uh is one of our selling points as a country so if we affect this then you know, it it will affect the tourism industry that we partly depend on even though it might be minuscule and any kind of savings that arises from uh the energy consumption arising from just a single cross a single MRT line would be negligible interface as compared to uh the impact against tourism arising from this and so


uh I I think I addressed four of your points but I would like to raise one further point uh perhaps you you you can share your views and that is the potential detriment to the, uh the nature reserve, so from my understanding is that the so called


they’re they are trying to tunnel through some bedrock uh and that is the uh and let me think they are trying tunnel through the bedrock and they they are arguing that, tunnelling through the bedrock will have minimal effect on the nature reserve however this position is uh based on inaccurate or undeveloped science because there's been a paper that I just recently found out in in published in twenty nineteen in nature that study


the effect of uh bedrock on microbial content of uh soil, and uh the fauna of the that rock on top of the soil surface and there is indeed a a very active communication between bedrock which includes granite uh which is what the nature reserve in our nature reserve is built on uh such that


affecting the granite layered will have a significant effect on the the the flora and fauna that exist on top of it, uh furthermore there's been another recent article published in BBC right that suggests that uh that stated that a single spoonful of uh soil from the virgin rainforest of uh the amazon right contains four hundred different


uh microbes including uh this microorganisms and uh fungi, uh and that's in uh virgin rainforest so the same thing must apply to uh our virgin rainforest as well, which goes to show that the effect of these microbial uh uh organisms which are proven to exist in our soil uh have a very uh


do interact with the the granite uh bedrock and hence that relationship has not been properly studied by the people who surveyed uh this this the the safety of this cross island MRT line


thanks for those points Sonji but I would have to respectfully uh disagree and the reason for that is because when was the surveying done well certainly before twenty nineteen and the reason why I cited this twenty nineteen paper is to show you that the interaction between granite uh bedrock and the


macrofauna and microfauna is poorly understood so the conclusion the basis of the conclusion of the surveyors is in itself uh fundamentally flawed and not updated which is why the twenty nineteen article that I suggested has increasing or greater force


and the second point is that I want to mention is that it leads to a precedent uh because if we want to build something under the nature reserve what other nature reserves in singapore uh might be built under and that uh held it have held at risk I think we're done right should we look at it yeah


okay


part two debate topic two


on the phone bro


(ppc)


(ppc), okay uh thanks thanks for that Sonji and I apologise for the laughter uh it was unrelated, so I I want to address a couple of the problems right a couple of the issues that you have raised the first one is uh you mentioned that the size of the problem


uh and that it's so big that it might uh it it gives the impression that a single person a a single people people's activities can't change, but let let me give you a recent example of uh what everyone experienced post COVID nineteen right uh post COVID nineteen the carbon emissions have been noted to decrease very drastically and in fact uh temperatures have if it had notably been seen to decrease because of that


so what this indicates is that , is that global action is required uh to meet climate change , now the issue then of course is how do we engage the the world or how do we engage sufficient number of people uh and my argument is that it is possible to engage people uh at that level because the COVID nineteen situation proves that


number one we can engage sufficient number of people and number two once we engage sufficient number of people we can see change, so now really the issue is how do we replicate this change or on a on a more sustainable manner, uh and on for the existing purpose of uh affecting positive climate change


so just because that uh it's not been done before is not a valid argument to say that it can't be done in the future, uh I think this really uh premises and pivots on strong regulation strong leadership strong politics uh and these are all three things that can be achieved to my band and once it achieved right uh man is indeed not helpless in the face of uh climate change


uh and and and now the other point that you raised to us the issue of uh moralization, that people uh they don't care because they don't see it right now this also relates back to ya this also relates back to my first point which is that uh a a lot of this is about regulation do you see


if this is the problem then that will be a solution if people don't see it then we have to make them see it and that's very easy you just have to have uh good strong , uh uh what do you what do you call it uh what's the word for press another word for press newspapers uh we just have


media coverage lah right so and and targeted media coverage to increase, awareness of uh of the effects of of climate change , so yeah so I take your point that people don't care because they don't see the uh see the harm or feel the harm so one of the important things that has to be done is to draw the connection closer first of all to exemplify that there is indeed a connection


between people's activities and their and the outcome and this can be done through education and then after that to uh physically show people the end effects or what what's happening uh so you mentioned all all all all these like floods and uh some brazilian what do you something like whatever lah right


so basically just have that more present perhaps more present in the media just to show people that this is the end effect of their actions so again this is not really you you you you have stated the problem but these problems and solutions and the solution is education increasing awareness through media


