I would I would actually compare this with for example just cause it just to reiterate the point of like you know just cause you make it legal does uh does not mean that you know it's gonna be uh better situation uh in singapore, uh , in the case of you know we made gum illegal in singapore but we did see the effect of chewing gum not appearing on the streets and uh furthermore it doesn't mean that you know just cause we banned gum we're gonna see more gum uh chewing gum on the on the street as compared to countries which allow chewing gum


and if you look at again uh the US, just cause they legalized, guns, doesn't mean that you know gun abuse is actually a lot lesser, in US it's actually even more compared to like you know singapore where we make uh gun illegal


the the control is a lot better over, over in singapore that means you know you don't see people taking guns you don't see people shoot uh having a shootout you don't see people uh a gunman actually attacking the schools so that is uh why I feel that you know if we do actually make prostitutions and you know like sex work illegal it does


it will benefit singapore as a as a whole, , to the point of like you know , to the point of like, it would reduce this uh reduce this illegal activities as well of course it will not eliminate it but it will reduce it


majority of the illegal sex workers in singapore are legal and illegal , uh, not locals , reason being these are usually the minoritised, , minorities and I know the usually the


uh, poorer , poorer people in, the neighbouring countries which will actually come over here because you know singapore uh is slightly more affluent we have a higher GDP and more , , power to actually spend so they actually come over to singapore to perform such roles so it would not


I do not feel that it would cause , an impact , especially to this, today's uh today's , today's to singapore economy as a whole because these are money that's going out of the country instead of coming into the country is this is this foreign


uh, foreign labourers of a sort , who actually comes over to singapore to, to perform these roles so ya I I will not agree that , I I I disagree with uh the idea that


it would impact singapore in general of course there will be people that will be impacted I believe I believe that you know uh especially for uh singaporeans we will always find uh alternative uh, route, in actually earning money as well as like there's government support


, ya I will agree with that ya


maybe I'll add on to that point further , by saying that you know, singapore always promote uh family values, that's a very core that's very core, area which


especially if you look at the general singapore mandate and everything not just in politics but also like you know uh in uh in us being a traditional, while we are located in uh the malay peninsula we are still uh very traditional chinese


, confucian valued country so like you know , so like, legalizing prostitution is also going against these values this family oriented values


ya , ya but the issue the big issue with this right is that , like, like if people actually visit these brothels everything it does ruin family and it does subject to , I do agree that like you know


these brothels will probably use like you know , like the like the condoms everything just to prevent the transmission of uh STDs it does, put STD onto the plate, which is it reduce the chance but it doesn't eliminate the chance


of like you know STs and all these , viruses happening, and this would in in turn impact you know , their their spouse as well as you know their kids where they might just give , they might just like you know give a kiss goodbye like like you know oh you're going to school uh if you are going to go school I'm going to give you a kiss but like you know


who knows what how what's the level of this transmission of these diseases like you know especially like the herpes virus , while I don't think you will give them anything but you might give them like uh a pimple outbreak simple as that but like you know this does put some harm onto the kids uh and the family of these people who visit this


these outlets , and again I think , while we we can say that you know a lot of people visit this , this, this outlets in Geylang, and the likes same thing is that


if we do, you see uh it's a supply and demand kind of thing right if we remove the supply of course the demand would go up, but if the demand go up goes up the price goes up also, so this would in turn reduce the demand because if the price go so high not many people can actually afford it so I think overall the effect is that it's it will be a positive effect


if we do if we do reduce the amount of uh, not not reduce we if you do eliminate, the supply totally , so the supply becomes very little the demand uh the demand for it also would also go down, I think ya this is this very similar to drug abuse in singapore and I feel that it should be enforced as such as well


I would disagree with the uh of correlating like you know, the uh the amount, not amount but like you know , the the the number of rape cases to whether it's legal for whether it's legal for people to


have a outlet to you know for sex work , I I think I feel that you know, it just it it doesn't it doesn't it there's there's no correlation to that I know , if I think, especially for rape right I think that would be a very uh there would be a very different


objective, people do not, pay for rape and they are, also people that is a bit uh mentally, I'll say mentally unsound in a sense where they know it it just doesn't make sense for them to


people people who are going to rape, are going to continue , performing this acts whether or not, there is outlet for them uh in the in the form of a legalised, prostitution, so yes I'll disagree with uh


with this this statement


I think there's a timer on the screen, uh ten seconds then you end with a closing statement


okay so, the red button here right


debate topic two


I'll feel that charity is, it should not be compulsory the primary reason it is because it's called charity right not called it's not called tax is not called , any other words uh are like you know uh it's not called like you know donation actually it's called donation but it's not it's not called tax reason being is that charity and donation should be genuine you know uh you should be motivated to want to help these people that that that the cause in that in that sense


, ya and like if you are looking at like you know helping the poor and everything that's where that's where tax come comes in right like you know tax goes to the government the government come up with schemes to actually help out the , the the


lower income in singapore to people in need uh in the form of diagnosed for the people of singapore there's like medisave , there is like uh, there is like you know , even even even to the point of like you know if you look at charity like president star charity


, this is also something that is being , championed by the government so they actually come up with a certain portion of money in addition to you know the portion of our money uh out of us actually donating to it but it does not, say that you know it's mandatory for everybody to pay for it so I do not feel that you know


it should be uh it should be compulsory


this is where I would like to reiterate ~iterate the point on and like you know, , that's where the tax uh tax money is that's where the tax is uh being used to actually run a lot of this this charity which is is vital part but not actually pay attention to for example you know singapore has a very high number of uh kidney patients that require dialysis a lot of time


and dialysis is not cheap you know it requires it's it's very time consuming it's very costly, this is where, the government have to come in, purchase subsidies, it should not be should not be uh oh


we are donating to it uh where donating to this specific cause because we believe in it, this, if the government comes in at least you'll be fair they will see what what is the requirement and where uh what would be, the right amount to, give to each of these


foundations, at the same time if we look at charity work that means like we are donating to charity , another aspect is that , if we do let it be uh mandatory compulsory people just donate to whoever markets the best but not whoever needs the most


you know it's just based on like if you you you you it becomes like again like , very similar to politics but it's just a populist kind of uh motion, where , the person that is the loudest, gets the most funding


especially for charity like for you uh like for example oh you you you like you like animals so uh you will donate to, to WWF, but like you know that one might be might be just taking care of like you know uh, wildlife in general but then you know there's so many dogs and cats in singapore which is actually


which is actually suffering uh being abused you and you're not actually donating to this smaller courses but yet if you look at it in a in a form of like it being uh part of tax, that means , tax money being tax money charity being charity money


that's where the government can actually put this money in into into this into this into this smaller, uh, charity organisations


okay maybe I'll add on to that is that, again the point of charity is your willingness, to give, if you're not willing to give then what's the point of uh charity


is uh while I do while the the populist ideology that you know the loudest one gets the most get the most money is is that, , it should be the primary motivation of charity as well like you know that you are actually contributing to a cause that it believe in


while the causes that you know might be uh not seen those are really being supported by the government through taxation, so, if you are being forced into, to, donating into a cause they don't believe in for example ,


if I do not believe in, in uh a cause is actually uh, putting down , uh putting down animals, , while they're suffering because you know that's that's going against by right uh my values uh my values is that all life should be treasured and you know


as much as possible should be done rather than actually , putting this uh putting these stray animals down, but being forced to actually donate to this cause that goes against my values and against my , it means that I'm actually contributing to something which which I don't believe in which I'm against and I feel that that should not there should be something that's really not compulsory in a sense I should be able to select


who I want to donate to, and I should be able to do it on my free will


the issue with that right is that, , if they are still being uh if charities still being made compulsory, which is the, which is the key point of the argument , yes while uh while if it is compulsory but I can choose what I want to donate to


what would be you know, what would I be feeling, will I be feeling like yeah I'm actually contributing to this charity, which I really support or am I like [orh] okay you know this is, no no choice right I have to actually select one one out out of this


twenty organisations but, cause I've no choice or or choose this one or because this is the the the the the best the best one of all of them it really takes away the, the, joy someone actually feels when they actually contribute to something they believe in yes they made it believe it in it or not or whether they believe it uh in contributing to this charity or not doesn't matter because


they're already being forced to, they're already being forced to donate to this specific , not because specific charity but they are being forced to every month have to take this money out, and, contribute no matter what


