the women ah is a person you know not a container for the fetus you know, okay so we should give them ah considerations ah to her rights and her needs you know


even when the baby has birth defect, even when the baby is blind even when the baby does not even know


is not mentally sound to decide for him or herself are you giving the baby a chance to live or are you doing the baby more harm than good, by giving birth to a defected child a blind child a dumb child


a mentally challenged child are you sure you're giving him more good


so you rather gave birth to a defected child lah no limbs no legs then led him suffer let her suffer let people laugh at her ha ha ha ha ha


margaret thinger the founder of planned parenthood one savers, no women can call herself free until she can choose conscientiously whether she will or will not be a mother


it does not mean ah that I'm a women I'm of childbearing I must gave birth, I must be pregnant, I must deliver the child you are denying my rights to live as a women


you are denying my rights to achieve full political social and economic equality with man


that's why it comes back to the very fundamental


it comes back to the fundamental, if if someone is not financially stable not emotionally sound do you still want them to continue the pregnancy yes or no


the mom the dad they're not financially stable you know they're only thirteen and fourteen just like in china a recent case a child is only thirteen years old and she's forced to deliver the child she doesn't even not take care of herself you know they're not taking care of a child, and you deny her the and you deny her the rights to abort the child and it actually causes her more harm


she's actually her body actually damaged because of the weight of the fetus, is this fair to her, she is


let me tell let me ask you what if a woman is being raped, what if she's being rape would you still want her to continue the pregnancy yes or no


but the topic today ah it's not about voluntary abortion the topic is about abortion


do you know ah the abortion rate in china ah skyrocketed you know when they have this one child policy implemented in nineteen seventy nine and do you know ah not all these abortions ah are carried out legally you know china banned the right K for abortion but does it stop the people from getting it done


no, it actually revert them to illegal and unhealthy way and they actually look for alternative to get an abortion because the safe routes are being closed cause they cannot get it legally done right they do it illegally, worse


you said about delivering the child right they did they deliver the child and what did they do to the child they strangle the child they dump the child, isn't it the same


so you're still thinking the abortion is


not correct, but do you know, an abortion


is sometimes, really necessary, number one, abortion to save my life, it's either the child's life or the mother's life who would you choose, number two sometimes the child really have serious genetic defects you still want to give birth to the child ah this defects ah cannot be corrected one you know once you give birth the child once you passed on who will fend for the child you or I


you pass on already you know the child is still in the society the child is still living but the child do not have a means to defend for themselves to support for themselves then who to love and take care of the child, isn't it more miserable


what will what way


then


you're talking about, education right do you know ah, the sexuality information and education counsellor of the united states ah, get reported, I quote between nineteen ninety six and federal fiscal year twenty o eight congress actually used over one point five billion


for such education you know such programmes to discuss about contraception about safe sex in favour of teaching okay, does it work or not I'm so sorry it doesn't no data proved ah that such methods ah deter it from having sex


and the abortion rate ah in the states ah of free sex ah is still very high rocket high, they educate they spent so many you know


, , , (mmhmm)


but it does not mean that there's there is no children born out of wedlock, do you know ah there's a recent news ah that a that a girl is actually rape by the stepfather over a period of ten years


and her child her son is actually her own stepfather's child in sense relationship would you encourage that, singapore singapore lor


by rejecting abortion you are just prohibiting a woman ah the rights to decide what she can or she cannot do to her body


you're taking away ah the most basic fundamental of a freedom you know and turning them ah into into slaves and machines of childbearing system because she is born with it so she has to give birth no choice


this is not fair, and if you if you do not if you do not have abortion let me ask you how do you solve the poverty rates in the third world country


how do you fit them and how do you cloak and educate them, a lot NPO has been going in to to tell them about safe sex a contraceptive pills about this about that does it work, no zero it does not work


really


if education is so fantastic and why is it still a social issue in the third world country


what do you mean what do you mean this one, are you referring to this one can you see, but is not is is still far progress overall progress you know screenshot


K I screenshot this, oh my god the file you can you see the file progress if


it getting shorter and shorter, talk slowly ha ha ha I talk very slow already


okay stop


the cross island line should be built under our nature reserve uh debate topic one


go ahead, yup


okay of course I don't agree because uh when we talk about nature reserve we're talking about uh trying to err stay put the heritage you know the the the natural part of the the the garden uh


just imagine if you have a, uh commercial building right in front of a national reserve waterfall it it it it doesn't make sense it actually spoils the spoils the whole the spoil whole view and the whole scene, so I I I will feel that if it is a park is if if it's a reserve it should be reserve in such a way whereby we should not be seeing any commercial building or any uh


heavily uh machinery equipments or where it transportation and things like that to to be to be nearby just look at the uh in japan Kyoto Kyoto has a, has a very wide range of uh uh shrines and uh all those uh natural reserve park and uh they are not heavily uh uh


and (ugh) they call it uh train as well uh in Tokyo yes it it has lot of train in every every single maybe uh in in in in any in every maybe five kilometre you have a train station but in Kyoto because they they are popular with their natural reserve so you only can travel by buses you know


to to to towards these place these places, and they won't never built a train station or or don't don't do any digging or undergrounds and all in order for tourists to get to the place, so I I will feel that you know when we talk about uh reserve park it it should be reserved in a natural way and be there shouldn't be any uh diggings or or commercial building around it


back to you john


well I'm not very I'm not I'm not very uh really technically inclined when it come to err this uh uh so call err, how should I put it well I'm talking about the underground digging you know at how many percentage or how many kilometers how many meters below the surface ground uh at what sort of soil conditions at what sort of uh earth


uh material we have if consider are safe when we talk about natural reserve we also talk about doing doing towards green, by doing underground by digging all these uh so called that the that the earth from the mother nature uh uh seriously I'm quite sceptical you you can convince me with a


uh a per~certain percentage that you will not ruin the roots of all the trees and plants and uh the whole ecosystems but I I I believe once you touch uh this mother nature, uh things especially in such a big area uh you more or less you will you will contribute carbon footprints you know into into the earth


ya sorry uh, ya so one more or less you will contribute you will contribute this this this type of carbon footprints to the earth and and to me being a natural park it should be going there by foot you know of course I'm not expecting you to work like ten kilometres before you can reach uh a a natural reserve place but it should be it should be by foot it should be


uh, uh it should not be uh, uh uh easily get to that place and and that is that is a purpose of uh, walking that that is a purpose of destressing yourself into such a natural reserve place back to you john


uh no I don't agreed because when you start diggings uh the earth uh a lot of carbon footprints uh a lot of plant I a lot of plantages will be will be damaged definitely, uh heavy machinery for this project at least you uh ah I presume these project will takes about two years


and and uh that will be the amount of carbon footprints that can be contribute back to the earth, I I'll I will still feel that this is not the right way uh sorry if I've if I'll if I will be if I will be blunt about it I think we should not even consider putting a station uh around that area you know if it is uh going one big round and uh it's going to cause a


much more uh fuel to, to uh get the train bypass it and you know one as what you mention one big round then in the first place we should not be even building it because this is a such a small country


we are encouraged to use the bicycles and and uh like the other forms of uh non uh fuel kind of transportation and then we should we should not be so much pampered and we should look into all these uh alternative as well back to you john


well uh you are not wrong in a way but ah eh ya is as as as I mentioned it's such a small an island we eh depends a lot we have been increasing our, uh size by doing a lot of uh, uh reclaim land eh I'm I'm not sure if this is the right


thing to do to to to, do this MRT thing uh right across uh the island uh it it to to me did we are not in the country whereby we are, that big till uh transportation is such a big issue and uh you only you only can get there by by uh a


car and not any other thing else you know we have buses we have uh and the buses right now we're actually going into hybrid electric base and where by they're they they are not uh using fuel to uh fill fill the bus so


again in in in any where you'll have these issue you know the the not things that is not dig underground you'll definitely have uh inconvenience of uh noise to the residents disturbance to the the the the nature animals that that is around here so again I want to emphasised that uh


uh, it it is not necessary to build these thing you know uh of course having said that you you you it is usually a confirm proposal you know by by the government here (ugh) ya that that's all I can say


so at where sorry where where where did you get the two billion uh numbers from again can you just repeat that sentence again, so you are talking about if we do not go the round about and if we good did build directly across it we can actually save two billion in terms of uh construction costs


okay uh, well this is another numbers that uh is actually speculated by the architects and the construct and the and and and and the and the contractor, I I believe you know obviously if you don't go round about it definitely that would be a a cost you know but it we're talking about the impact the aftermath impact of uh getting these done how much uh


err, how much does it cost the earth (ugh), initially when we built MRTs to those places that's underneath some buildings I think I think golden mile I think there's a there's a there's a private apartment and golden mile and uh in in the midst of digging the


