of that building the rental price, of uh a room or your office space or just a rental price within the building goes up by three percent for every uh tier increase in terms of energy savings that certification that the building has


therefore so companies who wants to go green they might choose to build a clean and green building or they might to run their offices and their operations within those green certified buildings however their rental costs and payments will go up more, and this will affect the company's bottom line more and this if it does not affect the company's bottom line that means the cost they actually transferred to the customers leading to more expensive


costs uh more expensive products and services this might this might deter a customers from actually buying the the goods and services as they are more expensive as well customers might be willing to go green but there is always a threshold


within how much more they are willing to pay therefore if the cost is actually more they might choose not to, purchase goods and services that are actually considered green I quote from the MIT, uh sloan school of management


when consumers are forced to make trade off between product attributes and helping the environment the environment almost never wins this is according to a research where done that most of the time, humans will still people will still go for something that is cheaper


higher quality compared to something that, uh is considered green


okay I understand your point that it's actually good for companies to go green as it can actually set a good example for others to follow and it can also boost the its company image and attract more and more consumers and customers


I agree that it is ideal if companies are able to go green while maintaining a high revenue at high profit as it as a is a business as in, businesses profit is the most important and going green can also boost its image however in reality it's much harder to do than to say


going green actually, could decrease the output productivity of the company as well, as more time and effort is actually needed by the workers, to search and to ensure that everything they do is going green and they they to verify the status of their products the materials that they use where they source their materials from the companies where they buy their products their cost the companies where they actually buy their raw materials from where they source them


and their vendors and every step, of the way from the initial uh getting the raw materials all the way to producing the final product , for the service and giving them to their customers this entire chain has to book has to be green and in order to ensure that


these all of these steps remain green so that they can achieve the certification to boost their company image it actually takes a lot more work and effort by their workers, this will lead to decreased productivity as more effort have to be spent to ensure that everything they do is green this will reduce the amount of useful work output done


per man hour and this somehow will lead to an increase in in a way it leads to increase in cost as well on the company as they are less productive, additionally another way for businesses to go green which is to reduce paper to go


paperless as they say as they have all their data and everything to be computerised and digitalised, transferring everything into online computers servers and databases everything that can be done online however using technology


there is always a chance of data corruption data loss hacking and like uh stealing of data and uh loss of privacy, this is actually quite dangerous and as right now in the cyber age there's always


people who can hack into, softwares and systems and they can steal the data , people are always very concerned about their privacy and their data therefore, there is always a risk involved, an example is just SingHealth recently the recent years


there were times where they actually, some of their data of customers were actually compromised some of the data of their patients were actually compromised because of hackers and this could be dangerous as you never know what those hackers could do with this data


therefore there is always a risk involved and sometimes it could still be safer, not to, for businesses to do things, to not to digitalise everything that they do in the end they will still use paper and do things physically and in the sense is not exactly going green


okay, part one debate topic one


for me I reveal that uh using of non-academic


ways should be a better gauge of a talent, so actually uh for me my my eyes my mindset is that schools should, not consider subjective ones due to the fact of meritocracy so my idea is that in schools especially in singapore we always tend to


to be on the side of using meritocracy as a yardstick for children or for students to prove their worth in an academic fields such as in school, if things are on a subjective front instead


right I believe that different people in singapore come from different backgrounds and with different backgrounds and maybe even different social economic factors this could actually lead to, nurturing different kinds of talents from a very young age such as even one years old where children of a richer status can go for Gymboree lessons and music for mozart that kind which children of hawkers and or other lower social economic status


do not have a exposure to, so if they are not even going to be competing on on academic but into other subjective like music and dance and all that which has to be trained from young


but students don't even have a chance and poorer students to have a chance to get exposed to then by the time they, get into admissions into top schools or university or tertiary education they are at a severe disadvantage that is my motive


, I hear your point of view about leveling of the playing field and that you know even from a, uh non-subjective


uh point of view even like know dance and all that they can be exposed from a young age and it just even just, by using a yardstick of uh exams, right then maybe it's more fair, but actually from my point of view I I feel that


