art Ming-Guan, okay so uh I guess it’s time for us to debate the topic uh technology creates more problem than benefits for the society so err err have you uh done any uh research on that topic


so ya the proponent opposition, oh you want to you want some time to do the do the this your your do you do you need sometime to do the planning cause I I okay I basically I just wrote down some some of the points on my in the if me lah still got some points lah but I think you should start first so ya I wait for you


okay sure


okay ya really so I think you are the propositions


okay


okay Ming-Guan so are you done with your err proposition statement, okay so uh my turn so basically I am the opposition so basically I suppose to argue that technology err create more benefits than problems for the society


so my argument is that uh technology place a very fundamental roles in our lives and even err even in the evolution of our human society, this is because from our you know err


err distance err distance ancestors in the past uh we have always been uh using technology so for example the caveman uh is like, once is like after is like once err the caveman discovered the use of fire and use of tool right this has err led to the development of


err technology and even society itself and also I would like to argue that uh technology has made our lives err easier and safer and this as, and this is all thanks to our technology so err


err for example right err do you remember I mean our in the past like our, grandparents or you know parents so you know whoever you know there are times when there have no electricity like is like how would they how do they feel about lack of you know having uh lights at nights


and because because as I because I know they don't get to use err electricity at night right then there is like , then is like err is like you know they cannot do certain stuff err after err after the sun fall so err I believe that err electricity is


is invented during err industrial revolution and because of this invention right of electricity and lights right you know people realise that<you know oh they can stretch their productive hours all the way to the to the night time and because of this right this has uh this


has let to err uh the increase in the increase in the prosperity of our society so err to sum up right err without technology err our lives will be err hardest lower and probably less enjoyable


so ya now is your turn Ming-Guan


and ya your argument okay alright thank you Ming-Guan so I noticed that err so let me summarize your point so basically you argue that err err technology creates more problems than benefits for society it's like and some of problem they mentioned


uherr people are being err over reliance on technology err err it was this will err technology will leads to alternation and hence a lost in jobs err, privacy concerns err isolation and err addiction and you also acknowledge that err err


technology is dependent on the end users so before I would go on to that argument right err I like to mention that err yes it's true that, err technology causes more err creates a lot of problems but I would like to argue that err all these problems err have been err ask


currently being discussed and solved by err human by human beings and this is because err, just like science right I believe that technology is always self correcting and you know err and even if err technology is err creating err issues in our uh current day to day life but also that down the road


people will be err addressing its and and then this points down to the nature of society is that we are ever err we are always err self improving so let me think of an example where err technology err , has been improve its part his problem so I guess in the past maybe I will talk about the issue of privacy so yes err I mean our phones our laptop has been collecting our information but it doesn't mean that you know people are inventing new technology or new measures to mitigate the


the effect so err let me think of another example where technology has been improve as well sorry I could not think of one ya so err I guess that's or or and also like to talk about err


uh uh the, double nature so so it mention that err the issue with technology is got do with the user and not the tool right so I mean in view of that uh are you able to the still argue that err so


I are you still able to still argue that technology creates more problems than benefits for society because as I mentioned technology is always self correcting or due this uh err disagree with my statement


good or bad lah


okay so firstly err I guess the issue of the end user right is err sort of like beyond the scope of the question but I guess I mean err


I mean err technology right err doesn't exist is without the user so ya our err so I think maybe is worth out for me for us to discuss the roles of users so so basically your argument is that you know err


err yes a human has been using technology for a nefarious purposes and maybe even like a right world but err I also argue that err technology has has been used for many err beneficial purposes as well like for example like like raising the


the living standards of the overall living standards of the society or or you know no making err, or you know being rated conveniences in our lives and I guess evenly depends on the err users themselves so err my argument is that I'd like to despite all the problems right I would like to argue that fundamentally err


human society err will still use technology for beneficial purpose and I guess it really boils down to err, evolution so if I mean I mean there will be people who always be using technology for that purposes but people will self correct and people would strive to continuously improve err themselves so what do you think about that do you think the there is a potential for human being to


err err correct themselves, or do you think is like err it's or it's like it's always only bad bad negative


ya I guess that I mean I I guess the issue of dependence in technology is a whole new err frontier that the human society , err needs to resolve I mean I I I suppose like in the past like like technology is that help us err improves our lives or increase our productivity but it doesn't really


err it's not as it's not supposite pervasive as come back to now where you know technology is uh overtaking our life so I'd like to argue that instead of err being, instead of like this like like being despair it's that it's that a word ya in instead of despairing okay nevermind instead of being err upset then uh oh too dependence on technology I'd say you know ya you should err embrace technology wholeheartedly


and I believe that err err, uh people who younger than us like mainly the generation Z they are they are so called digital native so you know they are born and they are born with technology and they are raised with technology and I believe that this will bring us err uh bring us a lot of exciting stuff


like those have we seen in sci-fi movies so I think you only have fifty seconds left so maybe we will just try to summarise our arguments so maybe Ming-Guan do you want to summarise arguments


okay so my turn to summarise so basically I'm in the opposition and I argued that you know err technology err has always been part of our human society and its responsible for increasing the overall wealth and


prosperity of society and I also like to argue that you know technology is a inherently self correcting and even though err, technology these days uh has brought us a whole new uh whole of problems right err, I feel I'm still output optimistic and I believe in err embracing technology wholeheartedly so thank you


so shall we press stop, okay err one two stop


okay !wah! seems our clap is getting more synchronized now so Ming-Guan err ya maybe he can start you want maybe have a one minute err or jennifer anyway the timer hasn't start yet so ya


okay so do you want to like err talk now or do you want to like some time to reorganize your organize your points


okay ya I mean


okay so let me try and repeat your arguments so basically you are arguing that you know yes err machines err so you are the proposition and you argued that machines makes human and their jobs obsolete so, your argument is that you know because it create convenience and err


at at for the end-user right so there will be err less reliance on manual labour and you also sort of argue that err this is not err entirely a bad thing so uh for my part of view right err


I argue that yes it is true that jobs that are repetitive are, likely do they replace like for example err , err over the past err I think decade also right err jobs that used to exist in the past are no longer there err anymore so maybe some of that examples that can talk of it's like maybe in the past like err one of some examples of very


very manual job that has been replaced by automation err sorry I cannot think of any but ya I know I know like there are many jobs err that once that was once there but you know they are no longer exist but I would I like to argue that err


technology right or rather advanced machine right err is, able to create err new job so maybe some people argued that err the presence of Uber or airbnb is err is threatening err err err you know the taxi industry or maybe the hotel industry


err so but I'll argue that err yes even though maybe some jobs in the taxi hotel industry have been replaced right but are they also will create, just also will facilitate the creation of new jobs for example like err


freelance drivers and err and you know like people who err who are willing to rent their house to err holidaymakers so basically to summarise my argument right uh I will argue that


uh technology I mean machines err has err err err, err is uh responsible for creating more wealth and more jobs for our human society so back to you Ming-Guan


okay so thank you Ming-Guan so basically you argued that err err the machines will make err society err you know change is err, err notion of work or rather the the idea of work would be made redundant and and that a machine would also err transform the the natures of jobs as well so yes I will uh agree with you that


the rise in AI is a game changer and I guess you know the thing we are doing right is going to train uh speech recognition machines so limit down the road right the road of transcribers so will be made obsolete but the from anyway uh


err so as a linguist and as someone with some knowledge in err AI so I'll argue that a machine learning and machine intelligence is very limited so basically machines can learn , it's very powerful in learning patterns from data but I will say that err but I would say that the err the role of machine is very limited in


recognizing the inherent complexities of human speech, slash language so let's say if you present something to some like maybe out of the blue or something very unusual err speech data to machine right you confirm go haywire but it does but but for us human because of our inherent err


capabilities in understanding language right this will be a issue for us so basically err machines is still at the that it is the machines are not capable of human creativity it only capable of uh processing a large amount of


data so yes I also agree with you that uh a lot of jobs will be replaced but err I'd to go back to my original point about how err err err, you know err AI would create new job so err I'll argue that err I'll argue that AI yes it would fundamentally change nature of society and yes you'll err yes it is able to automate certain aspect of work that


err machine can do better than human but I'll argue that err it will need to increase in err, new industries that require the human task ya so maybe for example err


err I don't know machine debuggers or like in terms of language technology would be very fiance and you know linguist and you know checkers and what not so err ya back to you Ming-Guan annie are we in a open discussion stage


