uh have to be addressed, uh and the and the best way I think I think the best way is to leave it to, to uh social workers and to social and and for uh experts to , to study that to that study those those those needs and so far I think it has been it has been proven that uh uh


a lot of uh , their their sexual needs has been addressed by the , availability of all the sex sex workers, and I think I think it help, it helped that it give them a dignity that that that that they deserve in this in this world that we live in


part two debate topic two, uh charity work should be made compulsory that's my uh


uh proposition okay so I'm going to start by , explaining why charity work should be made, compulsory, especially especially at at this juncture, uh whereas with uh with the with the advent of social media


the internet and connectivity a lot of young people, have been proven have already shown that they they they, do not have the the awareness, or or should I say they are more aware of of how , uh how you know study has start started to how study is


is is functioning so there's more, uh awareness coming from the gen Z, uh in regards to to buying patterns in regards to , uh consumer uh preferences some people are are are more interested in in in uh in in I younger younger people are more are more interested in in


in a, in social issues and I think that one of the things that writing going forward as a study progress , young people should be be made be to be made more involved uh in


in charity work if you look at the if you look at the the you know a study of our our taxpayers most of the, tax are paid by people who are, err , slightly older the demographics, uh where younger people


uh coming in not only, it can help to make them more engaged with study with a, pro bono work , but we also make them, err you know give, it's contribute to study using a different it did using a different


uh mode of uh , contribution , so in that sense in in that in uh in a way of that I I believe that charity work should be should be made compulsory and plus the fact that singapore has is going through, rapid, aging


so we need a lot of , uh workers in particularly the the the geriatrics, sector and the uh you know the, social service sector where we'll need a lot


err a very big amount of uh, uh labour and I think that with when we make the charity work compulsory , uh young people have the have the ability to step in and contribute , , I think that I think that as a society


uh progresses err, we know and when we but every election we always talk about the same thing we always talk about talking about distributing wealth distributing wealth , distributing social equity, I think it's also important to to talk about how are we going to do them and then by using charity work


err , we can make people from different classes mix so people who who who come from a middle up middle upper class , comfortable environment they can they can go down to let's say a halfway house, or orphanage to contribute their services and I think with with


with this kind of interaction you make society more inclusive, your progress of study, and review ten and reduce tension, so I think that charity work should be made compulsory


hi thank you for your sign ah, uh I feel that, there's no no price for charity charity is a is a value uh much like national service I feel that uh , or or rather you know a lot of people agree with me that uh


charity work is, a form of societal societal work that that uh they cannot be measure in dollars and cent, so whatever whatever you do whatever whatever whatever whatever uh people do, uh has a very intrinsic you know value to


and the contribution to to to societal improvement as a whole, that's what that that's what uh I would like to correct you when you you know, when you try to put a price tag on on charity, singapore has always been a philanthropic society no when it when when our forefathers came to singapore


uh they they built schools they built uh hospitals, from money for and from work via our grassroots leaders, no one give us money, uh and that's how that was how generous you know the


country was built on so , but with that because our society pro as our society progresses and it became so wealthy people stop understanding the importance of of being , err philanthropic, or rather there's no venue for us to be philanthropic and it's always that but at the same time there is a lot of there is a lot of other


, societal problems that we have to address and charity work is is more probably the best way to address them because, you know it's actual work it's actual, uh activities contribution, but you can see and and feel


err last year or, this year if you look at singapore's past five years we have a rising uh it uh gini coefficient err , we have a very very huge disparity between have and have nots, so there are more and more people living below poverty


and without a minimum wage, uh , people you know have live very have very drastically different life experiences, with charity work I think that it, it can also be a platform for them to, to to contribute together


like like you know like earlier why we're up what I say it's like quite like national service is is a is a good platform for the for for people of a same , , you know of a and or living in the same country but with different, class, different background to to work together for a for a for a for a common goal


that's a that's a very noble idea I be I believe, I also see charity work as a privilege , uh that uh , that, it is good because as a as a young country singapore doesn't have a lot of, uh history so you know you you if you want to


if you want to uh if you want to, uh you know make society cohesive it's a good it's a very good platform , uh to, to to make it to make it compulsory for everyone , regardless of where where you put the list or your


your background is to come together, and to work for a common goal and I feel that , that will only be be good for society no matter how you calculate it, thank you


you you mentioned that if something is good people would naturally do it, so so I I give you back your question , should education be made compulsory because if if education is good, people will just people will just do it voluntarily they won't they won't do they won't they won't have to think don't have to think about it right


part three debate topic three, death death penalty should be abolished uh in my in my in my in my view


you know in the bible they says uh an eye for an eye one of ten commandments uh, that was , that was uh on the on the ark that moses received, I feel that that was the most I think, law that we see today in some of the


legal systems in the world, why should why do I say that because you know a lot a lot of philosophers from the east, to the west have have have challenged the idea of, how do you measure life, uh in in , how do you measure a a a person's life so by using by using


uh uh taking the life away from another person's life is defeating the purpose of justice in the first place, so , so their sentence shouldn't shouldn't be shouldn't be used capital punishment shouldn't be enforced in anywhere in the world


, you know there's man there's there's been many cases uh , around the world and and there's always nos there's there's no there's no consistency with how , death penalty should be should be implemented


and even the way the death penalty is is implemented is, is uh problematic in in countries like like north korea and china they use uh the death penalty as a as a, political tool to uh to get rid of political opponents


err , and and, and , and then in the in the middle east in sharia law uh death penalties are used to, uh punish people who committed crimes that you know that that is, pretty


that's not so insidious in in in in a in a civil court things like adultery , things like , you know things like adultery are con are punishable punishable by death you know with with the with the , with the sharia law so so that itself is uh problematic because you will you will lead to people


abusing , a lot of uh abusing the law system , in a way one of the things that we need to need to fix is not, is not , it's not it's not whether it's not it's not that we should continue with the death penalty death penalty but we should continue to


reform the legal system for all of the world make it uh make it , uh make it standardise and reform, so that err , so that once our justice system will will evolve


then , then there's no question about whether , we should u we should use death penalty or not because I think death penalty death penalty death penalty is a very arcade , uh , I can use of uh, of ideas from the past it's a very arcade idea let me give you example that I had


uh earlier uh so christopher young and daniel, lewis lee they were two uh americans that were convicted of death, uh convicted of death penalty one in one in indiana and one in texas, both their victims,


families have pleaded guilt uh pleaded like for leniency for for that for for their penalty to be lifted, but , ultimately they uh they were given the death penalty against the against the , you know against the the wishes of the pleadings made by the families and I think


that that will not that will not ensure a closure, a lot of a lot of proposition , uh a lot of , opponents of , hesitant and of of abolishing the death penalty suggested that


that, definitely is the is the only way you can seek closure for for any uh , like any crime or any any big crime uh especially when it comes to , life being taken away or when there's a rape case


uh but I think that I think but I think that , there's no way to to there's no way to to, for a closure unless you are prepared to to forgive that, uh the other per the other person, you know you know in developed world there are no


countries, that that that, that still use death death penalty as a uh apart from three countries, three to four countries , entire europe has the, european union has already abolished death penalty as apart from russia, and uh and and most countries in uh the middle east like you know saudi arabia like iran


countries that have very very bad record of on human rights, death penalties are are used, that so I think that seeing as you know singapore is a every country that is moving forward I think that death penalty should be should be abolished thank you


uh thank you now I feel that you know , I think a life is a a a life a life is a life I think that no one should uh place a, earlier on what I said you should not should apply the do not use a price tag , uh and play god to take away that person's life


just because they killed somebody, uh I mean the world the the the the reason, why I think that , society doesn't need the death penalty anymore is because I think I feel that, with a lot of things in development like things like psychology