uh, nicoll highway there are cracks and and and and they had to get stabilizer to stabilize the, the the pillar and things like that you know there are cases like that so again you know this is a it this is a thing that we can argue you know during the proposal of course you know a a physic (ugh) based on physic you can calculate and then everything goes well you know


uh but with a lot of uh changes in the weather I think uh landslides coming up, uh all these are unpredictable and and not forgetting that again I would like to mention that uh we we we (ugh) most of our places are reclaim land like uh Sentosa


so uh with the changes in weather with the rise in uh sea level uh the whole ecosystem will change you know so I'm not pretty sure all these uh physics calculation you know do do they also take into consideration to calculate


whether climate changes is the next ten years you know or they are just basing on the facts that is what we what we are today yup back to you john


well of course I don't agree right now we are almost six I think we are all we're we're slightly more than six million kind of population and uh all these uh increased by the government I believe they might be intending to bring more uh people in oh


you know by by by ah getting singaporean to produce more I think is uh pretty difficult so they might be bringing in a lot of uh uh immigrants in to to build up the number and uh we are the most populated countries


uh in asia right now you know based on our sizes uh, and and and this is not healthy I'm telling you so uh the the the problem right now is if if you're going to have more people coming in you know you you you will end up building uh more more buildings and cutting a lot of under underground uh stuff in order to


uh facilitate the infrastructure uh which is the transport for everybody so yup I I I rest my case uh I will still would not agreed to, uh have this uh underground dig across the island


thank you


men is helpless in the face of climate change debate topic, two, okay but


do you do you have to read the like what you read just now the the leading discussion no, ya ya, that that is that comes up after the three minutes right okay okay, okay let's think let's think for three minutes


ya of course is the layer that uh actually err protect us err uh is so that the the sun the direct sun from the direct light uh so or heat from the sun will will not come into the earth


(mmhmm)


no I I I don't agree uh you can see that uh, countries like japan, uh I think they're the very first one who start out with uh towards green , in japan every household they have


eh they sort out bin to do recycling and they're pretty strict about it and if you could see some documentation show uh even cartons of uh uh milk uh empty empty milk bottles uh they even go to the extend of tearing of the label because the label is make of uh paper and uh


the carton the the what they call the the plastic container is made of plastic and they and they wash and they sort out, is uh the, to me it all depends on the uh culture of the country uh have I've travel to the northern site of uh this world uh and and people in sweden they actually the sort it out like the what what we do in japan and uh in order


to to to help out with the uh to cope up with the climate changes all products in the northern side of a uh , uh this world they actually buy from reliable sources uh in terms of paper uh I think FSC sounds familiar to you that was a period of time like two years ago


we have this indonesia having this uh, uh forests uh burnt down and the government the our minister vivian Balakrishnan has step up and says you know any toilet rolls or tissue rolls that is not FSC certified we are not allowed to import in and even selling in singapore and distributed in singapore so FSC stand for forest err forest council


and this is where they are reliable source to to to cut down the trees uh they make sure that they they don't cut and sustainability of course it's their number one uh priority so my understanding is uh everyone every single tree they cut, they have to plant six tree back immediately you know for the next generation on uh for for the next two decades and and and this this is all about sustainability sustainability is all about uh you getting what you have from nature but you you do do not compromise


do the future you know so which means whatever you take now you make sure that you you have to give back or you have to in venture fact in put doubled back to the future so that you know you will not uh uh increase the carbon footprints in in in in on on the earth, if if you notice the cafe uh we talk about singapore if you notice the cafe here uh a lot of youngsters cafe they're are all going towards uh


compostable takeaway boxes you hardly see plastic you know and even though when they have a plastic cover the plant will cover up all these plastic are actually uh uh recycle and uh bio biodegradable plastic, and all these boxes that they're using is all actually compostable and compostable means you can actually leave it under the hot sun with our weather with our humidity you can actually composes in sixty days and actually it gone into the earth and it becomes a fertiliser


so men are actually mankind are actually doing all the changes in australia, if you if you going to walk in eh if you are a salesman you walk in with a form box those that we have in the chinese traditional form box I tell you you're get chase out and they will never want to see your face again because they are so particular particular about sustainability and uh


building the correct ah uh uh uh uh, uh thing for the the next the for the next generation uh so I I do I do uh agree that uh, mankind it men is actually uh it is it they don't feel helpless to to face climate change no they are doing something about it


they have been uh you have been seeing a lot of uh new uh company that bring in sustainability products uh in terms of cars in terms of uh takeaway boxes and everything and it it it it's so obvious since last year


uh I would says that at least seventy percent of the F and B chain outlet they have stopped using plastic straws and and they're going into paper straws, uh the big boys are starbucks KFC all these McDonald's you know they are trying to reduce the number of straws by not


putting at the counter to let you help yourself for free and they you will only give it to you upon request so , back to you johns uh I oppose this uh, topic


so you're talking about doing it for marketing purposes, for branding purposes alright okay


well john if let's says everybody is uh the same as where where was the place again you're saying, yeah if everybody is the same as healthy uh then of course we are not seeing any results but the the fact is that the


uh uh , more educated people uh in every country I would say in every country we have uh educated people uh they start to see uh this is uh this is a a threat to them you know for their future generation they are


more, more companies in actual fact there are many many more uh if if you are talking about singapore they are going into this uh towards this green direction uh hotels I think the eco group hotel in uh the eco group hotels not in singapore only eco groups are pretty big


they have this thing call the planet twenty one okay which they are preparing themselves uh in in by twenty one twenty twos two zero one two one zero zero they are going everything hundred percent sustainability that includes getting those you know breakdown machine


uh in the hotel whereby all buffets that is uh unwaste all those waste food and all the leftover buffet foods uh it is supposed to go into this make machine and then they're going to do come up with some uh heat and and grinding and then it will end up into err fertiliser and there are pretty uh


a a few four star hotel like the ibis they are actually also planting their own , plants on the rooftop of their hotels uh like rosemary thymes you know uh all all these are small little garnishing, uh herbs uh that the that the hotel requires uh you can see uh people are there's the the preschool is being taught right now the preschool and this uh and the primary school students uh they have been they are they are right now being taught to to go


uh sorting of uh recycle uh products and then uh that is how that is how the the campaign the campaign we we you have to agree with me that we're doing singapore we have do the campaign like you know at least twenty years ago but it fail because we lack of uh educational


uh there's no point for you to send your child to the school and then you sort out everything but when when the child come back, the parent will just throw everything into the trash bin because, that that doesn't work this way you know so at the end of day uh is all about the the the the culture you know and also how how well are you prepared to have these changes uh when we talk about sustainability going towards green there is


uh there there is uh uh there is money involved okay economically wise definitely it's more expensive everybody know that recycle things are more expensive because it take some process to actually get it recycle, so uh in terms of economy wise uh how prepared are the countries to go into these uh


uh, thing you know to to to to get it the, uh, to buy the correct product you know so that we will slower will slow down the climate change and I can tell you the trend is going up right now uh in singapore in people around us in malaysia malaysian government has stopped


buying foam box they do not allow any companies in malaysia to import foam boxes whether be it is those ice box that keep the, keep the seafood cold or those Dabao box that is uh for for from the coffee shop uh they are totally ban so I will feel that the in this five years there are so many nearby country around us that they are


uh doing you know uh make doing their part to to make uh the planet the planet to be greener and I'm surprise and I'm surprised I I have a, a documentary show I saw a documentary show that india india india is doing uh this climate control changes as well they actually ban plastics from going into the country as well so uh as you know india they actually also the india is the the next uh


, I would say the next coming china then a lot of business may actually invest factories and and and plants in india and they they are the government actually emphasise not to bring in certain uh non-eco non-eco eco products as raw material to be manufacture in india and uh distributed out


so I I I feel I feel uh I I I feel men is uh in full hope uh I'm not sure who you met up with that you feel that the men has is feeling helpless but uh, I I feel that the whole world is uh talking about this topic and many many marketing materials has been going out on the on the media


uh with all those like straws uh going through uh the the turtle nose you know to to educate the public and these are all very big impacts and and people men men will men will uh will follow up with this uh


uh climate change and they will do they will do good for they would do something good for the earth ya john back to you,


, , okay let me just say the last ten seconds of quote if you don't do it then the earth will tarnished you will never it will you you you you you there is there they will come to a point whereby somebody have to start first and if you don't start you'll never reach there


thank you


, going green makes good business sense, debate topic three three


alright should we start


well again I would like to emphasise that uh toward we going towards green there is a uh, price to pay for you know uh in economically wise economical wise uh of obviously you have to pay almost double eh uh uh name card a name card a simple thing like a name card


uh a box of makeup might cause you like ten dollars but if you insist on using recycled paper it's going to cost you like uh fifteen dollars, and uh with the twenty fifth percent increase it it from the name card it doesn't state that it whether it's a recycled paper or is not a recycle paper so uh for company wise concerns (ugh) if you are talking about


uh to in order to go towards green and you need to uh yours expenses has it will increase by another fifty percent more then again they'll be they'll be looking at what sort of targeting market people that they had you know does people really does doesn't mean that if you don't give me a recycled uh name card


