when they need to do their charity work and also, when we talk about making charity work compulsory yet another policy I think proposition has yet to define like what kind of charity work because charity work essentially the definition of charity work means the act of giving help to those in need of it and it it can involve giving money goods or time and effort to those who need it


but then proposition has so far been telling us points that revolves around giving time and effort but what about money and goods that remains a question that I think proposition will need to answer and on top of that when we talk about making charity work for compulsory


in terms of like charity work is compulsory for students it is it is I think is very common for education institutes to make it uh there's a mandatory required a number of hours students will need to fulfill so for students itself it is essentially by default compulsory


but, if we were to make it compulsory as a nation then there would be a very huge opportunity cost involved that I haven't seen proposition justify as to why we should make it compulsory because so far proposition has been telling us , that it creates further interest in volunteering it gives creates a sense of belonging and teach us like allows


us as a nation to appreciate other people's culture but then in terms of that what is the loss we're talking about in terms of productive economic activity why should we be sacrificing the things that drives the economy which essentially drives all our lives for charity work


I think proposition needs to prove that to prove that to us, which I have yet to see i've yet to see a justification for and on top of it if we were to make charity work compulsory how long, how what's the required hours err we should make it for adults students does it differ does it differ for older people younger people I I haven't seen all these details coming up from proposition yet so i'm still feeling very funky about like all the details proposition has given us so far


alright proposition I think you are ignoring the topic of the debate it says charity work should be made compulsory if we were to make charity work compulsory I think that essentially implies that it is compulsory for the whole nation


and even if we were to gear it the gear this policy towards students there is already policies and mechanisms in place to ensure that every student has to undergo a required amount of volunteering hours, that can be come in the form of charity work of service learning or overseas learning trips as you've mentioned so that that defeats the whole point of the debate because what you're essentially returning to is status quo and status quo is that


it is not compulsory for everybody and it's mainly compulsory for students so on that point I think proposition you need to clarify to us why we need to change the status quo, alright and proposition you've been going on about how it charity work allows people to see the outside world the different circumstances people are facing however we need to understand the nature of charity work and in what context because you're essentially making


adults in this case or perhaps middle age teenagers sound to be very unaware naive ignorant when you talk about how they are unable to see the different circumstances that people face but I can assure you proposition that we


citizens no matter where we go whether we undergo charity work or not as simple as taking the MRT home from work, we would be able to see the different circumstances that people face the different living backgrounds they have we do not need to have make charity work compulsory and you still haven't tackled the problem on the opportunity cost that would be involved


and it's a very huge one at that if we were to make charity work compulsory, so these are very key points of the debate that you proposition has not addressed to us yet and i'm been waiting and hoping to see the point especially on the opportunity cost be addressed because that is a very important the economy is related to all our lives and if we were to put sex oh sorry charity work


if we were to make charity work compulsory then I think we would be create we would be creating the need for more charity work right because we are losing greater economic revenue and that may put more people in poverty creating a larger need for charity work so it creates a another extremely vicious cycle


so proposition I would like to see you address these points


alright proposition you need to recognise that adults even even if they, were to even as adults we don't go for we don't do charity work as often as students we probably would have done some form of charity work or volunteering that would not make us completely ignorant or naive as you portray the current adults to be to the different circumstances people in singapore or any other country face


so in that sense why make it compulsory for adults too if they already have this exposure since young, and these exposures are coming in repeated form let's just take the singapore education system for example from young primary school six years from secondary school to junior college to even university that's a good like twenty years of their life if that's not enough volunteering work that should be done or charity work that should be done


how much more would you like the adults to give and how much more how much ignorance or naivety do you think these adults will have if were they were to do like let's say twenty years of volunteering work i'm pretty sure they wouldn't be as ignorant or naive as you portray them to be , alright and on the second point where you say need not they do err a suitable amount of time should be invested would you like to define clearly how much time should be invested because even though like let's say they give one hour or two hours of their time that is still time being taken away from working hours per se


to invest in something called charity work when perhaps you could do it in another more productive way such as giving back in terms of money in which case you decided to leave out of the debate, okay so in that sense if we were to be able to contribute in terms of money and not in terms of let's say time and effort why should we go according to the definition or that's the way you would like it proposition because that's not a very effective and efficient way


because while some people may be able to give in terms of time and effort that doesn't mean we should make it for the whole society if everyone gives in term of time and effort we lose the money that some people may be able to contribute to, volunteer organisations or charity organisations who they themselves have the time and effort to go and help this these people in need better


so why should we overturn the status quo I still haven't seen a valid enough reason yet, I wish proposition could clarify this for us


alright I would say the opposition will take this debate mainly on two points proposition has been coming from a very very narrow perspective she has been telling us that


we should gear the policy towards students we should ensure that everyone at least contributes back to society through charity work but I would like to offer everyone a different alternative why should we limit the definition of contributing back to society in such a in such like in one way only why should we limit it to charity work only


there are many different ways to contribute back to society and by just limiting it to charity work I feel that that's not, that's not a strong enough justification as to why we should make charity work compulsory because currently the status quo works out fine for us, the status quo is that the people who have time to contribute time and effort to contribute and do volunteering and charity work do it and those that are unable to contribute their time they do it in terms of funds in terms of money and these these two compliment each other very well and even if proposition tells us that there's some people who don't do either


the fact that these people as working adults or students or people productive people productive members of our society as long as they are contributing to society in their own productive way in terms of like, yes as a student or as an adult, these people would be contributing to the economy of singapore which enables companies to give funds to these charity organisations who are better able to help these


people in need as compared to people who is simply drag them to do charity work because it's made compulsory , proposition has already mentioned to us charity work should come from the inside but if we were to make it compulsory it's going to become a burden it's going to be a chore it's not going to be something that we see the meaning and value of it which defeats the whole point of the policy


so in that sense this is why us opposition would take the will take the debate on why charity work should not be made compulsory because the status quo works fine it doesn't there shouldn't be any changes to it, and this is why I feel that opposition would win thank you


okay pressed


part three debate topic three


alright so so far what proposition has been telling, us is that, them alright proposition needs to, tell us why death the the okay proposition you are proposing that the death penalty should be abolished alright so what mechanism would you like to suggest in place and so far what I have been picking up on is life imprisonment


but if that is the case you are changing the nature of the punishment because the the nature of the punishment the reason for the death penalty is to serve as deterrent and if you were to abolish it and come up with life imprisonment how what are you going to do to suggest that, what are you going to do to make the nature of life imprisonment more effective than deterrent are you going to rehabilitate them because essentially even if you rehabilitate them they're going to be stuck in the prison for the rest of their lives how would this be less costly than


giving someone the capital punishment and okay let's condense this to singapore in the sense where you said in a sense where the death penalty is given to, murder kidnapping and drug crimes and okay while maybe some crimes are done in the heat of the moment like perhaps like crimes of passion but it's a very


studies have proven that it's a very small percentage whereas crimes that require that necessitate the capital punishment are done in the heat of the moment more often than not other crimes that, has a sentence of this capital punishment like drug crimes or like kidnapping are very elaborate carefully planned out crimes that


simply do not involve like, they are simply not done on impulse and if we were to take away this deterrent this would lead to a increase in the number of such crimes rampaging around our society I will need to consider whether abolishing the death penalty is worth


is is worth it for society to undertake this risk because the collective good of society may be may surpass these one or two prisoners that you saying maybe wrongly executed, and in that sense right I feel that you are doubting the legal system that has been in place for many countries that we established for many years


errors like that may wrongly like such small errors like or rather sorry not small errors but errors that result in the death of an innocent person is not something that is the norm and we need to acknowledge that because if we were to abolish the death penalty we're taking away this deterrent that


are keeping criminals at bay we are sacrificing, the entire society , for one or two innocents that may be wrongly punished because of this capital punishment so proposition are you telling us that the collective group of society should be sacrifice for this one or two people this is what I would like to hear from you


alright three points of contention over here proposition you are telling us you are telling us right now that the collective good of society the entire society our safety should be sacrificed for that one or two people that may be wrongly implicated by the capital punishment


you are telling us that all our lives our safety our children our families should be sacrificed we should be put at, the risk of this one or two people we're, sacrificing our whole society worth of people for one or two I think that's not a worthy bargain proposition I think you need to reconsider what you're telling us right now