I believe if all else we both can agree that we are all up like y'know poor poorer students from poorer families and richer students from different families are going to be exposed, and getting help anyway whether is it going to be from uh non-subjective one like dance or even baking or music


right but, since we know that both my my point of of the opposition is there since both of the , different kinds of yardsticks are going to be prejudiced anyway since you know from uh uh richer point of view they have exposure they have held they got tuition then my idea is that then let academic


benchmarking be the one and the only way for it to be more streamlined and for uh admissions to be a bit more fair since is not going to be a fair system from the very beginning for example uh if


from academic point of view if four hundred students you know all of which two hundred of them are from rich families and two hundred are from lower income families so let's make that divide more obvious right that means rich and poor let's not have middle ground


the very rich to who are living in bungalows and the very poor who might not even have two meals a day and they are on a school bursary scheme then at least in the examination hall uh they are away from the help


they're away from their tuition teachers or they're away from any form of uh external help that money can bring and instead you know when they're admitted into an institution of choice, like you know in in uh mathematics for example then for the next two to three hours in examination okay maybe for secondary school maybe not so long


for the next one hour they are pitted against you know whatever that they managed to cramp or practice by their own self


, okay I hear your point about you know paying bringing in a different kind of uh again a different kind of yardstick and not just examinable subjects like dance and and music but into other


very intangible ways like leadership qualities into uh a non-subjective curriculum, I I value your point is valid but in the opposition point of view I find that it is non-quantifiable simply because yes having leadership skills and


world skills is useful for uh you know preparing students into the real corporate world where you're not just based on how well you do your work but how well you can play the game


unfortunately being non-quantifiable makes it difficult for the ministry of education or any form of uh admissions board, to access and to give marks in, uh because I think as singapore grows more mature and more connected to the world the global system we also invite different nationalities and different students from backgrounds uh I mean different countries come into singapore


into our mainstream uh schools and with their own background family culture all that, they might also view leadership in a different way


uh for example you know maybe there's a particular community viewing leadership must be more aggressive, or they feel that it should leadership should be a top-down approach whereas for another maybe an asian style uh community they might


they might access and say that leadership should be more charismatic or you know harmony is better than making sure your your point of view is being heard then both sides not wrong unfortunately for my assessors' point of view


and in fact even the assessing body could come from that same community which values aggressive uh uh top-down approach corporate-style approach kind of uh leadership and they award marks based on like-minded thinking or good thing


again which means skewing, examinations or in fact these cases doing admission, to be less robust and less fair and we are talking about admissions to tertiary or to schools that might shape a person's career choice or his own community choice or that and I think that could become quite grave


I for me I I would say that yes any form of uh theory or pragmatic approach to running a society has its flaws and has its good points too


and would really depend on what kind of importance or weights that the country in question, in this case singapore will want to place most emphasis on everybody always feels that meritocracy is the way to go but that too has its flaws because you can't have hundred percent meritocracy


not just in singapore but in any country or community in the world because we all come from different histories right or , we all have different surnames and we up all have different lineage and a different lineage would mean different resources and tools that have been available from grandfather to father to son


and since you know we both agree that they can't even be a uh anything to start off the same as ground zero then you know how can we let such an important thing like as


admission into uh, into a particular school or institutions such as I think they call it direct schools admission that kind uh it will be flawed anyway so why not keep it to and don't rock the boat as what you have mentioned


and just be fair


yes I I totally agree that you know sometimes it could be a smokescreen


and that you know I think as singapore progressed it actually had a strong emphasis on engineering and the hard sciences and then as we became more into you know as we advanced then you put in things like liberal arts and and dance and all that as an accessible way


but I think we will sum it up by saying that it all depends on what kind of emphasis any particular country want to place in its admission criteria


debate topic two


(mmhmm) (ppc)


okay my turn, thank you for the history lesson and I didn't know that #lee kuan yew# actually stopped this in nineteen seventy nine


but I, would like to state the opposition stand, and say and look at the topic sentence again by looking at it and saying chinese dialects should be offered as their mother tongue language and I find the subjective clause here is the word should