I don't and, it becomes a very routine kind of thing, that means like for example I have to donate every month or every year, it's not when I feel the maybe maybe maybe currently is like more of a seasonal kind of thing that people that actually donate monthly but there's also people that actually like


oh it's christmas let's do do more uh it's the season of giving let's it should be give more oh is chinese new year is actually where, I should actually , give a bit of uh money to the the needy, out, oh it's Hari-Raya so and I know it's time for me to actually contribute to the relevant organizations so that you know even the the poor and needy can actually celebrate uh Hari-Raya


so I guess like making it compulsory really takes the joy out of, giving and , the blessing that we are that that charity is actually , meant to portray , so ya I I would disagree with that as well as like


it's very different because if you look at it right, if I'm actually doing charity work that means I'm actually, uh working at the the food bank, for christmas


if it's not compulsory it's out of my own will when do it I'll feel very happy or feel joy I will feel a lot of uh passion, be to contributing, but if you do get a team that comes in they're all not willing but they are being forced into doing that


the whole mood over there changes that means everybody in there would be like you know oh I just have to do this it's just a part of my requirement, and let's just get this done with and if you look at it in a in another aspect for example if this if this food bank is actually like you know helping old folks that means they have to interact with this old old uh elderly and older folks or


, ya elderly or older folks or people that is that is ill there's you but they're doing it with a heavy heart that you know they're not really willing to do to perform the , this charity they're actually being forced into doing it, then what's the point right because you know they're just going to have a very long face or sulky face or like you know just be like oh here's your rice that it's like you know they're they're they're not doing it with open heart with a smile and they are not able to transmit this joy over


to the people they're helping out with helping out


I I feel that the it, yes I I do I do uh agree that you know a caring nation is good for uh good good for all of us, it should still not be compulsory rather it could be instead encouraged that means like no charity should be something that is encouraged I do uh resonate very strongly that you know charity should be uh encouraged uh if you uh looking at I know


actually knowing the the like you know the different illness like you know tourettes et cetera uh and how they uh live their lives this is where they don't, people people don't actually have to visit these people with tourettes right it's not it's not like you know when they don't go to this charity is like uh a zoo


, it's not like you know oh okay I see this animal uh they they they this this uh animal okay this is a cow this a chicken et cetera, it's more towards, it's more towards, , they can actually learn about this from a different form uh just like you know uh it actually singapore is very frequent with charity shows where the highlight the different uh difficulties this this this this


this this, recipients of this charity are facing, you know uh for example if you have tourettes they are not even able to communicate well they're it's very hard for them to find a job if they have a NKF uh if if for example NKF if they are a kidney patient they have to go dialysis two or three times a week


and it takes about one or two hours long, and that, and they are not able to do a lot of jobs that means it means it if you're looking at physical labour they are not able to do most of them they have to do a desk bound job, and the expense, including a travelling time and everything it's very it's very intensive not just for themselves as well as the family but you know I can learn this from TV like you know just as I watch animal planet to learn about animals I don't have to actually


travel to africa to, help out these animals to learn about these animals, and be compassionate uh uh and be compassionate about them, and, I think for my closing statement as well I would say that you know I believe it's our rights that means you know money is something that we earn we own the right to


to, uh we own the right to actually see how you want to spend the money of course you know , there is also some uh critical components in the society that we require, uh that's where tax are there right like you know uh uh make our our salaries being taxed uh every month to make sure that you know the roads are being maintained because nobody will donate to a charity for roads maintenance nobody will uh donate to a charity that is actually uh creating the police force to make sure ensure that we are safe


but that's where tax comes in, uh to make sure that the society is stable but at same time I know charity is something uh if you looking at charity, this is our uh this is my money I've worked hard for it I should be able to make a decision of who I want to donate to and if I want to donate to it and if I donate to it I should be able to feel happy after I donate to it


so yes I think this will be my closing statement the charity should not be compulsory because you take away the essence of charity


okay charity ya maybe just want to, ya maybe just wanna highlight one more one more point is that like,


if we do make it compulsory for example if you look at like you know uh not really compulsory lah but if you actually for uh push it further enforce it into , into as a part of as part of , the, the


like for example sports school right if they actually force it into the school system let's say that you know they should be it's not compulsory but actually a part of the curriculum, previously when I was younger there's like you know NKF where we actually uh go around the block knocking on their doors asking to donate to NKF


but you have seen the cases of what happened over with , NKF because you know they're getting so much funding that they start abusing funding the the CEO of NKF has a golden tap, it's office, and that is like you know it shows that the money is actually not being evenly distributed and


there's much abuse happening, so yes again I will reiterate the point that it should be subjected to like know the market economics instead of like being, mandatory part, because that doesn't ensure that it's uh even distribution as well


debate topic three


okay I am, I feel that you know death uh death penalty shouldn't be abolished it's actually a crucial part of uh our society actually , running as it is , reason being is that


while while while definitely there are always there are always people that as uh being punish uh for there's always mistakes, happening in the law, there's always mistakes uh being being made


in terms of , uh handling up punishment, you know people could be wrongly , could be wrongly , could be wrongly judged, in that sense uh, but I don't I don't think that is a part of that that's a part of argument of why death penalty should be should be


abolished because there is more of a argument, that you are asking like you know how do we actually solve the problem about people people wrongly punished, if we look at death penalty as a whole and it again I I don't know uh uh


I do not see death penalty as also an issue with like you know oh in the uh having a death penalty actually is uh a a very big deterrent , or like you know having death penalty decrease the rate of people uh committing that crime


, but more towards like you know these individuals, if they were if they were already given uh if uh if they were if they were not given a death penalty , the usual alternative to that is a life in prison


you know that means they are not going to go out to society anymore they are going to stay in prison until you know they pass on so this put a lot of , this takes a lot of resources, from


you know from the, government from the society to actually run these prisons and actually how much does it cost to actually , , keep a prisoner in prison for, maybe uh maybe he was given death penalty at age twenty one, and he live a lifespan until he is he is eighty sixty years sixty years in prison


how much does it cost uh society as a whole and would this uh, how how does this uh individual contribute to uh to society or to himself, having a life in prison you know I see


I would actually doubt this statement a lot like you know that he will be able to actually contribute to this much, at the same time it really lands onto the role of the judge whether he is going to


he is going to give a, death penalty to someone that's twenty one years old because that, that usually judge will see that oh he's twenty one years old he's he's still young, or she is still young and have a have a, uh possibility of like you know


of of reform, so they will not give death penalty to these these people, the but they will actually give them and they'll usually give death penalty for like severe crimes like if it's , if it's like drug trafficking


if it's like you know uh terrorism acts if it is like murder, you know these are all very severe crimes which highlights that this person it does not is not able to contribute uh uh positively to society , and


would be a threat to other people, and like why should the uh why should society pay for to keep these people in jail for next sixty years and does the person is it human is it a human right for this person to be stuck in a jail cell for sixty years as well


not living a good life or a decent life


I don't think it's like inhumane to give a death penalty, in the sense uh of like you know, is it better to, is it is it is better is it, wouldn't it be more torturous for these individuals to just suffer in jail


we've done option of actually coming out of jail ever or seeing like you know the, uh seeing the light of day , imagine it if you are someone that's uh, uh, it's like you are twenty one years old and you have to stay in jail for next six sixty sixty years there's no hope at all


won't it be more ya, I'll I'll see that as torture because it means that you are, no hopes at all compared to some but compared to like you know you could get a much easier ending in the sense of a death penalty


that would that would that would actually be more humane in, to a level , uh on the note of whether it does decrease crime or not , I don't think that that's that that's a argument, because


if they like I said like if they don't if they don't give a death penalty, they will give a lifetime in jail, jail for life and, like you know that doesn't that doesn't, that if not that would, acted as a deterrent so in general


eh wait I think that argument is arguing against the the fact whether removing this person who uh no having this having having this having this uh, sentences would reduce crime , I do not think so but it does remove unnecessary evil from society


ya but for, for for prison term like I mentioned uh slightly earlier is that it's very expensive to keep a prisoner, , in prison for life how much does it cost every year to for a individual uh inmate because have to provide the person with uh food


, the the guards to run the facility the electricity run facility, the the water you know there's so many things that's required to run a prison facility, it's a lot more expensive for society it's a lot more humane for the death penalty to happen for the individual itself


and, at the same time like you know, I do not think that like the, that that, uh whether it's a prison term or a death penalty uh would impact, on


a person uh a person's ability to, to turn over a new leaf , let's take it to example of like you know for example there's this very famous , US uh murderer, Ted Bundy, so even on he was he was he was


he, was actually, captured, and I think a trial went on for about eight or nine years is pretty long, so but the but the issues is that even on the day that he is actually being sentenced to go on the electric chair


he has not confessed, to his crimes yet obvious but of course everybody knows that he did the crime because he uh his fingerprints are all over everything but he's not confessed to his crimes even then, would a prison term actually solve that would uh death penalty solve that no


but at the same time would it costs less for society to you know , to ensure that this, this psychopath does not , does not , impact further it uh onto the lives and uh provide closure, for the


family of these victims, by knowing that you know at least this guy is, is dead it's no longer I know happily surviving in, in a jail or rotting in a jail cell uh for next thirty forty years because obviously it's not showing any uh, and the forms of repent right so