, things like the the the you know that the human science evolving I think we have reached a stage where people are pretty , err developed that, we we we do not have to use death penalty to take away someone's life just because they killed somebody I think the best way is to is to learn about what why did the person kill them


killed uh commit a a certain crime , and err and, we try to find uh ways to, to move forward to improve, uh I don't I don't agree with you uh with uh certain certain certain point that you raised about , you know


uh you know people who killed people they they are they if if you take away the death penalty then they will continue to kill people around the world just to just to get, you know , you know serve sentence and then stay in the prison, uh if you if you look at europe itself uh definitely has has been has been completely uh


are taken away uh since the formation of the EU human human human rights council so with with death penalty being removed, , the the rate of uh homicide is very very low , in in europe homicide rates


err murder rate, it's very very low in the europe compare compare it to the to the US, or compare it to latin america where a lot of countries still, practice death penalty, the US practice practice death pen practice death penalty in twenty one states out of fifty six, but


homicide homicide rate is is very very high so it just shows that there's no correlation between , death penalty and , you know deterrence to to to murder if it happens it happens, so that's my that's a very strong point that I would like to make because this is science


uh uh , secondly earlier earlier I think that you you misunderstood what did we say was I was trying to uh was trying to, uh quote, christopher young and daniel lewis lee , the victims' families have decided to forgive them


and embrace them as as as, as a as part of you know their culture , so imagine you you know imagine if if the families of these victims, already accepted them as part of their family and then, and then the law decided to to kill them even though they have plead leniency they have pleaded leniency for these these two two murderers


is basically that like they they lose their loved ones the second time, and I think that that's very toxic and very very cruel way of doing uh, uh you know you know doing injustice to to the families that are that have already experienced lost once


err, I think that I think that death penalty so, spend, with uh with uh with, a lot of information nowadays err circulating around , death penalty is a


is always the last resort , uh and only countries with very very bad human rights records, with a history of oppression, with a with a issue of misogyny


uh with a very archaic law system like in the in you know in several parts of middle east, or in , with a illegitimate political system death penalty is is a way , you know as a way to


is a way to get rid of opponents, in in in in in their society and that that is a , tool , I feel rather than uh a way to make sure that justice system is is properly properly , properly run so the only way


we could ensure that we, we have a more the uh impartial , just, justice system across the world is that we we the whole world decides to to eradicate death penalty and have unanimous agreement on how , we should value life


regardless of of of of what happened you I mean there's no, if you take if you use if you use the same , uh measure to, to , to impose it on on the person who commit the same thing they are not exactly you you are not exactly , morally in high you know on higher grounds than than the murderer


that's what I feel thank you,


let me I think we can uh we can if you don't want to pay tax we can make uh we can make charity work, compulsory for the for the person serving life sentence


okay so thank you for your feedback and view, uh for me on my part I will basically say that the or ban of organ trading should not be lifted within singapore so basically I'll propose against this idea uh very well said I agree that what you mention about fair and equitable market but my question to <P2>shu shen</P2> will be


my question to <P2>shu shen</P2> will be well it's your own body it's your own human rights right so ya I know there's a law that's in place but it is your own personal choice your own personal preference so let's say if I want to sell my organs and I know that it's


it has of value and what happens if let's say I come from a poor family or from family that is not well well to do so it's my own personal rights so for my for my point of view I'll feel that, why why can't I just make their own uh decision making if I want to sell my organs what right does the government have to stop me or what right does the law has to stop me when it it is my own body my own choice so what happens


if let's say you know you think about when yup, it's also good that I can the the the good point plus point is I'm also still willing to save a life right I mean if I were were to sell my organs okay I'm also helping out to society by I'm also saving their life let's say they really need the organ so the question also now boils down to is it the plus


point whereby donating that means I don't get any money remuneration and plus if I sell my organs I get remuneration return I'm also actually getting , what do you call I'm also getting some rewards and incentive back by donating I mean by selling off my organs yup okay tap already yup


so on my point of view I feel that there's a there's there I agree that there has to be a balance right, uh there are a lot of black markets coming into play whereby people are doing this kind of illegal business the reason why the black market came about into place is because in the first place this has been banned right all along we know that uh the human transport organ act has been banned


I mean it has been has been has been initiated to prevent people from selling their organs but the question now boils down to, uh why the question now boils down to why was the black market, in place in the first place and black market was in place because of this act


that was uh that was there to prevent people from doing this kind of illegal business in the first place but in the first place it should not be made illegal if it was made legal whereby if people can sell their organs at a reasonable price and both party agrees to it


you see there must always be some form of remuneration right not only that the person that who is selling the organ is also doing good deed by trying to save that person life, so on the other hand I'll feel that, it is ethical okay it is definitely ethical we talk about demand and supply it's definitely ethical uh


there would definitely be look at this current pandemic I'm sure that you never know some point of time where there's uh where one person lung right has a issue you know even though he may recover from COVID but if they're another person is able to donate a portion of his lung for example okay and if he's able to make a money in return


and look at the current unemployment status that is rising now I think it's only a fair share that he if he sells part of his lung okay assuming that okay let's let's take a hypothetical speaking that the other party uh you know when uh he has he has he is a COVID sufferer and his lung is scarred


but let's say if he's able to take that lung from the another person okay and the other person is now currently having a big financial difficulty in financial stress and issue, I believe that it it is it works on both two way party mutual agreement and especially with the current high unemployment status trend right you know I I would I don't see why it should be made illegal in the first place


it can be legalised but of course like I said it has to go through a proper means and not through the black market under table thing, but it has to come come from a kind of act whereby the government should support it and said that uh provided both party agrees with each other the price is reasonable


okay and both parties are be willing to negotiate, okay because after all right selling his his own lung to the person who is a COVID sufferer right let's say if that person is unemployed unemployed the government is also can take this scheme whereby he is also creating a so called uh income from himself to feed himself or his family who's in a


in in a very bad situation so on the other hand I will I will basically conclude myself that yes ban of uh the the ban of organ trading should not be lifted within singapore but there must be a proper kind of legalise uh means whereby


both parties are willing to negotiate and there's no under the table no black market okay because you think about it if if if it's there's a long waiting list right let's say for donating of the organs the uh the other party might not survive we talk about waiting list, okay so waiting list can sometimes be a form like you know when some some a patient needs cancer treatment when they go through a waiting list sometimes whereby the government hospital cannot cannot you know accommodate a person because they're he's on the waiting list


right so what happens eventually he also still have to find treatment in a private hospital right in order to get a faster treatment then also burns out his own cash, so we have to uh forget about this waiting list and make sure that there's a mutual form of agreement in the first place and not illegally trying to sell his own uh organs


K okay continue continue, uh from what I see the timer there's still seven minutes uh eight minutes so maybe I'll I'll just add in one point ah so what you talk about iran about iran legalising organ trading and with a certain degree of government control intervention I think that's a very good


uh good move if you if you if you look at if you look if you look at that basically right so uh, government has basically legalised organ trading okay but if you look at it right the government also controls it very well so in a sense right


in a sense ah okay let's say the person wants to sell the organ he has to still go through the government uh whereby the you mention the government has a hybrid control and I believe if you talk about when the government is a intermediary party the government also will take a a cut


of what the person of let's say the the so called the donor who wants so sell his organ to another another person the government will also take a control by taking a cut am I right to say that whereby he will take a commissions or commission


okay then my question now to you is now if the if the government comes with the into a intermediary third party right whereby the so called the person who wants to donate his organ to another person


wouldn't be a wouldn't there be a time wastage if you have to go through the government seeking the government approval and stuff like that whereas if let's say, uh you do not ban it right if you can go directly if the donor can just directly sell his organ to the recipient without going through a government you can save one step because the we talk about once saving the step ah


right the the receiver can just immediately get the organ without uh with I mean bypassing the government that that reduces the time and stuff like that and what happens if the person is a serious, a serious victim who who desperately needs the organ transplant and let's say he's willing to pay


okay so yup I think everything has to become to a a balance ah strike a balance right so like what you said is fine uh as long as we can strike a balance whereby like you said not giving up a organ just for a iphone I think that's a ridiculous idea lah it has to be some form of proper means of or adequate means or


of or compensation not just just for one iphone for a person who's just willing to donate his or her organ for iphone so as long as the government can can uh have a proper legal means of, of of of, you know making sure that this whole process is done


uh or this process is done or or rather this organ trading is done legally, and both and and both parties is in a win win situation I think we can strike a balance lah is that what you're trying to say, so with that I think uh we we came to a so called a strike a balance point of view ah <P2>li ting</P2> on with regards to the ban of organ trading


on whether it or it shouldn't be lifted within singapore


clap hands, alright, okay proposition will go first yup


okay, okay yup no worries so you mention about the TFR can you can you describe more to me about the TFR


okay okay, , okay


okay alright uh with regards to this right uh I know it's definitely going to appeal to a lot of it's going to appeal to a lot of people around the world and definitely it's going to warm the cockles of their heart around the world these people around the world that the drugs you know they want to live forever who doesn't want to live forever everybody wants to live forever alright


but if you look at it from the government's point of view okay now this is going to create a lot of problems to the government and to an individual countries okay uh for countries that are you know there's a lot of overpopulation for example singapore okay such a small tiny land


space okay we are already about six point three million and then we have the uh with a hearsay hearsay that we're going to expand up to ten million we do not know how true is that okay and can you imagine ten million people living in a small tiny island of singapore and what happens if


a drug that is being established right and human starts uh can live, forever very soon our space our I'm I'm not going to I'm I'm not certain what our land space is going to be like, will we be very very crowded overcrowded overpopulated just like for example if you look at hong kong for example okay with such a you know very very limited usable land space to occupy this


overpopulated or overcrowded uh people living in a city area so I'm not sure what is the future like going to be like for singapore countries like japan we know that japan for example has a lot of overaging population, okay japan you know people can basically live till the age of over hundred years old it has been out in the newspaper you've seen uh some of these uh overaging uh uh population they have been living to till the very long ripe age over more than


hundred over years old so the question now now the question now is how long would this human be able to live once this drug is with is is developed up to a thousand years old two thousand years old so how, would they even look like within that two thousand years uh when they are two thousand years old or three thousand years old


right and how, the uh how would our own natural resources in terms of our land spacing be able to accommodate to them ya you mentioned to me that uh for the top ten elite uh person like albert einstein for example who can contribute to the ecosystem fair enough right in terms of


environmental issue you talk about environmental issue then my question to you is, would this be able to I mean we talk about environmental issue right would this be able to support the environment in terms of the overpopulation, because in countries like okay maybe in countries like australia big continent not much of a issue but in countries like singapore how much more development can the government do to reclaim land spaces