, okay thank thank thanks for that Sonji I think this really then boils down to uh the definition of man, in the title in in in the proposition right man is helpless in in the face of climate change so what exactly is man right you when you when you talk about uh


humanity as a whole we there are certain characteristics of of uh our behavior, number one we are a social being number two as social beings who live in super super communities right like cities, they necessarily require a a method of a means of governance uh and within a a type of a mode of governance is regulation having a government


so it cannot be it cannot exist uh cities cannot exist without this type of order, so your point about how regulation deprives people of, their of certain freedoms and for certain rights I I would say this is not a uh uh it it it is a bit of an obtuse argument because it doesn't account for the fact that it is through governance and regulation that allows


people to exist in communities to begin with so you cannot say that the very mode of our existence is in effect in itself uh removing our our rights, alternatively right the the reality rather is that within this regulatory framework people are uh supposed to do have that the capacity to choose whatever they want so their freedoms are intact within this regulatory framework now the regulatory framework


uh is related also to, the definition of man uh in the sense that it goes back to the point that you mentioned earlier about moralization you see we the the part of education is to tell people or to teach people that this is a preferable choice because the downstream effects are beneficial for for man


and the downstream effects are of course positive uh effect on our climate alright and so, through education right we we imbue into people uh the moralization effect the to make the choice to want to make the choice to to such that their actions affect positive climate change


and in that regard right uh the regulation that you say uh affects their choice uh or inhibits their choice or it's doesn't actually it's not really a choice in itself does actually permit them to realize what is uh the right thing to do


uh okay that's a that's a good point Sonji I take I take your point in that you have raised the uh the practical uh inefficiency or improbability of


affecting global a global effort now my rebuttal to that is, the fact that it has not been done is not proof of the fact that it cannot be done and again I cite the COVID nineteen situation because that clearly shows that a coordinated effort in the face of catastrophe is indeed possible


uh now the operative uh context here is of course a impending catastrophe ideally of course we can we can affect a uh a global coordinated effect without the presence of a, a a catastrophe uh although again I do take your point that or uh at least what your tried to infer


imply is that man can only effect to uh in the face of a catastrophe but here's where I would say that seeing from the COVID nineteen situation that a coordinated effect is possible this should uh evidence affect that with stronger regulation and governance


a global effect uh effort is it is possible, uh and it it's not something that will happen immediately, but, but incrementally I would say now the other thing that you mentioned was about the the ozone layer now scientifically it's been proven that the largest contributing factor to the the the the ozone holes are


uh CFC is the the chloro fluoro carbons, uh if you remember if you remember your primary school social studies , uh now the the interesting about the CFC is that it was you know after after global uh marketing right and awareness uh the people who use CFC the company right has stopped they just moved over to something else


and the reason why they move they stopped uh and moved toward to another thing is because number one they were told uh that this effect was they saw the evidence of of the ozone layer being depleted because of the CFCs number two there were cheaper alternatives


to use and so it really it really didn't effect that their business uh uh plan and so globally right uh CFC consumption plummeted uh on the basis of just to share evidence of the fact that the ozone layer was being depleted and uh just other alternatives


so similarly right uh the principal can be effected for other aspects of uh to effect other aspects of climate change, uh namely number one evidences show conclusively that man is affecting uh the climate negatively uh to particular types of actions and then after that to


uh present alternatives uh which are sustainable and viable if indeed a business activity is surrounding that that particular activity uh and to show that you know simply swapping or or changing your behaviour set can indeed uh uh it's beneficial to you on uh on a


economic level and on a environmental level and these are things that has been done before vis a vis the CFCs, and certainly it it suggests that it can be done in the future so uh the other thing that we we should be very clear about is that is that man has indeed affected climate uh the climate through our actions and if he has affected uh the climate he can un-affect it as well


part three debate topic three


uh thanks Sonji uh for starting uh debate you raise a couple of points I try to address them systematically uh can you guys hear me uh just heard like a little step hello you you can hear me


okay alright cause my I just heard my, okay so one of the first issue I wanted discuss was the point you raised about efficiency


and how, uh it saves it saves uh the company like costs in buying more green products now I would like to dispute that because, it's more often than not that green products are actually more expensive and the reason why they're more expensive is because there are additional processing costs so think about uh virgin pulp paper versus like


uh like recycled paper for recycling you have to go clean bleach and then reconstitute uh whereas for virgin pulp you can just uh obviously you will taking fresh trees you you don't really to have clean it you just bleach it it becomes white, uh and and the other aspect is that there's actually a disincentive from obtaining green products because sometimes green products you don't actually work uh as well as the the non green uh variety for instance you can think about like like uh uh detergents right


a lot of green detergents actually suck balls sorry uh there are not optimal, they‘re sub optimal at their functions similarly there are other green products that don't work as well, uh but ultimately the issue by green products is that they cost more and if you are uh a a company you want to reduce the cost of uh your your raw materials and so this is goes directly against business sense because the primary basis of make of businesses is to make the profit


uh and you want to increase your profit margin by uh reducing your raw materials and increasing your your final course, now you also raised the point about how uh like sixty three percent of millennials uh want to or are open to paying greater uh uh prices for products


now there're two issue there’re two uh rebuttals I would like to raise to this uh first of all the large chunk of millennials are uh which does include us but large chunk of it are people who are younger than us now the people who who do you think are the people who actually buy their products for them


it is not them but their parents do you see so it it so that that that's one issue their choices uh don't actually effect the the end result towards the economy it's actually their desires which shall being pushed onto their parents, uh soon the so you you you cannot make the comparison uh directly at them the second issue I wanted to bring up in relation to them is that the types of products are that you refer to the they prefer are usually like uh


like costly stuff like technological things and these are things which are provided by uh like bigger corporations so my point here is that uh green standards are, mostly adhered to or by, bigger companies who have the means who have the means to


uh effect this green appearance of it within their corporate governance framework, but if you are a a small uh business right you you are really trying to find every way that you can to save every single penny, you don't have the means uh to green wash yourself uh you don't have the means to comply to any kind of uh like environmental regulatory standards