I would so ya I would I would I would disagree that , I would disagree that uh death penalty should be abolished I feel that uh I feel that it should remain , in the sense due to cost to society, it's more humane


and, it and that you know it doesn't that the death penalty doesn't have a, death penalty or jail jail cell it doesn't it doesn't, it will not affect whether this person is going to commit the crime or whether the person is going to repent or not


I think that that shouldn't be a part of the, uh, should should have be part of the argument


you have to think about uh death penalty onto, also in the sense of you know the victims, the victims and their family, , how will it be like if you know that you know one of uh, , uh if you if if if someone's family uh member was actually being


being killed , and you know you know that the the the person that did it it's actually in jail and after ten years he'll be out, , it actually puts a lot of impact a lot of stress because they can't they're not able find closure at the same time I


think that like you know death penalty how is given out by the judge so the judge will actually, come in and actually see okay does this person have a chance of rehabilitation that means you know it's uh do they have , are they at the young age do they show signs of repentance do they do they do they uh feel guilty about uh what they've committed


have a lot more aspects, but this this would signify whether a person is actually sentenced to a limited term of in jail for example maybe five years six years or the person is actually being sentenced into a severe form where his life in prison or death penalty


so if the person's already deemed by the judge as, , no signs of no signs of, rehabilitation that means , it's uh convicted, criminal that that is you know, that's just bad for society


then there's no there's no, if he's going to put him in the prison no matter what for life or give him death penalty then there's no doesn't make sense, to , think about it as a second chance because the judge has already deem that he has no second chance, no, there's no parole there's no form of appeal


that's it so, with that in the case, again on the point of society it makes more sense for to provide this to provide the family's closure, to, cost less for society to


to to give a death, penalty to these to these individuals, as well as , more humane for this these individuals if they were to, if they were to if they were to


simply you know , die ya


so how how singapore how singapore , , really put the numbers to like you know how much drugs do you carry it goes to a mandatory death penalty system is based on like you know , how the amount of drug


that they bring in how many families are they going to impact how many how many drug abusers are they gonna to uh people to to feed with this drugs you know , to to this abuse so in terms, like you know that's why death penalty is actually quite just in a sense because you know they bring in enough drugs to actually sustain


hundred drug abusers for a month, and let's not look at a hundred drug abusers but what happens to their families that you know if if each of them average of two family members or friends which are very concern to them which is actually facing the impact of this


that means that you know this one person's the act of this one, has impacted three hundred people, so that's a very severe kind of, , severe kind of uh thing, and, like you know uh singapore they recently


it's been successful so far that they actually put in a clause in on the death penalty if you actually , perform acts enough to catch like you know, the , the higher ups of this like drug syndicates that means if you are actually been caught off uh carrying drugs you can get a reduced sentence if you do be a whistle blower


so I think that that is uh a form, where, where it removes uh the, death penalty , from that portion because it shows signs of rehabilitation again, and the last , the last point would be that


I think especially it uh especially so for, , for you will you will you will you will saying about a point on, uh, people not knowing that you know drugs being placed onto their bags and they are been carrying it it around


I believe the justice system is something that you know , death penalty is not something that you know they they the judge will just dish out easily they will do a proper investigation they will ask they'll ask like you know I , are you guilty and they'll give a chance of like if you are guilty will you be able to


inform the uh inform the uh inform them and give them information leading to the capture of the, uh of the higher uh ups if there is evidence in video or like you know in the cameras in CCTVs in the, that they are actually being


they are actually being made use of, then of course you don't get death penalty I believe the justice system should actually work that out


part one debate topic one, in the age of internet TV and newspaper have become irrelevant I do not agree with this statement


uh I do not agree because right now uh I still continue to watch my TV shows uh so I still catch my daily news on channel five and channel eight so I will miss the watching the shows that I like


uh because I my house don't subscribe to cable so I think it is still relevant and I don't think it is irrelevant


I think the TV now is also smart TV so uh a lot of shows if let's say we want to catch on cable we can actually use our smart TV to lock into the uh


uh browser and then search for your favourite uh shows or even youtube channel but uh the basic TV programmes like you know catching the daily news and some of my favourite shows ah I still need to catch it on TV


is has become a way of life for me and also the newspaper uh I think it it's relevant because I can still I still like to read you know uh part the feel of the paper and everything because like it's like reading a storybook


I still want to have a feel of that cover that that paper feeling


okay uh I think uh because now singapore is facing uh aging society, so a lot of people are still very old school so we have a lot of people who still want to have a newspaper in their hands and still want to watch the TV because this was what they are accustomed to uh and how they were brought up and


this is what they have been using all their lives so as a aging society in singapore I think the newspaper and TV is still relevant


uh okay so maybe this is a waste of resources but it is also still good to have newspaper because sometimes uh you may have forgotten uh that some kind of uh photos inside the newspaper that you can just cut and


keep it for you know for memory sake you know so but you can't cut and take out from a digital phone or uh or uh you got to print it out still if you want to keep it for memory uh for example uh my my parents I remember they used to


uh cut out uh news article that they like and then they still keep that ya but because if you use digital you still need to send it printing so it still the same thing ya so I still think newspaper is still relevant in the age of internet


yes sometimes I do that too so it has many uses okay but ya but my daughter also uh subscribe to the newspaper because the school encourage them also to read more newspaper


so they also don't use digital they also uh uh subscribed in prints so therefore because I think the teacher wants them to keep a copy and read it when they are free or when they have no homework so that's newspaper from my stand it is still relevant


coming back to TV as I said TV a lot of local shows are are on TV which you cannot actually get it from anywhere else it not even online unless it has already been uh broadcast


then you can watch the repeat telecast uh digital online but if it's not broadcast yet we still need to catch it on our uh TV program so it is something that I look forward to uh at that timing to catch it live


yes, like a projector, yes uh I think also TV uh although uh it has to change according to uh circumstances it has to change according to the times right to catch up with technology that is why now they also have smart TV


so it gives you an option to stay relevant right and at the same time if you want to use it for other purpose you can still use it so I think the TV is still very relevant nah because you can use it for so many uses you know because of smart TV now


okay uh I'm glad that you can still sell that means it still have some value right so there are still people who will find TV relevant uh so that's why you can still sell it so people would still want to use it to have some use for it


uh especially as I mention uh if they miss their programs they can still go to the TV and not everybody has the financial means to have a data plan to subscribe to online shows uh so TV is


becoming like a way of life because some may not be so smart to use uh go online and go digital they don't know what app or software to download ya so and then they don't have to pay that extra bills or when there comes to installing Wi-Fi or or


fibre you know so they don't have to deal with all these so the TV for people is still very relevant so if today I don't have Wi-Fi that means I cannot entertain myself anymore right but with TV you can still do that so it is still very relevant


yeah


I think old things ah still remain relevant lah just like we still have our books with us right why we still buy assessment books why we still buy uh storybooks


so so these are these are considered like uh old age right because we are still buying books we can also read books actually digitally so I feel that we are still able to find newspaper and TV relevant in the in the age of the internet


ya so I think to sum it up uh this discussion I mean TV and newspaper still have it's own uses in the age of internet there are pros and cons when it comes to using a TV or newspaper to some people it may be uh there're


their habits and to some people is because of convenience and to some people is because uh they come from low income so they don't want to they have no means to subscribe to Wi-Fi you know and so newspaper become uh their their main source of uh information


so they can be many many uh different situation and background that we are not aware of but so whether is it relevant or not relevant I think I think we have stated all our statements right we have made our


uh arguments already so I think do you uh what about you narrator do you want to sum it up


yeah I think the TV and newspaper will have to evolve evolve with the changing times uh it may not be just like what you say basic TV alone so it could come with other function


uh that you can provide dual use uh then it will be more uh useful and efficient and uh meet uh many people's needs, as for newspaper again like the TV it also must evolve if it wants to catch up with times of course and yet at the same times still be relevant to the elderly you know to the people who just out of convenience prefer just to grab a


paper and just sit there and read luxuriously with a cup of Kopi you know Kopi La Kopi ya so I think it has to evolve somehow uh because of the you know everchanging times but


uh as of now I still feel that they would still stay uh but later on maybe after a few years I'm not sure but for now I'm very sure they will still be relevant and will still stay on


floating up, uh okay


ya, thank you


part two debate topic two, people people have the rights to remain anonymous when portrayed in media I do not agree with this I feel that if you want to remain anonymous then is better for you not to even


uh write any comments in the media because you're hiding behind uh a false persona right so people won't know who you are so if you remain anonymous you are like a keyboard warrior you just


type and then hide behind some uh uh uh fake ID fake account uh and then just write whatever you want and you have no accountability no responsibility so all the words that you say is


uh no need to be accounted for all so that is wrong because people in the media will feel that this person who is anonymous has no uh guts to actually defend or or herself


he himself or herself because he himself or herself don't show his or real identity