and secondly you have been saying that the death penalty doesn't deter the crime at all but the basis of your point here was because the crimes are often committed under impulse of a moment however, I have already proven to you proposition that these crimes that necessitate the capital punishment doesn't often happen on the whim is is a lot of them are naturally elaborately planned


crimes that require, months of planning and thinking and if we were to take away the death penalty in this case I'm pretty sure they will feel they feel better at ease they feel like that oh I wouldn't be sacrificing my life for this crime, so here your point on how the death penalty doesn't deter deter the crime at all doesn't stand because these crimes are not done on the impulse of the moment they are all often carefully thought out plans you think I would go and rob a bank or kidnap a child one day on the mere impulse like oh I feel like kidnapping a child today I'm going to grab one


no I don't think so proposition I think it requires at least some form of planning and during that period of time if I have the death penalty looming over the head it will give me some time to think twice too okay second point, okay so proposition you've been telling us that the death life imprisonment allows it allows for the reversal the reversibility of the punishment but like I said already proposition


what's the point of life imprisonment if you're not going to rehabilitate them and use it as a form of deterrence too, because what you've been telling us is to use a life imprisonment as a form of deterrent as a backup in case we wrongly uh imprison anyone but in that case if life imprisonment is going to serve as a deterrent what makes it different from the death penalty


so if you're not going to make the purpose of life imprisonment you don't not going to make rehabilitation as your key purpose underpinning life imprisonment I do not see the difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty in that sense because the point of both punishments are still the same


and if you were to talk about them reflecting I'm pretty sure most of these are hardened criminals or criminals that are they've been forced to certain circumstances to commit this crime that if you were to imprison them for the rest of their lives as


it's not going to do much good to them and us as a society other than that sparing that one or two innocents at the risk at the cost of an entire country, so in that case why should we overturn the status quo why can't we keep to the status quo the death penalty, a lot of countries adopt the death penalty and our our criminal systems have been running and working smoothly the the chance one or two encounters you have mentioned are very very low I need to emphasize this to you proposition that we are putting the collective good of society


behind that one or two individuals you are going to allegedly save if they may if their wrongful imprisonment may be discovered, so we need to we need to we need to understand whether this cost and risk is worth it or not and in my point of view it isn't so I would like proposition to give me a strong enough reason to justify why we should put collective good of society behind these one or two individuals


proposition you need to recognise that by abolishing the death penalty we are going to have no death penalty in the country so life imprisonment is not going to co-exist along with the death penalty, so if life imprisonment is not going to co-exist along with the death penalty then life imprisonment would be our sole capital punishment for these extremely serious and heavy crimes that necessity is such a heavy punishment and are you telling us that this is strong enough this is good enough to deter crime


(ppc) because the lost of a life is very serious are you telling us that the lost of a life, is of lesser deterrence than keeping someone's life just that in a confined environment for their rest of their lives because I do not think that these two these two punishments are of equal measure


the death penalty is certainly the taking away someone's life is definitely of higher measure than keeping someone in prison for their rest of their lives so if you're saying that the life imprisonment is going to work as a better deterrent than the death penalty I think you seriously need to reconsider your choices proposition


alright so, alright so proposition, has essentially condense her entire argument to one point and that is the death penalty should be abolished because it it is it is irreversible we should abolished the death penalty because of that one or two innocence


but proposition you have been conceding to us that the death penalty is a stronger deterrent than life imprisonment and if this is such a strong deterrent, why should we take it away why should we input life imprisonment in place it is not as if life imprisonment doesn't exist as a option itself there's a reason for the death penalty and that is because this crime is so serious that the that it requires a heavier punishment


than life imprisonment and the reason you have given us is not enough to surpass, why we should take away the death penalty and condense the heavier crimes that necessity the death penalty and leave it to and leave it leave the punishment at life imprisonment that simply won't do because you are reducing the nature of the crime and when you reduce the seriousness of the crime you are sending a message to society that now


this crime does is not as is not as heinous as before is not as evil as it seems you'er sending a very, is you made can be seen that you are sending a very bad signal to society and are you sure this is the message we want to be sending to our descendants


the people of our country are you sure that this is a good enough reason why we should abolish the death penalty because I do not see it I do not see equating the death penalty to changing the punishment of the death penalty to life imprisonment , two crimes crimes that may require very different levels of punishment on themselves and equating them to the same measure


as a just a good enough reason simply because we need to save one or two individuals, we are still coming to the same point of the debate where, society is good is being sacrifice for one or two innocence and


if we we were to talk about this in mainstream media I'm pretty sure that this is not something that many people be happy about because an entire countries safety , and like the morals and values we preach to our future generations simply shouldn't be equated just be shouldn't simply shouldn't be thrown away just because we want to protect one or two innocence and in that sense I tell this is why opposition would take the debate


do we do we do we stop


K in the age of the internet TV and newspaper have become irrelevant K take note here and I strongly agree with this because in the age of internet TV and newspaper


are no longer required or important in our everyday day to day life, let me share with you my first point of why so, in the age of internet speed and convenience is the number one priority okay we all have smart phone tablet and laptop and anyone can access news information or TV programme anytime anywhere


at your own convenience with no problem about having where to buy the papers where to watch it as long as you have all these device you are ready to access the latest news information and TV programme, K so with your electronic device you can read news watch TV


anytime and very important right is any program or any information you want to search you want to find you can actually do that imagine you open a newspaper, and the article is only a small half a page but you're very interested you want to find out more then how do you do you had end of the day you have to go back to internet and search more information of it so why in the first place do you even bother read newspaper or look at the TV programme


so and damn important until I feel that during the age of internet right is that you have the latest headline and breaking news from all over the world, no longer do you need to wait until the newspaper hit the newsstand or wait for the TV programme you know the broadcasting company to get ready the TV programme or get ready the news at a certain slot then you will find out what happened no need


with internet straight away you will know what happened okay so you end up getting much faster news from than compared to the newspaper and also at the same time faster than the TV reporting as well


let me share with you now my second point is about accessibility and global outreach, K very important with internet itself you will now have the means of reaching out the whole world to get information news from all over the world why is this important well if today you want to know more about another country


generally what how who how do we get the information you have no internet you rely on the newspaper or the TV programme, but each country newspaper will generally focus on their own local issue yes they may publish some information about the other country but usually is less in detail as well as err you know just a small little column or small section of the newspaper


if you want to find out more you have to get hold of the other country newspaper now with internet all these are possible not only can you read the latest news from the local publisher of the country, you can also read what other countries said about their own that's particular country that you are you are very interested in so now you have access and information all over the world why do you restrict yourself to just TV and as well as a newspaper


so all these are irrelevant because all the TV programme all the newspaper are all available on the internet and all the information are there okay and and I think more importantly is that, when news or when information start to unravel all these you all get all this information live okay whether is it through the twitter or whether is it youtube all this information are streamed live and live update so you can actually see what is happening


imagine nine one one incident and you're still waiting at the the uh at the TV for the latest update or waiting for the newspapers to report if you go internet all these thing is happening you actually see the whole plane crashing into the building, just at the moment just when the plane was crashing the building no longer have to wait is so accessible


okay let me rebuke your first point ya from the part about uh you know uh the if the TV programme or the newspaper produce the news information is actually curated as well as err they verified as accurate, now you find it as a you you you termed it as curated and verification I termed it as filtering as well as censorship


reason behind is very simple if today before the news can be published okay what you're getting is all the facts figures everything you want to publish a news, then you start to filter it then therefore you remove some information you decide what is what is supposed to be broadcast what is supposed to be publish and what is not so now the news has been naturally customised as well as filtered and is no longer as truthful or as factual as it is right okay let me give you another example


okay today all the TV programme or broadcasting company as well as the newspaper publishing company they want to get a license to publish their articles their newspaper their TV programme, they need to get it from the government right they need it from the country so what happen the country will tell you okay we have to censored okay whatever news you want to publish you have to clear with us first now this is exactly what is happening with TV and newspaper


per program in the age of internet when people start to give information or report live there's no such thing about censorship and filtering anymore you'll get truth we get the truth and you'll get information that is straight from the horse mouth