you are there to very simply increase profit by reducing uh increase increase your profit margin by whatever means you know easiest means of that is to find the cheapest raw materials, uh whether it's green or not and the fact is that green raw materials are more expensive than non green raw materials so the bottom line uh is that it's actually not profitable


and uh associated with this point as well is that at least in the last twenty five years right the the the US spent more than one trillion dollars to address uh environmental threats caused by commercial activities, and at least in the later part of this uh uh this period the economy the US economy is shifted from an approximate trade balance


uh on a long term basis to chronic trade deficit and so this trend indicates that the environmental regulation is impairing competitiveness of the the US uh industry, the other issue that you brought up was that uh benefits are seen in the long run now I would say that it's very optimistic to think that a business can survive uh the competition for long enough uh to reap the rewards of any kind of advantage


especially when the competitors are taking advantage of lesser green modalities, so again bigger companies may be able to survive, but smaller companies certainly won’t and uh the other issue with a long term advantage is that it's unseen for the most part and even unknown in fact right you would I would argue that uh these long term benefits the so called long term benefits really predicate on some sort of faith


and you think about it uh business is not based on faith it's based on data and statistics and trends and, it's impossible to state uh what are the long term trends that arise from a particular so called green activity uh and hence right the very fundamental basis of saying yeah let's just do this because it's the right thing to do in the long run something good will happen


uh that is completely antithetical to the concept of of business which is yes we are doing this course of action because we know that uh it's it can lead to profit so that there there is a complete disjunct here, uh another thing I want to talk about is the point you raised about green marketing so uh it makes companies look good people are more willing to buy


uh these products but would you see I would argue that it there's another term for green marketing called green washing so green washing is the concept of making your company look as though it is environmentally friendly uh so you meet the standards but actually if you take a closer look


at what exactly is being done it's quite anything but green let me give you an example what about how uh like a lot of, uh a a lot of cafes uh like starbucks for instance using recyclable coffee cups, but if you look at this recyclable coffee cups right a lot more energy goes into actually making this recyclable coffee cup then from a a verb like uh a even a plastic cup


so that is so you see it's it's this green washing gives the appearance that it looks uh uh like uh environmentally friendly but is in fact not, uh so within this context right uh actually it's not going green number one but their leveraging on the appearance of going green to aid their business so it actually aids my point by saying that uh first of all they're not going green they're only projecting the image of growing green and


not going green actually makes them look uh or it's actually getting them more profit because they are leveraging on people's desire to want to be green , yes and I think yeah I I just want to also maybe backtrack a little bit and


talk about the definitions again okay so like if we look at the topic which is going green makes good business sense


uh uh


make clear is that the profit affects uh, well, it's an activity that affects shareholder value, and not not a a inherent want to avoid act like


like fines and such so what I'm saying is that there should be a line drawn between activities which are primarily driven by shareholder value versus those driven by regulations liabilities and public expectations, so in that sense right number one the basis for business is to making is to make profit and making profit is uh measured by shareholder value


and not any kind of expectation or appearance or or or a public expectation or public appearance of this particular company and in that sense right going green can't be considered to be a a good business sense because uh going green just costs more


thanks Sonji


part one debate one topic one


sorry should I start now


okay so the cross island line should be built under our nature reserve, so the upcoming cross island MRT line that will stretch from Changi to Jurong industrial estate, will run under the central catchment nature reserved


now the LTA had previously considered two options right the direct alignment option to build the line under nature reserve or the skirting option to build a line around the nature reserve, and, my proposition is that the cross island should indeed be built under the nature reserve and here are the reasons why


first of all it reduces commuting time by six minutes, the line under the CCNR will reduce travel time for commuters by six minutes as compared to the skirting option, now that's a lot of time on your hands that in terms of travel time especially for people who are


under in in terms of work as well as students attending school six minutes might sound like a very brief amount of time but in actual reality when you consider travel time it is quite a substantial amount


the second reason is that it reduces public transport fares by fifteen percent on the direct route, think about it transport fares are always rising annually however the fact is that if it reduces fifteen percent


for each commuters especially the working class in terms of the middle class and the and the third class it would be a huge amount of savings for, that, uh demographic, so the shorter and more direct route would naturally cost commuters less making it possible made possible under the current distance base fares


now the third reason as to why the, and the third reason as to why the cross island line should be built under our nature reserve is that it would lower construction costs by about, two billion


two billion in terms of the amount that taxpayers would avoid paying compared to the alternative skirting option, previously an independent panel of advisers engaged by the LTA, had said that the skirting alignment would result in more engineering challenges compared with the direct alignment however residents living in the area around the CCNR had also voiced concerns in the past that skirting the nature reserve would affect them


but when you think about it the fact that it's it results in two billion less, uh in terms of expenditure and where that two billion can be proportioned into other resources in terms of education in terms of military and several other alternative uh options right


that two billion is indeed substantial and it's a very good reason as to why the line should be built under the CCNR, finally, it is the fact that it would lower energy consumption when you think about it in the longer term right the direct alignment decision would prove to be more environmentally friendly as they would lower energy consumption compared to the skirting option


the government had considered concerns expressed by all stakeholders and the findings of comprehensive two phase environmental impact assessment, and they had come to the conclusion that , it would still


be beneficial to build the, to build the line under the CCNR catchment area because of the fact that it would indeed lower energy consumption, so those were my four major reasons as to why


the line should indeed be built, under our nature reserve I shall now leave it to the proposition I mean to the opposition to bring on their side of the argument


alright so to the, to the I'll I'll address your lowering in energy consumption point last I’ll address the other points said


why is lowering energy consumption important as in it's first of all it's important in terms of an economical perspective because naturally any form of energy consumption would would uh would cost, uh would basically generate a cost to singapore's economy and ultimately it would work its way down to the general populace because it's basically taxpayers' money that's the first reason as to why


uh lowering energy consumption is important from an economical perspective the second reason is what is basically in terms of an environmental perspective , naturally when you lower energy consumption it would decrease singapore's carbon footprint uh from like uh from a macros point of view and