I I do not agree because uh if they want to say something then they should be uh they should take up that responsibility for their words that they


they talk about right if they believe in those words that they say then they should show show their face show their identity if not you hide behind then people would think that you are just a keyboard warrior that you you just want to remain anonymous and create


uh conflict, which is not very ethical


I think if you want to report a case right especially if it is a very sensitive topic or something some harm or danger you know will come to you if you were to actually report this or you say something about it


you will you'll actually bring harm to you then in the first place you should not be even saying these in media you should just go directly to the police or to the relevant government authorities then in that way hundred percent you will not have any issue at all


or worry of anything that might come might any harm or anything might come to you


I think if everybody choose to remain anonymous right I think in fact the crime rate would actually increase eh because if let's say everybody wants to hide behind then they can do all kinds of crimes


all kinds of scams will come up come up you know so it's it's actually to remain anonymous is actually a a bridge ah for them to do crimes more leh so that they can actually


take the opportunity ah since that they are anonymous right so they can take the opportunity, to actually do all kinds of uh scams lah crimes ah uh what they now call cyber crime so that's why we notice nowadays ah the cyber crimes statistics ah is now rising and is very hard for people to catch them


because that is is so hard to police ah the cyber world especially when they hide behind a a new uh email account or a new uh IP address ya


I think if uh someone who is uh very importance ah like a government authority like a for example uh a government official or a uh celebrity like you mention ah chooses to remain anonymous


when they write something you know on on the media platform or they comment leave some comments in the facebook or anything like that then uh and they're anonymous ah then will never really know ah this the true character person the integrity person uh


if they choose if they are able ah to allow to remain anonymous so for example if uh these days we notice ah celebrity who actually uh are very careful with what they in a in a media right because they know that


uh they will be judged right they will be judged so that in that sense if they know that they are going to be charged so they will be more careful with and choose the word they say carefully they won't just say without thinking through so this is also good because that it would uh harm


their words will not cause any damage or harm to anybody else so if they are able to remain anonymous then it's worst because they will we will never be able to find out the true integrity of a person


uh yes true but if they hide behind and remain anonymous is worst because it will never know who that person is and what is their uh ulterior motive right so if they are if they are not given the right to remain anonymous


for example now if everybody uh uh can is not allowed right to remain anonymous then everybody must have a account that means they must log in to a certain account and they must show who they are they must show a profile picture


for example they cannot they can no longer remain anonymous when they leave comments then and in that way there is more responsibility and then people would be more guarded so when they are more guarded uh they won't just speak their mind without thinking through


and I think that would be more peaceful it will become a more peaceful world especially on cyber


I think in like a focus group discussion you know err or like a survey for example ya perhaps you can choose to remain anonymous lah to protect your identity because you are sharing something


that is only the information can only be used within that uh program right but if is the media where is exposed to everyone is so public you know everybody goes to that media like facebook like for example instagram right IG


uh uh so if you remain anonymous then it doesn't serve the purpose because these are social medium which means you go there and you're showing yourself you know you if you hide behind then it will create a lot of problem but if it's a focus group yes I agree that you can remain anonymous


because you are sharing something that is uh only be to be used within that that program but if it's for media uh we'll all know that this is actually for public for the community at large so I think it's not right and I do not agree that they should remain anonymous


if it is very sensitive right then they shouldn't be even be discussing this in media it should be like behind close door hor uh within a close group uh a close focus group a task group


ya so I don't think it should even be out in the media because out in the media then is exposed to public eyes so and if everybody allows to remain anonymous then they can just uh do whatever they want


you know and say whatever they want there is no accountability or responsibility on words and I know of a case where uh in the past there was this student who actually has got cyber bully because the people who critic crize criticize him


choose to remain anonymous and everybody start attacking him we don't know who are the ones responsible for for it and he it became so bad that he actually committed suicide so when he committed suicide


when the parents are so upset and they wanted a closure on his death so they will want to the police to step in to to find all these people but if they remain anonymous we will never know uh who these people are and they may be


you know be scot free and they don't have to hold any responsibility for search damage harm that have done to other people's family and they would never know that, what they have done is wrong because there is no crime or no I mean sorry there is no policy to govern that they they just think that oh is a it doesn't matter because whatever I say nobody will know who am I


so I can just run away I can just be scot free so this sort of uh mindset will come in if we allow people to have the right to remain anonymous so I think it is wrong


uh but I feel that even though that's the case people should still uh be able to face up to their own action right so whatever you say whatever you do


uh be it whether is it on media or is it in the real life I think you must have the integrity you know and the honesty to own up to to to walk the talk and don't just remain anonymous


so if you did something wrong then you should actually be brave enough to step up and admit that you are wrong so if they commit any crime or whatever then they shouldn't be hiding running away and thinking that they would be


they would not be caught at all so that is the wrong mindset so if we allow people to have to the right to remain anonymous it means that we also condone these people to commit crimes it means that we also allow them to continue to have this sort of mindset


that they would be able to be scot free and they have they don't have to deal with any responsibility at all for the crime or were the words that have used in media


debate part three debate topic three, social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information do you agree or do not agree


uh I do not agree with this statement because I think social media should have the rights to store and use our personal information because then that is the only way that they can actually uh find out who has made that comment


and who has used uh where they have been to I think it's useful then they will also use that personal information to also track our shopping habits and things like that and then , in the when we when we go into the uh social media you know the relevant advertisement would appear and then it is something that we like so it help us as well to search for information that we want because social media has already stored this and they know that what we are looking at


uh where we browse in our internet right so they can pop up cookies uh they have pop out cookies and things like that and show us ah what we actually uh I'm looking for they will know our likes and our dislikes and they will know our age group and things like that so they can show things that are relevant to us


and that makes uh our browsing uh much more fun


(hmm),


I think of course there is some uh disadvantage when we use uh when they track our our personal information but I think we have we would have more advantage versus uh less advantage


will have more because for example now when I use uh google drive right the google map I can just actually key in uh you know just one alphabet and it will come down it would it would the it will drop down a list of


a place where I've been to is able to know that I for the past few days uh where are the places that I have been to and would that starts the road name uh that starts with the same alphabet that I key in so it is so much convenient for me rather than I have to key in the whole complete address


so if we give them the rights to store and use our personal information it is actually a convenience for us rather than a hassle it is really much more it actually makes our life easier


they can seek your permission but then at the same time I think they still have the right to store and use it uh because uh in a way they are running a business uh social media survive base on this sort of personal information


uh then they are able to sell this information or advertise through advertising and people can know and track and then use this information to market their products so if they don't have all these then our social media world would collapse


because there is no revenue for them so it is useful for them in a way because it's a good marketing tool right having our personal information means they are able to serve their customer giving them what they really want and selling them the correct and relevant products


to their likes to their requirement their favourite colour their favourite kind of jeans their favourite brand of uh uh uh wear you know gym wear ya so without all this personal information then they cannot do a targeted


marketing strategy right so if there is no targeted marketing strategy that all your apps will popping up here and there and you'll feel that, it is very messy everything is in a huge mess when your when you're browsing and that's a that's a no no because then uh when we when we do browsing right it's quite a headache you know so that's why I feel that


they should have the right to store and use our personal information


uh it's scary but like I say be if it's for marketing purpose I think it's still alright they are not using our personal information to commit crimes right so social media just want the information


for use to do their uh products selling you know promote things uh which I think is ultimately is still benefit us uh of course if they use it to to commit crimes then, that's wrong but here we are debating on whether they have the right to use it so in terms of their our we are not debating like or


are they going to use this to cause crimes or anything like that we are just debating whether they have right to use our personal information and I think if it is not against our or doing any harm to people I think is still alright for them to store and use our personal information


uh yes it's true we cannot uh input our IC, uh we uh I mean that's why now we under the PDPA we are supposed to only put the last four letters [orh] sorry the last four alpha uh numbers with the alphabet right ya we are not supposed to actually indicate the whole entire IC number now even in lucky draws


uh application form right but uh in social media uh they actually store this and uh we don't we don't see them leaking this right so is not a leakage if it's a leakage then they need to be responsible for it but for now uh so far they use it in a proper way


and they store it uh in a highly , uh in a highly uh highly safe place very secure place very secure place so then we would be very safe so we don't need to worry about you know misuse or anything like that so the important thing is whether


these people has the right to actually uh uh misuse our our personal information which in this case uh I don't think they have misused they uh they are just using it uh for marketing purpose for project purpose for uh selling purpose which I think is still alright