no longer have a need to censored here censored there and end of the day decide what is the politically correct news to publish out there, so I feel that with the age of internet TV and newspaper are definitely irrelevant especially when come to the truth and the information that people are interested to know straight out from the horse mouth and no longer censored back to you opposition


okay so come back to the part whereby whereby the news is it truth uh is it verified well it's the same thing if you go through all the country censorship and all the filtering end of the day what is the news that's reported is it also truth


let me give you example in china itself the outbreak of COVID nineteen well china actually err stop the news from being broadcast to the rest of the world much earlier and as a result what happened you see a lot of countries are not ready and not prepared to deal with the pandemic that occur after that


that's exactly what happened but however some news will leak out through what means definitely not through TV and newspaper of the country is through the internet, that shows that how powerful the internet is and why is so relevant to all of us if you want the latest information and news


anything to add


okay okay very good soon we are on a point number two which is accessibility because uh in order to have internet you need to have the accessibility to it right which is through all the electronic devices all these thing now this is a very important point I agree you need to have access all these thing but just like education


no some countries don't have access to education so what do they do they have to make sure that people have access to education, if you don't have access to education then you cannot even read you cannot understand what's going on likewise for those people you're saying the the low income the elderly with no access to internet the government is kind to come out schemes to help them to own internet enabled devices


and you said but they don't know how to operate so the government's coming out with courses and subsidise or even free of charge to help these people learn how to access internet, just because they can't they can't do it at this point of time doesn't mean they cannot do it forever internet is part of our life they have to learn it if not they will feel redundant they will feel out of the out of the real world what's happening so these people have to learn


okay now you say about internet the being unreliable sometime because err like the recent case of service provider down and then err we have no internet access, this is nothing to do internet itself you have to do with the service standard of the internet provider so imagine you say oh my service provider is down well you can always go to free wireless SG for the free wifi you know to access the internet the internet is never down is always available twenty four hours worldwide so it's definitely down and is is there ready for you


if your service provider fault then blame it on the service provider do not blame it on internet, because internet is always there and ready for you and me for us to use back to you opposition


right so ya


, I I I think it's a okay err it it it's not very fair to err err actually err assume and predict such things like you know err world err like the whole country that internet is down access is down you might as well say the you know because the whole because of blackout there's no more err


no more electricity than they cannot watch TV and then they are not able to print newspaper I think this speculation is uh way going too far too out, far reach ah err but I think the idea is you you say that today these people low income elderly cannot afford uh uh internet device cannot afford to have a subscription to internet


well if they can afford to buy newspaper err definitely the cost of newspaper is equivalent to the cost of err having a mobile data connection or wifi at home, they say oh but they still cannot afford well there's always free places to go to the, go to the CC to charge their device and use their device at the CC whereby you know they can surf the net because it's free wireless wifi uh and then at the same time they can charge over there the electricity is uh FOC there


err but I think the idea is that people have to keep up with the with the new world and and current the new world is a internet age so people have to keep up and they have to move into this age


okay, okay we are now at debate topic number two people have the rights to remain anonymous when portrayed in media, alright I'm the proposition and I strongly agree with this


now people have to have the right to remain anonymous why because in today's world there are still power differences and inequality all over the world okay so whether is it through the media traditional media or social media we must have the right to remain


this it why so important to do so, well as I said as long as there's imbalance in power imbalance in equality okay there's always a chance that the minority or those that you are not so powerful were being taken advantage or will be taken revenge on


should they report the truth or should they report something that the powerful and those in authority do not like it let me give you an example okay, there are people who have suffered certain social injustice in their life


okay so for example they going to a certain err they work at a certain company and then those in power err always bully them those in power always make them do extra things extra work and no extra compensation or no extra incentive


so these people they complain to HR what will HR do the HR say oh we'll look into it and they never look into it, so what alternative do these people have well of course you can say they can quit their job but if they feel that they need a job to support the family what else can they do


the other method is to go into the media and then share their stories with the media so that they can seek social justice and hopefully there are lead to real justice for these people, so then you said ya they have seek joseph social justice so therefore they should put their name well if they want to continue working in a company they definitely cannot be named and they have to be anonymous imagine today you report something bad about your manager or your superior


and it's appear in the social media the next moment they know of it do you think your life will be good do you think you can continue to work smoothly in that company, I will not think so most probably the the supervisor or the manager be it whether is truth or not truth


will not be happy with you and definitely they will do something to make your life miserable so that one day you either quit your job or you decide that you want to apologise publicly then they will feel happy about it


so anonymous is very important if people today have no other means to seek for themselves justice or seek for themselves the truth it may have to resort to the media, and as long as there are social injustice and inequality in power they have to have to remain anonymous if not they will definitely get revenge upon or they were actually suffer the consequences after they try to seek social justice for themselves


opposition


okay so I want to come back to the same point K okay uh in if today you want to uh say the truth or you want to report things like bribery corruption what is the first thing the authorities will promise you confidentiality, anonymous right because they do not want I'm sure your biggest fear you know whether you come out to the public or whether to report authority is that what happened if they take revenge on me what happen if they they decide to punish me


so authorities and all those in power always guarantee you the first thing confidentiality and being anonymous, so that is something that's important because today you do not have this two this two guarantee nobody will come out and speak the truth everybody's worried


because what is going to happen and this is the truth as long as I mentioned as long as there's power injustice there's always will happen because who are those who you who are chances of corrupting and chances of bribery are those in power right, so being in power means that you can affect a lot of outcome for a lot of people especially layman like us


so therefore if you want to speak the truth we must have anonymity, alright and the whole idea is that we want to avoid being punished for speaking the truth okay especially when we are speaking the truth about somebody in power and somebody in authority


you speak just now about err no err being responsible and being accountable yes is true but I want to highlight that being anonymous it's not, worse to having doing criminal activities yes of course there will be people who do criminal activities all those who do criminal activities will always want to be anonymous right nobody will do a crime and then tell you my name is so and so I did this crime nobody will tell you that definitely all of them will keep quiet and do not want to let you know


we are not talking about this type of uh bad hats in the society we are talking about people who are genuine who need to seek social justice, I want to speak the truth or want to correct something that is strong in a society wrong in the community these people have to have the right to remain anonymous okay especially when we are reporting them in the media because that's when everybody know especially those bad hats guys who are who will be out to get hold of them


definitely it's important to be anonymous


okay I I I think the idea about anonymity now is more towards when portrayed in media we are not talking about anonymous err when you go to register your bank account or when you go to the bank you will remain anonymous or when you buy a dangerous thing like for example you buy medication


or buy a weapon then you say I want to remain anonymous I I don't think that that is possible because uh end of day there must be some control and err balance and check, err but we're talking about people who go to the social media and want to remain anonymous because they want to seek the truth they want to share the truth with the rest of the majority with the rest of the people out there


ah these people deserve to be anonymous because if they don't one day they will be punished and then people say oh when I speak the truth when I seek social justice for myself or for others err who are deprived or they for those who are abused or those who are in the minority


I may get punished I I may get bad uh may get a revenge on so they said then in this case I'll never do it and what it's gonna will going to happen, the world is going to be a weapon happen whereby the power will become so powerful they control everything that none of us can have dare to raise even a single voice or whispered upon because end of the day


we know that we cannot be anonymous will be picked upon if we do speak something about it and will be punished about it, so that is so that's the scary part about having no rights to remain anonymous imagine every time you say something okay on the internet okay you being a truth or being something that you just want to share your feeling everybody know who you are everybody know what is going to happen


then there's no opportunity or no avenue for you to just say something that you want to share or say something that you feel that you want some get off your chest because end of the day everybody will know who you are and they can use it to come back to you and hock you