I'm not going to do business with you no I don't think it it it , ya that that was it doesn't uh it doesn't make sense this way, uh there is a percentage on uh going towards green uh is definitely uh we are talking about increase in expenses between thirty to forty percent you know look at the body shop their they they go towards green


by collecting back the uh bottles but it was not successful because how many green people you can find it is of that will actually make a trip down and carry all this big heavy uh lotion bottle or shower bottle with you when you go to work or you go shopping and then you know giving back to them if we if I don't get any


ah perps from giving you back a bottle you know uh, also uh it it that there there are a lot of very laid back countries like uh uh those uh villagers uh in malaysia in in china they will never bother to to to


to go towards green because in the first placed in in in india provinces they do not even have uh uh uh , I would say a campaign like that you know so it is uh if if you are selling to people like them you know and whether you don't you know that it by going green you got to increase your expenses or your costs of goods by almost half


and at the end of the day nobody knows about it nobody bothers about it that that doesn't make sense for from a business uh point of view, ya back to you john


there there isn't a market for these people so uh going going green doesn't necessary make a good business sense for for certain area, well uh this is this is a uh uh uh


from from my own statistic whereby where we purchase err uh biodegradable uh plastics or papers uh recycled papers versus uh non-biodegradable uh stuff non-recyclable stuff, uh our increases is by another thirty to forty percent but for the name card itself the name cards is definitely a fifty percent increase and uh I got a lot of quotation for name card so uh averagely is about fifty percent


ya you can challenge me if if you have any other numbers that you like to share with me


uh to going uh yes it it it, uh yes in a way and I will I would like to add on also uh going towards green is not all about buying recyclable uh plastics and then uh at the end of day you still throw into the trash bin and then it actually go into a reclaim land or you know just


burn it in the burn it or just burn it off that will also produce uh carbon dioxide into the air uh it it green is going green is is a such a big process whereby when you come when you talk about from, from the farm to the fork to the table and all the way to uh disposing it off there is a series of uh protocol that you need to follow so for for singapore to be frank uh if if you are using a green product it end up it will still end up in the incinerator and burn it off uh of course they do sorting


they they melt the plastics but the actual way to to, to uh to, melt the plastic is not to burn off is to melt it off okay the actual way to do a recycled paper is actually to have a huge piece of land with the correct temperature uh what we call what we call commercial


err, decomposition, to to break down the papers into err uh fertiliser and go right into the earth a lot of people who are who would not understand, that the the decompose and the difference between decompose and biodegradable biodegradable we need certain chemicals to add in in order to for the materials to be breakdown and that involving chemical as well so


so you you get my point when when you when you want to spend maybe another thirty percent more to buy a safe, err err uh, a biodegraded uh a compostable uh boxes you know because you want to contribute back to the earth uh at the end of day when I finished I'll still throw into the trash bin and it will still end up into the incinerator to burn it off


and I only but I only contribute uh towards green by, buying these product from a natural source you know but when it come to the end product the way we break down and we we we burn it off is not going to recycle back again


and all so uh a lot of people will come to a point whereby they argue we use these you know why should I spend more money another thirty or forty percent more to get these green product but at the end of the day I know that it doesn't really contribute much back to the earth so if we a lot of people will have this concept and how is business going


to err make good money if they going to, uh uh, come up with products like that and then it's not selling because uh I'm talking about singapore market right now uh there isn't a a land for us to decompose uh to break down materials so it doesn't make


much business sense to uh go towards green and then it start losing part of your business to your competitors whereby uh they are not actually going towards that green area and they're still selling well with a cheaper price to the consumer back to you john


yes, yes


(mmhmm)


(mmhmm) (mmhmm)


uh sorry I sorry shirley it's been log off I submit already should I resend again do I do the same, uh what they call uh steps, it's stuck it's gone I submit already because I saw it stop so I submit again already so I have to


I have to, this page can you see oh sorry ya, ya I think it , it it actually stopped so I saw it stopped so I faster submit first because it stopped recording already


ya, I don't have to log re-login again, okay so sorry okay uh sorry a bit lost uh where where do you stop where where do you john where do you stop it


okay


sure okay as I mentioned you know going going towards green is a huge price to pay when we look about we'll talk about solar panels uh solar panel has been introduced like maybe but thirty years ago and I I I have uh, I I only came across uh I I was in a construction line and I only in my this thirty years of uh working life I only came across two good class bungalow that are willing to install solar panel on top of the rooftop


uh during those days and the ROI return was thirteen years I'm I'm telling you that that it that it's that is the facts so when when we talk about green ROIs is of course the number one it when it come into business sense and how much the government here can subsidise


or to to to to do uh uh, ya to subsidise you know in order for for us to start to kick off you know the first five years to to let them know how important uh green is is is all about you know doing the correct campaign during the correct branding uh getting the correct correct uh what they call strong uh uh uh


statements uh into all these people, so going green it's not towards uh it's not about that minority of consumer that is willing to pay for the top high price and then you can start uh putting you can start putting the company at risk to to to manufacture or start buying you know green green stuff to


to uh serve these uh part of the small consumer small consumer in the market eh if you're asking me singapore is never it is till now it is still not ready you know because we have we have a lot of uh old folks you know which they never believe in going towards green uh


they will they will say eh let's let's talk about uh uh water you know when the the government have to increase the the water price in order for the folks to realise that you know uh saving water is part of uh going green and then they refused to install the cut of like a


uh I don't know what they call it minimise the waterfall kind of the pressure they you know to to to to reduce ah water flow and because all these are uh conserve of energy and you know and energy is also uh we're talking about contributing back to to towards green as well


uh we talk about cars you know uh, uh uh, hybrid cars and the government have not subsidise enough you know it it if if you could like you know anybody who buy a hybrid car will not have to pay a C COE I tell you there will be tons of people buying hybrid car but why today people feel that hybrid cars it's not that important


you know compare to fuel because they want the convenience because there isn't much enough station to charge you know there isn't uh the people, people are afraid of uh running out of uh uh uh, there' charging station for the hybrid car so uh


I'll I conclude my statement as saying that uh it it we we are not ready uh maybe in another ten years time we might be ready but right now under business sense I think uh nobody will risk their RO uh risk their business in uh in terms of ROI to to go towards green thank you


eh sorry ah <mandarin>我我这个没有录到:wo wo zhe ge mei you lu dao</mandarin> sorry <mandarin>我不懂发生什么事情:wo bu dong fa sheng shen me shi qing</mandarin>


the cross, island line should be built under our nature reserve part one debate topic one


do you need the three minutes so I can start with my introduction, uh press, I answer ah okay so the upcoming cross island MRT line they will stretch from Changi to Jurong industrial estate will run from the central catchment nature reserve


the line was announced in early twenty thirteen and preliminary plan showed it running under primary and secondary forest in the central catchment nature reserve, the LTA had considered two options the direct alignment option to build the line under the nature reserve or the skirting option to build the line around the nature reserve


nature groups and biologists have been engaged in over forty sessions with the government to understand their concerns and to provide mitigation measures the government eventually decided on the direct alignment which was announced on december fourth twenty nineteen, the nature group then publish a collective response summarising their engagement with the LTA as well as a general view from seven members from the nature scene which included researchers and educators the proposition will be held by john stating that the cross island MRT line should be directly aligned with the central catchment nature reserve


while priscilla host opposition to the matter ahead, I'll start the proposition by sitting my first points now my first point for this debate will be that we should, have the cross island MRT line just that directly under nature reserve because it actually reduces commuting time by six minutes so as you know priscilla both of our stay in singapore and singapore is a metropolitan city we are rushing for trains every day


and sometimes even when the train breakdown for like two to three minutes we're already complaining so can you imagine how much time you can save when you, if if you do it underneath because you can reduce commuting time by six minutes and that can actually make the difference to whether you catch the next train or not now six minute is crucial because it may lead to a snowball effect overtime imagine you are actually going from Sengkang all the way to