, ya I think ya it does give you a feeling like you've been tracked right but actually it is not it just a way of how they conduct this uh to to to to retrieve your personal information so if you don't view it as tracking


so you just view it as they're using your information for uh a marketing purpose then you won't feel like you are been tracked like somebody is trying to hunt you down and things like that because if you have the mindset that they are just using it to


uh for their marketing purpose you know then you you won't feel worried at all right and nowadays when they ask you for permission to keep your personal information you you they they did ask you first and they also assure you that it is only


for marketing purpose that they are using your personal information so they already assure you in black and white before you click agree or disagree right so I think they already done their part to assure consumers that


they are doing this in a very legit way and they'll do their best to protect our information and the personal information that we have given to them is solely only for their company use to to uh do marketing or to do selling and things like that ya


or maybe to conduct survey to find out the kind of demographic uh profile of their consumer so that they know that oh those who are visiting me are belongs to this particular age group and therefore I need to produce a product that suits this particular age group


so in a way it is actually better for uh consuming uh consumers at the end of the day


ya I think every context right every uh company every context every situation there's always that black sheep you know there's always something that is uh not the normal standard or normal way of doing things so


I think companies like that should uh then be you know they should really wake up and then look at it that eh you know is this how we should be storing our customer personal information that we actually


gave uh the scammer an opportunity to come in and do harm and cause all this uh distrust uh and make the consumer no longer trust uber right so this is something that the company itself should look into


right but it has nothing to do whether they have the right to store and use our personal information they should actually quickly step out and secure the personal information right and they can still continue to use our personal information but in a more secure way


so it is actually their wrong that they did not secure it properly so if they want to continue to store and use our personal information they should uh have implemented uh higher security level instead of just uh uh minimum level of security


right so if they want to continue to run a business in in a more ethical way that that people will trust the brand uber again uh then they should look at that aspect, but having said that they still uber still have the right to store and use our personal information


so that is my conclusion lah


part one debate topic one, okay, missy you want to start


okay why I think it is it has become irrelevant I don't have newspaper in most in fact most people's house do not carry newspaper now


well I think uh you might be one of the few but but vast majority in the market in what we see in fact in all like the youngster uh they do not really watch TV at all now uh they actually watch on the phone


you know should the mobile phone or on the computer or their laptop itself in in fact the mobile phone is the one that they are using it uh most of the time because we don't really go to a TV screen unless you want to sing karaoke


okay uh like I said uh the paper because today is a waste of the resources because that we are going green because having paper cutting I mean newspaper that's why this day if you find


uh newspaper is getting more expensive as you compared to you can read your news on your mobile phone or maybe like this case on the laptop ya and uh is not mobile because uh you have to carry heavy newspaper


and you can find in fact uh there is very little advertisement now they are doing uh E advertisement a lot is on E advertisement ya because in the past I used to uh have newspaper I put up my advertisement on the newspaper


but I don't get I get a respond but now when I put up my advertisement in the newspaper I get no respond at all so I think today newspaper has really becoming more and more irrelevant except some maybe


uh old school like yourself who still like to feel that the I mean is still like maybe uh maybe the older generation they still like to have the feel of paper in their hand yup


uh, okay I am trying to find the statistic uh in regards to the number of people are sub but what I notice is that the subscription of the physical newspaper is really getting lesser as compared to the online uh


they online paper E paper that we are having now so uh and and this is something that uh is uh you can't you can't avoid uh because it's part of the change in the society due to the internet the advancement in the technology


uh and this is really happening because honestly I have no more newspaper in my house for the past four years


uh ya agree I mean I still remember uh those day my in fact my mom is the person who love to cut newspaper she have lots of newspaper cutting but honesty uh is like everything like today uh sadly uh sometime my my my children will say that


uh ask your mom instead of asking your mom about things she will say ask I will tell them eh ask google so google is replacing me uh I I can't I honestly is like everything if I do not know I will search google and google can give me the answer I mean at least something


closer even like re lately we have been trying to do some cooking you know uh we are looking at in we don't look at look at newspaper for the recipe but instead we are looking at phone to search for information is no longer going through all the newspaper


but newspaper is like becoming uh how to say is becoming more like a dinosaur lah to me, or maybe is something that when we have newspaper okay in school my son's school they do give out newspaper but the newspaper uh we are not using it to read but actually we use it to clean our window you know


, , , (hmm)


(mmhmm)


uh I can't deny that but again uh a lot of the time actually I don't have the luxury to stay back at that kind of hour uh so I mean in vast majority of the people are working late so actually is true that they are actually playing catch up on the internet itself


so uh it in a way of course uh TV shows is still there uh especially for the older generation is something that they still can't do away they they would still love to catch that but among vast majority of the younger generations and the busy bee worker


you know busy people who uh working late hours uh they honestly they are catching doing catching up you know probably when they back uh after midnight or some in fact uh most singaporean you probably work uh late now we don't hardly anybody really go back on time I mean now is a bit different because due to the COVID


so we are actually at home or we are actually working from home uh so we have the opportunity to actually watch TV because honestly during this time is the first time I got time I can sit in front of a TV to watch a TV show , alright before that for I think at least a year I don't really have any time to really watch sit down and watch TV but is most of time is after the hour and I watching on the my phone ya although I don't like it but I'm collecting my phone


uh the TV is more like a display to me to connect to a big screen, !huh! more like a TV like a monitor uh uh computer uh ya correct more like a projector to me yup


yup on that point that I I cannot uh I do agree that uh they has a lot unless you are holding a a smart TV then in that case uh it makes sense because we are using it as a projector and also for access of internet also playing the games


but if is talking about the old traditional uh just TV alone uh then maybe uh it doesn't serve the purpose uh because I I could still recall the TV in my room that used to buy for my son in like place in his room


nobody watch the TV now, yup so he is actually watching all his shows everything is on his uh laptop or on his mobile phone ya so at the end of the day we actually sell it away to the Karang-Guni ya okay


(uh huh),


yup I yup on that point I cannot I agree on that agree to to agree that uh it will still be very relevant especially uh for the older generation yup it because maybe they they do not know in fact


uh many of the older generation uh the the parents are actually staying alone now so uh having a TV uh if you ask them to use a smart TV probably they do not how to operate it yup that is that I'm very sure ya because uh


in fact uh during this time when during the lockdown a lot of uh we see parents uh everybody uh we have to help them to get them online so some of them are actually quite quite uh can be quite uh difficult for them to do that ya


so is quite a big challenge on them but again uh I would say that TV in a matter of time uh this thing will be purely replace by something else because uh the old the just the just the TV itself will not work anymore so


we has to be uh something that is a smart TV, and uh it could be it can be uh something else that uh it it cannot be just the TV alone it will not it will and manufacturer don't manufacture that anymore or could be could be very small amount that they are manufacturing now if you look at the market


in the electrical appliances shop you hardly see any uh device that is just TV alone you know, yup probably is the collection maybe uh if they would if is you really see something just that is just use for TV to get connection to TV and without the function of Wi-Fi or a smart TV uh is more like a dinosaur lah ya


okay


(hmm), yup I I do I agree on lah because uh in a way uh most of the time uh we we do see that kind of issue here yup okay


uh yup


(mmhmm)


, uh okay what I see today uh TV uh and newspaper they do still have their use but just that in a matter of time uh like I said earlier uh it will it will still go away at the end of the day


so just like the form I mean in a way the form may change so it might not just be a TV alone but it's a smart TV, uh it's not a just a newspaper uh like uh like what you see today in pages uh because in my it would probably come to a time that the publisher they will might probably decide really want to stop that


and everything could be read out read from uh a tablets or a E books you know on something like that so you do you do not carry the because it's also part of the resource to to con to reserve to conserve the resource ya to preserve the source itself


so that we do not waste uh resources like the newspaper because those are using cutting down a lot of the trees ya so in fact we are talking about recycling so uh in a way if we use uh the newspaper we read from the tablets or


it can be a E screen can even on the smart TV itself uh that will really save a lot of resources yup okay,


yup, yup


yup


yup uh that one I agree because uh it will still stay in this period of time but like it's like I said in the probably five year from now or ten years from now maybe that would really go away because with the fast advance in the five G technology


maybe you will see probably all the words floating up ah because you ya you'll see the uh that means you actually can see a live performance without you going there, ya that is the five G technology yup so it's going to be really really uh you probably you will see the newspaper in front of you but in a five G you know the news the words will start to flip the the pages start to flip but it's a virtual you know it's actually seeing


uh uh images ya so ya so this is something quite quite quite uh quite amazing lah is not impossible because it's really coming up already because I saw in some of the video they actually talk about the five G yup okay