okay so ya that's


yes, ya


okay so thank you Ming-Guan so ya I acknowledged that err


so I guess you know err from I mean err let's see so basically right err I mean in the past right technology has always been err responsible for you know, creating new jobs but maybe when maybe and the thing the question is that whoever reach the extent that you know that uh machines will be totally autonomous and err it won't let led the creation of


err new err opportunity and I also like to agree with you that yes that will be such a possibility and and there might be a that might be a case where uh one day err the number of jobs available is lesser than the


total number of the number of err, the overall population so but my argument is that maybe err, err I'll say what uh maybe I will ask uh is it is it something bad err err because is like machines err are able to automate certain task so this means that we are free to err


we are free to pursue task that we actually want to do rather than being err, beholden by err by our day jobs, so to say and I also argued that err I mean I mean it's like it really depends on the society right maybe technology might be concentrated in the hands of err of err few powerful corporation or maybe


there'll like be registration that will make technology accessible to everyone so let's say the case where technology is easily accessible to everyone right and I believe that and when if let's say the government is willing to give it give everyone like say a universal basic income I believe that everyone would


be able to lead err you know uh distance lives while having technology to do almost of the you know the labour day day to day stuff of that, so ya back to you Ming-Guan


okay


okay so only have one minute left so maybe we can summarise our point so I guess basically you want to start first with your summary before I move on to my summary or have you done your summary already, okay okay so err okay my summary is that uh yes it is true that jobs are repetitive in nature will be replaced err and I also like to and also argue that you know err that err


that technology right machines I mean throughout always pass, throughout its history right yes we responsible for creating more jobs and yes I also acknowledge that err err there's a potential that machine will be game changer and result in lesser jobs but but my argument is that for the current state of of technology right in terms of AI right it is only capable of


err better recognition and it cannot it's not able to, perform a more most uh cognitive err tasks like creativity or what not that humans are capable of doing so I would say that, uh that there's still some way to go before machines would totally replace err our job so ya so time's up thank you


okay so one two stop


okay so Ming-Guan


okay thank you err Ming-Guan so err let me try and summarise your points so basically right you argued that you know err err we should at we given the choice of err, ending uh pain and suffering and people should not be compelled to live life for the sake of living and then I guess your main thesis is that human should be given


the the right to choose so, I actually I have did quite a bit of research on this topic and I would like to argue that err no man is an island and I feel that err people should not be given err unlimited freedom so maybe your so is like


so is like my first argument is that err comparing to, ends err certain people's life doesn't end suffering and this because uh suffering will be passed on to their loved ones


and people who are still alive that meet their friends or family would have to bear the consequences of this so called uh legalised uh suicide, and my next argument is that err societies that legalise that authorise suicide as a choice right would compel some people to err to have the pressure of doing the so called


writing and kill themselves so does it mean that err, people with terminal illness or disability should kill themselves because err because they are putting a strain in the financial err err capacity of of hospital slash


family uh I I disagree with that and I think this fundamentally boils down to the notion that all lives, are uh fundamentally err, equal slash worthy so err back to you oh sorry maybe I want to add on something so and I would say that


uh err denying the right of, euthanasia honours the sanctity of life in the sense that err we are all equal and we all the same, err equal and value of uh human being and that even the weakest err should be given the the right to contribute to their society by living


okay very convincing but ya your turn Ming-Guan


okay so I guess your fundamental argument is the notion of proper living what does it mean lead to a good life and we should not uh include


err the it should not ignore the role of uh suffering in the human living so I guess this idea is not just about euthanasia itself but rather the overall you know


moral the morality or err values of the society and err so I like to argue and I guess it really depends on how much the , err the society values err err living the notion of living like should we be compelled to live and should we be compelled to err suffer and err but I guess you know singaporean society err we are still not


uh ready for the notion of uh people having the choice of death because of how we, how our region's value the sanctity, uh okay S A N C I ah never mind uh sanctity sanctity of err human life so for example err in the maybe like in the christian or muslim err err


err you know religious err tenants I think there this notion that you know thou shall not kill and err I guess, is that and it also sort of emphasizes that uh yes there will be suffering but it doesn't mean that uh we should we should give up on life and because like maybe suffering will bring out err err will will bring would


would you know be in the end it would be err better for the person itself and I guess everyone's uh journey is different so we should not say that because you suffer therefore you should should you should be given the right to die but rather you should, but instead we should just encourage people and say I'm I'm sorry to hear that you know you are undergoing a lot of pain so we should err give you err resources or maybe give you assistant to make a living better instead and I guess it so so this also boils down to the notion that no err


every human life is err valuable and they should, and and even even the weakest should have the right to contribute to society so what do you think Ming-Guan


(uh huh)


okay


say something okay so I guess it


I think your idea boils to the notion of agency so yes I recognize that err these days err people are are given more choices to in in terms of how they want to do , with their lives are compared to past and I know like in hospitals there this thing called DNR or do not resuscitate where err patients


err are given the choice of you know not undergoing err unnecessarily err, expensive and err err, I don't know painful or life saving procedures and you know instead it should be given the right to err


err die peacefully but err I guess this also boil down to the notion of freedom as in how much freedom should err, person it given uh to their lives and maybe it's like some people I will argue that you know yes I should have total autonomy towards my


life because it's on my own life but people would say you know no you shouldn't be given such right because you affect others so, maybe like to introduce a new point about why euthanasia shouldn't be legalise is because firstly, uh doctors uh they are so is like they are they are


they are I mean I mean yes their the doctor's role is to err reduce suffering but their primary role is a healer so assisting the patients in committing suicide is fundamentally incompatible with their roles as , uh healer and secondly err also like to argue that you know doctor shouldn't be given the right to decide


who should live and die and I feel that you know this kind of thing should be left to, god so have to say even though I'm not religious but I feel that it should be, left to the nature itself so , uh don't think doctor should be given that kind of power


to decide like who should live and die so maybe Ming-Guan you should you can talk


choose euthanasia , ya


ya actually I also agree with you that err err err, euthanasia is a very complex topic and I also actual tend in my actual actual uh stance is that I tend to agree that you know people should be given , the choice err to decide how they want to live even though I also agree that the fact that the oh uh freedom should shouldn't be unlimited but I feel that at least people should be given the agency in deciding how they want to do with their own lives especially if it's it bring them too much pain to suffering


so I think that's all we have so thank you


uh ya uh so like


okay err so should we take one minute maybe to organize, okay


okay err Dan-Yuan err okay if you are if you are ready on your side okay sure I I'm the proposition for today and


I will be proposing the notion that technology creates more problems, than benefits for society and okay like to firstly start off with why I think that it create problems more than benefits err I would like to acknowledge the


benefits of technology first which is obviously like it's a mark of progress you know in in our civilization of society it brings us so much convenience and


access to information ya err all that is not in doubt lah not in question err however I would argue that is precisely because of this err


ease of access and over convenience that leads to more problems than benefits within society if a err if technology is too convenient for us it creates


what we call dependencies over dependencies on technology so like we can't even even like err complete simple tasks, without having to resort to technology or having to rely on technology being over reliant in this case is what I feel is a problem and people err generally do not


err think or you know seek other methods but, but rely on technology as a crutch, and also over convenience also translate into err


something like automation you know like if technology becomes like so advanced then you can automate everything you lose what we call like a lot of jobs in the labour force ya so


and also in that point you get a lot of classic like, security concerns you know where privacy concerns and ya like peoples err confidential data will be misused because technology is so widespread


yes I am


err yes okay err thanks for the err input err


I hear what you saying err however like my proposition my point is that err it is not to deny the benefits that technology provides like I admit that like technology does provide err multiple benefits


as you have mentioned like for the advancement of civilization and society but like it causes err benefits and problems, err in equal measure but it is dependent on society whether like it keeps you more benefits or more problems it depends on the end-user and as such in our society right now in twenty twenty


like the trend I am seeing is that there are more users who use technology in such a way that create more problems, err than benefits in this case so I will move on to my second point on why I think technology causes more problems and it relates to the aspect of err connectivity


that technology provides us yes technology provides us with the ability to connect with our loves one in an instant at at just a click of the mouse but you know people, are so easily like connected yet they find themselves in a state of constant social disconnect you can


be on all the social media networks and like you know you can see the lives of celebrities and and all that but, in the end you are , actually in this constant state of isolation as well you can still feel so alone despite having like thousands of followers or likes on your social media


and of course that there is this over-reliance on technology in all steers of our life be like err public private err even in work you cannot seem to escape


like technology where you know it is like everywhere constantly having notifications on your phone it's difficult for someone living in our day and age to truly be able to disconnect and of course you also inevitably get


things like you know addiction to technology addiction to social media for example and ya that is these are like, to summarise these are my points that I have on the over reliance and problems that you know over connectivity can ya can result in


ya that's the end of my err


, err okay I said that it depends on the end-user of course like every tool like the tool is not inherently bad however like every tool is also like


crucially dependent on how the, the user like implements it right so like in our context in our in our in our in our world like the


people have like shown themselves to be using it in such a way that creates more problems than benefit which what I am err, which is what I am also saying and that you know like, there are so many avenues from this use and like you know bad actors to


you know create all this kind of problems which I have err listed down you know like for example just the spreading of err fake news for example you know to influence or political or social err event


ya so ya like all these err, issues also you know it can't just be like wave the way by like saying oh err technology is err self-correcting but I find that the aspect


of where you know humans and end-users have to come in and actively work towards that you know that equilibrium as well ya