I would presume that that is also an essential uh factor to be taken into consideration even though a normal person in singapore like a normal citizen wouldn't, wouldn’t naturally think about it from that point of view in in the fact that


they would and I mean lower energy consumption would transcend to, to, uh reduced global I mean reduced uh nationwide carbon footprint, in in terms of the environment,


actually that was my second reason the first reason was a profit orientated reason


okay so you know while you have brought up salient points uh in rebuttal to my proposition, first of all uh regarding you know the reduction of approximately six minutes as well as the lowering of public transport fares by fifteen percent as well as the reduction in construction costs by approximately two billion right you mentioned that


all of these would amount to pretty much being negligible because who would it ultimately serve as in like cause, there would technically be, uh huge strip like a four KM strip or something where uh it would not be serving a lot of people


however , DCRL uh is actually expected to have a daily ridership of more than six hundred thousand in the initial years and growing over to over one million in the longer term


and it will actually be around fifty kilometres long and almost half of its stations uh will be interchanges with other train lines making travelling on the rail network much more easier breeze uh so when you take for example right the


east west commuters uh possibly going from tampines to jurong west right can enjoy significant travel time savings of as much as thirty to forty five minutes when they switch to the CRL and


therefore the resilience of the rail network would be significantly strengthened and I would I would therefore argue that uh, the reduction in commuting time by six minutes it would still stand and in terms of lowering public transport fares by around around fifteen percent right on average okay when you consider annual uh annual increases in public fares uh it's usually around


three to four percent uh at max uh and you, possibly sometimes it's even less so uh fifteen percent reduction in uh transport fares, comparatively would still be pretty substantial uh especially when you consider savings


to people who do indeed use public transport and that usually is the lower middle class or the third class in terms of singapore citizens and, finally in terms of the reduction, in construction costs uh of two billion you mentioned that you know ultimately when you look at it from the macro point of view where


uh you're you're investing in like uh, an ecosystem which is uh, which ultimately is much more valuable , you have a you have a fair point but, two billion in savings is a huge amount like uh let's take it in perspective like if you consider the uh gardens by the bay project right


that in itself costed around ten billion so think two billion is basically around twenty percent of the entire project and just using that as an example that two billion, I would still argue could still be proportioned to uh to to alternative projects as opposed to being spent on this uh project per se


finally going into the , arguments you brought up about the research as to, the , the research as to the uh, ecosystem bedrock interaction with, at the at the micro level with the microbes found in terms of the soil


well that is a study that was done in two thousand nineteen it, it's just one study and it has not been conclusively proven in multiple studies right, and I believe that the singapore government itself when they engage the LTA which in term engaged


their own independent surveyors they clearly would have engaged professional surveyors and and naturally they had found that tunnelling deeper than the typical twenty to thirty metres underground, to as deep as seventy metres below the average ground level for the two KM stretch of the direct alignment under the uh catchment area uh


would actually ensure that the tunnelling is fully carried out, through hard incompetent granite rock which is actually extremely far away from the surface flora and fauna and, it’s, I mean it's unlikely that uh it will have a profound effect on the uh soil composition and in terms of the microbes that you mentioned and finally


uh on top of that they have also planned in terms of locating and optimizing the layout of the two work sites outside the nature reserve so for the first work site it will be along the island club road where it will LTA would use the singapore island country club


uh to use part of their non playing area to reduce any potential disturbance to the nearby flora and fauna and the second work site will be located at the western edge of the CCNR across the pan island expressway, which would still be subject to future advanced engineering study so the LTA is clearly committed to explore ways to further optimise the layout this worksites to minimise landings and any potential disturbance


therefore it's pretty clear and that , all practicable environmental mitigation measures have already been explored and , the effects on the


nature reserve would, not necessarily be as profound, or as a detrimental as you have made it out to be


should I start uh where is the prompt part two debate topic two


okay so the current topic that we shall engage on is the fact that the man is helpless in the face of, the climate change now climate change is a grave threat to human kind on a greater scale than any


other we have faced in our history scientists predict that climate change will bring stronger and deadlier storms diseases drought and food shortages within the coming decades, and urge the public to reduce their personal energy use, to prevent the worst case climate scenarios but ironically the gravity of the threat may be too great for people to believe their actions matter that is people experience climate change helplessness and what is that


climate change helplessness can be defined as the belief that, one's actions cannot affect climate change and therefore it can undermine the moralisation of climate change and personal energy composition, I shall respectfully ignore the laughter from my opposition that so now the fact that people experience climate change helplessness is the we borrowed this term helplessness from the literature on learned helplessness as they share key attributes