I think, but whether you remain anonymous or you let people know who you are I think whatever information you give whatever facts that you give or or or ya basically information and news that you give


have to be verified even today if I let you know my identity but out to harm somebody I'm out to slander somebody okay you still have to verify the information I give you right you still have to make sure that this is the truth, before you take action against another party


so whether anonymous or not or or whether your identity is known all this information have to be verified so why stop why why insist on being not anonymous so that you can better verified information I don't think so because there are many other avenues and source to verify the information


however by you remained anonymous you are actually giving people the morale courage to step forward, to share their information to to to whistle blow to let people know what's wrong okay yes I agree definitely there are always bad hats out to harm body somebody hurts somebody but whether as I said whether identity is known or not known


these people would find ways and means to hurt other people, okay so I think more importantly is those who are investigating the anonymous tip of the anonymous uh information that they were actually do a good job, to investigate from all different direction and make sure they do not okay err do not blame or do not punish the wrong person I think that is very important


more important than you know uh than insisting that the whistle blower identity be known to all


okay so I think the opposition has misunderstand that err being err, anonymous equals to writing poison letter okay err the the the topic today is actually being anonymous when you are portrayed in the media, okay so therefore when a police call you up when the authorities call you up to seek information to seek a statement from you I think your identity is known definitely err you have to let them know who you are what's your registration number all these thing but we're saying that if let's say after this this news goes into the media this news is being reported in newspaper uh


then you have the right to become anonymous, because why yes the authorities will keep will keep your information will keep your identity a secret but when it goes into the media, they have no they they do not need to keep your identity a secret anymore, because there's no need to remain anonymous so my point is that


if you do want to seek social justice when it come to media it's important to remain anonymous especially in the media because that is where the general population who have the information on you, another point I want to highlight is that err okay so we are always say that people are convicted err before people are convicted you know the newspaper will report about them so example the molester you know oh they're arrested for molesting


and the newspaper may publish their name and and all this but, is it true that there are real molester has the court convicted them the answer is no the court has not convicted them but somehow the media has convicted them okay because why by publishing their name they'll bring shame to these people and the worst is they may not they may be totally innocent


but the media has already sentenced them that they are such as such criminals, giving them no chance at all okay to seek the truth okay to to to let the world know the truth because why they have no right to become anonymous when the media caught hold of their name caught hold of their


information alright opposition


(hmm)


okay so when we say that people have to rights to become anonymous we're referring to both the criminal as well as the victims so imagine the victims of a crime do not have the rights to become anonymous isn't that scary


those who are molested will have their name published in a social media or in the media do you want something like that to happen , okay


okay we're now at debate topic number three social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information I proposition definitely agree


that social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information at all the times why because without consent and agreement is as good as stealing my personal information and infringement of my privacy, the questions that always going into to my mind whether social media store information is that what are they going to do with it


are they going to sell to companies profit at my expenses, and my or other question will be it's going to be infringement on my privacy, okay I give you example I may have some fetishism fetishism okay that I I uh or socially unacceptable behaviour by for example I like to cross dress you know oh I like to collect a lady shoe and all this thing I do online so I buy those cross dressing err uniform or the lady shoe online


when social media collect all these information about me you know that I like to buy cross dressing err uniform as well as all the lady shoe and they build up information and store all these data on me so my concern is that one day if all this information are leaked out or they are sold to a third party who use it against me


I'll be very embarrassed and !whoa! and I think my whole life will be turned upside down because some, I think I want to keep private is not so private after all because behind the scene social media are quietly collecting the information quietly selling the information and quietly using the information maybe against me either current moment or in the future I just do not know


so definitely they do not and not supposed to store and use our personal information


okay another point I want to bring your concern why social media shall not collect and shall not store information is the abuse of such information now today if you store a lot of money at home


then you are increasing your risk of burglar coming to your home and stealing a lot of your money right likewise if social media decide to store our information in their server or in somewhere detail is safe they're just building up a database for hackers and for unscrupulous staff and data mining companies to tap upon


because as long as there's a source of information ready ready okay all these unscrupulous err characters and companies will be very keen to get hold of such information okay be it for their personal gain or be it for their commercial gain or be be it for identity theft


all these things are just exposing us to unnecessary risk okay if today you do not store the information if today you do not uh use our personal information then there's no avenue for all these identity theft theft err makers or all these criminals to actually have access to our information isn't it so so therefore why store


when you store you actually giving them the opportunity to actually steal such information, or sell such information, okay and actually cause more harm to us now and in the future


but where you say that the risk is extremely low I'll say if you don't store there's no risk at all not even low , not even extremely low okay but that's another point


I mean my main point here is that no the social media do not have the right to store and use our personal information reason okay if today I'm willing to give them the consent whether is it because of some reward or incentive or I feel that you will benefit me I think that's fine because I've given my consent explicit or implicit consent


to agree for them to store and use the information, but if they do it quietly behind my back without my knowledge, that I feel that it's not right because they're doing it, quietly and without my knowledge and as I said I may be a private person okay we have PDPA personal data protection coming in you know I want to go one one step higher than that I totally do not want my information in any part of the social media in any part of the technology or internet but


the the companies are just doing it quietly behind my back and I do not have know that they are doing it at all so that's the scary part right because they do not have to inform me that I I have to give consent because they feel that they have the right and they just do it without my knowledge okay and I think that is terrible that that's the scary part


so okay the point comeback to that err they actually using this information


to earn more money so I was surprised that social media is earning revenue at my expenses am I right because they use this information they use these data you know they are trying to subconsciously affect the way affect me, what do I mean so for example they know that I like to buy or certain uh uh type of things so every time I use their social media every time I go to the shopping site


they will gently prompt up and they will put all those things that I like on top of first few first few lines of the surfing they will show that oh these are on offer so subconsciously there are affecting me, they are trying to encourage me to buy more of their products okay to buy quickly of their products or they will show all sort of promotion anyway so if you think about it if you think about it in depth isn't this affecting your free will isn't this about affecting your mind


your your consciousness you know then how they do it because they use your information, without your knowledge and use it against you okay well maybe not as bad as it sound but you definitely they use it against you so that you end of the day spend more


buy more okay without you even knowing what's already happening because they have all this information at the back, okay and I and you also say okay if they use it for themselves it's not so bad yes I agree but what happened if they use it and they sell it to companies


to who then will profit and use it against you I give you example by facebook every time we share a photo every time we share a topic or every time we put a comment facebook gather all this information and all these data about you, and what happened a data mining company will come into picture they will mine


they will know about you and they will sell such information about you to all those relevant commercial company and so suddenly your information is all over the world with, their nuggets and with more information in hands of those who are willing to pay more to know more about you isn't that scary thought


imagine you have never give any consent or permission and this company know so much about you, hopefully they will not use it against you and hopefully they will not do something bad with it on you


so I so I think comes back to the keyword K ah, as I said err that if people are willing to share the information with people are willing to err let the social media keep the information I think it's fair I think it's a it's a fair thing because err they may feel that their data and information helps to benefit society as well as the company in providing better services to them


but my concern here is that there are people who are against who are against sharing the information who are against having their data having their personal information, go into the social media go into the internet I think these people have a right okay to protect their own privacy have a right to secure their personal information


okay so all these social media all these company do not have the right to store this information and use them, unless they get their written consent, a written agreement that they're willing to share such information and they must keep it within their own company, they cannot share with it they cannot sell to third party


which unfortunately is going to happen right now you see because as I said end of the day it's about profit making you know it's about keeping their costs and keeping err eh make sure they have a profit to employ staff all this thing so all this is happening, okay because social media are all selling the information if not as you said beside advertising where are they where are they can they get a money


so they have to find means of getting money right and what are the things are getting money is sell information, okay and that is what is happening and that is the part that I feel that they cannot just sell information of everybody whether you give consent or without consent


okay so I think it comes back to the same part err whether one give consent or agreement


for their use of their personal information and storage of personal information, okay err because if people are willing to to give the information that is not a problem with me but however today the companies have to convince me have to inform me have to seek my consent


okay if they say that I'm not willing to seek give information and you and it will affect their AI or affect their their err their idea of err how to give better customer service then they have to convince me that such information is very important to them okay, and they have to convince me that they will be very safe and they'll be very err secure in the way they use my information only when I am convinced then I feel that they have the right to store and use if I'm today I'm not convinced at all then what give them the right to store and quietly use this information


because end of day this information are very private to me and I may be the one that suffer consequences should these information be leaked out, am I right to say because the companies will just close and then they can move on or they may just err


apologise about it but I'm the one who have to suffer the long term consequences because these private information personal information belongs to me and have to use them for the rest of my life, I can't just change my IC number I can't just move house because oh my personal information is leaked in the internet so I shall move house who's going to pay for moving the house


right so that's why I said personal information is I must really be willing to agree to release such information before they can actually use it or store it


okay


now I do not agree I still feel that TV and newspaper are still relevant in this age let's look at their quality and the credibility the newspaper has always been deemed as