be now looking at this it's very as as a subjective way what should it be used for, should chinese dialects


should chinese dialects, what is the core purpose of it as what the proposition mentioned, is it simply


should it be for joy of learning and for culture let's tackle on this point from the opposition's point of view first, yes no doubt that china is on the rise and it's going to be the chinese sanctuary alright and as yes no doubt this might speak china dialects in the villages but from an administrative point of view


it is still very much mandarin-based, like basic mandarin, now it is good, to say that that we should inculcate a joy of learning and to foster or better


uh chinese heritage unfortunately from singapore's, point of view from a small nation ultra dependent on its neighbours small finite population, low natural resources


the opposition views that there might not be time space or even the ability to place importance on joy or


inculcating more culture by simple, definition of how the nation has come to be it needed fast resources quick decisive action minusing away any joy


and this can be quite evident, even by looking at the small numbers of, cultural architectural places that we have, in singapore national theatre some of the big even the iconic stadium


pearl bank apartments the first apartment in singapore all having to be torn down in the face of newness of correction and of bringing in new air, I think that


if it is offered as a mother tongue language, it only slows the society down in its quest, for economic progress and to be at least on par


with china that's the opposition's stand


the opposition hears the propositions repeated, sentence of national identity and connection and we applaud


that it's a good measure of trying to drive more, social cohesion in the city state that we are in but based on just on driving social cohesion the opposition then feel that it actually counter the X in reverse if we were to only


offer is chinese language as a mother tongue so just by looking at the topic sentence we want to expand on it a little bit, for some the proposition they might say that we go off track but the opposition's way is to say


if we were to only put in chinese dialects what about the indian dialect what about the malay dialect I don't even know whether eurasian have a eurasian dialect but it acts in counter to social cohesion and I think might even


erode the national identity quotient even more, because if we only introduce or rather we re-introduce chinese dialects, right now yes we still have our dear OCMIO in our report card feeling


if we were to place much more emphasis on see unfortunately the opposition views we might not just be having xenophobia but genophobia instead why because, what happened to


racial harmony now I think it transet not when it transcends it, resents down to racial from racial harmony to racial tolerance and from racial tolerance to maybe even you know looking at each other and thinking


perhaps for the indian the malaysian eh sorry sorry !aiya! indian the malay and the eurasian, and they feel that they don't even have a stake in the country that they're staying in right now because A suddenly only chinese dialects get more emphasis


and from a empirical point of view maybe the indians might say I come from a country that speaks two hundred un-unified, scripts, pictures and and sounding words whereas in mandarin in basic chinese due to a very infamous


emperor he single-handedly managed to just forge the entire don't know how many warring states into one unified chinese but with of course multiple dialects so I'm afraid


the opposition is afraid that just by introducing dialects of only chinese, uh intent, yes you might build culture, yes you might increase measured national identity and having a connection with grandparents but at what cost


you improve this chinese cohesion and we reduce the malay and the indian cohesion and let it, and the opposition want to say that, yes we might be eighty five percent chinese but look who our neighbours are


across the causeway that's malaysia and down by the sea there's indonesia and of course the nearest uh holiday destination in indonesia people always go to bali which is hindu in nature, we are scared


we're very scared that by introducing just chinese then, no more national identity what does the proposition say


that makes it more fair, ,


henghua


debate topic three


(ppc)


okay, thank you for the point and of course on the good history lesson on that as well from the opposition's point of view


we take, offence at this statement and here are the following reasons now, yes there's always different kinds of, learning right and yes, there are going to be groups of students who are going to be marginalised and there will also be groups of students who will benefit from rote learning


and we look at this statement and we say that you know when they say best outside the classroom it could be things like y'know being exposed to, in fact maybe even the arts or the fine uh the social sciences gardening


architecture, as a way to look at learning, we in the opposition say what is his purpose what is the purpose of learning right in fact what is the education education system in singapore seeking to achieve


opposition feels not not opposition party ah but as in the opposition today feels that the purpose of learning to is to do well in the classroom and the purpose of doing well in the classroom is so that we can, forge ahead in industry and in the corporate workplace learning should not be for fun and we in singapore we don't have the room