Paya-Lebar for example and you have to change two times now these two times right if you're going to miss one train at each interval you might actually end up to a good ten to fifteen minutes so therefore my first point would be that yes we should have it underneath the central catchment nature reserve because it can actually reduce commuting time by six minutes


okay alright, but you must understand that because when they are building this cross island line they're actually building it seventy metres under the reserve which also means that you won't see any MRT stations there or it will just, be the train passing by the reserve instead of going one big round so just to give you context normally our tunnels for MRT they actually go only twenty to thirty minutes uh thirty metres underground which means that now it's almost going two times under so this actually helps to


reduce the amount of environmental load on the, flora uh the flora and fauna in the nature reserve, so to rebate your point I don't see why we shouldn't have it there because you practically will not see a MRT station did not they are doing is just basically using it as a


as a, and as in like a shortcut towards the end point of uh cross line MRT, back to you priscilla


okay thank you priscilla so you mentioned two points your first point is your concerned about the carbon footprint that can actually come from this whole uh cross line MRT am I right and your second point would be whether the soil can condition can handle it or not, now just to give you context seventy metres is about twenty five storey of HDB building which means that just imagine a twenty five storey building but you're putting underneath and that's where you actually start your digging so twenty five storeys down right you actually don't have soil what you have is granite bedrock so what they're doing is actually


drilling through the granite bedrock they're not drilling through the soil which means that the roots of the trees are not harm now this actually answers your point about soil to answer your point about carbon footprint yes I agree in the twenty first century we should be considering carbon footprint because it's very important for us to give back to mother nature


now the, carbon footprint for this for us right let let me, paraphrase in the long run, if forgo into the direct alignment it could be proven to be environmentally friendly and the reasons why it could be environmentally friendly is because there's lower consumption as compared to going one big round around it


your trains are actually travelling less, compared to going around it because is a direct route so although yes you are compromising some form of, if you would like to say, the


the soil which is not really a soil it's the granite bedrock they are actually compromising that because they're cutting through the reserve but yet on the other hand you are not because you are actually saving mother nature in a long run in the sense that you are saving energy and you are saving the electricity that is used to power the trains daily


back to you priscilla


okay so your concern is more towards if we are actually on the right track with this whole thing and we shouldn't be building in the first place now that being said this has already been approved by the government and they have already seek, forty people or rather uh no not not forty people they've actually seek forty different times of advisers from environmentalists and even environmentalists agree that we can go on with this


now as you were saying that yes it will go through a direct route may I remind you that that is no station in the central catchment area what they're doing is just going through it you will not see any MRT stations there and what and is literally just just think of it as a highway towards the next destination


now if we are going with the skirting option which is to go around that area instead of damaging the wildlife you might actually damage the residents that is living around the central catchment area because, when this was actually launched the residents living around the area actually voiced concerns that if the skirting skirting around the area will actually


affect them in the sense that there will be a lot of noise pollution, and of course it'll also be disturbance towards their way of life and this will actually affect the residents living the area their quality of life back to you priscilla


okay I would like to bring up a new point stating that, if we were to if we were to go the direct route we can actually reduce transportation fares by fifteen percent now this fifteen percent is because of the lower construction costs if the direct route is used instead of the skirting alignment and this fifteen percent can also come from the


less energy cost the less energy use on a daily route of the train whenever it pass by there if we were to use the direct route now the the lower construction costs actually, sums up to about two billion SGD so now as you know our COVID situation where actually took out about five billion each if I'm not wrong and can you imagine just saving two billion of that just by going with the direct route now going the direct route you saved two billion and you also


do not create disturbance for residents living around that area in addition you also give, the ecological system a better a better health and saving in the long run because we are using lower energy consumption to run the trip back to you priscilla


the savings of two billion actually came from straits times, yes


and as you said climate change is a very prevalent I concept that we have now and of course we should all do our part for it, so bringing back bringing you back to my point, by having it on the direct line, we are actually able to lowered energy consumption and over the long run we are able to do our part for climate change because we are using less electricity there's lower energy consumption and as you know lower lower energy consumption equals to


lower uh lower emission and lower emission means that we will stop the ozone layer from depleting as quickly as it is now, so therefore I would like to conclude by saying that there are four, points that we should take into consideration when considering if the central catchment nature reserve should be directly alignment or not and I vote that we should because number one singapore being a metropolitan city by reducing the


commuting time by six minutes we're actually saving a lot of time for our workers and and you know that singapore we only have, workers and people to rely on because we have no natural reserves ah ah no natural sources secondly we reduce the public transport where by fifteen percent on a direct route


thirdly there's more challenges when it comes to the skirting because there's disruptions to the residence and there's also more engineering challenges as compared with a direct route according to the LTA and the independent panel of advisors and lastly we are doing our part to save the earth


by doing the direct alignment because there's lower energy consumption, thank you so much


oh haven't twenty minute ah cause from my side it says here twenty minutes already, okay I'll just counter one more point then since you are talking about the population of six million now, as you mentioned that we have a population of six million so shouldn't we even more build it underneath the reserve because then we can save time when we traveled just imagine saving six minutes means that another additional train can come on board now with a additional train this can actually hosts the six million


whether we like it or not it's not up to us to decide whether we want the six million in our country or not we need the six million or maybe we do not for our, economical growth of the country now to aid the economical growth what we can do is to actually help it by having better supporting facility supporting facilities like the MRT line so by reducing the commuting time by six minutes we are able to host one additional train


which will make it less squeezy in the train and of course in this , in any situation now COVID we are told that we should have safe distancing so by having safe, by having more trains we can also also help the safe distancing because people will be more spreaded out for those that are not rushing they can choose to take a next trip and of course unfortunately during rush hour if everyone is rushing then fine but at least the trains comes every two to three minutes and this actually reduces the loads on the train


okay, men is helpless in the face of climate change part two debate topic two


want to use the three minutes to think, the the the introduction is it, I I can I I


I I think so ya I drafted the the introduction but we can do it after three minutes


okay I'll start the debate so climate change has been a prevalent and ongoing issue since the early two thousands, conservations were started in singapore with the plant-a-tree programme by the late mister Lee-Kuan-Yew back in two thousand and seven


singapore brands itself as a garden in a city where environmental conservation is held close to our hearts and actions are taken to improve singapore, singapore, to improve singapore before consuming the environmental impacts, with the rise of digital media more attention and emphasis is being focused on global warming and climate change


companies have also align their vision and mission to be more environmentally conscious and holds sustainably at its core, the proposition will be held by john stating that men is indeed helpless in the face of climate change while priscilla host opposition to the matter at hand


now I'll like to start off the whole debate by telling you what is ozone depletion now priscilla do you have any idea what is ozone layer


yup, correct so ozone is actually a form of oxygen they works as a shield to protect the earth against ultraviolet radiation that comes from the sun, now over the years what what we have done as mankind is that is thinning because, we are emitting too much carbon footprint and these carbon footprint actually come from industries that produce


they are producing chemicals like household products and et cetera now when when these , chemical pollutants are actually released into the air it creates a phenomenon called the greenhouse effect in which all of us learnt in primary school and this actually increases the global average temperature and this is why you always see people telling you that oh you know we are rising by one degree two degree that kind of thing


now an increase in ozone depletion will invite little ultra violet rays that increases cancer and especially skin cancer and eye damage like cataract and this may also injure plants and animals or cause them to be mutated, now in addition sea levels are rising with the result of melting glaciers and cities near the coast that might be flooding and becoming uninhabitable now for example just take japan japan also just got flooded so this could be one of the this could be one of reasons why you know


they're they're they are flooded all of a sudden because melting glaciers higher highest sea level rise highest sea level rise more water comes in, so these are issues that we cannot solve as men, even though men can attempt to make small changes there are bigger factors that men is unable to solve due to how mother nature works we are unable to just ask the ozone layer to stop depleting because we are making a difference in today's to to to to today's century in in in for for mother nature I'm sorry


yup so my first point to you is that we are unable to make change because of the way mother nature works due to the things like higher sea level rise that we cannot stop overnight these are things that have to be done over a long period of time in which we do not have that kind of time


now you were saying that, mankind is actually putting in an effort towards this whole, issue about uh climate change now I agree that we are putting in an effort I'm I'm disagreeing that we are not putting in enough effort you couldn't examples like japan and sweden saying that oh yes they're they're doing their initiative but have you see other parts of the world have you seen haiti


haiti where people are actually still living in the dump fields, we are we are talking about a a very big contrast here you have japan yes they're they're known for for for being so environmentally conscious but on the other hand you have people that are living in haiti you have people that are living in singapore even in singapore


we are not the most environmentally conscious before we do not separate our trash and just look at our neighbour malaysia when you walk on their streets sometimes you see plastic cans or, bag plastic bags all all over the streets, now bring you back to my point on environmental factors you mentioned that yes companies are moving into


doing their part for the for for mother earth I agree but do you know that sometimes when it comes to hotels hotels that tell you that okay yes we separate your trash and everything , at the end of the day is still goes back into the same trash bin


because when they talk about corporate social responsibility, they only do it so that people would like them, they do not hundred percent follow up with them, now adding on yes exactly exactly


so on top of that my environmental factor for you would be do you know that deforestation is a very very prevalent issue around the world now you talk about mankind being, very kind and trying to provide for the earth but you know that mankind is also the one that is deforesting the amazon amazon having forest fires amazon having