I don't think our government can continuously keep on doing some reclaimation and of course you talk about it I'm also looking into the religious group perspective okay not mention which religion is it but uh some religion beliefs alright or rather I believe most religion always believe that there's a


afterlife after afterlife in terms of uh when whenever you die where do you go after that, okay so I believe right most religion okay do correct me if I'm wrong will be against this kind of idea because they always believe in, afterlife you know when when when a person perish they have to go somewhere else you know to a second third world or second world uh life


so these can also create some form of anti sediment okay among this religious group and this is where the government it will start to face a lot of problems and trouble because they are going to, they have to resolve this uh this religious issue and of course singapore being a multi racial and multi harmonious society okay we don't want to have this kind of things that that can that can that can that that can stir up this kind of trouble okay this drug like you mention is going to be very pricey definitely


right such drug like this is definitely going to attract a lot of people and like I said okay like you said also only the rich can afford, so what happens to the poor the poor cannot afford it okay but what happens to the poor who can't afford it and of course this is very attractive to them who wants to live forever right this is where you you you're going to look in uh in terms of


crime rate crime rate is gonna to increase there's going to be a lot of, you know who knows there could be another riot you know uh whereby whereby when drugs like this is being developed only the rich can afford the poor can't afford you know and when they really wants to they they really want the drug very badly and they can't do it they will resort to looting stealing crimes


so there's going to be a lot of potential crimes you know uh where the governments also have to look into uh allocating the their budget resources for our police and stuff like that, okay so in terms right ah you make a you make a point which I totally can agree it whereby people like albert einstein who can contribute back to society and stuff like that or uh other famous scientist who can maybe even invent a cure for COVID you know for people like them who are very brainy


but then uh uh moreover on the other hand right I think it's going to bring up a lot of uh negative respond uh to the society uh with even though they, have this attractive idea whereby yes everybody wants to to to to live forever who is not scared of death I think everyone eventually is ultimately scared of death or when they are near to their death bed


right but uh if you look on a feasible plan whereby singapore such a small land space okay or even if you talk about countries like USA or or a continent like australia, no doubt they they may have the land space, for their population that's why you look at around around the countries in their land it's all it's it's not not much of a HDB flat you know not much of a high rise apartment but how long can this go to a year maybe year three thousand year four thousand how much


uh what what what will be the population size, by the year we are in the year three thousand I don't think singapore can even last through year two thousand fifty I mean let's say if this drug is being developed and people start living till two thousand years old three thousand years old for forever right the term of forever we do not know how long is forever


right and then what will happen to our land space, I think very soon you'll see even a a hundred storey HDB building right will not be able to accommodate these people, and , and then the question also comes about with when people knows that they can live forever the family will start to think oh does that so do I need to should I actually you know uh move on to the next family generation


what what will happen to our birth rate because they will not be worried about who is going to take over the family when they die right because now they know that they're going to live so what did the the overageing population will start to rise and what happens to the younger birth rates right then what will happens to the jobs for the for the you know for the


education society like those who are in the education who who are in the education industry the teachers won't have jobs to do, because why there's no longer anymore uh uh people willing to learn no longer students there's no there won't be any more students when this uh when this family realise that uh there's no point carry on the carry on the the carry on the family generation ties right so no students


uh no young your no younger generations there'll be no schools even needed, and then what happens to those who who who are who are those in the educational field right of course this will be a good uh good boom for those who are in the medical point of view medical uh perspective, but then again like I said to balance it off right I agree with you that you know you need uh I agree with you that the elitist right or those who are rich


uh no no I mean the elitist like people like albert einstein who can really really contribute back, to a lot of big things to the society or things like who knows you could even invent a cure for COVID but you have to really strike a balance for the the the major issues like what I mention overaging population overpopulation overcrowded land space religious group


uh the sentiment uh you know job security in the other industry sector and uh and and of course the in terms of family family perspective and stuff like that so we have to really look to that,


okay


(ppc) yup yup eh,


okay I think that's a good conclusion ah whereby we strike a balance


from scratch,


okay, uh for my point uh I mean I would like to agree partially also on on on on on <P2>shu shen's</P2> uh beneficial point but of course on


uh as me as the opposition uh party right I would basically say that working from home (ppc) does not benefits, uh does not benefits a company rather it creates more unproductivity and uh than creating more benefits you mention about PMETs you know during the pandemics your KPI employees stress level environment and even the in terms of pollution right


uh it there's a that has a point alright but we let's let's focus more on, on on on on on a, company's point of view, uh not in relation to the pandemic I mean there's pandemic now pandamic's case now in this pandemic's case uh there's no other choice but yes ya fair enough you know employees will do from home due to safe distancing social distancing you know but on the other hand


we talk about uh in a normal, operational point of view for a company now if you are a boss right will you trust your employees to work from home without seeing him you know he could be skiving away from home, okay uh he could be he could be you know like I said he could be skiving away he could not be meeting your productivity and stuff like that but I guess ya there's this webex or zoom and stuff like that you know high high technology has has uh played the part whereby you guys can do video conferencing and stuff like that


but uh at home every every individual employee even the boss himself has his own comfort like a bed sitting just behind like a bed sitting just behind a computer, okay I could be just be just oh okay lah uh you guys carry on the webex imagine and now we are doing uh this this is a video conferencing okay I could I could I could basically take my time like what you mentioned I may go for smoke break and stuff like that I could just take my time uh


take my comfort zone you know, the you know my bed is calling me to sleep and stuff like that you know whereas in the office I'm facing in front of my desktop I cannot run away right because the only place I can run away is to my boss office and I do not want to see my boss right I rather not see my boss but I rather face my computer


uh it also depends on like you said what kind of job you are doing operational jobs like what I'm doing for for example okay, uh in a aviation industry alright for ATCs, pilots cabin crew there's no way we can work from home because those are on the operational point of uh operational point of uh the job whereby they need they to be present ad hoc at at at at that point of


at at at that point of place of their work to contribute to the industry there's no such thing whereby you can see a air traffic controller working from home to guide the aircraft down to land safely at Changi airport neither can you see a pilots to work from home to land to land an aircraft or a cabin crew to work from home


again PMETs at this point of time yes like I said during the pandemic I have nothing to say okay, but we talk about uh really if you talk about really KPI think most of the human's point of view we are lazy creatures we are a bunch of lazy creatures


uh and this point of time with the environment the I mean with the bed calling them to sleep I think productivity will not be there everyone will definitely try to find way to skive I already heard, friends who are who's who who who who sign up for courses you know where the government sponsor them to take up a course online okay ninety percent of them just left the the webex running and and then they were they are out doing some other stuff


so I think overall right I think it's not useful right stuff like this where a lot of thing a lot of this uh colleagues of mine even shamefully admit to themselves that uh they are just letting the zoom run and they are just, uh downstair watching their netflix and stuff like that so frankly speaking I I you know I don't see that will be a added advantage to the company


okay of course you can have uh to to counter it where bosses can basically have this point of thing whereby I want this thing to be done by today that one no choice right then fair enough the employees can work from home but if you give the employees too much slack to work from home right a lot of them will end up


doing their own stuff personal stuff rather than whatever is required from the company, so therefore in conclusion uh in a long term run (ppc) working from home doesn't provide any benefits from my point of view apart from this current pandemic whereby there's really no choice okay then yes fair enough due to safe distancing measure


yup you know, the employees have no choice but to stay at home to work, (ppc)