all the creativity all the space and time for innovation, we just need to learn from what history has taught us which is to stick to learning, to memorize to copy paste and repeat control V control V control P


because by looking at all the other different nations where they practice learning outside, such as the scandinavian countries america


not japan yes they might, have better education scores and higher human development index but at what cost at high taxation rates for the nation is good


if their nation if the people are happy and stay there for life


okay so I was saying that uh singapore needs to learn from history and to know that we've got no time no space


and we need something that is credible tangible so that it can be easily accessed else, else we will just follow what the scandinavian countries have done americans have done where they, have a lot of learning outside the classroom or a lot of outdoor play a lot more you know caliber for empathy et cetera but at what cost at high taxation costs to their nationals to them it's okay


because they know they're going to stay there for many generations to come their transient worker population is not so high, and they okay because intergenerationally the children will benefit from free health care and from you know uh better public services free of charge to them


singapore has no such safety net we need to think instead of how to make corporate a better and more productive place we should, instead of taking a leaf out of america's book we should take a leaf


out of china's book that's our stand


the opposition thanks that proposition for citing examples of how the CEO, of Apple and Microsoft were able to get holistic education outside the classroom which led them to have innovation


creativity you know and the brain juice to uh innovate and to create great products and changed the way that the world operated, example there was always this infamous speech that steve jobs had shared in the reed university's commencement ceremony where he talks about how he dropped out of


of school right and he went to take a iconography class or typography class in uh another school, but the proposition is wrong because we feel that the CEOS are again where they were because they were in companies


that had already set up in a country that valued innovation space, we're talking about singapore there is no innovation and we spit on okay sorry, and we


do not have that space nor the capacity to even innovate and bring forth powerful products , like for example in a just looking at a singapore industry, what kind of companies can we safely say created new products for the world


we don't see that, Apple could create the smart the iPod and then the the smartphone and then iPad, simply because from history, you know with a large population base with a big marketplace


that led to more, and sustain, innovation outside so actually the proposition is not wrong to say his comments, in fact the opposition will like to


say that in fact we would instead preach the idea of looking at the topic sentence again instead of saying learning is best outside the classroom, it might be wise to say learning is better


outside the classroom, because perhaps there is no one best way of learning yes learning should be fun so that is more retained and and children as they grow into adulthood they remember their experiences they had


right, so that's learning better outside when they can have all five sensories, working for them, the opposition feels that from a authentic point of view retention point of view looking at it again must boil down to what is this purpose of learning


(mmhmm)


I see your point yes it is true, and I find that learning then could then benefit different kinds of people and their and their ability to absorb knowledge in different ways and especially maybe even during different life chapters


they might be people who are late bloomers so therefore they need to experience things first hand first before they can excel in their later years which I think in today's current context uh maybe such an avenue is still not being explored


yup, yup back to the point of you know having uh retention uh of our education and how we gonna remember experiences more than just the grades how how then can learning be


a way to solve this loss of retention like we always give back our knowledge back to our teachers once we graduate by being outside the classroom how would it help


I see and by being there itself then they feel that, they are really having a a positive experience and reinforces their learning again when they're growing up so I think we we sum up by saying that you know it's not really one best way by simply by saying that you know there are different methods and different modes of learning no one is best but perhaps just one is better


part one, debate topic one


okay so the topic is on whether schools should consider , non-academic skills and subject sorry subjective and non-academic factors for admissions uh I think this is definitely something that I agree with because there are many students who are not


I mean who may not be academically inclined everybody has their own talents, so like I mean even right now what what minister Ong is trying to drive at is to achieve a level playing field for for students who may not be as academically inclined so perhaps they should consider things like through DSA such as like CCA or or other talents which


could propel the child to, to still have a decent lifestyle in future I mean that that may not be to do with like university or whatever and ya that's why I agree with this


okay uh I I do agree with some of your points I think that it is true because even right now I have heard of DSA training schools where the government is aware of it uh but still allowing certain


tuition centers kind of it's not really tuition for academics but is more for treating of all these skills like you know interview skills or leadership skills to, to to, and so so parents who have the money and resources to can actually uh get their kids to sign up for all these things but