!whoa! yes I mean I would like to be you know taking the optimistic view that err humans will strive towards like being you know self-correcting mechanism seeking to improve


and better the usage of technology within more roles and ethical err areas err but that you know puts the err


burden of responsibility on society like whether like you you know do better but as of now, like I feel that inherently there is still multiple


err multiple problems and issues that have not been tackled despite the you know the rise and prevalence of technology over, like err quite of you decades already like especially like how do you say err


like the dependency on technology is one that, I don't think, I don't think there's a very like short term err solution to that maybe you would like to explain a bit more on what you think


sure so basically my stance is that yes that you know technology still creates more problems than benefits based on the two aspects of you know convenience


and connectivity I argue that there is an like over abundance of of that which leads to the mirage of like problem that we face right now ya


thank you


actually it's okay I can uh I can just begin, err it's okay I can I can I can begin now ya hi so err my proposition for


this debate is that machines make humans and their jobs obsolete that is what I am proposing today and of course like I will start off by acknowledging the fact that you know, the advanced intact and like you know subsequently the machinery have err created like so much convenience and like


for for all for for many industries and like many people but however like problem which arises from this convenience is that automation renders a lot of jobs as we know it err obsolete


and redundant and there is a problem in itself because that leads to err large scale unemployment and restructuring of industries, and, ya like err


so you know like if we have the advancement and implementation of AI it will no doubt like you know greatly increase like err efficiency


you do not need as much err menial human labour, you reduce err in essence reduce cost reduce time to to get you know even even larger greater amounts of productivity and work done


and in effect like in twenty twenty right now right like many jobs have already been lost to AI to technology, many jobs have been automated you know, and I feel that that in itself it is quite err


it fools the natural cost of things because like if you think about it, jobs that were around centuries ago right like you don't see them now and why is that because of the advancement of tech like we have come and progress and advance as society as a civilization so


that's why it makes err all these jobs obsolete and in effect I don't think it's entirely a bad thing ya if we can like you know have increased productivity and really


reduce the emphasis of having like you know manual or menial repetitive labour when you know you can just automate like stuff, ya so err that is my first point my argument so over to you


ya so , like err yes you like emphasize on the point that err new jobs will you know be created err in place of the ones that you know that will make obsolete so ya I I still find that that


I wouldn't I wouldn't like propose the point that all jobs err will be obsolete because if all jobs became obsolete, then you will be faced with the prospect of the society that


makes redundant the concept of work itself, so like a society that has no work right like to have the concept of work so everything is like leisure and like I don't think that is the society that our you know our the world is progressing towards


ya so I will move on to my second point which is that you know drastically I would say that the advancement of machinery AI makes large err


okay it makes the nature of jobs drastically err changed in the in the sense that let's say I will talk about delivery you know I mean maybe not in Singapore but in other parts of the world


like delivery services have been overtaken and replace by the use of drone amazon uses delivery drones to make their delivery so that in itself


removes and makes redundant the the role of delivery service providers and also maybe like say Uber or grab you know like they are dominating and remodelling the landscape of you know the taxi industry


so like that is already in effect the first step and, like with advancements in technology, err to come in the the decades of years to come like if we example make a push into driverless cars where then will we see the total absence of


you know for example taxi drivers if you can just simply hop on a driver-less car in the future and you know they will take you to your destination so, that adds on to my argument that you know the nature of jobs will be completely transformed like vast majority of the populars will be invested in skilled labor rather than unskilled labor


and ya err back to you


err it might appear that we are okay so thank you for your err rebuttal so, okay I will okay I will just address the point that you mentioned on the fact that the nature of jobs like transited transition into err a very strong emphasis on skilled labour which is you know like err


uh let's say like more IT centric you know like like you you've mentioned the example of a debugger right software debugger uh and ya so, basically like my question is like how so how how much of the world population you know is going to be like in this news tech skilled labour you know


and like can can we have that many jobs, to for example at six billion people you know, is it possible to have that many new jobs I know new jobs will be created of course but how many new new like suitable roles can we really create for that you know what about the vast sizable


number of people who are rendered jobless because they cannot transition or rather like there is a lack or shortage of jobs available for them and also like you mention the part where you know err


machines are only dependent on the patterns that you know their programmers input into them but, like isn't that the case whereby the machinery and they the technology is not advance we are not advance enough so


I feel that in the future near future to come like technology will probably advance into like such a, a stage whereby the technology will actually be able to preempt predict and be creative in a ways rather than you know just blindly following patterns simple patterns that


that follow you know that that that are programmed in into it ya


okay thank you err ya so like err I think he have come to a certain consensus and agreement that err you know like on the aspect that new jobs will be created there will be a


shift and then like you know change in the nature of how like you know work and jobs err will be perceived going forward in the future ya so like, I I think in my stands right I don't posit that making jobs obsolete is necessary a bad thing like that is not my that is not what I am arguing for but I am arguing for the fact that


it whether it be a good or a bad thing that it does not change the very nature of the fact that it does make a lot of what we do you know right now and over the past err centuries or so, it makes so much of that obsolete because there is such a drastic transformation in


so many industries and so much of what like the world currently no does is like you know work for example like I mentioned , delivery err delivery stuff err taxi drivers for example maybe like you know cashiers now we all have like self check-out counters so


like lots and lots of like you know even farming farmers farming equipment everything is automated and like so many jobs that you know so many people like millions and millions of people around the world that have been employed employed in they will


lose their jobs they will have their jobs, found obsolete to them and I think that is inescapable fact of technological advancement that we have to embrace uh as you know ya as as a whole ya okay back to you


uh it's okay err actually I actually just now I summaries what I wanted already so you can use the time remaining


thank you


yes err okay err if you are ready I can I will like jump straight into it err okay err let's go I


will be proposing like ends fourth in this err in this round of debate that err euthanasia should be legalised err that is my point of view, that I am trying to put forth today so I have why do I feel that you know like euthanasia should be legalised because I'm sure we all know like this is a pretty controversial topic because is spans like you know


the spectrum of political moral err ethical and you know some more even say religious implications of you know such a decision is not something that you know should be taken err likely at all


but also like why I argue for the pro-euthanasia argument is that, I think there should be a very important, presence of agency and choice err given to


you know the patients and that euthanasia in this in this regard, I mean of course like you to have the consent of the patient before like you know the doctor or like the physician can like assist you in in you euthanasia so like the ability to choose is very important if you have


err distinct lack of you know quality of life standard of living and you just err in constant pain and suffering, as a you know like a maybe terminally ill patient


so to be denied the option of euthanasia like that brings about like err, serious implications that we must consider you know like do we really want people to live life for the sake of


living so ya I I mean I get it really depends on what individuals I mean all societies view err ideologically on what they define like you know life and living is


but ya like I feel that like a great deal of emphasis has has to come under like this err, term of choice you know like be it like whether you know the patient has financial reasons family's financial reasons to ask for euthanasia maybe I feel that having the option rather like it's better than not having the option at all you know


and like you if examine the role of like the doctor then shouldn't the doctor's role be to ease you know like pain ease suffering rather than to prolong said suffering ya thank you


okay thank you for your input err, okay like but how do I how do I put this like, you mention that you know like people should carry on living because


of you know sanctity of life and such err but I find that you know like I still make my point that there should be a choice given because what your stance is is that, err euthanasia like should not even be an option on the table


you know and in our in my definition of euthanasia is that consent is expressly given by the patient itself like you know and like, you mention the fact that you know family and friends right like they might suffer or feel pain at the loss of their loved one but I think that argument ignores that fact that and the possibility that you know


by keeping the patient alive you are in fact prolonging the suffering just because you want your loved one to be, you know alive but how is that actually