(ppc),


okay so (ppc) yup definitely what <P2>shu shen</P2> has pointed out has has has some benefits too, and as as far as I'm concerned for me I'm looking more on operational point of view because I belong to a a industry whereby in aviation industry whereby we do it definitely have to work


uh we can't work in the office because we have to be there operationally twenty four seven I think this this also boils down to the current pandemic if you talk about health care uh industries like health care whereby they have to be operationally be at the hospital be there twenty four seven to take care and look after or Jaga the patients


okay you mention about their drop in uh pollution because of working from home, yup that's that's definitely uh what I can agree on uh the greenhouse gases and stuff like that but however right there are a lot of things right whereby the government also has been trying to uh suggest


or trying to educate uh singaporeans okay to basically as much as as as possible minimise the greenhouse gases by using public transportation rather than having driving your own uh your own car, there's a reason why singapore car is expensive in the first place the high COE price and high rocketed uh car prices whereby people in the US


there are even shock of our car prices you know they did a a interview with those too fast too furious, uh uh cars right uh cars like vin diesel and the rock dwayne johnson was even shocked at about car prices in singapore why the reason why the government put such a high price is of course because of


we are small uh, you know we've got a lot of vehicles and of course the government is also trying to control people from driving a car and trying to encourage people from using a public transportation rather than uh driving a car this is of course to save the greenhouse gases


so (ppc) if I talk about productivity right, uh like I said they are the black sheeps who will be who who will definitely be there to spoil the market but I think human nature ah okay if the boss is chill and relax ah okay let's


say there's not much required uh there's not much required, to do okay whatever industry and let's say there's not much required to do, I think this black sheep is more of a majority than a minority okay that's that's just human nature okay you can get the most studious employee


no matter what it is always their nature somehow or rather to take the shortcut if I can chill oh ya if I can relax I'll relax alright ultimately it still boils down to the individual discipline, okay so yes you can counter that it will basically drop in pollution but I feel that this uh ultimately right you know they PMETs can even disown their car and even maybe take public transportation to to to to work you know uh


create this this also create a revenue for our transport sector right like for our taxi drivers who are now not, earning due to the pandemic okay they are just the grab cars are struggling along the way okay news has been showing a lot of grab drivers are having a very hard time, I think you know if they can take public transportation utilise like taxis or or or or


public transportation ah SMRTs this will help to create revenues and and and and income for taxi elderly drivers uh especially when the all our taxi drivers are mostly consist of mostly the elderlies so


yup, correct so so ya correct so but like I said uh you talk about drug and pollution but I'm trying to counter that you can use SMR you can use public transportation and a uh to save the earth


if you have to go to the office you have to commute to the office to your place to work to the office that's it lah


correct, correct


okay alright but let's that's the US ah we're talking about US is a big country okay we talk about singapore I'll think ah if you ask me our public transportation, is very convenient ah we can get from point A to point B within an hour of course it again it depends on where the, where where where the the the employee stays and how far is his workplace from his home


but I think on the average right most singaporeans just spend with surveys has shown ah okay uh most singaporeans spend one hour each day to get to their workplace uh while taking public transportation I think it's only half an hour more from what you mention about in the US which doesn't really matter much


okay, okay yup fair enough so I think, so I think we can we can come upon uh we can come to a balance point of view lah whereby there's definitely a a benefits and, and and and disadvantage as well so uh everything has to be strike a balance like I said the black sheep has to be educated and taking and make sure that he doesn't spoils the market for the rest of the other guys and of course in this pandemic point of time it's definitely going to produce uh it's going to save


more produce uh the factors from multiplying ya, okay


yup yup, okay fair enough yup yup, okay, alright stop


proposing that the ban on organ trading should be lifted in singapore uh reason being that okay the there's a lot of medical, issues nowaday and and uh one of the biggest issues we face especially in uh in in this country currently in singapore is the fact that uh many people uh live very to very long ages and nearing the end of the lifespan or either either because of aging or


because of illnesses the organs uh uh towards the end of the life in the later stages of the life uh begin to deteriorate uh as a medical sales executive myself I know the, that there are a lot of uh issues you know with uh certain organs like kidney you know and liver you know that uh that a lot of people actually have uh uh want to transplant for these organs but they are by default they are sent to a waiting list you know


uh based on our current law in singapore it's a, the HOTA act the human organ transplant act so this act in singapore basically uh prevents any active trading uh of uh organs in singapore there's it's a it's basically uh


a act itself to deprive the private market from operating in organ trading and basically what it does is that it puts all the the demand and supplier uh determined by the government so there's a queue and a waiting list, so the the medical board of the hospital will basically determine uh who gets to be on the waiting list and you know what's the queue and what's the priority so for example for elderly people who may not see the next ten years of their life to be viable they will probably be put on a low priority of the list


whereas those who are younger patients who have a more uh viable chance of survival if they were to get a organ transplant they will be higher on the list ya so uh, in that sense this is actually a lot of people think it's good because this is ethical but I would counter to say that uh this is not ethical mostly because uh you are preventing uh demand and supply


a natural demand and supply situation from occurring in singapore uh the truth is that whether you control on the organ trading through the HOTA act you're going to see black market activity arising from this sort of uh uh artificial influence by the government a case in point we saw how


uh in uh in many years ago there was this uh there was this prominent businessman uh tang wee sung the owner of the, CK tang department store he was jailed and in fact fined seventeen thousand dollars for trying to purchase a kidney, so yes even though organ trading is illegal in singapore and banned by the HOTA act the human organ transplant act there are still many people who who counter and go under table to to do this sort of thing so what we should be trying to do is actually to legalise organ trading to make it a fair


equitable uh uh market with with a demand and supply forces naturally shaping this sort of market ya


okay uh so we are proposing to uh wipe out this waiting list but did you know that this waiting list has been there for the past ten years already for the entire history of singapore under the HOTA act this waiting list has existed and uh it will always be there because of this government intervention


and you can see that even with this hefty fines and heavy punishment for you know under table ethics that uh uh the tang guy did the people are still taking the risk to save their loved ones, so the lack of the lack of this availability of organs in singapore has actually not seen any improvement over the past ten years this proves that the current ban on organ trading the current model for so called uh ethical organ donation proposed by this government in singapore is actually not adequate


so uh I give you a case in point if you look at uh this particular country uh most people, wouldn't even have thought about it uh but iran iran the country iran in middle east actually has a very uh has legalise organ organ trading what they have is essentially a hybrid system between the free market and government control


so you are not talking about a totally free market but you are you are certainly allowing some uh legalise organ trading to take place and uh with a certain degree of government control, so what did happens is that in this hybrid system of free market and government control the vendors the seller of the organ they sell their organs not to the not to the person receiving directly using but actually to the government the government acts as an intermediary


so what the government does is it pays the the organ donor and it gives them a free health insurance for one year, and then uh recipients of the organs those who received the organs must be iranian citizens and they are required to work, to pay for the cost of their organs so in this kind of hybrid system with a legalise organ trading with a certain degree of government intervention we see that this system in iran has worked fantastically it has uh virtually wiped out the waiting list for donors


so I'm not saying that we totally, uh like we totally leave organ trading into a free market system that in in, you know humans are ethical creatures you know we know that uh organ trading is a very sensitive issue so I'm not proposing a total free market what I'm proposing is that


uh basically the the the key thing is that the ban of organ trading should be lifted because there are active suppliers and demand what we should allow them to do is to allow them to coexist in a system that is, partially regulated by the government so as to ensure that there's


uh there's it is ethical and that it also resolves the issue of the long waiting the long waiting list ya that has been around for a long while and you know it's caused pain for so many uh so many patients in singapore, ya so ya