helplessness is best characterised by behaviour in behavioural inhibition , in response to the thread of negative events beyond personal control soon of for example this study by seligman and colleagues first first observed learned helplessness in dogs who are exposed to


uncontrollable electric shocks the dogs quickly learned that their actions were futile and instead of trying to escape will just lie down accept the shock shocks and cry that is indeed what is happening in today's


current global context climate change shares this fundamental features of help of the third helplessness situation the prospect of, extreme negative outcomes that seem beyond personal control, the size of the problem of climate change feels


wholly unmatched to the size of uh individual actions now think for example right it's hard to imagine that turning up the, air conditioning on the hot day has anything at all, to do with the average global temperature and is harmful consequences for life on our planet even when we do make energy conscious


choices the true effects of our actions can't even be seen they're invisible to us we do not see the droughts prevented or, the life supposedly save by our personal energy conservation instead we are bombarded with ever more severe warnings


about the devastation and climate change would that that climate change will, bring right such as the string of alarming headlines for instance uh the US climate change uh in terms of heat, uh australian wild bush fires right brazilian forest being burned down so in conclusion


the like seligman's dog experiment those who believe climate change is unstoppable may be prepared to just lie down and take it rather than to accept uh and to sorry rather than to act to prevent the negative consequences


yeah


not that's a fair as in that's a fair point and and actually is an excellent, point to be fair but what I've, I one thing that I can principly point out, about the recent COVID nineteen is even if it surely or if it possibly led to uh you know uh reduced carbon footprint


then and and uh you know like much less environmental degradation right due to far less energy consumption right uh the principal point is that it was government not just government regulated but it was entirely forced


upon the population of singapore as well as other countries by their own governments right in in the sense that none of it was, necessary voluntary by most of the specific country's population be singapore or any other, country so essentially you're going down the line of saying that you know sure we can use media we can use uh you know like greater education we can use regulation but the fact is when you introduce regulation it’s alternately not really a choice


right as in and and I mean regulation might still necessary arguably be a choice because of the fact that uh it is passed down by by the by the electorate uh which we would have voted for


there is a country's uh citizenry however if you're considering like for instance the extreme of the COVID nineteen situation, that was definitely not voluntarily at voluntary at all and if that is to be done you know in a similar situation in order to ensure that uh there is far less energy consumption you know uh the carbon footprint is reduced and environmentally uh


everything is , on done on a much uh uh environmentally beneficial skill uh it it would basically be how what's the word for it it would kind of be infringing upon a lot of citizen rights to choose in the sense in terms of uh for example like I pointed out like whether


not to turn up the air conditioning and all of that so that is one area I feel that uh whilst what what you said is excellent I mean and I completely agree with you that is one area sadly uh I feel that uh a lot of people might actually be against


and and they might uh I mean, obviously protest are not allowed in this country but uh they would possibly even vehemently object to it, I I felt that would be one point that you might want to take into consideration


okay understood another point is that to consider is that uh whilst all these, sounds feasible from uh from uh what do you call theoretical


point of view right from a practical point of view, it's it requires massive, human intervention to to uh possibly affect climate change and I would argue that is not necessary possible in in given the current


global context okay if you take into consideration like your, five bigger nations right uh that, are basically the, biggest global consumer of energy and the biggest polluters on the world I meant talk, about US the US uh india china and russia as well as uh brazil right these countries uh I mean and and these countries basically through all several years of conferences had always


discussed the you know like theoretically they had all this UN nations also have other conferences where oh ya we will try to reduce our energy consumption we will try to implement certain uh procedure and protocol in term of like uh


you know cars being converted to uh let’s say from using diesel which is more pollutive to let’s say certain type of uh uh renewable petroleum and several other measures right, they had they had all put forgive me they had put all of these uh so called lovely measures in


place on paper and this this has been like running for twenty thirty forty years odd right and every five or ten years when they meet in all these global conferences or regional conferences whatever sort of conferences right at or treaties that they sign


the the truth of the matter is none of them have ever met any of the standards uh or set in in the previous treaties or conferences and then they’ll always beat around the bush and then basically say !hey! you know like, uh oh we tried and we actually reduced it by so and so X amount of levels right but


the truth of the matter is they never met the actual standards that they met I mean the actual standards that they've set up and uh ultimately the , forgive me the holes in the ozone layer for instance I’m just using one example right had actually been increasing tremendously so like currently there’re two huge holes in the ozone layer one over the antarctic


and one over the uh I'm if I'm not wrong the atlantic I can’t remember but uh and it’s primarily it’s proven scientifically to be due to the uh huge energy consumption arising from


obviously throughout the world but the majority of these five global nations right I mean sorry these five huge nations so i’m just using this as an example to prove that how even on the uh governmental skills when they come to they come


to agreement right uh where they will indeed seek to implement measures to uh ensure that climate change can, possibly be realised it’s include not actually uh manifested so what do you have to say to that you know


okay part, part three debate topic three, alright so now we embark on the discussion about going green, makes good business sense


so to understand the benefits of a business going green we must first understand what the term entails, right when a company makes a concerted effort to reduce its negative environmental impact that is going green it can manifest as taking measures to reduce utility costs to starting recycling and reusing procedural programmes to buying green products and services in the service of the company