okay, yup, part two debate topic two, okay, uh yup you go ahead


well uh but again uh today in this internet world but sometimes it's really very dangerous if were to reveal our identity especially in some cases when we are talking about sensitive topics


and uh it it will it just to protect the person the speaker's identity yup so I feel that uh it should have the I mean the option to remain anonymous, correct


in certain sense I do agree but uh if there is a very sensitive issues uh for example uh maybe it could be a related to to exposing the uh a crime, uh it might if let's say you were to uh reveal your identity then you were actually uh in a way you put yourself into danger this is what I think uh is depend on case to case basis but if it's open uh let's say you are putting up a comment about a person


uh then I think you should have the guts to reveal your own identity but if you are really putting it uh to review something that uh it probably uh exposing the person on certain area uh that is real and it's true


then uh sometime to protect yourself uh you it it will we do feel that I feel that they should have the right to remain anonymous uh just quote an example uh let's say if I I'm going to uh expose a a something probably is a cheating case


uh somebody cheat on certain things uh and to protect uh you prevent the the party from taking revenge on myself uh who exposing the the crime itself then I think uh it is is better that I remain anonymous


yup don't you think so


uh in a way sometimes uh in certain case uh by going to the police it may not really work uh I came uh I mean I ever came across a kind of a scam case because uh police honestly they can't really they don't


they don't really handle such kind of scam case uh quote in an example it was a case uh like the it was a purchase of a handphone uh through a third party so the party uh in the end it gave a fake item


so when you go to the police the police would say because you agree to purchase the item so it's between you and the seller but in the case this was actually a cheating case so uh in order to expose the person who is selling fake item


so uh we the the person I mean the person actually put on the internet and and expose the crime and but he has to remain anonymous because uh he might put himself in certain thing dangerous because it might take revenge on the person


yup so cases like this is quite unusual but it really happen and police said that they don't handle such case I was surprised too, yup


yup I that part I I do agree uh uh in a way maybe okay in some cases uh certain people I would say that in general now uh we should uh do reveal our identity but for some people probably they are celebrity


so maybe it might not be suitable for them to be when they put up in the I mean in the media itself uh it probably it would be too sensitive for them to speak because uh and that is a time whereby they need to be remain anonymous because they are celebrity


yup so could and uh when especially when they touches a very sensitive topics, so uh it is uh still I feel that they should have the right to remain anonymous on the internet world I mean in the way because it might be too it might not to expose them uh and harm their career if they were to


uh expose themselves uh in that way


(mmhmm)


uh well I I agree and uh but in a way I also disagree because honestly uh everyone do have the right I mean uh they have the right to their speech uh but in the internet world I feel that's


because you are exposing yourself to many unknowns uh when I especially when you say something and if let's say uh somebody have a bad thought and probably make use of what you are speaking and they counter attack you and actually you can be quite uh the damaging it can be quite damaging


in that sense ya


well I in a way I do, uh like I said we should have the option to continue to have the the liberty to actually remain anonymous because especially uh a lot of time I felt that is uh is really for the protection of the person identity


ya uh of course in it's case where you should not be remain anonymous should not be anonymous we should uh we should actually uh show ourself lah but in some cases uh really I felt is is really very sensitive especially when touching


on very very sensitive topics could be a political topics uh or some things that uh uh can be religion itself uh this is what I see likely uh it might be uh good that uh we we we have the person who is speaking


uh have the right to actually remain anonymous yup so it just like when we uh sometimes we we give we write there uh some in in a way when they actually make some in certain cases when they make some comments we allow them to actually remain anonymous


ya because the topics that they are talking about is very sensitive ya so I mean we we do see that in uh in certain cases lah ya that's allowed


uh, , (mmhmm)


(hmm) okay, uh like okay but this is a very uh it can be very sensitive because uh privacy uh, because there's it got to do with a lot of privacy especially the person oh uh probably if when we talk could be commanding could be maybe she could be be giving out some information that very personal


so that's why they choose to be anonymous don't you think so


uh it was a very sad case I think I read about that too but like a like this kind of case uh I would say uh it it's a bit uh a bit unique not not common but a lot of the why we as I said uh


when we remain anonymous because there is a large part of it is because of the privacy and that to protect uh on in a ground of protection so uh because we want to preserve the privacy to prevent to prevent us from getting into


any other trouble like this because imagine uh the cyber the the guy who is bullied and uh actually the person who is criticizing is actually uh and uh and anonymous but the another person could be actually exposing the person who is actually attacking him


but so he could be the next target that targeted by the group of the people so in a way uh this can be vice versa uh it can cause uh uh uh reverse adverse uh effect because like quote an example if let's say


uh the person uh A uh was being attacked by the people uh surrounding uh in terms of the words to verbally abuse the person uh, can be I mean school being being bullied in school but he wants to he wants to help the this student A so he actually report to the teacher so but he cannot tell the the teacher would not tell the the students I mean to


to counter that say that uh this student A is the one who reporting, because in a way the the rest may actually take revenge on him ya there is chances like that because uh this kind of thing actually happens ya


(mmhmm)


yup uh sadly I think , in certain case uh not many people who are in in they when they are really facing such challenge they will choose to became to to remain anonymous


okay yup I mean, uh where I may quote the case when you see because because of fear a lot of times is because of fear ya so they choose to have the to remain anonymous and they do not they want to expose but uh and on one hand uh but hopefully those people will really


uh but because of the change in the internet world it's very hard now invite uh people that are demanding that you have to expose to be to cannot remain anonymous now yup okay okay


part three debate, topic three, okay, uh


I agree they should not have the right to store our personal data because this is our this is uh uh infringing our privacy and our rights correct isn't it


uh okay maybe I'm a very private person uh honestly I really don't like to see all those cookie that is popping out and and if let's say whatever uh information that I when I watch on the but I know it's not is uh this they are actually


they are call spy ware they are actually spying us on how we actually move our shopping and look at the items that we are watching so I feel that my privacy is really being infringed you know it's actually uh and I felt very unsafe


so sometimes I really uh quite it deter me from going to the website to browse what they are what I'm looking and if the website wants to store the information uh I I personally I really don't like that and


I actually uh very scary when I see how google is tracking us uh it's quite quite scary because uh when I look at the google uh informations uh it tells me that where am I previous uh in last few minute


my activities what am I doing, uh it kind of freak me out and I try to stop that but unfortunately not quite successful lah ya don't you think so you know you're you are being monitored every second and every single you know is like every time any any minute and any second


uh yes I cannot deny the the advantage in that I I also enjoy the ease of using it you know having uh when I click the google map it actually show me where the I am where I am but again I still feel that uh be being tracked


uh monitored where you are every second it's still something uh it is really still infringe my privacy and and they should get our permission before but of course we do give permission to google


but some shopping sites they they have uh I don't think they should uh should allow we should not allow them to store our data unless we have given them uh to grant them the the , uh uh if we grant them authority to actually to store our information they should seek our permission uh before they use and store our information


right


okay uh in the shopping uh I do agree that uh the ease of uh browsing and that actually they suggest the right item uh that is on the ground that we actually given them the uh the the authority I mean the rights


to actually access our information but on those for those uh actually uh it they the the amount of rights to use our information it should be limited like I will not agree that they should sell to the bank you know having uh people coming to me eh do you want to loan money


or uh the worst is uh getting all those money lenders sending to uh sending all the informations uh keep popping out all the nuisance uh uh uh advertisement uh that is really irritating in and sometimes I wonder how on earth they get our number you know it's very scary


don't you think so


(mmhmm), uh and I still remain the ground that they if they want to store and use our information uh it has to be transparent and receive uh that means we still need to give them the consents to use our information and it should not just store


our information and use our personal information without us agreeing because in fact uh this is part of the fringing infringement of the PDP uh PDPC uh personal data protection plan uh because many banks actually uh had


infringe that uh privacy because of leaking out of the datas ya so and uh social media now in fact is a is a kind of the grey area so uh I believe uh in a matter of time this should be also be controlled


ya alright they should not just liberally use our E our emails just because we store our birthdays you know our information because they collect this is uh that's why these day they are not allow we are not allow to put in our IC


because these are very very private information ya correct


they never edit ya, yeah, , yup,


secured (uh huh)


yup uh uh this in on in this sense uh on the social media part uh still I don't agree that they should be, really have the total the all the right to store and use our personal information it should be still restricted because in many case uh we actually like uh for my personal experience in fact I my person who doesn't go on facebook