I don't think the government takes a cut the government is in it to, to make it equitable and fair for everyone the government yes takes a cut in order to subsidise like the hospital charges, the surgeon's fee you know and all the the medicines involved but I don't think the government uh will or should profit from organ trading that's why we should legalise organ trading because we ensure that any any charges or any you know if a persons wants to donate uh


uh if there's a seller of a organ the the seller should, get uh should should should uh, as in the the government shouldn't profit from this system that's why it's just between the the government just regulates this and you know it doesn't make any money additional money from from organ trading


but it it can regulate and you can certainly control the transactions between the supplier and the the supplier and the recipient of the organ ya


we cannot cut any corners because when we lift the ban on organ trading we have to do so in a very careful manner because uh we are not saying we totally allow legalise trading ourgan but we have to uh at least legalise organ trading whereby the recipient the the the person who receives the organ


actually gets greater access to a to a greater supply of organs that is free for disease we need to ensure that there's there's enough time to ensure that the testing is done on on the donor and recipient side to ensure that the the transplant can take place safely


uh for example the the organs are certified free of disease and we also need time for the government to ensure that they have done the calculations that show that the organs are being traded being sold, they added at without inflated black market prices so by lifting this blanket this total blanket ban on organ trading we are ensuring that both the donors or their next of kin are being able to be compensated legally


uh from the organ trade and the and ya, so basically legal what I'm trying to say is that legalisation actually creates a mutually beneficial relationship for both parties right where as if you take the current laws in place like the HOTA act they actually increase the incentives they provide the risk they they allow the risk taker the


the chance to satisfy the demand illegally, and allows all these brokers you know there's a lot of brokers like we talk about casino they have the junkyard brokers ya in organ trading is a total black market now with the blanket ban and so there are a lot of under table brokers that operate in a very grey uh you know totally not even grey area a lot illegally


so these brokers are from overseas and they go to poor countries like cambodia you know and they these brokers get huge premiums for breaking the law for lying all these young organ donors like people will give up uh one kidney I heard stories uh you read online and you're shocked that people can give up one kidney just to get a iphone so


if you if you allow this ban to continue then you will have this sort of illegal situation take being place, but if you allow a certain degree of lifting of this ban with a certain degree of government intervention and then you allow the free market forces to take place so you allow the the the donors to get compensated


fairly for their organ then I, I see a equitable you know legalised organ trading market taking place ya so in in summary I would like to propose that a regulated legal market will actually in fact lower the cost per organ because


the demand put the sorry the donation put the supply would actually be expanded there are a lot of people who may be keen to donate their organs either because they are uh you know they cut, I mean sad to say they came from poor family background you know there are willing to give up a kidney but not for the cost of a iphone definitely you know so we we we we don't want all these poor people to be cheated you know right or not so a viable legal system with many


uh stringent processes and precautions will allow this current voluntary system to be put in place instead of just you know putting people on the HOTA act and then we have a long queue of uh of uh people who want to receive organ queueing every year and every year they don't get it know because they are low on the queue they are lower down on the list


and then they die subsequently so uh it's uh ya


ya yup


ya yup, okay uh I would like to propose uh that


a drug should be developed to allow humans to live forever, okay, a lot of people would say that you know uh this is a very floaty and very uh, very idealistic notion that we should aim towards a drug that that must allow us to live forever but if you think about it right it's uh possibly the only


uh animal in this entire universe the or at least on earth you know with really uh a sentient existent that means uh ability to think with a with a brain to think and to and, with creativity and with all sort of special elements within us that make us different from


any other uh animal on earth you know we have the ability to to basically save ourselves, you know to develop solutions to improve our existence you know from since the space age you know we got to the moon and then


uh and then uh you know, we we have our ability to to think of solutions to improve ourselves every day on a daily basis so for me the the final frontier for us you know particularly for me who is trained as a pharmacist is , actually to to it's not just a wet dream per se you know a lot of people as I said a lot people think it's a wet dream but I'd say it's actually a very concrete uh idea you know that we should develop a drug that should allow us to live forever now because this idea although idealistic


it's actually very concrete in nature you are talking about one drug, one goal uh one ideation which is just one drug that has one purpose one sole purpose which is to allow us, to live forever is basically the essence of immortality you know as what uh a lot of traditional people would would think


, why we should allow that to is because of, uh of this I I would I would say the reasons why this drug should be developed, okay first of all it's because we have many problems in society today we have a developing country uh many countries around the world are already developed and the developing countries are so soon going to be developed and you know that the problem with developed populations is that the birth rate will soon dramatically go down


it will decrease we already seen that our in singapore alone the TFR is below our replacement TFR, we are just slightly past one one point zero one or something uh we need a TFR I think almost two or two plus to replace ourself so very soon uh with uh modernisation the population is not going to replace itself we are soon going to see a drastic decline in our descendants we are we are


and and and to extrapolate this you know with of course a certain degree of, uh uh uh uh, you cannot conclude per se but I believe that very soon there's a there's a there's going to be a possibility that we will soon be extinct we may be the first uh animal that actually drives ourself out of existence into being extinct because of the problems we caused in this world like


you know uh global warming you know and and environmental, pollution and all that so we should actually harness all our resources to allow us to live forever because this will mean that we can actually being able to live forever mean that we are able to


essentially solve all our problems that we face today ranging from environmental pollution you know to to to to global warming to to you know there are a lot of issues that we face you know allowing humans to live forever would maintain, that would also be good for the environment it'll mean that we are able to be caretakers on earth


to be allowed to be to be here in in the current in the in earth to take care of all the animals and all the beings in our ecosystem, okay we'll be allowed to create bridges you know to build roads you know to to modernise our society to basically take our technological advancements far beyond anything we have actually done so far you know


uh, being a a immortality drug I would say because okay if we take a look at this debate topic this debate topic just says that a drug should be developed to allow humans to live forever, it doesn't exactly say uh what is the technicalities behind this drug you know for example how is this drug going to be priced you know is it going to be free is it going to be you know very pricey uh what how how are we going to


control this this sort of uh drugs development so yes I would acknowledge that there are a lot of complexities and a lot of uh ethical issues going on, but at the end of day regardless being the proposer I would say that this drug is good for humankind after all the uh the drama about the the ethical and the moralities about this drug I would say that


a drug that can allow us to live forever would be, the best thing we have ever come up with this would mean that we can actually solve all our problems we are given an unlimited timeline unlimited timeline unlimited runway as our government would say to actually solve all our problems and to be able to ensure that we can


create a better future for our descendants now uh uh, just want to add something a drug should be developed to live forever yes now how about a drug, to deny us the right to live forever basically a suicide pill


now being a proposer of drug to be to be developed to allow humans to live forever doesn't mean that I oppose a drug to be developed to allow us to you know take out take ourselves out of misery in in the same nutshell I will also propose that yes a drug should be developed


to allow us to basically make us take us ourselves out of miserable when the time comes on, because uh basically we talking about euthanasia you know and you know uh in the in the in the sense euthanasia is the key word for it so yes we should


explore the ethical and moral consequences of government allowing citizens to actually be able to contemplate suicide and we know that this is taking place already in several countries in scandinavia in


in europe you know many countries actually allow, patient uh sorry physician assisted suicide to take place you know because these patients know that they are already not going to survive that any further prolonging of the life is actually uh causing them misery


okay so, you may say that okay but these patients may choose to take that the drug that was developed to allow them to live forever right okay but I would say again as as a pharmacist you know is a a drug may allow you to live forever but uh does a drug allow you to live


in a meaningful manner in a painless manner or does it allow you to just live forever on a bed not moving uh or letting patient people feed you you know so that's incredible uh, there's a lot of considerations you know when we talk about a drug that should be allowed humans to live forever in what way live forever is definitely forever it's a it's a it's indefinite timeline forever but live in what way live in how live in what kind of condition so that is a lot of


uh that's a lot of that's another day to talk about it there's uh so many so many so many uh possibilities and so many considerations, but if you think about the top one percent of population people with the brightest minds and the biggest abilities people like elon musk people like


uh albert einstein or people who invented the antibiotic fleming, if you had allowed them to live forever think about what further contributions they could have done to get they could have made to society right or not if fleming invented the penicillin antibiotic maybe he could have invented the antiviral today to save us from COVID right or not so yes a drug should be developed for


humans to live forever and we should of course I'm I'm saying that of course you know top ten percent should get this drug basic basically because they are the brightest you know they can contribute the most to humankind but of course there are a lot of ethics in place on why we should allow this top ten percent to get it but just think about it just think about it for a moment if


if we had this sort of uh, a lot of people people would say it's elitist but I would say it's pragmatic uh because we have to take into considerations the pragmatic uh difficulties that mankind is facing in this day and age and how if a drug can be and help us live forever we can basically have the longest timeline to solve our problems


and to you know to, to to to face our challenges and not give in you know ya


the the total the TFR is basically the total fertility rate so it's basically our overall country's fertility rate right now is only slightly above one so only a uh for every woman in singapore they are only giving birth one, plus odd children and this is way below the replacement fertility rate so if this TFR were to continue basically


there's actually calculations that show that our population will decline over time, with a infinite runway if you slow it will go to zero because we are already below the replacement TFR