now what are indeed the benefits of going green, so first and foremost, it's efficiency, increasing energy efficiency saves on utility costs, reusing existing material in creative ways means that fewer


dollars are spent purchasing new stock to create products and streamlining transportation of employees or shipping save the earth as well as substantial, amounts of money so although there is often a bit of money, to be spent initially in establishing the green business procedures it saves a


lot of money over time, we're thinking about the long term and ultimately let’s let‘s think about it from all companies' perspectives despite all the, all the uh you know like happy uh corporate governance that they talk about uh in order to ensure that you know the


public has a lovely image of them ultimately every company cares about their bottom line, right and going green actually makes sense in terms of the bottom line, it is actually profitable in the in the long term, the next is in terms of the green marketing awareness you know a business going green


right now this is where the corporate governance portion comes in right it place along those lines as well a business going green makes customers feel that it is a trustworthy business, now in two thousand fifteen Nielsen surveyed over thirty thousand consumers from around the world and sixty-six percent of those consumers


agreed that they would pay more for products from sustainable sources, mind you ah say pay more so that in itself serves the first purpose when I talked about the company's profitability right so there are first of all the company protects its corporate governance image and at the same time it kill two birds with one stone right by increasing its profit margin


right and that same survey also showed that this number jumped to seventy-seven percent amongst millennial consumers that's that means our generation my friend, so green businesses demonstrate that sustainability is part of their mission and company culture


word of mouth is the most valuable form of advertising and green businesses can't buy that kind of publicity this not only bolsters a company's existing market base but extends it, people who may never have heard of the company may pay attention to one that believes in being eco-friendly


right, and the third is the impact on employee morale, going green doesn't only foster positive feelings from customers, employees themselves feel safer working for greener businesses, involving workers in a company wide green initiatives boost morale employees feel that their health is cared for and they aren't simply expendable commodities


this is also a good way to reduce turnover because employees don't want to leave a place that makes them feel as if they're part of a work community that cares now you take, just take err Google for example right in in every country uh, Google in itself right has obviously implemented green initiatives but when you take uh in terms when you take into consideration how their employees feel about their culture about how the company self runs uh its its measures and


and therefore their morale is therefore boosted you know a few years ago bank of america introduced a new incentive program that offered employees a discount for installing solar panels in their home, and also offered up to a three thousand dollar reimbursement incentive when customers buy a proven eco-friendly vehicle


by demonstrating a commitment to a healthy world environment companies such as bank of america prove that they care about their employees' world as well which is beneficial for employee morale, I shall now leave it to the opposition to possibly bring up any salient arguments


is the opposition there


I can't necessarily hear you, okay now I, yeah now you're clear


okay those are good points that you brought up but the first point I'd like to address is the issue that you mentioned that in the last twenty five years the united states had spent more than one trillion to address environmental threats caused by commercial activities right and therefore it uh consequently resulted


uh in a shift from a trade balance to a long term basis in terms of a trade deficit, actually that, can arguably be seen uh as to I mean that actually buttresses as to why going green makes good business sense because if you see


uh countries in themselves right in a sense they are themselves uh economies of a country are in in in itself uh on a macro level a business right uh constituting of obviously millions of companies that make


up, they're , that make up the uh the economy in itself right uh, the fact that a country like the united states supposedly the global powerhouse right had to spend one trillion to address environmental threat


uh imagine if, at least, even twenty percent of these environmental threats had been addressed right, uh in at priors in prior stages several years uh before this where


the constituent businesses companies cooperations had implemented certain measures uh in terms of going green, the imagine the amount of savings that, that could have indeed been


, basically uh, the number of save the amount of savings that could have been capitalised on right so, that in itself actually, proves that, going green makes good business sense because ultimately even on a global macro level for


country several countries be it developing or developed countries they would be saving so much even in terms of that macro level and then when you break it down to the micro level right, uh this is a separate point uh


it makes good business sense because currently most states uh, in terms of legal and regulatory compliance okay most states and countries have laws on the books that mandate environmental compliance in various ways and forms to varying extents and every year more laws are port passed on local state federal and


nationwide levels as we understand how positive going green is in terms of affecting earth's ecology, so going green means getting ahead of the curve for each individual company you know if certain green laws aren't on the books they soon will be and uh and it gives the company a leg up to begin as soon as possible


the the US environmental protection agency launched its twenty twenty action agenda, and it's truly mind boggling mind bogglingly comprehensive plan to reduce carbon emissions while promoting sustainability and has actionable consequences and by actionable it means profit


uh reducing consequences right as well as incentives for being uh ahead of the green curve so in that sense it actually makes very good business sense, for companies to go green because they would be ahead of the legal and regulatory compliance curve


, and on top of that uh, I buy your point in terms of uh not every company can see in the long term, alright of uh possibly going green because their competitors might be utilizing non green initiatives uh to reduce costs gain the competitive advantage and uh annihilate the small businesses out of the running that that is fair


but when you take into consideration the majority of huge uh, companies or huge corporations global corporations be it I mean banks right these are, billion trillion dollar corporations be it, the uh internet startups like Google uh I mean