like, the bio zone like amazon has really been lost now according to an article on you matter, amazon is actually the biggest deforestation front of the world and a lot of, help is being put there now because why people are deforesting in amazon for cattle ranching cattle ranching why because they are unable to feed for themselves they need they need these cattles for them to profit off so that they're able to survive


now more than a quarter of the amazon bio zone has already been actually, deforest stated we're looking about twenty seven percent here by twenty thirty, okay now we're at now we're already at twenty per cent, and in and in in addition there's another fifteen percent of the deforestation coming from constructions and new companies because we need to clear up land so can you imagine if all these percentages add together it's actually a very very big number and how can this number justify what we're already doing for the earth


you mentioned that yes we are doing our part for the earth by recycling by being very being very uh environmentally conscious by not providing straws when people like putting it out there but only providing when people want it, but, at matter of fact I'm already turning that there is already a thirty over per cent or even close to forty percent of


deforestation going on in the world don't you think that this forty percent doesn't really help or sum up with what the with the actions that we're already doing


haiti


okay so I think I left like five seconds I'm just going to sum it up, uh, I won't rebut your point because I don't think we have any more time, but, I will just like to say one last sentence are we really do we really have enough


time, to help the earth before the the earth


going green, read together going green, makes good business sense part three debate topic three


so three minutes to, okay okay


uh third debate so the carbon footprint business produces large amount of corporate waste that have significant negative impact on our plants, although many companies are doing more than ever to reduce their impact on our environment researchers suggest that gas emissions from the business world continues to grow therefore there is an immediate need for change in how corporations are responding to their negative impact on climate change


there has been noticed there has been a notice new trend in the business world which encourages businesses to pledge more than ever to reduce emissions and find better waste management solutions, in the modern world sustainability seems to have become the key to success


as many companies have now realised how they could benefit from greening their business sustainability in business has grown in the past several years, the propositions will be held by john stating that going green does make good business sense while priscilla hosts the opposition to the matter at hand


so I'll be starting with my points now I'll be bringing up a very very big point is called green marketing, green marketing is a very niche and is a very new kind of, marketing that you don't really hear from anywhere else because it touches on the on on a few different points of the company now firstly green marketing actually helps to attract new segments of customers and how this is being done is because people are being more environmentally conscious


especially the youth those that are growing up in the twenty first century they understand the impacts of global warming , so because they're more environmentally conscious there are people that won't even use soap that isn't, biodegradable or isn't like bio friendly like those for example from bio home where one cost double or triple the price but there is still a market for them


even when it comes to toilet paper or tissue paper there are still people that buy the more expensive one that claims to be environmentally friendly they're less harmful towards the environment so these are the people that green marketing targets on because it helps to attract new segments of consumers now these


but now by having a new segment of consumers you are able to acquire , , more customers for your product and this actually allows you to be able to, uh, sustain your company better thus going green does make good business sense back to you priscilla


right okay so I I I did not really catch your point is your point saying that, as we are becoming more technologically advance there are still people that are lacking back and these people do not know how to go green or there isn't a market for them


okay and when you get your statistics of thirty to forty percent from


okay so your point, so so your point is that it is not economically savvy to go green because in the long run you will not be making money


because the way the way you are putting it now is that because of all these costs it does not give you a break even point or even a positive ROI


so your point is again as I was saying, that you that you are unable to achieve a positive ROI in singapore if you were to go green doing a green business, okay so my question my my my next point to you is this


when you talk about going green and when you talk about doing green business to me it's more than just, , you were it to I I personally felt that you were deviating from your point a little just now because we're talking about doing the business here we're not really talking about the impacts of the business so when I talk about green marketing I talked about how green marketing is able to offer you a unique positioning


and this allows you to be different from your competitors which means that once again if I was a company and if I were a australia for example, and I want to buy disposable, uh, cutlery or what and and uh and one company is coming to me without any


uh with with the cheap plastic like SKP another and another company is coming to me with really biodegradable and, FAC certified products now me being someone who is young, I would of course choose the green products over SKP because I know that I want to play my part and that's how I am educated in australia and this brings me to my second point when businesses go green they can encourage their consumers to go green as well


yes, I understand that that is an additional costs however, this allows consumers to be more aware and when consumers are more aware then they can make better choices when we are more aware as a society then we won't be able to bring in new items like for example you were mentioning the incineration


procedure just now we will able bringing the whole process into singapore or find a place in singapore where we can start this incineration process back to you priscilla


, okay so so so I'll just summarise my points again ya so my first point to you is that by going green we are able to offer a unique product positioning because now customers will be able to choose whether they want to go green with us or not


okay so for example if I'm from australia and I've been educated, to go green by my my by my by my country by my company by my by my family whichever respectively, when I start a business I would know that the right thing to do is to buy products that are SFC certified


so this allows the company who is doing a green business to of, of, have a unique product positioning because it's better than other companies that don't have this, now when I talk about being aware, being aware also means that as a company you are able to


encourage your consumers to go green as well now this will allow you to to to have more awareness, and this will allow, (ugh) when when when you have more awareness as a person and this small small problems then as a society will be more aware so touching on your point about the incineration plant when singapore is ready or decides to be ready


to start, having incineration plants specifically or whichever recyclable method specifically just for FSC products and that is how we progress as a country and that is how we progress as a city as well, so with this being said there is a potential in the near future for green marketing to


go green and it will be sustainable and it will make good business sense


part part one debate topic one, okay so the first debate topic is the cross island line should be built under our nature reserve so myself uh I will be the proposition so I will be agreeing why uh the cross island line should be built under


our nature reserve so I will mention four key points uh as to why we should uh build it under the nature reserve because uh firstly, it reduces commuting time by six minutes so the LTA uh


and NEA and governmental bodies have already did the the research and engage external parties to come up with this uh analysis, so the line under the uh cross island uh this this new line that they're gonna build will reduce uh travel time by six minutes as compared to the skirting option


which I mean uh all of us know that time is money especially commuters who are travelling to CBD area, uh early in the morning they would want to get to the office as soon as possible and wouldn't want to waste additional


six minutes and uh uh second point is that with this, uh direct route that's under the nature reserve, it reduces public transport fares by about fifteen percent and that equates to cost saving uh to the community and especially during this period of uh COVID nineteen and having a economic downturn


their fifteen percent off uh this transport fare is very significant, so uh that is the second reason why they decided to build the direct route instead


okay now passing the time to the opposition


(mmhmm) okay


(mmhmm)


okay so uh point noted on the environmental uh uh concern but , referring to the, diagrams that were that were being uh produced by the NEA and LTA to uh the public it shows that they're actually not


affecting the nature reserve at all so they're they're only drilling the tunnel at the granite bedrock where it will not affect any flora and fauna at all and this brings me to my next point uh that with


the direct line and going under the nature reserve uh there's actually lower energy, consumption because uh the route is shorter, there's uh lesser energy to run and maintain the the shorter route so hence uh there will be lesser energy consumption and this is actually something positive for the environment as compared to the skirting route which uh uses more


uh energy and a longer length, trains have to travel longer distance more lighting have to be used to, uh light up the the tunnels for longer distance so with this shorter route it's actually more environmentally friendly


and the LTA said uh the government has considered the concerns expressed by all stakeholders and the findings of, the comprehensive two phase environmental impact assessment has led them to finally conclude that they should uh go ahead with the with the direct route and this brings me


to to my uh third point that, this this brings me to my fourth point that uh it actually lowers the construction costs by two billion dollars, so with this shorter road uh and not only it reduce the commuting time by six minutes it also uh lowers the construction cost by two billion dollars and two billion dollars is a lot of money that uh taxpayers have to pay and this money could be invested into


into something that uh it's more useful for the community, so quoting uh what the straits times mention is that, uh the building under the reserve could cost taxpayers two billion less than less compared with the alternative skirting option


and previously an independent panel of advisors engaged by LTA had said the skirting alignment would result in more engineering challenges compared with the direct alignment and not only that residents living around in the water catchment area has also voiced out


concerns that the skirting option, around the nature reserve might affect them because the direct route option contains uh all the construction, uh only within the nature reserve territory but if you were to go via the skirting option and avoid the nature reserve it will uh eat into the housing uh estates hence might be causing some inconvenience uh to residents as well