I'm not denying that there are potentially several negative consequences of such a drug that will allow us to be immortal but the the debate topic itself per se is a drug should be developed to allow us at least to try to achieve some degree of uh prolong lifespan or immortality so yes this drug in a way is a ideal goal it's it's it's a goal we should aspire to it's it's something that we should


consider it's worth developing but once developed, once developed and once really viable maybe I mean my personal thing is maybe we need to consider destroying it or at least severely limiting the the restrictions of its use to only some people ya so there are many many uh considerations many many uh


points of view we can take into account and all and it's certainly not a easy debate topic uh for this you know so ya but in conclusion I would say despite all the potential you know, consequences about considerations about this a drug should be developed this drug should still be developed because this is something that we should all aspire to something to really make us immortal this is something that is the the holy grail of our scientific uh history it will be the


holy grail of our existence ya, done


so uh, I would like to start again by uh this uh I would like to propose the topic of working from home offers more benefits, ah okay so


Jialat leh I got to say everything again, uh, okay the reason why working from home offers more benefits is because we have seen how uh the COVID pandemic costs a lot of people uh many PMETs to to start working from home well for myself per se I've been working from home since uh


uh march and april and I see that the the my I still I'm still able to hit my sales targets and all that because we have technology we have this thing called technology nowadays so this allow us to maintain communication with our customers and all that


uh I, I I think that you know that being at home also allow you to be comfortable in your own surrounding in your own environment and you are able to do things at your own pace in a manner that is comfortable to you and we are not subjected to any peer pressure uh


one one one of the biggest thing you know uh take away from from our time at the army is that, we see a lot of people being uh succumb to peer pressure at work to go for smoke break and all that you know so being in a environment with with your peers sometimes you you you indulge in like smoking breaks and all that so one of the benefit of working from home is that you are not subjected to this sort of peer pressure also


you are not subjected to pressure from your boss you know to do things that you don't want to also you know, so ya uh the other benefit about working from home is not to just employee but it's also to uh the environment there was a drastic drop in transportation in the commute uh of commuters to


uh and we saw how the pollution clear up for for, the first time you know in a very long we had clear skies in singapore we had many many rainbows after many many rains and we saw how even in countries like india there was this a place in india whereby


uh, the clear skies due to no pollution the people could was able to see the facade of, of mount everest you know in the himalayas uh a view you know for uh for the first time in a very long time so ya


benefits not just to us but also to the environment you know how in in the CBD there's a huge concentration of buildings with with a with high energy demands so allowing humans or you know allowing employees to work from home ensure that the there's lower energy consumption


that uh there's that's uh that, it's not going to be there's not going to be more development of environmentally unfriendly skyscrapers you know that consume so much energy uses so much electricity uh pumps up so much dirty water you know and actually doesn't care for them care for the environment so ya I


would like to propose that working from home, offers more benefits for not just employees but employers for the environment for the country you know and it's actually viable in the long run because we have seen how productivity didn't drop it actually rose during the work from home period


(ppc) I actually I would like to uh I concede you know that uh <P2>su ming</P2> has pointed out uh several, uh uh realistic uh, realistic uh several realities that are happening you know with working from home it is true that yes there will always be a segment of uh black sheep there will always be some people who uh abuse this sort of privilege to work from home


by you know uh leaving the zoom or webex running and then doing something else uh but with this uh with the advance of technology actually the creators of zoom and webex are very smart people you know there's uh there's this tool, that can be employed by the administrator of the meeting to track for example the eyeball motion to make sure that uh the the viewer those people


engaged in the meeting or conversation are not doing anything else other than being involved with the in the in the meeting itself so basically the tool actually checks the eyeball movement and alerts the administrator whenever the person is seems to be offline or disengage right uh in fact


uh it's a it's a it's a good thing you pointed this out because there are students who you know during the during the circuit breaker had to uh do examinations online from home so uh these tool would could also check these students whether whether whether they are cheating you know by referring to other materials


uh, for example uh on the table or anywhere else instead of being focused on the screen itself in their examination so yes there will always be people who choose to abuse this sort of uh work from home privileges but, I guess more or less the majority of people do abide by the rules you know and if they because if they don't the technology is out there to catch them


ya uh why I say it's still beneficial is because we we have seen how the pandemic caused so many singaporeans to work from home and you know how office became empty overnight but, but did that really cause a inconvenience to everyone I don't think so you know because society still runs taxis run


as per normal trains still run as per normal yes those people cannot work from home because of their job their job scope is to be out in in in doing the particular job they are meant to do but for I'm I'm saying that for working from home for for most of the PMETs who can work from home


who can viably conduct their job scope outside of where they used to be in the past they still can work from home, and achieve the same duties uh achieve the same targets and the same satisfy the same KPIs as working from home as compared to sorry as compared to working from office and at the same time we see that there are so many benefits the employer you know they don't have to monitor employees coming back to office you know especially in this sort of pandemic where


by the you know the virus can just spread in close communities in the same office where where employees are kept in close confines, as compared to working from home whereby you know they're safe distancing ensured you know so in in in in if you consider from it it from this point of view actually working from home offers many benefits yes of course we are saying it's because of the pandemic now that's why uh that's why we are thinking that there's benefits but


if you think uh far beyond the timeline of a pandemic let's say four five years from now if we can actually allow more more people to work from home then we going to see a drastic uh decline in say pollution, people are no longer going to invest in


environmentally unfriendly office buildings or skyscrapers you know that really take a lot of energy, and a lot of resources like steel and concrete to manufacture you know we're going to see a drastic decline in uh greenhouse gas pollution because people are no longer commuting as much they are no longer taking uh cars and trucks and you know that sap a lot of fossil fuels


whereas people are making use good use of technology to communicate long distance you know, uh you know this is environmentally friendly this is the way of the future of working you know, uh you know over zoom over webex over skype


you've seen how you know for example zoom the stock valuation of zoom went up, by ten fold you know from march till now you know why why do people invest in zoom is because they saw the opportunity of investing in a technology of the future that offers many benefits people won't invest in something in a technology that doesn't offer benefits it's precisely because this technology offers so much more benefits that people decide


to invest in in zoom in webex so yes I would say that working from home offers many benefits to most people most people who can work from home should work from home and this is in fact the stance of our government also you know partly also of course I I concede because of the pandemic


uh so yes there are people who cannot work from home because they are they are working at airports they are working in what I would say critical care infrastructure yes these people are unable to work from home so for them you know, we should be neutral about it but for most people who can work from home it's clear that the benefits are much more when working from home as compared to working in offices ya


so I just want to point out something because you uh you talk about the vin diesel the cars and all that


so you are actually agreeing with me right that the cars are extremely polluting you know right, it's still some sort of pollution


okay if you look at the facts the average one way commuting time in the US is almost half an hour so that's nearly one hour each day spending getting to and from work so this really adds up commuters spend about hundred hours commuting and forty one hours stuck in traffic each year in the US


so some extreme commuters also pays much longer commuting times of ninety minutes one and a half hours or more each day okay the data shows that more than half an hour daily of one way commuting, is associated with high levels of in stress anxiety


that's why a lot of you see a lot of people who come to work they are so stressed you know they you don't know what's wrong with with their day maybe it's a bad hair day or what but maybe it's their commute it's so stressful already commuting more than ten miles to work each day is associated with health issues like higher cholesterol elevated blood sugar higher risk of depression


so when we are able to work from home we can actually support our mental and physical health the time savings actually allow us to focus on the priorities, inside of work and also outside of work like getting some extra sleep in the, morning spending more time with family getting a workout or eating a healthy breakfast right


no it matters a lot because the the data shows that half an hour is already bad enough to cause them a lot of stress, so I think


okay regardless right this is the data the the latest statistic from shows that sixty percent of US workers actually, who have been working from home since the pandemic would prefer to work remotely as much as possible in the future so this is the clear preference from the employees of course there are certain black sheep elements inside but I don't think there are sixty percent of people are black sheeps right so ya that's uh let's all come to a conclusion that you know


click to uh


so debate topic one ya in the age of the internet and TV and newspaper have become irrelevant, so because of the technology I think we should look at what customer wants so customers actually don't like hardcopy


newspaper and they don't really rely on TV anymore they always uh go online like netflix TV you can go online streaming as well newspaper you can have online newspaper and newspaper you need to be like fast spontaneous if waiting for the printing to be out like the news will be outdated already


yup that


okay but this all reliable website you can be done online as well it's like government website so you go only to government websites to look at the news and the, TV shows then fake news I mean if you say fake news like newspaper of course is more reliable but then there's also like those uh in other countries those small printing companies like magazines or unknown newspaper they also had a fake news


so I think the fake news issue it doesn't, seems relevant even with the internet or is whether it's physical or internet lah


ya but that will be an issue of the internet uh accuracy of the facts informations but then that doesn't mean that newspaper and TV are still relevant today look at the speed of the events like if now there's some natural disaster


who will actually like turn on the news and uh or TV to find out the about the information every everyone will go online social media all the uh news website online to know about the information because if you wait for the TV or the newspaper to be shown on all these kind of