Facebook all all all of these huge corporations if you take into account the uh, global reach of these corporations the fact that if they chose to go green uh they won't face such uh similar problems as all your SMEs your small and medium size enterprises right so at the very least it is arguable that uh it would make


excellent or at at the very least good business sense for such huge corporations to go green because as I argued from the start they get to stay ahead of the regulatory compliance, it's a curve right uh the fact uh


there would be a huge impact on employee morale and the whole green marketing awareness as well as green uh being a status symbol, in the eyes of the global populace uh, would ultimately


make excellent business sense, and it would indeed still be efficient and, ultimately lead to, savings especially for these bigger companies


animal lives should be as equally valued as human lives


okay (hmm) just a minute, so when it comes to animal lives being as equally valued as human lives, my proposition is that all lives are equal and that there are many similarities between human and animals in terms of the way you know we we live


we communicate and the body language so this explains why I think that animal lives should equally be valued as human lives, is


then now I do I continue or do I wait for him to me to challenge me, oh


okay, since ancient times, animals have existed way before human beings, animals do not need human beings in, their err, in their lives in fact


okay it's more like us human beings needing animals for our survival for our entertainment for our pleasure, to your point why was there even a zoo, what was the purpose of having that zoo, to


keep the animals out of their instinctive natural habitats, you know by by by enclose it , by keeping the animals in enclosed uh habitats they do not get, to to behave or


or to uh, react as how they would naturally be you know roaming in the in the wild, and with regards to the toddler falling into, the cage I mean, human beings we have a choice


and we are, you know we're we have a well developed uh, system in us so, it could be an accident it it could be deliberate we do not know the toddler might, just want to you know, or or might be really too excited to see an animal and and resulting in in you know the unfortunate death but this does not mean that


at the animal lives is not as equally valued as human lives right, also, when we think about the main differences between humans and animals, it is simply just our human ability, and our uh


if human ability to solve difficult problems to have a a set of complex reasoning in us, and also to, to be able to express our feelings err and and for each other for for human beings to understand each other


as for animals they do they do have feelings the way they express themselves might be different ranging from animal to animal and and it's unique to them right we human, cannot understand how animal feels


but it does not mean that it does not mean that they do not have feelings so with that I would like to still emphasize again that animal lives should be as equally valued as human lives


, this is human being selfish, again like I mentioned animals can survive without humans whereas humans required animals to survive, right, human has caused so much harm to the environment


and that animals had to adapt, to, to the damages and the destruction of the habitats and to continuously seek for new places , now let me ask you a question why is it that you know some human cultures and religion actually value animals lives above their own


you mentioned earlier that animals do not, do good, for human beings, but why is it that we hear stories and news of pet dogs , you know in the recent COVID nineteen case where


the dog kept waiting for the owner to return at the same spot not wanting to leave you know for fear that the human owner might, might not find that, so that that is one example of how animals have thoughts of their own but could not speak up for themselves


and so human beings are here being well human beings, being blessed with a with a more complex reasoning system complex or rather intelligence, should be able to comprehend such things


and understand that you know animals are here to be like what you mention our companions and that we should value them equally because, you know animals exist with us and to some extent for us


again I can set examples of how you know police canines, beat the bullets for their handlers, in time in times of dangers and and why is it that you know, the the bond between them must so strong


it's it's clear cut that animals can understand exactly what is expected of them in times of dangers and crisis to protect the human beings that they serve, so why is it that animals have to go through such length and sacrifices for the human beings


!wow!, over here human beings are destroying their habitats, are are forcing them to behave in ways that they are, not born to behave, for , domesticating them for her hunting them down killing them


where's the reason behind all of these actions of human beings there there seems to be none, so again, I emphasizes that being as human should


be uh equally valuing animal lives you know as much as we value ours, but, but so far you know human beings are just too self centered compared to animals and that, , we do not we failed to see that


we are equally important and that we we coexist here


that's called animal instinct right, that's called animal instinct, while we kill each other for other reasons like you have more money than me, and I'm and I'm jealous of you where where's the logic in that when when we kill each other for food that's just basic instincts of survival you know every


living thing needs air food and water to survive is simple as that, yeah and when it when it comes to like what you mentioned us building a zoo for them and why do we even need to have the zoo concept or safari concept when animals can be left to you know roam freely on their own


sure sure we we we human beings can protect ourselves, uh, uh as much as we protect animal lives the the the challenge here is that it's not proportionate human beings protect human beings way more than they do for animals


this is skewed right if it's a fifty fifty whereby uh that delicate balance is this present this, this will sum up the entire debate topic where animal lives are equally valued as human lives, right now the challenge is that human beings are protecting are doing more for themselves


compared to what they can do for the animals again during this COVID nineteen how many zoos have emphasize that they need to kill of all the animals because of the lack of food for them, right, so why why is it that we're making such difficult decisions towards the animals when we were the ones who uh


went to you know, and keep enclose them and keep them keep them in the zoo, so this is what I've been trying to, to, emphasize here that you know animal lives are equally valued as human lives we we should not we should not be trampling on their lives just because we deem fit within that


you know look, this dear should be back to the to the, to the tiger or whatever because it's it's it's no longer of use, to us, (ppc)