living in a sense if the person is in constant pain and suffering or, if if let say they are in a comatose unconscious figurative state then how would you constitute that as having you know properly living


ya so that will be like one aspect where like I would like to know your your your thoughts on later and ya so , I don't know like like at that this is a very tricky like topic lah like but then I find that society like is very ableist you know you know what I mean like they focus a lot on like


the able able bodied people rather than disabled so they focus a lot on like you know physical aspect of of life of living so like you know if


you don't know they say if you if you you're breathing you're living then that should be something to be to be protected but I found that's not so straightforward in a lot of cases because, of like ya just a lot of suffering and pain that the patient has to endure and that is not something that we can easily you know like simply ignore or pass pass pass over easily ya back to you


yeah the sanctity yes okay


, I don't know I feel that that is pretty like idealistic like, it's sort of a argument that easy to make but then like like what you say like, like every person is different yes I get that but when a person expressly consents towards euthanasia and like request for it


like you know it's not like as if they are unconscious or like you know maybe like before they entered vegetative state right they already gave consent for euthanasia , and like I think that is something that should be respected as well rather than you know just giving a blanket ban and say oh you know of course like this kind of thing has to have like you know properly controlled and regulated via laws and regulations but I feel that


as a whole not just in singapore or society but as the world we focus too much on a planned life we don't actually give too much thought on having a plan death as well because I find that that is something pretty crucial we need to


work towards and really like consider and in like I believe like singapore especially err in the absence of euthanasia we, focus on this aspect called palliative care which is like end of life care so like you provide the circumstances


to the utmost possible extent where you provide an environment where it's you know like minimal suffering and pain for the, be it the elderly or like you know the terminally ill patient ya but I acknowledge the fact that you know such an option is certainly admirable and certainly in most cases we should have palliative care yes but


you know in certain instances of palliative care but when you know you are sedated right you have like terminal illness but you don't have like, the sort of agency or ability to interact with your loved ones so like in in actuality like I find that that in itself right is


strikingly close to you know robing, the patient of their agency as well you know like you do not allow the patient to to go and live life according to their wishes you are in fact imposing a certain way of living onto the patients


by prescribing them you know like almost what some would call a tortuous existence ya so who are we, to dictate how the person in question would live out the rest or remainder of their life ya so that is the err crux of my argument which is what I'm trying to


to also like bring out to you so ya maybe then you want to err address these points


ya err but regarding your err point about like had doctors having been the arbiter of like you know administering euthanasia but like err, like my definition or what I see euthanasia is like one that expressly involves patient consent rather than something that is something decided on by the doctor like I feel that what is most utmost is patient himself


has given consent to such a procedure like such a way to to you know to end his suffering and pain so the doctor right in effect right is actually only err helping the patient up in this case rather you know just


the the providing the execution of of the procedure rather than you know like taking it upon themselves to , ya to provide the euthanasia so I will just end off lah my argument I mean I get it's a controversial topic


that's easy to argue for like you know both side so like I remember like reading this book it's called titled Liver by Will Self so like the the protagonist like is this woman so she is she has terminal illness, so you know she she travels overseas to seek like you know euthanasia where is legal of course and you know just before she


she was about to take the you know like the little, err like drink all that like she actually like stopped herself and she didn't carry on the procedure so in that story right she actually like wanders around the city right in Zurich


and then after that she having like come so close to death lor she actually tries err and you know really appreciates the surroundings and the environment so like it's a very like odd thing as well like


and she really learns how to appreciate like living in that moment ya but at the end of her day like the story uh she does go on to take the, euthanasia at a later date ya so like you know like I find that a very beautiful like story because it really encompasses both and solves what we have just argued upon ya so err you maybe you wan to close up cause that's all I have to really say for this


thank you so


okay


so okay so for uh from my part opposition I feel that uh sex work should not be legalised because uh like you said because of if it's going to be legalised then it would actually you know serve our human dignity as well as uh


safeguard the protection of labours who work for uh sex, but uh what I feel is that i think by legalising it would actually increase uh, or uh increase the uh what you call that probability of people misusing the law and rights given to them especially like both genders in this case you know in terms of violence or something that is uh


some mistreats on the sex workers they could actually misuse the laws that is been and the rights being given to them to actually blame the other party, and if you if it's going to be like if certain rights or certain law that is been uh given uh by the uh following respective countries the ones who have been misusing


can actually receive the benefits in a wrong way like for example monetary uh compensation or what sort and be blamed on the person who actually receives the service, so in this way I think it shouldn't be legalised and secondly I think that it won't really work even it's going to be legalised because if you look at sex work


especially among uh married couples is something that uh people wouldn't want to share about, uh like for example they would be shy to share about the sex work they have receive and where they have receive or although uh some might actually pass the contacts to the friends or what sort but is something that they would like to keep it in private


and I think even if you legalise there there are high probability of human trafficking and illegal, uh brothels or what sort to happen because they still want to keep things private and uh you know to ensure that certain types of services even in sex there are certain types of services in this case like you mention violence and all that so even though if if it's going to be like protecting the human dignity and make sure they are taken care


of I think it won't work in real life so there's no use even if it's if it's going to be legalised


okay so , basically you are saying that , by actually legalising you would actually uh save human dignity as well as be able to safeguard those people who are at risk especially the sex workers uh but what I feel is that


if you want to become a sex worker I think that uh is something which they need to consider about the consequences if they are able to earn money or receive any form of compensation in , in return of uh the service that they are providing I feel that it's up uh their responsibility their individual responsibility to ensure and check to whom they are actually providing the service to and basically it's up to them to make their own uh safe choices


so even if you are going to legalise it there are are lot of chances of people who actually you know end up getting raped like you mentioned end up getting raped and what is the use of getting some uh compensation or you know getting rights when they are actually getting raped already


so uh I feel that you know there is not much use of uh getting it legalised because first of all it's uh they might there might be chances of people uh misusing the laws uh given uh to the sex workers or people who are receiving it and secondly there's not not much of uh


use because even if you are talking about the consequences uh of those uh sex workers whom are going to face after certain uh mishaps happened uh, I don't think it's something that they they would consider it to be serious


because it's something that they could actually foresee before getting into a profession like this


okay so I I I think I feel that uh what you have actually mentioned is uh mainly about the, uh ensuring safety of uh those , who are who have the chance who uh of being vulnerable , to those receive uh receiving uh those sex work but uh on the other side what we can actually consider is how loyal uh loyalty actually comes in in terms of marriage and all that if you are going to legalise then those who are receiving sex work will actually debate on how they become unloyal to their


uh fellow partners so in in this case it might actually increase the number of people receiving sex work even though they have the right the other factor that can consider is how loyal and uh how truthful they are to their fellow partners, you know in terms of you know uh this might actually uh increase the chances of uh family uh being broken


more divorce rates and other social consequences that might actually occur because there's no uh stable families in the society and that might actually affect the future generations, yeah


okay so it's consolidated right arguments do I have to like continue with my opposition views or something, okay so you mention that


actually by receiving this thing it is up to them to actually decide on whether they are doing it right or you know it's uh up to them to decide whether, you know it might break their families or something like that but I feel that again when you are referring to the sex worker it is a responsibility of the sex worker if she is going to you know take the legalised


pathway to actually ensure that you know the uh the partner that she's going to give the service to has STDs or some other transmitted diseases it's every right of the women to actually or or the other gender to actually consider if this is going to break another family because I think


that's where uh values and morals actually come into every individual if yours you you, you know uh if you are considering uh the an individual to just be reliant or uh being actually determining their consequences as a result of receiving this service I think uh


the sex worker should also consider what consequences she might actually , uh give uh to the to the other partner whom she's uh giving this service to so in this case I think , this might affect the society as a whole because everyone becomes selfish and they are not considering what would actually happen you know to the other uh adult whom uh who is receiving the the service which might actually cause uh problems in uh in lives of others


okay so uh I understand that


actually this charity work making it compulsory would actually develop one's , character and uh you know personal development but uh opposition side what I feel is that by making it compulsory you might not actually that means


if it's going to be made compulsory there might not be like a particular stage where everybody is able to commit and the fact that if everyone is able to make charity there's no need for everyone uh anyone to ask charity, you know donation or any sort of monetary uh help because which means everybody could actually afford in any ways


to uh to maintain their own problems or you know to manage their uh own financial difficulties so I think by making it compulsory it will not actually, it might entitle to some benefits but on the long term I don't think it's something that


uh could actually be manageable by families it really depends on uh which kind of financial category you are at, if you are at uh you know high income status you might actually be able to afford on a long time basis even if it's going to be a bit compulsory but let's look at those who are you know having no income or you know having uh financial difficulties that