I found that a lot of information that's why I only uh uh I don't put up my personal life my personal information into page so because it's more of a business only because uh it's like you exposing uh if there is a certain way of the danger


there when you're doing expose there and uh that that information can be actually stored and kept and uh and it can be actually used for the wrong wrong purpose I in a way we we and understand what you say uh we are they are not doing it for the purpose of committing crime


but , still I feel it's not right for them to use without our consents you know ya even though I might give me suggestion that uh after tracking that know I like certain brands certain colours and advertisement can pop out all these uh certain thing and save me from the time


of the of uh go and search but still I prefer to that uh this information are not uh tracked down ya because it's like almost like everything I do on the net and they can see me it really freak me ya freak me out ya so this is kind of scary


I don't I don't like that kind of feeling ya


(mmhmm)


uh in this way uh in this sense I do agree ya because uh it is at least their what they have already seek my right I mean my permission to actually store the information but if let's say uh


in some cases I do hear, I mean you can see in the newspaper actually information of the client like form the bank was being leaked out or they purposely sell it to insurance company or they sell it to somebody else and they use and you get someone calling you uh which you do not know uh for what purpose


you know and it's quite irritating ya so I felt that uh it should be really still restricted and uh has to have the limited right so if it is just for their personal their company marketing


and uh not making profit from there then I think should be fine you know ya but still uh it should not it should be have uh there there is certain a level of restriction in in terms of amount of information that they should be using


for their marketing purpose yup so because some information is like example for example the credit card information this is really something that will have to be very careful ya because we all shop online so our credit card information is actually exposed our our account


uh and it can a lot this where the fraudulence comes in uh base on my personal experience the last time when I was in US uh I actually book a a grab I mean a taxi I mean a taxi using my credit cards


and two months later someone was using my credit card to make a payment in US I I have no clue how is this information leak out because I actually book through uber, ya so it's really very dangerous but it was fortunate that I got a uh uh kind of signal from them because it is a oversea transaction so I was notified that there was this kind of abnormal transaction and I can could stop it in time


ya otherwise uh we would be I would be probably paying that that credit card a bill without me knowing that I'm not spending it ya okay so this is again how did uh companies like uber could leak out the credit card information


isn't it, yup


yup, (hmm), yup, (hmm)


yup I, ya I agree ya in fact uh I was really surprised that uh how could such security breach happens on company like them yup so anyway I I felt but that was about three years ago maybe it was easier to to crack into their system


uh probably they have stole a bunch of the information maybe that could happen ya just like we got a lot of cyber crime like you mentioned earlier yup so uh again I would say I do agree like in this case it is for the purpose of good for the marketing purpose


uh then the company should have the social media should have they can use information but on limited basis and uh protecting the customer uh information is really uh something that they will really have to uh to protect I mean to step up their


their their their case ya step up their security ya okay we are done


okay let me start okay my name is Aisyah and today will be doing debate topic one


which is in the age of the internet TV and newspaper have become irrelevant okay my argument is that in ever so changing times TV and newspapers have become irrelevant as media has shifted its platforms to the internet as well as applications on phones


like like, you are familiar with also you know straits times financial times they're all very easily accessible on the phone on iphone and enjoy it's just simply by the touch of a button and you don't actually have to go out to the shops


to buy a physical copy of newspapers okay so uh as I mention the emergence of accessible and user-friendly technologies serve as a way for consumers to have easy access to news all over the world without having to physically buy a copy of the newspaper


making hard copies of newspapers almost obsolete, also there's also been a very huge decline of singapore terrestrial TV viewership by thirteen percent this is the years two thousand five with two thousand ten so you can only imagine it being a lot


steeper decline as the times go by with majority migrating to other forms of entertainment such as netflix Hulu and HBO, so as I mentioned, newspapers have become a relevant because information is all very widely spread on the internet let's say even uh the guardian #new york# times you can find that on the apps or on the internet itself on their websites


which a lot of them are actually shared via social media and that's how people are getting more and more aware actually through social media , rather than having to watch the news or pick up a physical copy of the newspaper to get themselves informed in terms of


TV it definitely has had a very steady decline in terms of viewership, uh mainly because like I said entertainment platforms such as netflix Hulu and HBO make it very easy for consumers to select


what they want to watch to filter what they want to watch and also to have like a one time fee let's say ten dollars a month you know to have access to every single almost every single series every, single movie there is and it's definitely a lot more personalized as compared to what we had in the day whereby you turn on the TV what's on the TV and you can't control what you what you


see uh it's basically controlled by singapore's board or whoever like media board that is uh regulating the TV shows and what not, okay , ya with that said I have finished my argument for this so I want to listen to Danika side in terms of opposition


okay, okay as you've mentioned that are like older generation they do prefer having physical copies of newspapers and having it readily on hand and being able to switch on the TV and see the news like CNN and what have you mentioned right


I mean I do have experience with uh for example my grandparents who actually do have smart phones themselves, and they they also like to go through you know articles online rather than having to have a physical newspaper because it uh broaden some you know perspective and horizons as to what that is happening around the world


let say for example CNN for example UK very good example how they are very biased towards hitting on , what's your name, and the lady that married prince harry is it


meghan markle so you can see like how media portraits meghan markle to be the bad person and they using that as a propaganda in print newspaper TV all over the UK, you know so that is what they're feeding to the people and they they can control that because that is part of the media however if you use the internet you can definitely see there's always two type two sides of the story


and it's really up to the person whether they will want to believe you know this person story with that person story because it's always very subjective in a sense that yes we do need to educate our kids especially the younger children which sources are reliable


always fact check that's why I think even in schools like what we did in social studies actually , we we did trustworthiness and reliability, for a lot of our exams so we using those skills to actually look through okay if somebody doing a research also uh Wikipedia is definitely not a good resource definitely uh because it's something people can go online and edit it you know anybody can do it anonymously also


yeah so but like I said some information may not be fed to the people and it's actually heavily controlled by the government like for example, I can say uh north-korea propaganda, you know they're not being told the what's happening around the world even in china they're banning google they're banning youtube and this makes that the people having uh such a close-minded you know mindset and like


basically giving their citizens tunnel vision so as much as yes it's it's a good source to have you know just turn on TV it's there but , these are really changing times and it's time to, question every single thing you see on even internet yes but also what you see on your own TV that is why the world is changing so much because of what media decides to portray and not to portray uh


people are coming to see the the realness of issues around the world and what has words not being broadcasted like for example love, recently in the like Yemen wars and famine they're not being broadcasted you know in singapore uh for example black lives matter not being broadcast in singapore how do we know this


all through the internet and it's really up to you to see which you find reliable but, I mean if you know people definitely who are in the movement it definitely helps uh I would say that's in terms of the internet it really does also bring people together people from all over the world not just you know in your family


ya and towards a better course in a lot of sense, ya


okay so like you mentioned about you know elder folks not, being able to have that accessibility basically is stole on their end understandable yes uh but, what I'm trying to bring to light is that education is very important in terms of having our future and younger generations even our current generations to be very aware of


what is and what is not real so that will definitely rely heavily on education systems around the world because they do have to uh adapt to the ever-changing times and like what I'm I think what I've read recently on the straits times is that they're gonna make laptops mandatory


for all secondary school students so as you as you know advancements in technology progresses we they are definitely moving towards a more IT savvy and more internet related uh studies and stuff like that so


, and also like another tool that is good for the internet rather than you know the news the newspapers and TV is also another soft form of education and entertainment that let's say people a lot of creators actually put out let's say on youtube for example


if I want to learn a bit about excel you know I don't know what to do I can't in the olden days what you do is go and buy , one zero one dummies or that book like you know one like that how


to use excel you flip through everything you know maybe I don't understand but nowadays you can just, google it click on youtube tutorials there and also having a lot of other people bring in their perspective in terms of


let's say lectures like your lecturer just does not cut it and so you've let's say I want to learn the concept of how this medication works into the body and stuff at so you you just, I'll go to the internet and go on youtube and they'll be able to explain it further so it's a good thing for educational tools as well rather than you know having print and also it's definitely a lot more environmentally


friendly if you were to put it that way and yup so less trees everything is all online, information and resources uh are definitely, you know uh kept up and yeah so that is my case too


Wechat


yes I would agree that uh, both pros and cons to both situations and yes we should take into account people who do not have that access just yet because yes the world does have a long long way to go before everyone progresses at the same pace which I think is