I think that said tuition is is I mean okay so let's say we only assess the kid based on academic factors which is what uh you suggest I think likewise can be said about inequality because


the fact that there is only one way to assess them to academics uh gives, give those richer parents and families, uh edge because they can uh send their kids for tuition and drilling and and I think especially for academics like exams wise it's even easier uh to train the kid in whereas for example let's say a poor family has a kid


that may have some talent in dance for example, uh she may actually end up beating people who are rich and send their kids for dance lessons from young so I think through opening up more different areas for assessment and admissions


uh it helps to level the playing field


okay, ya I mean I think you have quite a a few points that you mention so one of them is about how since it's not gonna be uh equal anyway so why not just limit it to one way which is academics which


will definitely make it more uh easier for the ministry of education to uh to handle and also uh, how anyway the kid is away from his his or her tuition teacher therefore it is actually quite okay uh for academic factors to be the only one


to consider in admission to schools but, uh maybe I'll maybe I think I think it is quite impossible to uh ensure a level playing field whether we


consider subjective and non-academic factors or we only considered academic factors so perhaps we can turn our attention to the fact that uh subjective and non-academic factors are also important for life


besides academics so like for example when you go out into the working world uh you will need to, the the child would need skills other than cramming information into your head like maybe through like information that your tuition teacher tells you to memorize for example so for example


skills like okay maybe not saying dance okay actually dance dance is impossible what but things that will be leadership skills these are factors that schools consider nowadays for admission so I think these skills are also very valid, uh which is why this is my second point on why schools should consider subjective and non-academic factors for admission


, okay I I understand your point on fairness I mean I believe, uh even if let's say is a just a academic form of uh of assessment there're already inherent biases in the marking


so like like for example if like the examiner had a bad day or the person has a bad handwriting these are things that will actually also, skew the fairness of the the assessment so worst still with uh soft skills


like maybe which may be very subjective and require a rubriks which may also be subjective based on the assessor and like you said the culture or the the viewpoints of the assessee ya so


no matter what way we choose to assess the kid to get him to be admitted to various institutions I think there will always be its flaws but I think it the question will boil


will boil down to the ideology of the ministry like whether, they feel that academic qualifications on a fixation on academic qualifications, is in more important or whether they would like to know encourage other ways of defining success I think in singapore wise we're always uh stuck to the


safe option which is to use academics which, like what you said earlier is one of the more fair ways I mean after all all methods are flawed and unfair, so why do we need to rock the boat and consider how uh other ways of assessment should be uh considered


I I mean as in I I I agree with you so that's it


ya I think I think that's true and I think uh ya like like you said no matter what is there are there are there are always flaws, so I guess maybe one or one motivation of MOE to to incorporate DSA


or direct school admission it it it could be something which sounds good, like I mean it it does sound like is it has a lot of positive elements because you consider other factors other than academics but actually it could be just a smokescreen uh which you know pleases the public uh


as of now in schools I know there are various forms of DSA, so for example in dunman high it would be things like science technology engineering and math or STEM that's their niche area in schools like


for example uh #hwa chong# institution hidden they will consider things like, a student leadership as their as their admission factor so actually like even though the kid may do well in


and get admitted to the school through these factors but if let's say if their academics is struggling and yet they get admitted to such top schools, at the end of the day they may be they they may struggle and end up with a bad grade and on top of that have their confidence completely smashed because they are fighting with people you know let's say a poor person a poorer person goes into #hwa chong# based on his leadership skills


when he goes into #hwa chong# he still has to perform well academically and he finds he's unable to because, he is, uh he's not able to get his appropriate tuition or or whatever resources that his other friends and peers have so


ya I think there are flaws in this system and no matter which direction it


part two debate topic two


okay I will start now is seventeen minutes, okay so the topic is chinese dialects, should be offered as a mother tongue language okay so I have to agree with this but before that maybe I can give you some background into how chinese dialects were taken out or like marginalised