a reliable source of information because the news critics pictures have all gone through professional journalists and editors that does not publish any unreliable information, however when it comes to the internet platform though information is easily accessible it is difficult to determine the authenticity of the information on news in fact


we have seen that it is prone to hacking and also commonly associated with the spread of fake information, for instance if we look at Wikipedia the information on Wikipedia can be changed and edited by anyone from the public this does not ensure


but reliability of the information as anyone can change the information according to their own means, this means that the information could be unreliable on the internet, and as for TV being curated the TV contents assures of certain level of quality as well TV content undergoes an extensive process from conceptualization


to production to transmission so you can be sure it passes a certain level of quality and credibility, for example ratings are applied to TV shows to warn audiences of content inappropriate to certain age groups and news broadcasts have the necessary attribution and cited sources to assure their credibility


so this is to prevent fake news from happening which we commonly see on the internet


but this is you are assuming that all people can access the internet but not everyone in this internet age have the financial means or knowledge to access the internet, there are still old folks that are not techno savvy and lower income people that cannot afford to be connected to the society to access information online


one have to at least own a digital gadget that can access the internet these gadgets do not come that cheap not forgetting that the gadget will need a modem or data plan to go along old folks in this internet age


still have to learn how to use these digital gadgets which might be too troublesome for them to learn, take for example singapore is a aging uh population we have a a large population of elderly living in our country statistics have shown seventy four percent of the elderly do not know how to operate a computer or a smart phone


the lower income group on the other hand could not afford these gadgets as well these groups of people would still, turned to traditional way would that is cheaper which is buying newspaper and watching free to air TV and even for those who do not have the financial who who who sorry even for those who do have the financial means and knowledge to access the internet


they might not have the access all the time they could be in a place where network is not available, or it is not strong, but delivery of newspaper or watching of TV is available in that country


one good example is when there is an island wide network service disruptions from the service uh provider each time that happens thousands of users cannot access information online, just like in april and may this year two service providers in singapore had


island wide network service disruptions one lasting for the three hours and the other had two disruptions on the on the same day affecting many people so guess where the users turn to in order to find out what was happening is from the newspaper and and and the TV of course


now I I I want to rebuke what you have raised just now firstly you talk about the truth but you have seen many times in the internet , it is far beyond the truth in fact there's because because of internet a lot of people have been spreading fake news on uh on the internet and they do not care about it


due to not being responsible not being accountable by of err on what they say and also don't forget the truth is, nobody can access internet all the time and anywhere there are still some places where


you know internet is not easily accessible okay but newspaper can reach them, err err TV can reach them but not internet, even though during uh even though what you have said about news reaching faster are receiving information faster


you did not state that it is whether is this news vetted or not whether is this information the truth or not at the end of the day what the users want to know is the truth we do not wants fake news to be spreading and create


distrust among each people


just like what you have raised just now about just like why you have raised about the news coming from the uh about about COVID, okay now there are many many articles that's in the internet that says that uh the COVID was due to certain animals uh that caused this pandemic but the question is is this are these true


till today nobody knows exactly knows where the source of this COVID is from, but, through the internet people assumed that okay it is from an a particular animal which is not true


and also figures that are not infected from cited source starts to appear saying that oh uh thousands of people have died from COVID nineteen uh and , this that the numbers may be inflated or or or or my may be much lower so it may not be the truth and also back to what I raised just now in my in my in my speech


I also want to emphasize that uh not everybody can have access to the internet you must include the the the older folks and also the lower income people, how about these people these people need to access knowledge these people need to know what's happening around the world as well


now you've mentioned that the govern you you are you're determine depending on the government to provide subsidy to the lower income group of people to provide probably a free device to the to these people now you must understand that


not the government does not uh you know does not do that all the time at the end of the day they can you they can provide them a free device but what about the electricity that is needed to charge the device the the modem


the the the router that is needed or the data plan all these needs money as well and you cannot assume that the lower income people can can afford all this necessary uh things needed for to to get at uh to get into to access the


internet not for okay and also you talk err you talk about err having to, sorry you talked about having to err make sure that err the the you can change the service provider but what if it is really a country wide err disruption


what is going to happen are they going to fly out the country to get a wifi, which is not possible


I do agree that yes they need to keep up but that does not mean that TV and newspaper become irrelevant


in fact newspaper and TV definitely plays a significant role in our society due to the many supporters that it has it not only allows people from less well to do families to have a chance of knowing what is going on in the world


K it also allows the elderly to continue to be informed about the news despite technology, and for those who can't have access to internet all the time then TV and newspaper are the means of information they can turn to


and for when we talk about accessing to the internet don't forget sometimes the elderly only knows dialects, they can't possibly be going in going into the internet and trying to look for news that is


you know err in the language of a of a the dialect but for example in a TV there's still uh shows hosting are made by err in the in the form of dialect language


now I do not agree that people should have the right to remain anonymous when portrayed in media, we must understand that anonymity can bring a whole host of vitriol and abuse with it


it opens the door to many forms of criminal and anti social behaviour while leaving victims and society helpless it allows people to speak and do things without having to take responsibility or accountability


take for example on social media when someone is able to hide behind an avatar or anonymous user name, they feel empowered to speak more harshly than they might in the real world resulting in online abuse we have seen so many cases of online abuse victims


ended up in depression, or even committing suicide, we must understand that if people remain anonymous by definition this means they cannot be identified making it impossible to hold them accountable for this misconduct and be brought to justice


and precisely because the repercussions are few people commit crimes using anonymous identity such as hacking virus writing credit card fraud harassment and identity theft


and these crimes have been increasing, already the damage estimates are measured in billions of dollars per year but, talking about the human costs in terms of ruined reputations loss of trust and a general deterioration in morals it is immeasurable


now you talk about you know being anonymous can help them be more brave to to come up to say the truth but don't forget with anonymity it is also very easy to lie you can be anyone you want to be


and do anything you want to do without consequences and that is very dangerous not only does this mean you could end up talking to someone who isn't who they say they are, but it also means that businesses could end up acting illegally unknowingly by selling sensitive goods


err take for example selling alcohols or knives or even guns, to people who are not old enough to possess them just because they are hiding behind the in the name of anonymity they they have this avatar this user name that says that I am of appropriate appropriate age to purchase such


stuff like like firearms like alcohol, or dangerous items, so that is why more businesses are in fact starting to use identity verification service to ensure that people who are who are who they say they are if not these people may end up getting in trouble with the law which we do not they which they do not want to see


no but if you were saying that if a whistle blower does come out with a certain piece of information because they are anonymous don't forget it is difficult to trust what they said they may they may be just a troll looking to make waves


to to you know to trying to harm that certain person or that company, maybe because previously this certain employee was was lazy and or or did something wrong and got sacked from the company and and he decided that oh I I want to get a revenge


so he he comes he comes forth as anonymous and try to, whistle blow but you must understand that it may not be the truth, unless you know the source and know that they have a real connection to the people they're calling out then you have to take everything with a pinch of salt at the end of the day


if you want to come out is to speak the truth is still about being responsible eh or with what and and with what you say and being accountable to what you say basically you need to bear the consequences


rather than trolling people where they start flame wars or intentionally trying to upset people on the internet by posting digressive post or in the online community, with the intention to trying to stir the emotions of of the of the of the of the public


that's not what we want to see


now I do not agree from where you're coming from I still feel that you know because of being anonymous the repercussions are few


you know not not every time the police will go and and try to investigate there are more people hiding behind the in the name of anonymous hiding behind a fake identity trying to to you know commit crimes trying to steal


the err to have identity theft so that they can benefit themselves, so that they can commit crimes and not bear the consequences not only that they try to they try to


say mean things and try to do online abuse causing a lot of people to fall into depression causing a lot of, people to to be afraid of stepping out because of the online abuse and in turn it it it it becomes


err dangerous when they are suicidal so this is not something that we want to do it and we do not want to advocate anti social behaviour based on the anonymous user name


so that that is why my reason of of of the people not cannot be anonymous is precisely because we do not want cases like that to happen whereby people try uh go online to condemn other other users


okay and also you mentioned about the police investigating the the criminals okay or the people who commit the crimes, but you must understand one post can be read by thousands and or millions of users it can be re shared and shared by many users


are the police able okay to go and target them to go and look dig into each and every single user to see who is committing a crime who slandering who is trolling