(mmhmm), (mmhmm) okay I I think the the point that you brought up uh regarding the longer the route is the more stations they could add in uh it's a it's a good suggestion and probably a valid point to to raise up


but I would like to stress that the area where they're constructing this , MRT line it is uh near so even with the skirting option it's just, uh covering the circumference of the nature reserve and not uh diverting and moving into any residential areas


so the the two options that are available is only a direct route which is under going under the nature reserve or just going around it, by its circumference only so surrounding the nature reserve the areas uh over there are not heavy heavy residential areas


so uh there's not much uh residential areas over there , and uh they wouldn't construct much uh residential blocks over there because it is so near the nature reserve, and they would want to preserve the uh the flora and fauna that is why they're not going to do any heavy construction that is just beside the the nature reserve they need to have


uh a certain uh perimeter of, buffer having said that if with the MRT line that is just uh going around the border of the nature reserve, the population size in those area or people living there is too little to justify a brand new MRT station just for them


so these are is not in the planning because if this was already in the planning they would have uh draft up an option to add in more MRT station but because from the, urban redevelopment authority they they did up the the planning and they don't foresee any future MRT stations that is needed to build around that area that is why uh the argument now is whether we should go by a direct underground road or just


only covering the circumference of the nature reserve which brings me back to to my point of why uh the four points that I've mentioned earlier of why, the direct underground route is uh the best option to go to because not only in terms of cost savings but it's also more environmentally friendly


to nature as well so it's a win win situation uh for all so there's only uh some argument which you have brought up earlier that uh some people are concerned about the flora and fauna but to reassure


uh the opposition on this the plan is to dig well below uh the nature reserve, and in that area where they called the granite bedrock and that does not affect any


uh flora and fauna at all


, (mmhmm)


(mmhmm)


okay so what you're you're trying to say your main point of going through the, skirting option is because you want to create more MRT stations for the community am am I right


okay because uh I mean if you if you look at a map the areas that are, beside the nature reserve is your Ang-Mo-Kio and upper Thomson which those areas already have their own MRT stations


so by having these uh MRT stations in the same city or town, it's not uh a practical option because definitely we have to consider whether the amount of people it's serving is justifiable to to create a station because definitely everybody would want an MRT station just in front of their house am I right so


we in order for the government to do such a planning on whether and decide whether we should create a station they need to see the number of people that it's serving, and uh if, the headcount is very small for that region maybe a bus service could do the job instead of creating an MRT station and diverting the whole MRT route


to pick up these few uh customers or or passengers at these stations and cause, a six minute delay to the many millions more who just want to get to work quickly


part two debate topic two, so the second debate topic is man is helpless in the face of climate change


so I will be the proposition of this uh debate statement and will explain why man is helpless in this phase of climate change so I have two main uh areas that I would want to discuss


firstly is that uh it is extremely out of control, err for men to do anything about uh climate change because uh anything that happens in the world is god's will


and secondly because the statement is man uh being one person only and not, uh multiple people , one man is not able to make a difference honestly speaking in to the environment if we're just considering one person itself


so elaborating on my first point that it is out of control uh all the natural disasters that we are we are seeing now like your floods or hurricanes, uh


or blizzards all these are totally out of control and they are not man-made, uh, disasters, so uh that is why I would I would uh argue that in this case of climate change uh man is uh totally out of control and and helpless and they can't do anything about it yeah


so uh do you have anything to oppose for my first statement, (mmhmm)


correct


(mmhmm), (mmhmm)


okay I'm I mean just uh countering your first point that you mentioned that man is able to , do something in climate change because you you quoted like cloud seeding uh and uh some kind of of climate that man is able to create this


err man made but my question back is I mean we have seen uh how deadly the floods the droughts uh the hurricanes are and the amount of people that uh have died


from these natural disasters due to climate changes, so my question back to you is if man is able to do something about the environment why can't they stop these natural disasters from happening because it is taking the lives of many of its citizens


(ppc)


okay but uh okay just elaborate uh elaborating and countering what you mentioned earlier that uh it's really about the economics of of uh technology so currently uh do you agree that we do not have


the technology to do anything about natural disasters and with that statement hence it further support my point, that man is helpless in the face of climate change now because we are having uh this debate at this point in time where we do not have the technology and the capability to stop any natural


disasters out there or do anything about the climate change with the current technology uh advancement that we have at the moment


(mmhmm)


okay ya so uh I'm bringing bringing uh the conversation to my second point, is that uh what I've mentioned earlier is that one man or one person is not able to make a difference so the globe is uh that big and uh you know how vast uh our planet is


one individual is not able to make a difference to the environment or to affect, uh climate change hence it is also another supporting reason why uh man is helpless in the face of of climate change so do you agree with my statement


yeah


(mmhmm),


okay but uh it it brings me back to my my point how does uh, that statement uh of let's say collectively uh the human population as a whole


is able to do anything about about climate change because then , uh we can argue also when uh what's the time frame that we are referring to because, at this current point in time uh what has done has already been done and we can't do anything about it so I mean we could argue that all this climate changes and natural disasters were caused by man


but uh that is not the the debate topic of uh what cause uh climate change the the debate topic that we're we're discussing about today is uh is man helpless in the face of climate change so


our predecessors and uh people of ancient time has probably uh due to industrialisation , create a lot of manmade uh products hence uh destroying the environment ozone layer uh so on and so forth which uh you could argue that that is the reason that uh leads to the natural disasters


uh global warming that we're seeing uh of today but what we are what I want to discuss today is that uh, from whatever we have done and where we are right now we are helpless and not able to do anything about climate change


we we can't do anything, yes yes exactly because , man is helpless in the face of, climate change so whether whether we have whether we have uh created the climate change or the natural disasters that is already being done but uh what I want to uh discuss and debate now is that we are unable to do anything uh about the face of climate change


, okay so are you able to just uh quickly summarise what are the things that we can actually do, uh to combat uh climate change because I still stand on my point that at this current point in time we don't have number one the technology to do anything


and uh number two the capacity to to do anything about climate change but maybe you can just summarise what are the actions that we as men can actually do at this point of time to combat climate change


part three debate topic three, so for the last debate topic uh the question is going green makes good business sense so I will be the proposition and agreeing uh with this statement


so I would say uh going green how does it make business sense it has two I have two main points that I would like to share regarding, uh this topic so the first would be uh obviously helping the planet and the environment uh if


business uh go green and secondly uh there is always the monetary value that is being uh tied to businesses uh going green so uh how does this all make uh business sense


so just quickly elaborating on the first point of helping the planet, uh in the earlier topic we have already discussed of uh how man-made uh actions industrialisation have caused harm towards our planet the flora and fauna uh the other species that we are co uh inhabiting with


so if uh scientists have have proven that if we continue our current lifestyle uh we're not, able to sustain uh the resources on earth, and uh sea levels will rise hence uh causing uh uh major floods to cities and that in turn will not allow businesses to operate uh on a functional level


lots more uh disruption will be will be done in uh for example, shifting factory sites to uh land that is uh higher above uh sea level relocating or even uh moving to other countries for their production for example


so if we uh if business don't go green and help the the bigger picture of the environment they in turn will lose out by incurring uh more costs


by relocating their facilities uh or even worst case scenario having their , uh, equipments or real estate uh destroyed so that is uh my first point of why helping the planet would make good business sense


ya so maybe I will just hear from uh the opposition before I share my second point which is monetary value


(mmhmm), okay I would say uh just countering your your uh first point that you mentioned like for example in MRT stations they're rising uh they're raising uh the platforms to one meter uh just as an extra precaution


uh but I would like to to reiterate my my first point that if let's say uh the business is going green in the first place it reduces environmental impact and you don't even need to put in the extra resources


to take all this uh precautionary measures, so just uh now moving on to my second point which is the monetary value which addresses uh your point of it does not make business uh sense uh right now to to have a green business


so why I would I would say uh that there's a lot of monetary value benefits that comes uh with going green is that uh firstly you get to uh slash energy and water bills


elaborating on on that quoting an example of a no flush uh toilet urinal for example I'm sure uh we have come across, those uh urinals that mention uh that they're eco friendly and do not use uh water and that they're saving water


so this kind uh uh innovations and businesses that are going green and coming out with uh creative solutions to address everyday needs so companies who have purchased, those kind of urinals or shopping malls who have uh or office buildings who have purchased those urinals will definitely save on their water bills because uh they would save gallons of water a month


just from using uh waterless urinals, that are that are eco friendly, going to the to the next uh next point of uh looking at not only the the tangible or the visible kind of products we want to divert the attention to the consumers


so the consumers are everything about creating uh more monetary value for businesses so you have uh the first start point of uh this whole idea of green nudging , and what does green nudging means is that if uh everyday businesses were to to tell you uh that by uh purchasing this eco friendly product uh it would save the environment if that is a repetitive


kind of uh influence and propaganda eventually you will buy in the idea that uh if you purchase this kind of products you are actually helping the environment and the wider community, and not only that uh a lot of consumers now are also very environmentally friendly and eco conscious


so they're uh especially the more educated uh generation where we learn about the environment and climate changes and, all of us want to make a difference uh to society and the environment so that the human race can sustain and live for longer and many more generations to come


so that is why uh consumers nowadays are very eco uh friendly they tend to only purchase products that are helpful or less harmful to the environment, and that is why uh it brings me back to the to the main uh discussion topic of going green makes good business sense because uh right now where there's so many natural disaster