is going to be uh making the situation more worse because even if it's going to be compulsory it might actually uh make them more poorer and these people might end up asking for charity but in, you know and if its if charity is going be made compulsory then the person who is receiving charity will have to end up giving charity to you know to help uh people of


people needing uh help in other forms


okay so uh


your point on uh giving uh those giving charity should be those of the up uh higher class uh upper financial status so the which means uh what you are trying to say that only a particular group of people who have certain


uh you know uh income status should be uh, allowed to actually or should uh have compulsory charity work to be done to the rest of the society but then what I uh guess is this would actually complicate issues instead of rebuilding the society because what would people uh of that particular nation that is actually going to makes


charity work compulsory will end up being uh more dependent on the other citizens and what what they might actually, do is they might actually limit themselves of finding ways to improve uh in life, instead of doing that what they might actually expect is oh uh you know uh anyways a particular


those richer people are going to give charity work in case uh we are not at the status of helping ourselves so this might actually worsen the character development of one and uh you know actually instead of uh broadening the minds of people who actually can receive help from different areas


uh like for instance you know finding for jobs that would actually suit their, capacity and improving their lives and you know , ya that kind of uh, you know more help instead of on personal development or other areas instead of actually depending on just monetary compensation


okay so uh based on what you are saying is that uh every individual should have the responsibility for the social development and they actually have to consider the social uh strata so they can actually help the


country as a whole but uh what I would like to argue is that , for instance take for instance there are avenue where actually the government itself comes into uh take, uh money from those richer people or those who are earning uh and distribute to the rest of the society for uh total rebuild of the country as a whole so for instance you can take for income tax those income that are taken would actually be distributed to those uh under privileged


people in the society so uh I think first and foremost one should actually uh, consider their own family first before going to uh do going forward to do uh charity work, so for instance if you are going to take uh a millionaire and uh considering him to be uh distributing his wealth or doing some engaging in long term charity work


by actually forcing him uh to do charity work when he's actually having other form of commitments so in this case you are mentioning that uh by considering social strata work hence uh making charity work compulsory he is actually bound to do charity work in even though you know uh he has more


uh family responsibilities or commitments which he has to uh meet, for instance there are there could be commitments where he could have a mentally challenged or you know autistic child at home who he has actually have , made long term plans on how to actually uh take care or you know consider you know some sort of monetary savings set aside for him to actually make his life better or there is there could be many other commitments like aging parents and uh maybe he could be handicapped even though he is uh you know


a millionaire or you know he is his income status is up there he could be having you know physical or you know health problems which he wants to secure himself first, before helping uh the society so you cannot actually determine whether he is rich uh you know those people who are rich uh should


you know uh compulsorily uh be giving charity work because I think as a human being you should have more responsibility on yourself it always comes as family uh society and uh you know later on government and stuff so family comes in first


your individual responsibility comes in first when you are actually thinking of charity work because only if you can afford you will be able to afford for the society so even though one is rich and the income status is high that does not mean that he doesn't have individual as well as many responsibility


where he is actually committed more and , why is someone actually rich or why he wants to actually make himself rich is because so that he can afford for himself and afford for the family for different factors so the fact that he


when you are making something compulsory you are actually stopping someone uh from growing, uh and the reason that you are giving is for those who are under privileged, for different types of factors some could be just lazy to work or you know you are mentioning those who are not educated there are many other avenues where they can actually develop themselves by for example writing petitions or you know uh to the government to ensure that you know certain laws are being uh reconsidered


you know so there are many other avenues but rather than making charity work as something compulsory so if you are actually tapping on those richer I think that you are actually going to limit , you know their development and making everyone equal so unless you are considering that then charity work to be made compulsory but I don't think it's something that you would actually look forward to because eventually if you are going to make everyone


equal then the world is going to be stagnant the country is going to be stagnant because there's no uh need for someone to actually uh have personal development, in this case


okay so uh that's where uh your point of actually you mention that those who can do charity work should do so which means that uh charity work shouldn't be made compulsory , because if it's going to be made compulsory then those of even uh of the middle income group should have to


you know give some form of charity work and what I have mentioned before is you you actually told about giving charity work instead of uh uh monetary monetary form of charity work they could actually decide on books uh to to actually donate books or other source of resources but I think


what they should actually consider is whether they are able to, afford those whether they want to keep it for long term whether they can actually you know uh be able to donate it and they can still afford on other source of resources is based on the individual and uh not uh based on what the law is mentioning which is made compulsory because like what you mentioned


you know there are poor people and for generations they might uh be continuing to be poor and for the rich they might keep savings there's a reason why they are keeping uh savings for the future generations because so that the uh in future their children or grandchildren will not suffer


in this case it would actually help to rebuild the society into something that's more affordable in future


okay so you mention that there will be uh people who you know misjudge those people who have convicted of uh suspected of convicting a crime so uh, in that case why is someone actually uh as being a opposition what I feel is why someone is actually being uh blamed for convicting a crime as you look those are countries which actually uh give death penalty to those you know uh those people are


at are guilty of certain crime is those extreme ones something like uh you know murdering someone or involving in drugs and that kind of uh serious issues that's when uh they get uh death penalty so why would someone been blamed uh for something which they have not


uh done or which they have not committed of and first of all when death penalty comes in definitely they would be actually carrying out investigations where you know people would, find themselves guilty of committing a crime before you actually go to such extreme


uh punishments of death penalty and secondly I feel that , by giving death penalty it would actually , uh which means someone has actually uh caused an impact in other person's life they have already convicted the crime so if you are going to talk about uh you know


ability to correct your mistakes then there would be, excuses given by those uh convicting the crime like for example if there's going to be uh you know a criminal who is going to continue murdering despite having uh uh despite uh being given ability to actually correct himself


uh I don't think that would actually solve the problem because if you're going to look at a serial killer if he's not been given uh be given death penalty and you are gonna actually consider, giving him other sort of uh you know options such as uh like for example uh mental uh treatments or some other sorts of help I think uh these people who do not have any form of medications or any form of uh treatments that's going to be you know


impactful for them or beneficial for them then these are, murders are going to continue and those drug addicts severe drug addicts despite having many treatments do not have uh self discipline to actually correct themselves then uh what else can you have, these kind of these sort of excuses that uh you know other forms of punishments instead of death penalty would not actually infuse uh some sort of fear uh and instead would actually instigate them to


uh commit more crimes because they feel that you know okay uh I will be given a light punishment or you know certain type of punishment where actually I could come back to the society and that would give them more opportunities to commit the continue committing the crimes


yeah


okay so uh you actually uh mentioned about lack of transparency mainly when they are being given death penalty about they way that they will actually be punished and uh you know they are sentenced to death how would it be


you know and you also mentioned about the option of considering lifetime imprisonment so if you take for instance lifetime imprisonment means uh you are actually staying in the prison, till till your death so my argument is that what is the use of keeping someone when uh you know imprisonment for life when you are actually considering of giving him the ability to reform himself and go back to the society


so there is no need uh for actually keeping someone uh you know giving someone lifetime imprisonment to actually settle down in the prison and you know associate himself with the fellow prisoners and uh eventually he's going to die so


it's the same as uh giving death penalty so, I don't understand what's the difference actually and uh secondly you are mentioning mentioning about the lack of transparency and uh in the uh in terms of the punishment being given for death penalty so what I would feel is it it is actually


sort of instigating the fear in the public the fact of uh when you are talking about the lack of transparency you are actually instigating this form of uh fear in the public where they would actually uh think of you know what might be the consequences of the death penalty if I'm going to uh commit certain type of crimes so