in singapore so basically what happened was at that time #lee kuan yew# the then prime minister, was a self-taught linguist and as a product of the english speaking elite group who did not really uh


speak much chinese dialects he felt that you know there are certain languages that are more important than the other and I think the obvious answer to his dilemma was obviously english should be the first language


followed by chinese just to keep chinese [orh] so we are talking about chinese today here okay because the topics on chinese dialects, so followed by chinese or mandarin which will be the second most important because of what china was going towards at that time


so he felt that learning of dialects would then interfere with one's learning of english and mandarin and even other subjects because the brain has a finite storage space


so in order to uh preserve this space for more important things such as science, or math know you should take away redundant things such as dialects and that was, I think in the year nineteen seventy nine however I feel that this is something that could be a negative thing


because I think at the end of the day the reason why we should learn a subject should not be purely for its functionality which singapore is very geared, towards but also towards it's the joy behind learning and the the history of the subject so even in the teaching of science for example


we should educate students on know the beauty the failures of science and stuff so likewise when we're teaching mandarin we shouldn't just be focusing on mandarin because china uses it and china's a power in the world, but because we are learning lang- uh a language to preserve our cultural roots and I must say we cannot divide or separate our cultural roots from the subject


chinese ya so I think that lee kuan yew's position at that time, uh was not true I it's not it's not very beneficial because actually whatever he said about the finite brain storage space I think when the child is young


it's not that difficult to pick up a language ya so in a way it it is it is good ya okay so my to those to reiterate my two points, one is that we cannot separate the learning of chinese from dialect because of his it'll separate the cultural element of chinese


and two it is not true that our brain has only finite space because when you are young it is easy to pick up the language


okay


okay ya I I hear you I I I think as I, mentioned in the first topic I think it boils down to the ideology of the education system, uh of course in the past when #lee kuan yew# was reigning I think the key issue then was to build up a base of people who had the skills to sustain the singaporean economy because at that time education was not uh widespread


and maybe people did not even see the importance of education at all uh at that time definitely dialects were more were more widely used and and when there was lots of national identity people had solidarity with each other and so on and so forth


however I think with the shifting generations it is more important now as of this age for for mother tongue language to include dialect


not as I mentioned not for the functionality's sake because right now I think singaporeans in general with I mean with the compulsory education and all they are already they already have that base of knowledge


so what is important for education now would be to instil a sense of national identity, which the government is struggling to do I'm partly because of what you said about the you know tearing down the buildings you know this lack of emphasis this this is really contributing toward erosion of our national identity


or identity as chinese people since we're talking about chinese dialects, so I think the government should reintroduce this as part of our mother tongue language to counter the problems that they're facing now in terms of national identity cause other than national identity


wise uh other problems people face would be connection with, their older uh grandparents and all uh, because of our aging population so I think there there are many benefits that chinese dialects uh many benefits to the effect that chinese dialects should be offered as a mother tongue language in school


uh I I have to agree with that because I I think maybe that I mean how I interpreted the question or how I interpreted the topic statement was that chinese languages should be offered as a mother tongue language


but to me this chinese dialect should only be offered as a mother tongue language to chinese students so, indian dialect should be offered as s mother tongue language to indian students and malay dialect should be offered as a mother tongue


to malay students okay I'm not sure , and I'm not sure what eurasian and whether they have dialects but I mean, I think I guess another issue that they will come up from from choosing dialects will be which dialects to choose


like you mentioned india alone may have multiple dialects so how could we just pick for example in singapore I I guess the dialects that they were referring to would be the common ones like cantonese or hokkien or teochew


but there are other dialects like hakka or hock chye or or, ya all all these different dialects so which one should be offered uh again I I feel that


, perhaps we could change the statement to say that chinese dialects should be offered as an elective within the mother tongue language to offer students a chance to appreciate their grandparents through conversational


uh language uh but to to simply ignore uh mandarin altogether and just offer a chinese, dialect as a mother tongue language uh I'm not sure whether that would be the way to go ya so my proposition to


this topic statement would be to change it to chinese dialects should be offered as an elective in mother tongue


part, three debate topic three


okay so it's seventeen minutes so I will start so the topic is learning is best outside the classroom