uh natural events uh natural disaster I mean like everyone will be outdated already yesterday yesterday news will be like become like history and is not a news anymore, we can't wait for like twenty four hours just to read about something that happened


yup but


newspaper and TV doesn't, mean that is hundred percent accurate what even if it's TV news it also means it's also relying on reporters so if the reporter doesn't report on uh accurate news it's also inaccurate so the accuracy of the news uh on TV or newspaper is not


determined by the age of the internet I mean internet, doesn't, uh cause this issue is people that cause this issue is the one that uh upload all these information that caused the issue


ya but then what is the, need of the customers do customer really still rely on newspapers and TV I mean the, the, uh rating of TV it has dropped over the years the newspaper have already gone online because they know that if they continue to go physical newspaper nobody would I mean very few people will actually buy it and like what you say because of all the internet uh issue


mostly are all the elderlies so moving forward, thinking forward you must see that all these will actually become online that's why the newspaper also go online TV also go online, even like singapore like mediacorp also go online once they know that if you still rely on the old method it slowly become irrelevant you cannot capture the audience the younger audience anymore


and the younger audience they should have their own set of thinking to know what is right and what's wrong on the internet and that's why also like uh there's law on this kind of fake news and stuff


okay if I don't have the statistics with me but then if you look at the general, uh sentiment even if you go to MRT how many how often do you see someone holding a newspaper it's like, even if anyone want to read a book or want to read some news is using their smartphone or their ipad or like some tablet


and if you talk about like TV what's the main purpose of TV main purpose of TV is to show entertainment as well as like uh news and stuff but all this can be done online and uh if you say about everyone having a smartphone okay but for TV and newspaper


for younger students, now they are required to have laptop for their work, homeworks and stuff so it's not an issue uh of them having access to the online entertainment as well as online news for older people


ya they might not have it now but, you cannot say that is, it's not a, ongoing trend that slowly online uh even elderly people are actually going online using smartphone


even my uh even like some grandma grandpa they also will slowly become online because like you see straits time you see other uh newspaper they also advertise, using uh online if you so if you sign online package with them the newspaper they give you a free ipad so you can use the ipad to actually read their news online so it's all these slowly going their internet


and it's because of technology I think newspaper and TVs are slowly going irrelevant


okay uh I understand your point but for TV I will actually define it as like satellite TV so now substitute of TV there's a lot of like projectors like, nowadays like a lot of new homes they like to install projectors or if not like install uh some smart TV or like laptop desktop which uh have those smart features


so all these TV actually this kind of new form of entertainment device actually provide more than just satellite TV provides like uh online program with like, netflix or youtube all these are actually entertainment which also can


uh have family events one whole family still can sit down together watch your youtube watch your baby shark, and you can do a lot of things on this kind of new smart devices, and for newspaper, I think, your point is a lot of people will go online and have their own opinions all that ya that's that's exactly because people like to have


some voice in every single thing so they prefer going online instead of using a reading a physical copy of the newspaper because if they read the physical newspapers they will like uh rubbish but then if it's online then you can voice out their opinions and stuff, although this like what you say like my raise out to other issues but


doesn't mean that, the newspaper is still relevant because our topic here is whether uh newspaper will become irrelevant and in this statement actually you are also saying that newspapers will become irrelevant because people like to go online to comment they like to do all their comments online


yup ya


so what does it have to do with the, topic of newspaper have, become irrelevant because it still shows that newspaper have become irrelevant


I think I disagree on that because like word of mouth is actually more powerful than any single other things, so in the past radio is a very popular source of information uh to disseminate information but because of the technology TV have replaced it and similarly I think internet will replace TV and newspaper as well because


like, now even if you go to the hawker centre you see a lot of uncles using uh ipad they can talk a lot about uh every single thing even if not in the news they can also know about all the rumours and stuff all these is also because of word of mouth, so this has nothing to do with whether internet and I mean TV newspaper or the news how they get the information


because information it can be spread very fast


okay but if you look at the latest latest news like even when the prime minister or anything want to share some live updates, yes there's TV there's also internet but uh when it's on the internet and people can just share their information and then they can ask raised questions


so like what if you say like now all the some old people do not have information but then similarly about the E-payment everyone is also trying their best to keep up with the internet trying to their best to keep up with the technology to know the latest information cause if you wait for TV like safe distancing


safe distancing they do advertisement of uh TV but then that will be like few days later if they update all that it's so long but then if it's in the internet uh some news article or some, someone who speak live and address every issue it will be instant


so yes TV will still give the same result but then it will be, uh much later which lead to my first point also the speed of the event so TV and newspapers have this lag time which internet will actually uh remove this disadvantage


okay


so maybe I think we can conclude that newspaper and TV are still relevant at this point of time but it's slowly becoming irrelevant , , that's the conclusion , ya


still got one minute


people have uh, debate topic two people have the right to remain when portrayed in media so I think in the age of twenty-twenty now, freedom of speech is very important and civil right is very important so the right to remain when portrayed in media is super important


sorry can you hear me now, ya so about civil right like everyone want to have their voice heard but they don't want their, they fear the implication of having their true identity so they like to be when portrayed in the media also if we look at back uh how came about is to


let people to freely speak about what they have in mind and not to be fear of the in percussion even like in the, workplace, if you want to feedback about a boss of course you must be if you want to do something uh if cause it's best if it's anonymous so in the media


uh same thing, because we scared like people oh will in the end like, say what kind of rubbish comment is this what kind of uh nonsense is this so they prefer having like uh fake names anonymous so they would not have this kind of back slash


they just want to voice out their opinion but they don't want to have be judged based on their name their age their gender their religious, so I think people should have the right


okay uh I do agree that that there's a part of responsibility in what you say but I'd like to come back to the main idea of why there's a in the first place


so, of course you need to be responsible of what you say but that will be a issue of, psychology or issue of humanity it's not an issue of uh it's people using


so you should have the right to become if you feel that you are responsible of what you say like if you are a politician if you are some employer uh big shot in a company of course you shouldn't stay because what you say have power but


example if you are a minority if you're like a gay lesbian do you think like will you be like so confident and you won't be afraid of speaking up for your own rights ya so of course you will need to be so that your rights


uh or speaking up will not be targeted I mean if for instance I'm a minority and I'm I'm in the office I want to speak up for the rights of the minority, but then if I say I'm <P2>hui ting</P2> and I'm speaking up for my like the uh L


G B LGBT group then like everyone will start to judge me then they will not view my opinions and view my points, uh in a very logical and very


what's that call , unjudgmental way they will start to judge oh because of uh this person action and because of this person gender because of this person background family history that's why uh she have this kind of uh actions so actually helps to eliminate all this judgment


so I don't think uh someone using to do bad things will actually, uh uh trade-off I mean it will not uh clear the, benefit of actually is is the social responsibility of people


who want to be anonymous to, do the right thing but it does not mean that the right of being anonymous should be, removed in media


okay but then (mmhmm) sorry continue, okay I


do not disagree that being will actually leads to some of these, individuals that do take advantage of it and post irresponsible information as or comments online but that does not mean that the right for


uh, being remain should be eliminated because like what I said earlier like minorities of course you might think that if they're minorities then if they want to have their voice heard they actually should come out


with confident about their information and stuff, but if you are really a minority and if you are really at the situation I don't think you will actually be so daring or so confident in portraying yourself you want to be but you want your voice to be heard so is the similarly is like whistleblowing


so if you want to whistleblow your boss if you want to do something of course if you know the situation you can write exactly the exact situation your company will still investigate, so so uh my point is like if you have all the facts and have the statements I mean is nothing wrong being if you are giving a very factual very


uh logical comment or, on an issue I mean being anonymous will actually help to create like creativity help to come up with like more daring opinions more creative uh ideas as well as like some solutions


but if if you want like everyone to have their name and their age or whatever their particulars being stated online especially on like media then no one would dare to have like some so much opinions, of course this will actually eliminates those that


is insensitive lah but then uh it will also eliminate those that have potential which are really, uh good ideas and very, what is that called, impartial ideas ya


so all these very practical ideas actually come up only when people have the freedom of speech so if you uh have the freedom of speech you are not fear of anything then you are more willing to open up, it's the same thing as like if you're going to a psychologist I mean if the psychology want to ask every single thing about you but if you are not willing to open up then like


you want you need to share every single thing on the first uh session you will not be so willing what but if you meet the psychologist even is not, face to face online then you will feel like your own true identity is protected but you're open you are willing to open up yourself to talk about your own emotions and own uh troubles