, people in one way or another have lose uh close friends family members or if not uh non living goods and items that they realise that there is indeed a problem in our environment and they want to do something about it


and businesses can leverage on uh on this and create uh and go green to create for example environmentally products and services to tackle this growing group of


uh target audiences


okay, sure I mean err just just quoting about the point that the latest point that you mentioned that it is more expensive err, to go for eco friendly uh options but I've to uh quote an example let's say for example HNM so HNM have a conscious collection which is their environmentally friendly range of products


so it includes uh products that are either made from recycled materials or have used uh less energy less uh manpower to create those products, so they are more eco friendly than others uh in one way or another


so those products if you walk into any h and m store they are not, much more expensive than a non, eco conscious uh product so that clearly shows that uh with the same amount of money spent consumers are still able to be eco friendly and environmentally conscious without paying uh extra money


and I mean we can do a survey or you can ask yourself, whether if there is an eco friendly uh product range, of clothings at h and m would you choose to go h and m and buy uh those products that uh is environmentally friendly or would you choose to go to


uh another uh fast fashion brand that does not have uh uh environmentally friendly range of, products and uh having said that it is not only the range of products or or the actual products that we're saying it could be little things that uh for example reducing


the the plastic bag usage so those are initiatives that are actually uh going green and makes good business sense because by using uh the bigger idea of helping the environment and reducing plastic usage


retailers shops businesses in turn spend less on disposable plastics for their consumers which uh in the past have been giving them out for free, so by going green and reducing uh the environmental impact reducing plastics it actually makes perfect uh business sense to these uh companies because they can actually reduce cost so this uh debunks


your earlier statement of uh more money have to be spent by going green, so just want to hear what you have to say uh regarding this argument


(mmhmm)


part one debate topic one


right so, I think you have mentioned one point which is , the the total, travelling time will be increased if we are routing the tunnel around the nature reserve


but the point here is to note that uh with this line uh it will significantly convenient make make, travel convenient for for travel along the northern coast


and across uh from northern to the eastern coast, which makes uh six minutes, not as significant and important if we are looking at the overall big picture in the long term plan for the transportation


and I would like to also bring up one point which is uh in in opposing to, building the tunnel under the nature reserve is uh is that, , the


wildlife are very sensitive to, ground movement, and it might not have been studied but it has it is a known fact that wildlife are sensitive to vibrations


and and ground plate movements, with tunnels under the nature reserve, it could impact, the life and the uh the habitat of the nature reserve


so this is uh this is uh this is a point that has not been brought up, but it should be uh taken uh taken err a look at, and the it is also pointed out that the


impact of wildlife and the mitigation measures uh may not exactly be be be entirely uh fail safe, there are many impacts especially when the tunnels are


built for long usage so we're looking at a life cycle of uh thirty or forty years, and maybe maintenance period of every ten years, so every time, we are we are we are we are we are uh touching the tunnels or or err having to


execute work in the tunnels, there might be unseen there might there might be unseen , or unknown factors that, may arise


now back to the proposition


right, okay so maybe let me address your point on, err, uh savings on construction cost of about two two billion dollars


what I would like to uh suggest we should look at and have a thought about is, also the long term plan what we want uh what the network wants uh what I mean is uh how the lines in future will criss-cross


and where the exchanges will be, so if the exchanges at uh or or or in singapore we called it the interchange stations, are planed to be in at uh around the nature reserve


and then I would think that there will be more uh more implications, by building it under, the nature reserve, number one because more works will need to be done


uh more digging will need be need to be done around the nature reserve, to build extra infrastructure, and that might that might uh, incur incur costs in the future not now so this two billion dollars might be a one time saving


but uh ultimately we should look at what the network plans are in singapore, and, that should be taken into consideration too, so number uh on on the other point that you


mention on uh the the impacts of skirting around the nature reserve affect affecting surrounding residents, that uh, could be viewed as


a positive factor because, skirting around the nature reserve will increase the will increase the distance travelled by the train that is correct and also able to add, more stations maybe we can add


one or two more in between the lines, and that can serve more residents, so uh in the short term yes residents might complain about noise because of the construction and because of the construction it might it might cause some dirt but


again I would like to stress the long term pros of having a longer, tunnel along or longer route, which uh potentially can serve which could potentially add uh one or two more stations and serve more more residents which uh is in line with our national transport err policy


of having stations within, ten to fifteen minutes of every household, so that is also in line with uh the national transport policy which I think uh has not been taken into consideration in this in this err planning of cross island line


okay yes point taken that the tunnel proposed is to be drilled and to be passed through uh granite and that will not affect any wildlife but I would like to uh uh direct our attention to


question the planned lines that is to just skirt right outside the nature reserve like what you mention


it's uh it's a nature reserve so there's no residents we're only serving on, the other side which is uh which makes which makes the line, half as useful in this, in this portion


uh for the cross island, so uh why not, skirt further out, or uh skirt further south, to serve more residents, in between in between these portion


err, it is not necessary, to to, go under the nature reserve, and in fact if we skirt further south we can totally avoid the debate on, uh whether it will affect uh wildlife of uh the nature reserve


so I I I would like to know propose and say that we we look at other alternative routes, for cross island uh line in this portion, of uh of the tunnel


that, uh that's correct and also totally avoid the debate on whether it will affect, the wildlife at the nature reserve, yes


(hmm)


you're right I I think if we just look at, I I wouldn't think that it is redundant at all in fact uh running the tunnel below the nature reserve is redundant, uh I wouldn't think the running or or skirting it more south is redundant because if we look at uh first world cities overseas uh we we just name London uh #new york# Seoul japan


those cities have easily two times more lines than singapore and singapore is very, behind time in terms of transportation of err subway as a transportation so making the the line longer and having more exchange at


towns like you mention Ang-Mo-Kio is not redundant at all and in fact it is a service to the public


part two debate topic two


right, nah just let me organise the points before I move on


so what you have mentioned is uh point number one, climate change is out of man's control and number two, , a single man can't change, err the overall


climate of the entire earth, addressing these two points, , climate change, is not out of control,


by man I mean man, can make changes in climate, that can be seen in a very simple, example which is uh called uh cloud seeding where, we where man, interferes in the


in the process of cloud, formation, and incite rain, so if we're saying climate is out of control of man that is not true, cloud seeding is a very fine example of how how man controls weather and create rain


of course we're if we're looking at uh more extreme uh weather changes like , arctic, her ice melting, blizzard like what you mention, and even


forest fires that happened in australia and US this year and last year, these are, not within the control of man, but it has been in the making for


many decades since the I would say probably the first industrial revolution, where we started burning coal, and uh releasing tons of uh, carbon dioxide which would which is the main uh reason why the climate has been changing


, since the early nineties, and number two uh on your point on uh man-made no one one man can't make a can't make a, a change


yeah that is true that is true too, but , the the the idea here is that, everyone the whole world


have to work together, to make a change, if we just look at the most uh recent, happening, uh which is COVID


COVID uh locked down the world and uh brought all industrial activities to a stop, uh literally zero literally uh no industrial activities around the world, was happening


and , the, greenhouse gases, was, significantly and observably lower, in areas in china for example, we have Xiamen where which is


which is a a a very heavy industry where quite a lot of foreign investments and manufacturing facilities are happening, satellite images have shown that uh the amount of greenhouse gases there has significantly reduced in fact to a normal and uh


a a a healthy healthy standard for for earth, so it's not that one man can't do anything at it it it is that the whole world have to work together, to, incite a change


right , your your your point, brings us to brings us to the economics of, technology, which is which explains why man hasn't made any change or


or rather we recognise the problem, but, like I mentioned a change need to be done err in effort, in in a in a in a world's effort, but it has not been it has not been implemented because of economics the cost of renewables and the cost of uh sustainability


is high but, in recent developments, uh we are looking at solar energy being getting cheaper than than than coal that the the very simple reason is because government


and public policies have been scrutinising energy from coal from burning coal and there are tax tax subsidies uh given to uh solar and in fact in china


this year uh tax tax subsidies will be ending, and many of the installations are are being rushed, out, by uh solar makers in in in the solar panels and we if we look at the


uh PV cells which is what the solars uh panels are made of they have been rushing out orders because, many energy companies are rushing to install uh


to be eligible for the subsidies, and , developed countries uh we're looking at europe we're looking at US, has been very supportive of renewables and we can also point out that many of the uh the the the countries have agreed with the Paris agreement and which also states that we will go carbon neutral by two thousand and fifty


these are many one of the many many policies that you know, the the world leaders are coming together to work together, err yes


right I I understand where you're coming from uh you're coming from a point where you would like to interfere in any occurrence of uh natural disaster or any occurrence by by the climate yes that is not possible


but what I would like to direct our attention to, is changing the course of climate change in the future to prevent uh more of such occurrence that are taking the lives taking property taking money away from from us