I would like to say that this is true, because uh, of many studies which have agreed with this idea, so let me give you a brief background into what learning outside the classroom is okay so learning outside the classroom basically is the use of places outside of school preferably for teaching and learning and


in my opinion the classroom is a very limited space because of the rigid nature of a classroom whereby, generally the students and the teachers had there there's a hierarchy there the students have to listen to teachers


and the teachers will mainly be either teaching or facilitating the problem with confining learning to within the classroom which is my first point would be that some students are just not suited to learning within the classroom


some examples would include students who may have uh mental disabilities or conditions such as uh ADHD attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and therefore


find it difficult to be in the classroom and listen to the teachers, so in order to engage students like this, teachers could consider bringing them to places outside the classroom


to help them to build up their self esteem in learning through various experiences so that's my first point learning could be done outside the classroom in order to help this special group of students


ya I can hear you yup


yup I think you got cut off at some point but never mind


okay now only now ya


however I would like to say that right now people who are doing well in like CEO of Apple or even Microsoft these people are people who eventually choose to pursue things that are


that they sought interest in because of experiences outside the classroom, so I think yes I I think that learning within the classroom has its merits like you mention china and maybe other asian countries may have adopted the system


however I think that if you really want an authentic kind of learning experience this will be best found outside the classroom, so things like even let's say simply for geography which is uh obvious one know within the classroom we're just limited to just looking at pictures but if the student is able to and the school has the resources


to bring the students out on fieldwork don't you agree that that will definitely value add to the students' learning and at the end of the day we talked about retention rates, how much of your school classroom life do you remember


and how much of outside classroom life do you remember and remember what you learned from so I'm not even talking about uh academic subjects anymore, but let's say we are just dabbling into things like learning about how to interact like soft skills like with friends for example within the classroom is limited but you can only uh do it through project work or group work


but if you talk about bringing outside the classroom there's so much to learn about know politics within like CCAs, or like you know when you go into a field trip know how should you care for someone who has fallen down in like some when you're discovering some rocks on a geography field trip there is plenty to be learned outside the classroom besides


just academics so I feel in terms of learning both for soft skills and both for academic subjects it is best taken outside the classroom


okay again I think uh there might I we have interpreted the line differently so I do not interpret this line as restricted to singapore, rather I think it is uh in general best outside the classroom okay although I do agree better might be a better word


but at the same time like I mean to, to address a point that you mention about uh how countries like america know they already have the base of innovation and know the whole culture of encouraging creativity whereas singapore


doesn't have that ya and speaking up and know being bold and all that so the thing is, education should always move forward with the times like just like how you mentioned during the uh like what I mentioned during the chinese dialect debate


I think that, if we already recognise that singapore does not have that culture which encourages innovation and creativity and yet we choose to resign to that, fate by saying that you know we are not really that kind of country therefore we should just stick to our status quo which is


to emphasize on learning within the classroom, then I think all the more, singapore will never be able to produce things and innovative things such as what Google or Microsoft or Apple has done


which is I'm sure something that would be a dream of singapore I mean given that we have so we had we had collaborations with silicon valley now we we encourage startups, I think that is our direction and if the country's direction specifically singapore is to try to encourage


uh interest in innovation which is very important for the current status of singapore especially due to the COVID situation I think definitely we should emphasize on learning outside the classroom


okay I think, it'll help because there are many different sensory experiences that can be gained from outside classroom engagement, so for example through like what like I mentioned observing rocks or like you know observing plants


I think being there, you know being able to smell being able to touch this and being in the in the entire environment of nature for example, will definitely help in the retention rate of students


which then will lead to a increase in students uh confidence in what they have learnt because rather than just being forced to memorize things they uh have the authentic experience of being there itself


okay one two three clap, okay you all can start profession can start when you are already


maybe ya, that was it opposition time


uh okay uh thank you ernest I mean those are some thought pro points you've raised I think I first of all uh we probably need to define what it means, what about what do we want from the school that schools should they be for, should they be for our social should they e be our