so if if you give away this right to remain anonymous most people will just keep quiet so all the issues and the solutions will not actually be heard, and the voice of the people is not heard and that's not what we want so if people comment they do not have the social responsibility they comment insensitive staff all these will actually I mean we can rely on the law we can rely on the police to do something to act on it which like


for the case you say the police did act on it so all these actually uh are crimes and law actually also helps to make sure people know about their social responsibility if they post something online


okay okay


I understand your point of view but then , of course not everyone should remain but uh, everyone should still have the right if they want to remain this is to just protect the rights of the minority because, if you talk about like more harms than good then


and a lot of things in the world actually does more harm than good, if you talk about like like also it does more harm than good also if someone want will they argue about that but you cannot that does not mean that the good should be just forgiven just forgo the good you know you should still protect the minority uh rights and interests


and for everyone, there's still this civil right of being or freedom of speech you cannot because of some, the bad sheeps in the the, uh then you just forgo everything and just say that everyone should not have the right to become uh so this is a right given to everyone of uh


if you talk about like social media having, information all that then I mean if you are or organiser and if you really want some information of like feedbacks or comments then you can, it and you feel that uh you don't want some like you don't want some fake feedbacks then of course is your own right to actually state that you the person need to give their particulars


so it's everything is up to the uh person as well so I think everything is about your individual rights and freedom so as a, normal individual if I want to comment on something it's my right to state online and without my name I mean like in social media


who actually come uh there's very few people that use their, own actual name even your instagram or facebook they use nicknames they use uh some cute cute name or pet name or whatever because, they don't want to be identified so easily


so if you take away all these rights, then how does social media actually survive also


then then you have to take everything with a pinch of salt but then you cannot, take away the right for people to get because of this it's like your own social responsibly your so own social action is like like uh driving a car the car can have cause a lot of accident doesn't mean that you shouldn't give the right for people to drive a car


, ya if it's really like, uh legal staff or like crime then the police will step in and then they will find the real identity of you as well lah okay stop


social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information, so I think this topic is about, uh come down boils down to, civil right and privacy issue


so, social media should not have the right to store and use our information because, it's our information if we agree to share of course you can share but then if we did not agree it should not be a default


uh thing that social media have the right to actually store and use our information, because it's not fair for us as a consumer for as a backend person I mean layman person we don't know what they found they going to use our information for and what they store for what's the purpose of using it


so I mean they can sell it to like some black market as well so it's not very fair, for, someone that use social media to not, to not have, the right to protect their own personal information


uh I understand that social media when yourself there's always this clause but then the clause does not state how companies uh collect and use the data they only say that uh like


some social media name have we have the right to store and use your personal data then after that you click or unclick the box of consent so but there's no, transparency or no


no as in it's not transparent enough about how companies actually collect and use our data I mean they can secretly collect our data then, they sell it to someone we also don't know I mean if they use it for advertisement purpose which most of us know then maybe like if we agree then it's okay lah but then what if they sell it to someone


else, ya of course you there's this PDPA uh governance but then it also does not mean that, the social media will actually not misuse this also because we as a uh end-user actually


consent that they have the right but then, we don't know what's the right that we are actually and uh giving them there's no transparency in a sense that yes I agree that you can use my information but, to what sense and to what extent you can use my information we don't know and like how you going to use my information for is it against me or for me or is it to my benefit or to other companies' benefit


is a is an unknown question so I don't think that social media should have the right to actually store and use our personal information


ya but then that consent is like, to be honest who how many of us actually read the whole term and condition where we do sign up for something


don't talk about social media even if we download something like the term or condition we just next next approve agree who will actually read the ten pages of term and conditions and to be honest like the term and conditions does not specify, the, the detail of using our data for they can secretly uh sell our data


I mean if like what you say for about turning churning information then the uh turning out some statistics that's useful and then to help, the user I mean improve user experience all that it will be a good


and positive way but then it can have also bad, uh ending what is is still can sell I mean if the social media uh decide to sell your information like to terrorists, and then they know like who are more vulnerable


then or like if they sell to black market I mean like some elderly they post information about their grandson their grandchildren then it's very easy that they can actually have uh, to track down their grandchildren location and identity then kidnap the grandchildren or just like spam uh scam call to say that oh your grandchildren is in my hand all that all this is very easily obtained because of personal information online


so if social media have the right to store and use our information but we do not know their uh usage of the reason of using our information or like where they use it on it can easily go to the wrong hand


okay ya


okay I understand your point of view but then you see uh even if we agree to let them store and use our personal information but do they really state what they going to use for they don't, because they might not also know what they gonna use for


it's like some of these involve planning they might use for, uh some algorithm to, turn churn out like uh what users are unhappy with their social media and then have uh improve on their user experience, all these are good examples but then you think if they really have store and use uh store our personal information even if they don't use what about hackers like hackers can just easily hack into the social media company to retrieve all our information also


so if we give them like the social media have the rights to store our information but does not mean that like other people like hackers and other users actually can, uh not I mean can can


have the positive uh mindset to use all the information to a positive thing of course is the, end-user, responsibility to read before they agree on the clause but then


that does not mean that uh, social media should just use our personal information like, what if they use against you, I mean if you for instance if you sign some contract, of course, it's your responsibility to read before you sign the contract and the contract is legally binding but that does not mean that the person that you sign the contract with should use this as a


bad uh with bad intention lah I mean if the person use it with a goodwill then of course there's nothing uh wrong with this there's them there will not be any uh issue or topic that arise from these but the issue and topic that arise from these about


uh using our personal information is because there's all these bad examples and bad conditions


oh sorry okay I will explain on the point that use against you as in like if


uh there's a, someone heard, but actually it leads to a point that if someone, there's a hacker or everything they collect your information I mean if example if you are just a minority and then they use your information and then they publicise your information then that will be using against you lah or if not like uh some scam


uh they use your information then they know how to scam you but okay uh that point aside then I will I want those say another new point, so why social media should not have the right to store and use our information although there's this clause there but then


don't you think that the clause is actually like, compulsory because the user does have an, uh option to choose to opt out to say that no please do not use my information so it's like, the, clause is social media have uh we have the rights to use your personal information for statistics reason whatever whatever but then if you do not agree you cannot even use the social media at all so if you really want to use the social media it's like


oh you want to use our platform then you must agree lor it's like a, forced uh consent it's not a option that I can opt out, so it's not like you know some marketing brochure oh I do not wish to receive the email it's like, you must receive you must agree if not you cannot use our platform


and to use our platform you will give us all the rights, and we will not tell you what we going to use your information for don't you think it's very unfair for the user it's like, the user, uh don't have a option or permission


when being asked like for photos information so like photos even I post a photo on facebook of post a photo on instagram or whatever social media it's like next time when google your name or maybe you can see your photo won't you feel a bit uncomfortable as well


I mean like yes uh I I posted online but I posted on my social media platform but why is it on google in the end because you agree to you uh the rights for the social media to use your information but


you will feel of course you will feel uncomfortable cause it's privacy issues also ah it's your own freedom, and your own personal privacy so it's being like the user are being forced to agree if not they cannot use the perform, (ppc)


like I do agree that it's a willing buyer willing seller kind of point of view because it's like a trade-off but then does that does not mean that uh the social media should have the right because like for instance if I give you the right to stay at my home


uh and you can come stay my house uh but you need to pay me five hundred dollars and you did pay me five hundred dollars and I did let you stay at the house but that does not mean that when you stay at my house I can use CCTV to uh capture everything what you do because that does not should not give you uh should not give me the right


although you stay at my house, uh you give me five hundred dollar I let you stay the but that does not give me the right to surveillant you should not give me the right to store all your information and store what you do, and what you do at my house you understand what I'm trying to say


I ya


no no no


never mind we can take this offline


okay


so you so you think that uh waiting for the printing timing right TV TV and newspaper have become irrelevant right, okay but so much so so much so right even though yes TV and newspaper they took a very long time uh to be updated to the crowd right but as much as it could be on the internet there are a lot of


a lot of fake news around fake informations or uh available on the internet so even with the TV and newspaper right it actually helps to create a new platforms uh reliable platforms for the audience to rely on


okay but even so right then you have to filter away the fake news or not non-fake news yes even though you can you can fetch accurate and true uh informations through the government website but there are a lot of fishy website as well so if you want to talk about the audiences we are not able to control what kind of audiences they are accessing this informations they could be those the one that are tech-savvy and they know where to source for the right informations and they could be some people who have uh not uh less tech-savvy and they will just believe in any information that's feeds to them so even if you say that


people still can go through the government website to look for the true the most accurate informations and updates from the government right but there are still certains amount of people that is beyond our control that might, go to the other way round