if let's say if everybody were to be anonymous how are they going to do go about doing that, which means a lot of manpower is needed to be invested to to start to investigate and it might not come to any uh err any fruitfulness


am I right to say that at the end of the day which means, the victim may not be the the the person that commit a crime may not be brought to justice and then you have the victim being helpless nobody to turn to all because of online abuse all because of somebody who is hiding behind err an avatar a fake user name or being anonymous


now we need to understand that on a macro view storing and using the information shared online actually contributes


to the global store of useful knowledge with our personal information with this data social media platforms will have the knowledge on how to make the platform more user friendly based on say a let's say a behavioural data


err and using that data they analyze it and it actually, proves the customer service in other words it actually benefits us as users at the end of the day when we use, social media and also not forgetting data can also be used to help to create a safer environment in the social media platform take for example our personal data


can be used by artificial intelligence researchers, to train that automated programs so every day users around the the the globe outlook billions of photos videos text posts and audio clips to websites like to applications like youtube


facebook instagram and twitter and that media is then fed to machine learning algorithms so they can learn to see what's in a photograph or automatically determine whether a post actually violates


the the facebook's hate speech policy if it does, then the content will be removed thereby making the platform safer, so it does actually benefit when the social media collects and use our personal information


no we must understand that at the end of the day the core values of social media it's about openness connecting and sharing so it is precisely because of these values in wanting to connect and share with the users


data needs to be collected and used for different targeted social media users, social media data would help create more engaging content experiences for us users take for example businesses want such data such information


to target advertising to users so when we surf the social media when we surf certain website we we will want to seize an advertisement that we don't mind looking at


because it interests us rather than when we surf something and and, we at at at uh at aside there is advertisements that really bothers us we are not interested at all and it actually, noise us so with the personal information with the data collected after that they have done err err analysis then they act they they will target us as users to make to to to make us


make uh informed choices and decisions on whether to do we want to buy in to that to that advertisement or or not at the end of the day, like what I said it helps to improve content experiences user interface and customer service talking about


you know being worried about leaking data of our personal personal information not you are assuming that you know it's so easy to get the the information but don't forget we have laws and policies to govern to the to govern privacy concerns


and it is standard practice for social media platforms to keep the data encrypted while it's being stored on the server then access to the servers themselves is also restricted, so sensitive data is also encrypted when it's transmitted as well therefore the risk of leaking personal information is actually extremely low


I think you are now going to the assumption that you know they do not ask permission, but don't forget there are social media platforms that do ask permission on whether they they can store


your information and use the information or not as well and being on the internet, the moment that you are surfing err surfing the social media it it also shows that you know you want to connect you you do not mind sharing that's the purpose of coming to social media isn't it and don't forget


where we where we are on the social media okay these social media platforms needs to be funded by advertising, if not how are they going to maintain all these expenses is if it's not if it's not from you then it must be from the advertisers isn't it


and therefore they need this personal information to make themselves profitable so that err they can use the the the profits to improve on the customer service the user interface as well


so business businesses like marketing companies do need all these data


I wanted to the to to rebut what you have said they you are assuming that you know once they get hold of our personal information definitely they they're using it for something that is bad, but don't forget even when they sell our information to third party companies there there are laws and policies to govern us to protect us


if they commit any illegal, a policy policies or rules they will be charged and the company's themselves are more afraid on or or on on breaking such rules and also we need to see the bigger picture without big data without collecting all our personal our information


then there's there's nothing there's no data for them to analyse you know at the end of the at the end of the day big data is already shaping our future okay we need we need all these social media, uh


analysis to help improve society to help improve businesses err marketing strategies and without our information without giving our personal information then how are they going to


to improve and at the end of the day benefits us


so, with the sacrifice of of our personal information of then


there will be more engaging content experiences, at the end of the day you know the customers they want something creative they want something innovative, so where does all this comes from it comes from trying to analyse all our data if we do not give them our information to analyse


don't forget then, do you want a boring social media platform to go to nobody will want that and don't forget based on just uh my previous, point just now I shared that with the data uh information it also can create a safer environment


like I said, the the, the data can be used by the the AI the researchers to be able to to detect anything that violates hate speech or or pornography then if this content is is is is analysed it is this is analysed to to to


to say that oh okay this person is not of appropriate age and they will be in removed immediately making the platform safer


well like I I mentioned just now there are laws and policies to govern, and there we should not be overly worried that of the data being leaked out not I as I said the data is is encrypted and they also the the people the staff in the social media platforms


will also do regular checks, as well as server upgrades to ensure that there is no hackers there's no , err people trying to to hack into the data to try to steal the data and it since every sensitive data is encrypted the risk is actually extremely low so if we were to ensure that all the protocols are being followed then the


the the risk of being stolen our of our personal information it will it is actually almost zero


part one debate topic one


okay sure so uh thanks for, uh saying the proposition so uh but then uh although I agree with certain points uh that uh industrial revolution and all that, being in the modern society maybe it has no practical value but then uh I would say that uh uh first of all there's always another side to the story so uh for literature you can actually acquire a love of


books and develop the joy of reading and uh nowadays reading is actually a joyful educational and liberating experience because ah you are being transported from your circumstance into another world another time and uh another civilisation


so uh reading is actually the key that unlocks the door to the treasury of the world per se and then uh secondly uh is that reading literature actually helps you to think clearly write clearly and also speak clearly so in our modern society today our clarity of thought and


expression is a virtue which should be cultivated in uh a lot of situations so for example in schools or even the workplace our communication is actually key to uh towards expressing yourself clearly towards other people so that uh they can understand you and then no where you're coming from


so I believe that this is uh reading literature can help you hone your communication skills better, then uh my third point uh and most important point are to say that literature in fact has practical value because it gives you a better understanding of human nature and also the complexity of the human condition


so uh in this case uh uh it actually makes you less judgemental and more sympathetic, so uh there there are few examples that I would like to share so the first one is actually Aravind uh Adiga'S novel the white tiger is actually very informative about the dark side of contemporary india and then uh let's us know how we should view world culture and uh that part of the world


and then uh there's another chinese novelist uh #yu hua's# book, china in ten words is a brilliant commentary on contemporary china that uh we know of today so uh there's a lot of conspiracies there's always controversies surrounding uh china and then uh what we perceive of the country as a whole but then uh it's because of literature books like this that educates us


to be knowledgeable about, and also uh what's really happening uh in the country so that uh we know have a better sense of a world culture and also a better understanding of other people and uh through that or we can understand ourselves our roots better


yup so that's my uh opposition point


okay thank you ryan so I understand from the viewpoint uh which you mentioned that there's no need to understand the meaning


and then uh literature is actually uh sort of irrelevant in today's society especially for uh third world countries and developing nations so I think it's quite interesting that you say that because, for a developing nation their next step their next level will always be to become a developing developed country so they always aim to be higher to be a second world uh country or even a first world country like singapore US and uh some european countries


so uh based on this right because uh literature actually can uh teach, us humanity which is uh basically maybe in terms of practicality rather than that uh it's actually an essential need because it can help us to become sensitive and empathetic towards others so


of course there are many outlets and avenue to do this as well but then literature is actually the most direct the most simple way for our thoughts and emotions and uh developing imagination as a whole so especially for young kids growing up, so uh reading literature can actually help address the real world problems that uh we are facing right now such as the increasing intolerance and uh many stresses in life especially for


uh being for developing countries uh they always faced a lot of hardship it in uh in living uh living in their nation, so being more so for for them they really don't have any events or outreach programmes that they are able to attend being a developing nation so what they can rely and tap on is actually the most simple form of


uh form of, communication and uh read, and material which is actually books so books actually expose them to , many different aspects of life and uh help them to understand the lives of different people through uh


the story books and the stories and then from these experiences they learn important lessons and values so uh ya and then and then my uh finally because even though some people today especially for maybe first world countries or other parts of the world


maybe they have don't have as much interest in uh reading literature but then and then uh they prefer to play computer games and uh other stuff but then it still remains relevant to all of us because uh this this books can uh actually help us to explore different contact


and then uh let’s us know uh what it means to live and to live well yup so that’s my opposition