so that that that that was why I brought up the point where investments and economics of technology in the new world, uh is


a very, positive factor, that can change the course of climate change if I were to bring up if I were to bring up an uh another example which I didn't mention we are looking at wind energy too


and there there are wind energy, farms uh solar farms that are very that are very , err carbon neutral, one more of such energy uh carbon neutral or rather environmentally friendly way of getting energy is uh hydrogen hydrogen


for example uh does not does not harm the environment at all it's it's byproducts is water so that is the direction that uh we are going, and it is it looks positive at this point of time


err uh again I I I understand where you're coming from because you're looking at the you're looking at the topic in, , in in the perspective of one man cannot change or cannot


uh is helpless in a natural disaster or a natural occurrence now, but uh, again I would like to redirect your attention or redirect your thoughts in as to how we would like to change the course of climate change if we look at uh this young girl name called greta she is just one person


but her voice is so loud that it can rally the whole world , err ya but, oh we can we can say that those are just words not actions but it does answer your question as to what one person can do


one person can do can do a lot, if uh if they put their mind to it


err, so your last point if I were to if I were to err make a summary is that err man is not doing anything in the face of climate change


and for, you you we cannot do anything that's your that's your point, uh right, right okay


right uh okay


okay I I got your last point, so answering or with regards to your last point uh maybe we can think, of how how long did it take for us uh man


since the first industrial revolution I would say let's say the late eight err early nineties, since then until until two thousand twenty took us, uh one century


more than a century to feel the effects of environmental problem and environmental challenges climate changes, took us more than a uh took us more than a century, so what I'm trying to say here is that, even if we make change


we will not see it now, we will see it a century later or more, but long term, uh impacts or long term changes, is something that uh we have to look at we have to focus of or else taking down taking the route down uh the


self destruction of , earth is not sustainable


right in in fact , we are already uh world leaders have already acted on it, they have come to a agreement to, to focus on this problem, looking at uh uh achievable targets of carbon neutral energy production or rather at carbon neutral economy


uh by two two thousand and, fifty and that would be thirty years later, that that includes err, energy production you you have those uh carbon neutral buildings where you you landscape the landscape the the building with trees for example to reduce carbon emission and uh


part three debate topic three


right so, to be sure, you your first point is that , supporting green business or rather uh making business green


err will prevent our real assets to be at risk, so with regards to this point, , it is it is uh uh uh a problem that had we have been facing we are we are currently facing


but I would say that uh this problem is, only , available in in areas where is low lying for example and there are uh methods that are mitigation uh methods to


err, to counter this and for example in singapore we have already mandated new buildings to be built one meter, or one and a half meter above uh sea level


and that is something that is uh uh a macro policy for example at a national level uh to to to to move forward, and mitigate against this this uh risk in uh losing value in our real assets


and of course we have irrigation and uh drainage, to prevent, the problem of rising sea level and uh damaging and losing value in our real estate and real assets so so that that addresses your your your first point


then I would like to uh raise a point from the opposition side uh which is , green businesses or environmentally friendly businesses is not profitable


they cannot be, at this point of time, because , take for take for example, we have we have uh solar energy for example it has been solar energy has


been losing money every solar installation and energy company has been losing money and the reason why they still sustain is because of government tax subsidies, and that is the reason why they can sustain, but err, err if we look at the current point of time why they have not been uh greatly adopted the the the very very simple reason is


uh it does not make economic sense, so err, I would like to just hear what what do you have to say next, right okay


let me uh rebut your point on what you mentioned that uh precautionary measures, or mitigation measures of uh rising sea level for example is not needed if uh if uh business go green uh my point here is that climate change has


already happened and it will continue to happen, even if we, uh if we change our cause and uh make businesses go green so, precautionary measures mitigation measures still need to be in place, for the next fifty years at


least so whether businesses go green or not, I agree maybe there will be a longer longer term change but in the short term in this context maybe the next fifty years precautionary measure mitigation measures still need to be in place


then uh you were talking uh also about consumers sentiments , or of how how the whole idea of uh sustainability is driving consumers uh demand, or or shifting consumers' behaviour towards sustainable uh consumption uh uh


this this I think uh need, more uh support and uh need needs more studies because uh just by look just by , taking a very simple example or I would say if we look at the majority of the population


sustainable or uh uh we, okay we we call this sustainable consumption uh sustainable consumption is uh we we are talking about spending, in, in more


environmentally friendly products or sustainable conscious products, but more or most of the times, uh these products have prices that are sky high, if we just look at fast fashion brands like uh uniqlo h and m they are


they are cheap, and in the mass they they sell in the masses so we have uh then uh sustainable fashion, the where where maybe they are using recycled materials and things like that but cost is very high


so if, it it might make business sense in the sustainable fashion, because prices are high and we are looking at a a small group of consumers but it can never it can never be propagated to the mass


consumption level uh to make any changes, that would be my point


right so uh I think to put it simply what you have mentioned is probably uh, uh putting putting sustainable products out there as a form of marketing


that is that sounds to me like what h and m is doing it it attracts, sustainable consumers to its shop, to spend, and it might and these consumers might not entirely might not entirely just buy


err green products or or what you called the the sustainable line of uh uh uh clothing they are there to look at the whole store, and it is an opportunity it is a price paid by h and m to attract


shoppers to their store, and , if we look at just the sustainable line of products it might not be profitable so that that brings my that that brings me to my next point which is if we want to look at whether green going green makes good business sense we have to look


we should look at a business that is fully green that is totally, sustainable and making good profits, making good sense to to the economy, otherwise uh uh the losses of the company has to be has to be


uh supported by either uh uh uh government financing or ultimately, it would it would just go bankrupt if we if we were to have a very simple uh uh uh look at at at for example uh tesla


it has been making losses up until present and it's been running on a lot of tax subsidies by government though, though it is the reason why it still operational right now is because investors uh are throwing in a lot of money uh to keep it afloat in the long term but if we look if we think about it


EVs if you buy a EV if you buy a electric vehicle right now uh do you get to charge it anywhere around your neighbourhood in singapore probably not but in in US yes they are they are they are building but it's so much more inconvenient for


for for consumers so I would say that , go making business go green right now is not, err the the, making the best sense, and if if it is if it is no no companies would would want to continue uh or no energy company will want to continue burning coal but in fact coal prices just rise because of uh increased demand


part one debate debate topic one


okay, so uh I have to disagree on it because I think that uh technology write it, it brings people it brings people closer in fact I mean base on this current pandemic right now right I mean uh when you are at quarantine when you are staying at home


you know you're you're able to actually keep the business afloat which is a likelihood for many other people right it's only because of technology, and uh you have you had mentioned that people work after hours you know, to, uh is is it is very stressful but then again you know hard work you know you put in the work you get your


you get your rewards you get your results so uh I I still stand by the point that you know I think that I think, , I think technology creates uh, uh brings people closer together in in fact so and people from around the world could connect to each other because of technology and if we don't improve as uh if we don't accept technology I think that we were as as as uh as a human race you know we will forever be stagnant


we will be uh, a couple of monkeys then so I mean this is this is how i, how I feel about this topic ya


I think uh I would like to argue on the point that you know it's bad for the eye which is why right now uh, even tech giants you know might uh, uh like your samsung you know like your, at home you know they have a blue light feel they have a blue light feel which is to actually filter out the bad light and uh


based on my personal experience right you say that uh you mentioned that (ppc) after work hours as they're looking at work you are you are you are still on the screen but let's be very honest here you know, because after work hours even if if you're not looking at work you're looking at your laptop you know for shows to watch for games to play so you're they're technically just choosing


uh what, what you're comfortable with and what you want versus work so it is the fact that you don't like to work and it's not the it's not the cause that uh technologies is is draining people out actually so uh I think that you know there is uh there is a correlation but there's not a causation to this actually ya


okay so what I think is that uh you you mentioned that crimes crimes exist so let's let's take a let's take a trip down memory lane right before there were technology were there no crimes at all there were crimes too is just is is only a matter of how you how you tackle a problem pursuit


so uh before technology you know people were doing fraud as well people were doing uh, social engineering to get into access of your of your financial situation and so on and so forth, and at the same time right you mention that smartphones you know uh smartphone crimes so I think that uh instead of just stopping technology I think is will be easier and safer if if we could educate the public while i


agree with you that you know uh yes technology did uh did bring in a new wave of crime but the thing is as humans we will never, uh, we were we were always engineer something even better so you know to to to keep us ahead of the race I think firstly I think uh that uh the morals has to be right secondly is that


I think through education you know we are we are we can educate people how to resist or how to identify uh people who are, uh, uh who are more prone to it like your uh like your like the, older generations you know how to identify what is real what is false at least at a very primary level but instead if you completely cut cut technology out that I think that you know


uh back to my first point is that I, I I think, that we will never advance anymore, or as a as a race altogether yes