I think when public or uh is actually taking the initiative to read up on the types of mistakes that uh you know uh that would be given death penalty they might, you know actually refrain themselves from committing that sort of crime so you can actually reduce the number of uh serious crimes that actually happens and I think uh


given the lack of transparency that they might actually fear that you know I I'm not sure what kind of uh punishments that uh you know I might actually , be given and that is actually the same as uh lifetime imprisonment because if you are going to be serving lifetime imprisonment then you might actually suffer in the long term because death penalty would


you just kill the person by hanging them or like you said , giving them electric shocks and all that but if you're gonna follow a lifetime imprisonment that might actually lead to uh worser situations where you are talking about uh corruptive government or you know those of a higher authorities making use and you know making them suffer uh they are actually giving them long term sufferings so I think uh


if you consider uh human rights or if you consider uh humanity I think that is more of a harsher punishment


okay uh


the lack of uh transparency would actually instigate the fear


okay so uh rebutting your point on uh you know giving opportunities for people who you know to to uh undo their wrong uh doings uh like what we can actually consider is


death penalty is not the only option to correct someone's wrong doings obviously according to the law there are many forms of punishment that the, uh err you know convicts can actually be served to, and like you mentioned there are also NGOs and you know volunteers who are actually counsellors will come in


to uh give advices and reform those uh you know criminals who are actually being imprisoned but uh when you are considering about the lifetime imprisonment I feel that it is not uh it is of no use, because eventually they're going to die but then you mentioned that they are going to work they will they will have the opportunity to study then in this case lifetime imprisonment is actually causing more suffering to the


to the uh convicts because then they would actually you know reform themselves and would like to go back to the society but they are not given a chance to do so and also by actually counselling those people who are already given lifetime imprisonment , is actually limiting the uh efficiency of resources that you actually have because they they could actually channel those people those counsellors and volunteers to people who really need them and you know


who are being uh given punishment yet they are given opportunities to go back to the society and you know reform themselves so those kind of uh resources should actually be channeled to, those people who can actually come back to the society and rebuild the society by uh you know undoing their mistakes so in this case I think uh death penalty should actually be abolished


and should not be abolished because if you are going to consider people who can reform in in the prisonment because if you are going to serve death penalty that means you have actually committed a crime that is not acceptable that is actually uh


when you go to extreme so those people who result into extremism should actually be removed from the society and you know that's why you are given life imprisonment but I think that's still of no use because, you know even though they actually uh consider personal development I don't think that would actually be long lasting eventually they are going to given uh you know uh they are going to die in the prison itself so that's going to cause more sufferings to them as well as it is going to limit the (ppc)


limit the resources in the country and also you mentioned about the, (ppc) uh what do you call that authorities actually coming to power and make use of uh those people who are in uh given death penalty I think it's like a one one off thing where they uh given the death penalty and then that's it they just die but then


those who are given lifetime imprisonment it's also sort of uh (ppc) like receiving the punishments of higher authorities in this case if you are talking about uh corrupted governments and higher authorities making use or convicting blaming on others for commit convicting a certain


type of crime then it then would actually not only consider death penalty but all other sorts of , you know criminal acts which they can actually blame it on people but that's not something that we are actually discussing about because uh that would be generalised for all other types of uh treatment but death penalty uh there are certain types of law where someone could actually be given death penalty too and


I think in this case it would be extreme cases and those cases who who are whereby people would actually find themselves guilty yeah


okay, okay so


okay uh I will start now uh okay so


sex work sex work essentially is uh a type of work where adults receive money, or other forms of compensation in exchange for consensual uh consensual sexual services uh and this can be either on an occasional or regular basis


so a sex worker can be both female male and transgender and in many countries uh in most countries actually uh sex work currently is uh associated with criminal acts so uh, one reason why I find that uh sex work should be legalised is number one it because it respects


human rights and dignity so uh a lot of people particularly in places or societies where uh there are still uh underdeveloped or third world countries kind of thing people still, uh rely on sex work as a form of livelihood or as a temporary means to survive


or an opportunity to add supplementary income to whatever income that they already have, so uh sex work can be done freelance or it can be done through an actual organisation uh and this uh organisations or in freelance uh method they allow more flexible working conditions as opposed to nine to five nine to five jobs so for whatever reasons


that people may have sex work is still work, and sex workers should be allowed to be treated with dignity uh which is what many societies have yet to recognise now and for that reason many of these uh sex workers are treated very poorly uh people


people see them as like uh uh you know a threat to society that who who who oppose the very fabric of of of society in many parts of the world uh sex workers have, not yet been recognised as actual workers and this threatens the livelihoods of these sex workers because it means that uh for the work that they do they will be treated as criminals even though they're not doing anything wrong


because as I earlier it's consensual it means that one party has agreed that they that they will receive a service from other party if you think about it from uh a societal point of view there's actually nothing wrong with what they doing because, they are providing a service that another person requires so uh I I feel so for that reason I find that uh sex work should be legalised because it helps them to uh


to give them the right of labour and workplace protections and also to expose the violence discrimination and the arbitrary arrest that happens to sex workers


okay uh so, uh I see that you I see your point in that uh you you, believe that it it's not a viable option because of uh number one sex trafficking and number two uh people who


want to do it uh behind their partners' backs like privately without them knowing uh and thirdly is because of uh uh what was that uh so like uh basically uh it, like violence and abuse right because of of of the the brothels and what not illegal brothels and what not so uh my rebuttal to that is that uh


uh it it's not really a rebuttal but it it it eases into my second point which is that uh discriminalising sex work actually helps guard against violence and abuse so uh sex work is, not inherently violent but the criminalisation of of sex work places sex workers at the greatest risk so this need to avoid arrest of both sex workers and their clients like uh means that street based


sex workers must often move into more isolated areas that are less invisible uh less uh visible to law enforcement and where violence is more prevalent so this, uh I feel it links to your point about the illegal brothels and what not the reason


is not uh I don't believe that uh, because they are legalised some people need to who want private uh services go into this more violence uh prevalent areas but more of the opposite because uh it's because it is illegal that's why people who want to use the service and who provide the service have to find isolated areas


uh to perform the act because to be given a public place to do it or an a a specific place to do it means that uh the police, or law enforcers can target you uh and arrest you and then subsequently charge you for providing a service that is uh asked of you


so for sex workers who are not street based authorities have either have either shut down their online sex work forums like uh redbook, uh it's an online uh sex work forum okay so which means that they so which means that uh so on on top of that when you


uh when you criminalise sex work it also means that you are removing safety nets for from uh these sex workers because it means that they have less time to perform uh, you know there are checks uh to to to see if like your clients or your provided sex worker has had a history of STDs so this actually places a heightened risk for them on top of whatever risk of criminalisation that they already face so what


when you add all of these together it means that uh there'll you will be having a large number of rape cases, uh that go unreported and this goes back to my first point where like uh you know criminalising sex work actually adds on to their uh to their lack of dignity and lack of human rights


okay uh, to go back to your point about uh you know sex workers having to uh, weigh the the pros and cons of their work because currently because because sex work is currently criminalised okay like I said just now there are no safety networks to allow them to


uh sort of weigh the pros and cons for them it's not an option because uh as it is they have to look for you know uh isolated areas, that may probably be unhygienic as well to work because they are not allowed to be given actual places to work like normal people so uh and another thing is uh this uh this rape uh rape allegations that you you mention also right uh


I do I don't think that it's right to say that oh , you chose to be in this line of work and therefore if you get raped it's your fault I don't think that that should be the case I think that regardless of where of the kind of work and you do whether you are an office worker or sex worker anyone should be given the right to report rape


and uh be you know like take their take their perpetrators to court to to charge them and to put them in jail uh that's that's I feel is a human right it's not so much of a right of a of a sex worker by itself so what what when I say that sex works


sex work should be legalised what I mean is when you legalise it you open doors for them to have proper benefits and proper safety networks and proper insurance that all workers, uh who are not sex workers are already given which means that they the right to report rape and be treated seriously and they have the right to uh be given proper healthcare screening uh


to ensure that they do not succumb to you know the the risks of their diseases of the diseases that uh that are prevalent in the nature of the work just because you know the nature of the act that they are uh


what's the word uh undergoing is, uh full of like risk of sexual sexual uh diseases doesn't mean that they should be should not be given the right or access to uh healthcare to help them get over these STDs


or to protect them from these STDs and that's all that's why I feel like it should be legalised another reason why I feel like sex work should be legalised is because uh the dicriminalisation of sex work also actually challenges police abuse and violence, so in cambodia nearly half of all freelance sex workers have been beaten and nearly half of them have been raped by the police and who are the police the the police are the people who we trust in society


to protect us but here we have people who are abusing their power and and uh you know doing all these terrible acts of rape, on to on to people who uh get paid for having sex to you know like this is the service that they provide but just because you are in the position of power doesn't mean that you get to like assert your assert uh this this uh authority and use it for your own benefit so


what so decriminalisation of sex work also actually empowers sex workers to come forward to register their complains with of, police who act unlawfully and bring the offenders to justice, without fear of negative consequences for their own lives


okay uh, just to consolidate everything uh per your last point about uh, families breaking up because people seek uh uh sex workers right , well for one thing uh I don't think it is a responsibility of sex workers to ensure the uh to ensure that you know someone's family life is in check because they are irrelevant what what they are is essentially what