okay thank you ryan so uh the the point that you made as to saying, uh books and literature have do not actually propel the economy and then doesn't have a very significant impact on uh the country or the world per se so I would like to clarify this uh point because our topic is actually saying uh literature is the subject that uh whether


to uh explain whether it has practical value so uh my point made, was my points made was actually to highlight that uh literature in fact has practical value, over whether it has significant economic contribution so uh riding on this point of course there are many other methods that we can enhance communication and uh bridge the gap between us and other people


but books is the primary form of communication, for all the methods out there so even for movies motion pictures films almost half, half or almost all of, them are actually based and derived from books


so so for this point I I believe that through novels poems short stories or some dramatic text like uh maybe shakespeare confucius we actually understand where, culture comes from we know how world history is formed so in in this sense we can better know ourselves and then uh pass on pass this knowledge down to the next generation sometimes we should look at uh other


aspects, of what makes a nation so great instead of focusing on economy uh politics and then uh trying to just uh enforce a more uh industrial state of mind


okay thank you ryan uh I want to revisit a point that you made uh when when you uh when when you started again so uh you you've mentioned that


uh literature is uh no longer relevant and then especially for people living in third world countries because, their main purpose is to fight for survival and then to maintain the cost of living and then uh for this I I want to highlight a specific case uh from singapore we have a foreign labour worker that's actually a poet right now


so uh he he’s a foreign migrant worker that uh came here a few years ago and then uh he's actually uh very interested in uh, in reading especially uh literature books, and uh all that so uh he came to singapore to to to to maintain uh to to earn more money to uh feed for his family back in india


but then uh because of his passion for learning for literature he actually was able to publish a book so you might want to check it out it's called life of a migrant worker, it's uh one of the best selling books uh in recent years to come and then uh it's because of this he's actually able to provide even better for his family he earn the media spotlight uh because of


uh his, uh he his words and then his experience living here and uh the life lessons that he was taught while being a migrant worker uh in singapore, so uh I I would say that uh there are many other cases like that it's just that whether we are exposed to knowing uh how literature has in fact helped people to uh enrich their lives better then uh by enriching their life it actually turns into


a a very practical and economic uh form of value that's able to help them to, maybe earn more money or have a better sustainable lifestyle


part two debate topic two, okay so uh now our topic touches on the statement which says that as a society progresses there's little value in preserving its heritage


so for this topic uh first of all I would just like to uh start with uh we often hear about the importance of cultural heritage, so but then what is how cultural heritage and uh whose heritage is it so in definition heritage is the property something that is inherited pass down from the previous generations


so in the case of cultural heritage the heritage doesn't consist of money or property but then uh is actually refers to culture values and traditions, so I would like to say I support this uh statement uh there is in fact little value in preserving uh the heritage once and as a society progresses


so firstly uh I would like to say that cultural and heritage sites have already lost their relevance, as society progress over the years so uh for this point uh cultural and heritage sites they seem to have lost their economic relevance as the push for modernisation has placed a lot of emphasis


on economic prosperity and also development over intangible value of cultural preservation so because of this, conversation of cultural and heritage sites will mean the lost in opportunity, to improve uh further improve the economy of the country


and uh therefore as the main focus of a country is to have a good economy and then in order to ensure the livelihood of people cultural and heritage sites have already lost their relevance if it does not bring forth significant economic benefits


and uh for instance given singapore's recurrent problem of land scarcity lack of natural resources there is in fact tight regulation by local authorities to decide the purpose of land allocation for different purposes so whether it's for commercial


or residential more flats etc because every land here is precious and uh as long as they’re available they are of importance to help uh singapore create a hub that will improve the economy of the country so uh that's my first opposition point


okay thank you ryan so I want to further elaborate on the point you made which was uh your first point you said that cultural and heritage sites uh boost tourism and then in fact can further


heighten the economy uh based on this uh I I would say I have to disagree with this, because uh attractions, can be on par with cultural and heritage sites especially for the modern society today places like universal studios and uh many other uh attractions they earn


a lot more money than visitors coming into cultural and heritage sites which are uh very very much in the past and then not not many people unless they really understand the history behind the country and all that they wouldn't


uh necessarily be very interested in knowing more about uh this kind of, places so , based on this I I would say that cultural and heritage sites are is will only become increasingly out of touch especially for us in the modern society mainly because these places hold memories of the past and they don't really impact our present or the future


so and uh because of this if the memories brought by the cultural and heritage sites if they hold negative memories, then it will only result in people getting consistently reminded of, the bad memories which happened in the past and it doesn't bring any benefits to the country or the people because they won't even come back uh next time so some notable cases include uh world war one world war two industrial revolution and the many uh riots which happened place


uh the past couple of hundred years ago so uh I would say that, such historical sites especially for these kinds they have already lost their relevance because uh they are actually a thing of the past and they don't really belong in the present or future because it happened so long ago so revisiting all these bad memories this uh trying times what good does it


does for people it only brings them reminds them of the torture and the painstaking efforts that they made to overcome that situation, yup


so that is my point on uh, my proposition point


okay thank you ryan so uh based on your points uh that you mentioned uh heritage is still important


and then we should be constantly reminded of the things that happened in the past in order to know better about ourselves and then our roots better uh I I would say that I have to defend my proposition because, sometimes revisiting these memories does more harm than good


so for example for the world wars that have taken place for the riots for the many political situations which happened , when when whenever we revisit them there's always that nostalgia there's always that pain that uh that that is being caused by people who don't have the best intentions


so whenever we go back to these memories we are constantly being haunted by the past, so we are not able to actually move on with our lives and then to understand what what what should we do that can make our current situation better than before


so and then on uh to further elaborate because uh whenever we revisit our cultural heritage and then especially uh through maybe through uh many outlets or the many mediums we're actually


trying to, what what value does it does for us except uh trying to uh make us know uh the bad events that happened and then if it really helps people to move on with their lives and then to not make the same mistake twice then why is there so much pollution still happening nowadays why


are there still uh pandemics going on why is there still racism why is there still discrimination in many parts of the world so I just don't understand how going back to these unhappy and the bad events which took place in the past can help us


learn from our lessons because clearly many people nowadays they‘re we're not turning around for the better in a large extent I I don't see any uh significant, global campaigns that are successful in uh managing uh in in in steering us towards a better future especially for uh becoming a


a greener greener landscape and then uh especially for in the political level leaders are becoming kinder to citizens and uh trying to navigate crisis better, so uh it if if possible I would like to hear maybe more opposition on why why exactly there hasn't been a positive effect while uh while while you mentioned that it's important to preserve cultural heritage


okay can thank you ryan so uh thanks for emphasising the point uh which you firmly believed that uh, heritage can actually uh let us know what happened in the past and then to make sure that uh we don't commit the same mistakes again we don't make the same mistake twice but then I I I would like to say that


what what's the again does more harm than good because whenever you visit revisit this sort of a painstaking efforts that happened in the past, you get constantly you you're you're being constantly reminded of the bad things that you had to go through the many uh many many unfortunate circumstances which happened in the past so is it is it really relevant that we


keep on going back to these memories like like what what practicality what good does it really, benefit us from knowing the bad events which happened so because many a times whenever we dwell on the past too much we cannot move on with our lives we can never go on


and the by revisiting all these uh heritage all these events which took place a couple of hundred years ago, it seems to me that we're not really we are more concerned with the past than the present, like shouldn't all of us be more in the moment shouldn't we progress as a nation as time goes by so by going back to all these things which happened in the past it it's sort of like a like a backward move to


to me and and all all the others which, uh when whenever we go back to this sort of, a bad situations so uh for this I I I would stand and stick to my proposition to say that uh cultural heritage sometimes when when we progress as a nation all we need is more understanding so it's good that we


remember our past it's good that we know where we came from what are the tribulations that we went through, but there is little value in holding on to those kind of things like if we, keep dwelling in the events which happened in the past we are


unable to let go of them then it actually hinders us to move on with our lives move on with our careers becoming a better nation so especially you can see when whenever it comes to uh politics they don't really touch on what happened in the past


uh many many a years ago because there is no it's it’s not a relevant uh point to make, yup thanks


okay thank you


part three debate topic, three


okay thanks ryan, so uh while some people believe that spending money on arts and uh museums is not very useful and uh also you said that it should be directed elsewhere in order to