, merely impossible but, I mean we're getting there hopefully, , okay think that's all me


okay so we're going to debate topic two which is people had the rights to remain anonymous when portrayed in media, so I am going for the proposition on this matter so basically why I think this is so is because they do have the right to remain anonymous in media because let's say for example


someone has done as crime or a scandal uh for example you can see like shows like crime watch whereby you know they highlight crimes such as loan sharking you know molestation rape and all the stuff they do uh censored made the person anonymous


for for very very serious reason such as maybe their uh family members might get death threats, or you know disturbances uh with people who actually watch them or know who they are it was like a


so they do not want that association to the person because they're not directly involved in the scandal or crime that's why I believe that they should and will be able to remain anonymous, so likes I said sensitive topics in that concerned family make matters such as incarceration uh stuff like that


and also in light of what's happening around the world as you know, of black lives matter movement is very big right now basically black lives matter matters movement is, the not uprising basically is the movement to bring about that to bring about police brutality and also that uh what


been happening in the US and a lot of different parts of the world in terms of discrimination against black people, so , there are few cases where the people who participants did not actually remain anonymous or their faces were not blurred out when they are actually participated in this


protests they are being arrested and also punished, for being involved in the movement by their unjust police system so that's why I believe that , anonymity


is very important in this sensitive in terms of sensitive topics, especially uh and also uh anonymity, sorry what was that what was that so anonymity is very important in terms of personal protection like


uh for example they won't be able to dox where you're at based on your surroundings based on how you look based on how you speak they won't be able to narrow that down let's say for example even if you'd if you are on media not for anything wrong reason maybe you are just there


to conduct interview or, uh stuff like that you if you are not, if you don't actually agree, to showing your face a lot of things can happen even like stalkers and you know haters on the internet and that's that definitely brings about a lot of other crimes such as cyberbullying uh and things like that so


ya that's all for now I want to hear what Danica has to say


floyd


okay I think like you mention our first of with in with regards of like interviews and stuff like that they do have contractual , uh you know specific specifications that they have to go through and what the what I'm trying to say is that they should have an option to remain anonymous in terms of speaking up about sensitive issues around friends family you know people that they know


and also maybe one one more other topic is that maybe, in terms of uh very huge scandals that say like company company-wide and it's like a multi-national, company , someone who read it out a whistle blower who want to stay anonymous in a sense where like example uh


pharmaceutical companies that are not, doing testing right or you know that they're not complying to FDA regulations there are people definitely out there who would want to whistle blow these huge companies and if their identity is found out


the basically their whole careers uh careers is down the drain because they'll be known to be the whistle blower they'll be known to be not considered untrustworthy in terms of the industry and


basic ya their whole entire career is down the drain because nobody in the industry would want to take you up, uh and that's something that is you know whether to fight with within yourself in terms of uh I know this is wrong I should speak up about it


but I know that if I speak about it and they know who I am my life is ruined that's why I say that they have the right to remain anonymous because if they're speaking about things that would land them into trouble even though it's the right thing to do


ya so there've been a lot of cases in terms of whistle blowers where they even have they have all the evidence and stuff like that but they end up being in the losing end you know having the short end of the stick and ya also


with uh maybe leaked information about certain individuals or that are that are very important in public's eye that those people should remain anonymous, uh ya


for example the epstein you know donald trump relations and people who actually, who are victims to the crimes of epstein should remain anonymous if they want to be anonymous, because it's not their fault that they're being put into that situation


yeah


okay in terms of what you said about like public figures, yes they do I mean I hundred percent agree with that they didn't do not have a right to anonymity but I'm talking about protecting the people who are victims mostly and a lot of them do not want you know people to know that they are the person in like who were victimized


you know of the crimes and because for example, like epstein rape cases you know even though yes the lady some of them actually brought people, people over to


to epstein him himself but some of them actually remain anonymous why because they know that what they did was wrong yes they were being manipulated by him, and also if people were to find out who they are can you imagine the amount of backlash that you'll get even though there're victims themselves of you know


from like bullying uh because you know how big the stigma is even, around sexual assault victims and that something that is very, very vast, and it's a definitely serious problem even in singapore a lot of sexual assault crimes are not taken very seriously and even their cases whereby you know even our justice system is not up to par in in terms of taking care these


situation and the public tends to shame victim shame you know all these people who have been on definitely the losing side of it and they've been , uh taken advantage of you know they just feel disgusting and used and they just want to tell somebody you know this happened to me but please doesn't show who I am because I don't want people to


you know think differently of me because that's not who I am that's what happened to me and this it's all very circumstantial in a sense of like celebrities public figures and all that ya, they do not have a right to that because they really put themselves out in the public eye but I'm talking about people in general who are not those public figures


okay I agree with you in terms of uh, like I said public figures but I still do not agree that you know talking to just a therapist or doctor will help anything maybe in there's a mental health and helping them to cope with what happen yes but most of the times it stops there and they'll definitely want justice


for what happened to them what happened to countless multiple people and knowing that you know their justice system is not doing that they have to take it a step further they have to, push it and expose these people and, ya and knowing how powerful some people are in certain situations you definitely still want to remain anonymous


because you don't know what's going to bite you back you know in terms of like ya very big epstein cases , uh, ya and I really do still very firmly believe that you know they have the right to remain anonymous


because of those reasons, may go on


(mmhmm)


good point fair play, , okay I'm done also


do I stop the recording


okay so we're going to debate topic three which is social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information , so as you know there's a very very big scandal in terms of a data leaks


one very big example is that facebook #cambridge analytica# data breach which occurred in early two twenty-eighteen when millions of facebook users' personal data was harvested without consent by cambridge-analytica to be predominantly used for political advertising


this data breach was the largest known leak in facebook's history, the app not only harvested the personal data of the users that completed the questions but also of the user's facebook friends so it goes as far as that


cambridge analytica sort, to sell the data to american voters to political campaigns and ultimately provided assistance and alert analytics, to the ted cruz and donald trump campaigns and out of all of these data breach actually eighty-seven million users have been affected and their data had been improperly shared


ya so uh so this is basically this huge data breach resulted in what, what may seem that they use it sorry they used user data


to in their own political benefit to see whether they'll be able to vote for the, trump campaigns basically and they're trying to use that to their advantage which is definitely


very illegal also one thing that why as the as to social media should not have the rights to use a personal information is that many companies have their own social media channels


and dealt and used for marketing and customer service these accounts are often managed by employees are outside agencies not even by the company itself , which can leave them to more vulnerable leave them sorry leave them more vulnerable to breaches as cyber threats become more advanced social media data can be collected and used to create elaborate social engineering attacks these attacks can threaten an individual's personal or financial data


but can also be designed to gain access to their workplace credentials or their employers data such as payroll information or customer credit card numbers and these are definitely be will result in an increase in scams, as you all know there's a lot of recent scam the DBS one the DHL one you know they actually using proper


numbers from outlets you know to call you and say you know this is DBS but if as my number is a hoax but, you know the thing is uh having personal information being stored on social media is definitely of high risk because in this day and age anything and everything can be hacked


so you can be doxed, your credentials can be seen how much you earn can be seen where you live can be seen who you have friends with can be seen even right down to you know what's your favourite food and what's your pet you know all this information


you know people can gain access to and it's so scary because it's at it's thought that it's supposed to be private and personal, and in the wrong hands these these things are detrimental, ya


, well ya as as you mention you know there are people who are you know social media vigilantes who take this information and use it for good but unfortunately most of the time it's on the opposite side people use this information for their own benefit for their own profits


you know being able to like uh, for example monopolised the situation scam even the elderly because they're not very tech-savvy so you know they believe everything they see on the internet


you know even even scarier things such as people having to know where you live which is very scary to me because, you know in this day and age people tend, tend to not socialise as much they do they do a lot online but in terms of a physical contact is I think is getting lesser and lesser because people rather be behind a screen so usually who you see is


not who you get and these people who, you know for example they liked you but they find out where you are, you are at and then they will start you know stalking a lot of these stalking cases turned into you know murders and stuff and that's very scary in this world where everything is pretty much stored on the internet and one more thing is that you know in terms of consent


let's say uh you went out with your friends you know one night and, uh they are definitely pictures of other people but you know of you in it and even though you're private profile you can your location you know that can still be known


to certain people and that's, definitely scary in terms of uh you know having predators out there ya and especially in terms of uh finances and your credit card information that is


you know people not everyone has the luxury of having a savings account, or not having that much you know sort like a lot of people are still living from pay cheque to pay cheque having their you know bank details and credit card information being leaked out is basically the end for them because they have nothing else to survive on


that's why I say like, yes and I understand what you mean by ya , they have the right to store it but to use it is another thing but also storing it enables people who are hackers to get access to the information, ya


and the health records and everything, ya, Lee-Hsien-Loong


okay I think what you mention is basically uh personal data protection, ya I think it's something that is, I thought that's like a


policies now in terms of data protection that's like you know for example companies you have to keep everything confidential and they really have to prevent having all this information being leaked out to third party or


stuff like that, you know yup


(mmhmm), (mmhmm), well I mean, in that case ya but you know you can have regulations and stuff like that but anonymous hackers can come and get your information anyway without you realising and a lot of them know how to cover their tracks very well so that's also another issue