uh normal people who are working in in okay let's say you go to seven eleven and the cashier is there to provide you a service to to take your money right for you to uh be able to purchase the stuff from from seven eleven that's just actually what a sex worker is he


she or he is just someone who is taking money and offering you a service and and to relate it back to to to family life and all these things right it should be the onus should not be on the sex worker but on the person who is, asking for the service who is paying for the service to ensure that there is transparency in his home life


so to blame the sex worker for a service that, they're only uh you know providing is to me uh a is a bit irrelevant to me because it means uh that you are placing blame on on


someone who has who probably doesn't even know if this person has a family if this person has children all these things so uh I I don't find that to be uh uh uh, strong point on that part because uh the the the what's the word like the health of or like the strength of a family bond is


not reliant on someone outside of the family it is reliant on the people within the family so the children the wife and the husband or whatever conjugation that, that uh the family has it should be on them to ensure that their family life is healthy and if someone is seeking if someone in the family is seeking outside consensual sexual services from someone outside the family that and you and you and someone in the family has a problem with that then you should talk it out within the family


and not involve the sex worker outside because he or she, or they are just providing a service that's all they are


okay uh so again because I'm proposition I will begin the uh topic so why charity should be uh compulsory okay


so uh essentially what charity is is, that you give a portion of your wealth to societies or organisations that collect this wealth and give it to people who are in need


so that's essentially what charity is so my first point in in why I think charity should be made compulsory is for is is, is purely for the personal growth of a of the individual so if you look at it from a moralistic standpoint uh charity is seen as a moral duty uh it is


a a duty of a single human being to help another person uh when they are in need and uh you don't just, help people when they ask for help everyday around the world people are in need of help and some of them have grown tired of asking so it is up to people who are in the position to help others to to do it because that's what


uh living in the society means that you extend the the assistance if you are in a position to do so, and what that does what your help can do is that it will improve the lives of many other people uh in the world who do not have the same privileges as you and that could reinforce these values and give people uh the feeling of living their true ethical beliefs so uh


charity is also impactful because it means that you can also change the lives of uh someone who you either know or don't know depending on the type of uh charity that you undergo so , it should be made compulsory because every single one of us in a position to help should be uh should should should do so because there are there will always be someone who


is in need of either money or resources things that we ourselves have in our daily lives


okay uh bouncing off your point about people, people who are in need I think uh, it make sense that uh people who are in need are in dire need should not have to do uh charity so my point is more on the fact that people who are in a position to do charity work be able


uh they must do the charity work so so this uh this means that we are talking about uh if we're going into socio economical backgrounds uh this means that people who come from, middle to upper classes that they should not be excluded from doing charity work and I don't think that charity work should be done on a you know like everybody do the same type of charity more so of like


you give what you have so you give according to what you have so which means that you you follow income brackets so of course when you are, uh rich and you can afford everything in life you should do the you should be obligated or made to donate more because you are in no position to ask for help right you uh you you are basically


self sufficient and therefore you must extend or or rather you must give, the wealth that you have to people who are in need because that already signals an income inequality and I think that it is a responsibility of the rich of the richer classes to help


bridge the gap between this to between uh people who do not have enough and people who have too much and on another note , so uh people who, so what that can do is that uh you not


when you give into charity and you give money to people who need it you also help to bridge uh gaps in education gaps in income gaps in social strata gaps in uh in the types of buildings that you live in the types of societies that you create so when you give to the society you are not just


giving money for the sake of people of of people, uh to you know spend money on food or what but you're also helping to build or rebuild societies that have been destroyed by poverty, and what that does that does is that it helps others to uh


build better lives for themselves


okay uh so your point about uh charity work actually when people make charity work compulsory it actually makes the poor more reliant on


the charity and therefore uh less uh engaged or motivated to help themselves right uh, to begin with I think that this has to do with a lot of class social class problems and the defining nature of of the lower class is that


because they don't have money they don't have access to education they don't have access to and because they don't have access to education they don't have access to the work that requires that education so, how are they supposed to find work to uh that suits them or that will help them to uh be better as you say uh if they don't have access to the to the foundations of society to begin with see the thing about rich people is that


they have everything from the get go they are born into, uh stable family lives, see when you're not when you're not you're not poor you tend to not have to


when you're not poor you don't have a lot of emotional baggage that you need to get rid of and where do you get rid of this emotional baggage, a lot of people from the poor turn to drugs turn to alcohol when you're rich you generally have a stable mindset and you are uh and you have the resources to help you get to where you want to go want to not need to go


they can go anywhere they want anywhere they want so uh when you look at it from a social strata perspective , it makes sense that the rich that the rich people should uh donate or do charity work because uh


because that's just what being a human, uh human being uh that's just a responsibility of a human being of from from coming from that particular uh class


okay you have all these things that you needed to get where you want and to not donate is to say that you got to where you where you are now without the help of of of uh anyone and that's arrogant, because uh you are outright dismissing the plight or like the difficulties that other people around the world go through people from the lower social classes they did not have access to any of these things that the rich people have


and it is the responsibility of the rich to give because it means that they can help to uh you know provide, at least provide a more uh, resources and these resources will help to open more doors for the poor right now as you said just now that they are you know they are not motivated and


you know they may just be over reliant on on the richest uh uh uh uh donations that you are assuming the same things that, uh people in the upper classes have assumed all these while because they have been looking up from up to down K uh but the reality is that everybody wants a job everybody wants to do something with their lives everybody has dreams that they that they want to pursue and some of us


or some people cannot do that because they don't have the necessary resources or necessary help and that's why I think the rich, the rich or or not even just the rich like middle middle class people who have, who have more and who can give should give


okay uh okay so we are consolidating now right , so back to your point about income tax, uh the governments all governments around the world collect a certain type of tax uh and this tax is uh they they are collected in brackets so people are charged different amount of tax


uh depending on your income so but that tax that money that the the government collects does not necessarily go, to governments or or doesn't necessarily go to organisations or or the people who need the money which means to say that all you know all these NGOs who are helping people who are in uh positions of uh lower uh economic class this this money doesn't necessarily go to them and when you


make when you make charity compulsory it becomes another type of tax that, is specific it's a specific type of tax where the money, directly goes to people who need it so uh ya so what that means is that now there is an actual flow of money coming from the citizens and it's the social responsibility of all citizens who can donate uh so that their money can go to


uh uh to the people who need it because right now when you say income tax and all these things it's not very, uh transparent especially in corrupt governments if this money actually goes to who or or or where this money actually goes to does it go to the minister's pockets themselves or does it really go to the country and the people who need them and back to your point about people who


you know they wanna take care of their families and all these poor people also want to take care of their families, poor people also have autistic children poor people also have disabled parents old parents poor people also have uh sick people in their in their family who they want to look after but what


but what's makes them different from rich people is that unlike rich people poor people don't have the money to do that, they don't have the money to cover all their medical expenses they don't have the money to cover educational expenses they don't even have money to buy new shoes for their kids, so that's why I think charity comes in uh mandatory charity comes in and mandatory charity can come in many forms it can not only be money it can be property it can be resources it can be books it can be uh clothes it can be anything that the poor needs


and I think that it still remains on the responsibility of those who can donate not just the rich not just not just uh you know upper middle class but I I mean my main point is that if you have


enough and you have excess especially for like you said savings and all these things how much of those savings are you actually going to use up if let's say you're earning a million a year how much wealth have you amassed that came from the pockets of, normal people like us who is not going and that money is not going to the people who need it you know that money is going to stay in your bank for until you die and that's gonna be passed down to generations after you and it's still gonna stay in your family


and and while that money stays in your bank in your within your family there will be millions and millions of poor people who still don't have enough to eat


okay so to begin with the death penalty in most country uh


how to say okay so the death penalty is essentially for criminals who have committed very serious crimes and have been taken uh to the gallows so this can be in the form of hanging, uh electric chair or lethal injections which I believe has already been banned in many countries there are still to date still some countries that uh that uh use capital punishment which is the death penalty as a means uh to uh uh for for uh as a means for the criminals to atone for their crimes


so in singapore it is uh by use of hanging, and my first point of uh, why the death penalty should be abolished is number one the miscarriage of justice and the inability to correct it so what this means is essentially the death penalty


is permanent it is permanent it is not something that someone can heal from once you kill the supposed convict that person dies, there is no coming back from that and uh so what this means is that you can convict a person who is innocent and only find out that he is innocent after he is dead


and when that has already been done what can you do to help uh his or her family uh to you know get over that that the the permanence of it, is something that cannot be fixed and it reflects poorly on people in positions of power lawyers judges uh policemen who you know


people in positions of law and order who have been given the trust and the responsibility to carry out proper judgement but turns out that they are wrong, so uh that's number one