progress the nation make our lives better, I would have to say I disagree with this because uh arts are in fact worth every penny that is uh being spent on them so especially in today's context the government in many countries they spent a large part of large part of the budget not only on public services but also in arts and museums


so although I agree that uh it's important to spend money on public services I don't think that spending on the arts, is in fact a waste of money uh the first point I want to make is that uh arts and museums are considered to be a national interest because uh in certain countries arts have a significant importance and the government actually establishes and maintains organizations that preserve art


so uh a take for example canada USA UK even australia they have art museums all over the country that exhibit ancient arts and then uh people who are interested can also visit the museums free of cost


so and then besides that the cost of maintenance is actually undertaken by the government, and then furthermore uh because of this it increases the level of interest among people to know more about uh the arts and the cultural scene so uh and then therefore the government puts a


and a considerable amount of effort in order to preserve arts as a whole so this can be done in the form of museums craft exhibitions etc etc


okay thanks ryan so uh I would like to uh go back to the point you made which which says uh again you emphasise that arts is a waste of money so I would just want to highlight that art, is ace arts is a spectrum so it comes in many various forms methods


different outlets avenues so again uh you mentioning this point that uh it's a waste of money brings, me to my second opposition point because arts and museums in fact have an important impact on our quality of life


so again like I mentioned just now arts can be in a variety of forms and they actually proved to be uh great form of entertainment so take for example movies exhibitions crafts there are all derived from arts, an artist is not necessarily someone who is the painter


and artists can be a singer can be a graphic designer can be a filmmaker can be anyone who works on producing a piece of work that involves design or does production uh and production aspect to it


so uh many people, in fact get great pleasure in going to see a music and theatre performances and it's also important that the government assist such institutions and then uh we can all continue to provide entertainment to the public sometimes all we need in life is more uh leisure more entertainment


in order to let us destress let us feel uh not so uh bored at work and then make make us feel that there is in fact uh unlock our inner, kind kind of inner inner child I would say so that while we can uh still uh enjoy life and know the simple pleasures in uh living in this world


so I I would again like to say that encouragement for arts uh especially from government it will definitely improve livelihood and therefore boost employment rate of thousands of people who in fact based their career on arts


and so uh in turn this is also beneficial both to people who work on the arts and others who enjoy art, so it's kind of a win win situation whenever uh there's investment in arts and museums is not really a waste of money


it's a waste of money if you think that it doesn't, have a uh a practical value to it, but then in fact it lets us uh have a lot of uh understanding about uh different kinds of cultures it lets us have a more meaningful life per se lets us destress all this are more in fact more important than uh what what's really uh that that's bring the economic


value and then uh while economic value the, a lot of artists are in fact the highest earners of uh the world nowadays so especially for , singer songwriters performers all of them are earning


significantly more income than, other people who are not involved in the art at all so uh again I would like to defend uh my point which uh which I believed that uh investing in arts and museums is not in fact a waste of money


okay thanks ryan so you say that arts is non essential uh repeatedly in your, in your proposition but then for this uh I I would like to highlight that what is in fact non-essential are you going to define


arts to be non essential based on a straits times article based on one person's opinion opinion so it's it's in fact very uh it it's very interesting to me that uh you say that arts is a non essential in


hands down because in fact , arts is uh propelling the the world's economy and then uh you you brought forth examples like kanye west taylor swift and uh many artists which are renowed for


for their uh artistic abilities so in fact uh you you say that they monetize not based on their artistic efforts by maybe on their PR, skills on uh the the the products that they come up with, but these kind of people they are in fact businessman they're business people they‘re not true artist which make


a significant contribution to the world like the the the painters the architects out there which create a better environment for all of us so of course artist art comes in many forms many varieties so you're not wrong to say that


uh arts is uh you're right in saying that art certain parts of, arts, are non essential but then arts as a, whole we cannot live without it because if, we don't live without it we we we wouldn't be able to survive as an art as a as an ecosystem like take for example in here in our country our pledge our national anthem if we don't even have that kind of


arts, then how do we define ourselves as a nation how do we, make sure that other people uh see us in a positive light and then uh riding on this art is in fact the most profitable the most monetisable


industry in the world so take for example uh US so like there's so many successful uh people in the arts which are, trumping the world right now they are the highest contributors to uh world economy they in fact uh bring forth the countries' GDP and they uh do this through the many concerts the many uh outreach programmes that they


do so how how is this a a waste of money how how are their efforts a waste of money I just cannot relate to, the the point that, investing in all these talented people would be a waste of money because in fact they generate an output that is


thousands more that is so much more than what what we put into them, so again for this uh this brings me to the final point I I want to make which is uh which which is it it's a universally acknowledged truth that a country in possession of a first world reputation must also have a thriving art scene


so the arts again reemphasise it comprises of, many forms and many uh many many varieties such as theatre dance traditional arts visual arts music and also literature and then uh especially for singapore we are mainly funded by the state but for other countries they are


self sufficient the the USA they're all of them are largely supported through private donors and foundations there’s no impact there's no uh bad, bad vibes from uh support supporting the business at all it's all self funded so especially in twenty fifteen according to the singapore cultural statistics report eighty percent of art and heritage funding in singapore or five nine five


point seven million was provided by the government through state agencies such as national arts council, all these fundings have helped us to secure many sponsorships many deals many alliances especially from western countries so that they're able to invest in


but more more aspects of singapore they're able to hold the many exhibitions the many concerts in our indoor stadium in in MBS so , and and in fact there was a spokesman from national arts council he said that investing in the creation and appreciation of the arts does not only add to the national canon of art work we can be proud of


but it also on but also on the arts on an individual level to entertain and inspire provide an avenue for self expression learning and reflection, so uh for this mentioning all these examples and cases I I just want to say that very importantly on a community and international level the arts can really effectively connect


all our communities together and propel uh singapore or other nations to a higher global standing because nowadays, who is leading the world economy it's US and what how how come, how are they doing that at all it's because of the arts scene is because of the entertainment industry so while it’s right to say that okay it's important to focus on technology and the oh you know like nowadays uh


tag is the is the trend we should be be more aware of like using the internet and, harnessing on it but then, other than this this this is not, the only aspect of life so we whenever we use our smartphones we use our laptops our computers what are we watching


we're all watching things that had entertainment value maybe is through youtube video productions maybe it's through the many websites that we go to in order to search for information all this is considered to be an art form the type face that is being used


the web design the interface is all being created by an artist and all these are considered to be an art form so this is the point that I would like to make uh which, uh which opposes the statement


of our topic today investing in arts and uh I would like to stand by my viewpoint that are investing in the arts and museums is uh it's not a waste of money and rather is just a a perspective of how you view it and then uh if if if you only think that


anything should be linked back to economic contribution then I can assure you that uh investing in arts and museums will give you the output that you need based on the many cases that uh we see nowadays


part one debate, topic one, okay , so the first debate topic is literature is a subject that has no practical value in this case I the proposition uh support this statement this is because literature itself


yes it is basically useless in, the third industrial revolution and above, this is because mainly industrial revolutions preceding that has been targeting STEM science technology engineering and math


and this will continue to progress on uh as we entered the fourth industrial revolution the fourth industrial revolution of course refers to the advent of analytics and the internet so these are the subjects these are the subjects that actually affect


the economy and the industrial revolution so I would like to bring in the ethics of utilitarianism which is basically the need of the many which outweighs the need of the individual


so going by this practical knowledge , the good of the the good of the individual, sorry the good of the many outweighs the good of the individual so it produces the greatest good for the greatest number and it is the only moral framework that can justify such


such war such military force or such uh a statement, because you can't predict the future is actually difficult to know whether literature is really needed because who knows in the future we might not even be speaking in english might be in other languages or


it might even be in brain wave because who knows so literature, has a deadline coming, oh


okay I’m I’m thank you, ya zac ya it's your turn


okay thank you zac for that wonderful explanation for the opposition, I understand that, you said that, literature actually cultivates a form of joy of reading unfortunately I don't agree with that because this only happens when you have the free time if you are in a developing country such as in africa zimbabwe or even closer to home vietnam


you do not have enough time for leisure if I bring uh if I bring it aristotle with labour and leisure he would actually argue that, labour is more important than leisure, because labour will guarantee you your your most basic needs basic needs uh being the right at the base of the pyramid of the maslow's uh theory of needs so