K okay so I'm hanging I am continuing from your point about uh


them being reintroduced into society and then after that committing more crimes so I, personally think that there is a way to to remove, if this person is still a threat to society there is a way to remove this person from society without having to kill him and that is can be done through like lifetime lifetime imprisonment which


uh most countries actually do do uh they actually carry out uh lifetime imprisonments sometimes uh without proper, uh investigations and what not so if they can do that, then I don't think that it's a problem to uh incarcerate someone and put them in jail for as long as they live provided they are still a threat so uh that's my rebuttal to your point K so to move on to my point for my second point uh so


this this uh, death penalty in many countries uh including singapore ourselves uh the procedure, to carry out the death penalty be it electric chair uh lethal injection or hanging uh they are not transparent in many countries which means to say that the it's not public knowledge


what type of equipment is used to kill the person whether it's ethical to kill a whether it's whether they are being killed in an ethical manner or and and whether their their relatives have been contacted and what not it's not clear okay so when you have uh situations like this where uh


where there is a very clear uh there is a very like uh it's a it's a jarring lack of transparency in the procedures of of uh your death penalty it makes it easy for political opponents mass uh repressions and the risk of premeditated murder to be justified by law


you can do anything you can put anyone you want dead into jail, put plant some fake evidence and they can be written off your book so that also means that, uh you know the the the that people in positions of power can abuse this death penalty because it means that they can get rid of of people who uh


who are in their way be it professionally or or or personally they can just remove the threats to their lives without proper investigation and, uh ya so basically that that that that is the risk of abuse of this particular uh what I don't know uh law uh


because that that because there is uh lack of transparency going into it


okay so bouncing off your point about lifetime imprisonment, being the same as uh as uh I mean you you said that it's it's similar to uh the death penalty so uh people who get sent to jail they don't just sit at at jail and do nothing


they are given food, they are given work to do and they are given lessons so all these things if you put them together they are given uh opportunities to reform themselves so if you are given life imprisonment


uh no matter how long you live there is always the potential to be able to uh you know come out a better person, so I don't think that just because you have committed one major crime in your life you should be removed from the face of society uh completely without a second chance


because uh everybody deserves to prove that they uh that they have humanity in them K then going on your point about uh, sorry what was your second point again the


Vaidhu can you repeat your second point, ah, okay so it is so you mentioned that the the lack of uh transparency may instigate fear and therefore the fear may uh help to


to prevent crime but there's actually evidence to show that uh the death penalty is very ineffective in crime prevention there are no numbers to show that, the more people you kill the less crime actually happens and this can be seen in singapore US and a a large number of companies uh companies uh countries that still


do the the the capital punishment that that that crime does not get reduced with the death penalty the evidence actually shows that uh what uh that, what is effective in crime prevention is actually the number of organisations that cater to helping people in


poverty or or from low income families because we know from from the numbers that a large number of people who are incarcerated come from poor families and poor uh economic background so when you have more organisations, and and uh social uh NGOs that cater to helping these people that is actually what brings the crime prevention numbers uh uh up that is what actually brings the number of cases down


so I disagree that uh that the death penalty actually uh caters to to help uh prevent uh uh crime so uh another point is that to to add on to your point uh when you kill a person


what part of it actually ensures that justice has been served, what is justice uh when you kill someone is killing someone also not a crime of it's own you see uh what is the proper punishment


that guarantees that a person is accountable for their actions and has uh has given enough to undo the doing that they have done, when you kill someone you not only remove the potential for them to account for their actions you also remove the potential for them to give back to undo the the the things that they have done and uh I don't think it is


uh the the right of anyone to to to to to make it known that okay this person has done so and so and so and therefore he should die, to to atone for his actions because you are actually not giving them any uh uh opportunity at all to correct their wrong doing


okay just to wrap things up uh I think it is a human right to be given the second chance to uh reform, uh regardless of how much resources it takes because as it is uh I I don't think that it's it's wrong to feed and and educate and and to give someone work uh


despite them having made a mistake in their life and of course I know I'm aware that you know uh the capital punishment is reserved for for the worst of crimes uh like treason uh or or or murder all these kind of things first degree murder but uh


it still goes to a point uh I still like to go back to my first point which is that number one the the impermanence of it, uh the permanence of of of death penalty itself is enough reason to make it uh uh that that it should be abolished because you can't go back from there and I feel that people should still be allowed the chance to reform


uh regardless of of the type of actions that they have done


okay


okay so uh tap on my phone now so I just do do I tap now also, uh okay and then I tapped already then what do I do I press record again is that right


oh


oh no I pressed the button I because my my screen is still awake uh oh okay, uh stop recording stop recording yeah


okay okay so I start a new recording again okay, okay now now the timer is actually starting running lah uh as but it's still at prompt zero dash four is that right uh do I need to do anything else


yeah sure sure uh the the the the the recording on the PC also no need to stop right it's just uh continue right (ppc)


yeah one shot okay , okay


[orh] okay can can can, okay so, ya uh so janice uh the first topic uh mention on the social media does more harm than good so I'll I would say uh for my perspective I would say uh using social media is good for people


alright , the reason why I say that is because social media has positive effect , in the daily life of people, K, so uh let me uh elaborate on it alright so uh in the recent study alright uh by university of uh southern southern california in two zero one two uh they actually conducted a study with a group of uh individual


individuals with emotional unstable uh uh problems alright and this individual actually use uh the facebook okay to post , status updates and shared on their emotions so


after uh observing them for a few months okay uh they actually uh gets better uh and this actually helps them alright to become uh as like the normal person


okay so uh using facebook alright to share their emotions uh receiving social support from their friends and family uh helps them to repair their well being uh after negative experiences so this is uh one


example to, uh to showcase that using social media is good for , uh good for people now uh also social networking sites allows people to communicate and remain in contact with friends and to meet new people so this allowed people to find other others of the similar interest and they can actually create


a relationship with and get to know each other, so they can form groups uh in social media like uh in in facebook there is a lot of uh similar interest group like uh cooking groups uh baking groups alright and also how to


care for elderlies group so the groups can actually uh join and form to meet people with similar interest and uh views, okay so


uh so social networking also social media also allowed creative expression using tools such as uh uh blogging and messaging alright to post ideas and stories , so all all these people sometime they share poems interests in musics TV shows uh hobbies uh photos and other other uh interesting thing so there'll be that social events invitations that can be made


and send to friends instead of uh also uh they can RSVP for, for the for the uh for the other people on site, okay so so basically this helps them to uh raise their self esteem and they can uh feel like they are together with their own team of people


alright , social media not only allows uh people to talk to friends also use as uh education topics so uh it helps to improve quality of life uh and help to reduce health risk so basically there is one article that mention that uh there's a person suffering from depression


and he actually wanted to uh commit suicide but because he share his share his status on on the facebook people become aware and in fact he get help uh before he commit suicide uh by the


police visiting the house because uh the uh facebook people saw his post and call the police okay , alright so uh let me pass over to janice


the timer is uh jack your screen is like blank out ah now now now we can see the timer so I think jack you need to tap on your screen also


uh okay uh so uh just to confirm we are still at topic one right social media does more harms than good okay okay okay, so uh I catch you uh janice so basically I just want to uh continue our discussion is that the social media actually is a good uh educational tools I mean other than


uh reliance and dependency on these social media tools, what happen here is that uh in fact the schools are actually finding that social medias are helpful to the students so it helps to improve the technological skills of the students uh exposing them to different views uh diverse views of the societies and things


and that helps the student to build up the communication skills uh and also helps allows learning cultures of all the users from all around the world so students use the social media social media to network to discuss homework homework topics with uh


peers online and get helps on assignments so uh the survey recently done was that the, , uh jack your timer is not there again so a survey recently done let me see ah by with a group of students uh shows that sixty percent of students on social networks


alright uh have uh talk about educations and fifty percent actually talks about school works assignment so this uh students seems to be uh very extraordinary because uh they use uh the twenty first century skills to communicate


and collaborate and uh demonstrate leadership skills and technology proficiency and creativity and this actually also uh impress the parents uh and the parent actually expecting the schools to take advantage of this


uh social uh media resources to educate the children and do it in a safe way so some uh schools also created a secured uh social media network for students


to communicate with other students and do in a safer way, so, K so social media does not only benefit individuals also benefit business also uh and also allow business advertise uh marketing and market services to big audience and the profile is actually uh free to set up