(hmm), but do we really fully understand them we don't, we we don't either so it's it's , it's clear you know


we we we we are just separate entities


change is always good


yes please


okay shall I start (ppc) alright change is always good and I fully believe in that, we all know that change is hard, you know change is hard because we are being


to do the same thing over and over again regardless if something is good or bad, so, why I say change is always good is because, no matter how challenging it is to go through change


it will result (ppc) in a positive consequence, we get to improve ourselves, you know, by moving out of our comfort zones, and that we can discover, more than what we are already doing


than what we already know of ourselves, and this means, progress in our own lives, and, subsequently it will result in progress, you know, for for for for more things


from for from for the bigger picture , and such change such progress will continue to influence many, others around us to become better , and progressively as a society, we will we will, improve with changes


so I I believe change is always good


have you heard of change is the only constant, there's a quote that has been you know shared among many people many times , why is it that that quote is so, popular is because


changes, are occurring around us every single day let's talk about, change in our age, do we have a choice we don't, right so we grow older yet


the majority of the population, are are embracing it, they're you know , they are doing what it it needs to be done, to, to each gracefully, this one example of change is always good


secondly, let's talk about this sudden you know COVID-ninteen changes that were being forced, on us it gave many people, the opportunity, to experience what working what from home is like and you know


the the general response from, more singaporeans will be there they welcome this moment, I'm not saying that it's a good thing you know we we we we we get to experience it due to a pandemic, but what I'm trying to say here is that change is good


a change is good for all of us, besides this working from home instance there're many, many creative people, who were able to, you know, make a better living


out of this this change where, they do deliveries they starts they starts home baking, you know they they do, more virtual online business online classes


this change brought about, a myriad of opportunities for people who would otherwise never be able to reach out to so much audience, on a on on the virtual platform


okay but it's, it's in arguable that change is good, because, look at the technology in our lives right now, where have all these innovations and improvements come about from


it arises from changes, okay the desire to constantly improve, and willingness to embrace change, to achieve a better result, and to you know adapt to changes, to have a a a a better quality of life you mentioned that you know if


change is not good because, not everyone can adapt to it while then, that is an individual problem, it does not mean that change is not good, it simply means that that individual is not able, to adopt and embrace the change


because if everyone else, is is moving along, err the, the the trend and and and changing themselves for it including the elderly in singapore or or elderly anywhere else in fact


we we cannot, uh, we cannot just say that change is not good because of certain individuals, who are not able to change their mindset, who do not desire, to embrace change so that they can't potentially become better


without change ya sorry go ahead


again it's uh, the the mindset of the human being, is is nothing to do with change, being not good in in what you just mentioned earlier, we all know, at the rate that technologies progressing


err, there will be redundancy in human labor for certain industries in fact in fact if you look at it it could be a it is it is a good thing, why labour intensive industries


will, result in certain fatalities or certain accidents to the human beings, okay, with such changes with robotics you know taking over the the the automation process


human beings can do other things say for example, err someone who used to be working in a manufacturing plant got made redundant and took the time to improve the skills on, say baking again home baking and manage


you know to emerge and to make a better income by being a home baker, how is that change not good, momentarily when that change comes it could be sudden it could be painful or awkward, but


the outcome of that change is good, so long as the person is willing to embrace it, and to adapt to it, during this this, pandemic we've seen so so many, people with success stories of how changes


has, has done good for them, we hear naysayers we hear people complaining everyday, at the same time of how this change is terrible, where did that come from it simply comes from


the personalities, being so enclosed and not receptive to new ideas not receptive to changes they results in such feedback, so I, have to say change is always good


it is due to changes it is all thanks to changes these days, oh not disease is all thanks to changes, that allow, people of different cultures, you know to, to co exist harmoniously


let's let's look back and and and think in terms of even at even bigger picture, of how racism previously used to be so prevalent, and with the change in mindset, with with such, changes happening


it allows people of different races religions to really work together and and , and coexist, better, so change is always good


abortion should be banned


okay abortion should be banned , where would abortion come from


it comes from a series of careless behaviors, therefore abortion should be banned you know to prevent to forcefully stop, such reckless and careless behaviour


abortion should be banned, on on the basis that it, a life is developing, and that all lives should be of consideration whether is fully developed or not


this is why, I think that, abortion should be banned


well, life begins at conception, that and therefore abortion itself, violates the right to life of the fetus, also let's let's talk about abortion being


harmful harmful in physical and mental aspect, to the person going through abortion, there has been example of you know women


going through abortion and resulting in infertility, it doesn't mean that she wanted abortion right, it simply could mean that, err, she's being forced to go through abortion just to


not have to uh, shoulder the responsibility, of taking of, the child when the child was born, so again right from the beginning why would there be abortion


that there is there are many reasons but, fundamentally majority of the reasons, come from, the behavior that are not well thought, and, with abortion


being being a leeway, for the already irresponsible behaviour, you know, with abortion comes further irresponsibility, in in in in in the people


so abortion should be completely banned, as a sign, to to deter, completely such unwanted pregnancies, to send a very clear message


to people out there that, with that you need to be responsible, for the things that you do


okay let's let's talk about the baby, being born with, certain down syndromes, who we have seen many mothers


who still, you know made the decision to carry, the babies all the way to to birth and and even as of today still tend for their their kids, right this this itself doesn't and cannot


justify that abortion is allowed, because all lives are equal, someone with certain, or or a baby with with with certain uh , less fortunate syndromes


does not make them any less human compared to a well developed baby, with that said, we we should never never use abortion, as an excuse to terminate lives


and play god we are not right also, abortion has physical, damages and


mental damages to the person going through it, so why why do we have, something that is harmful created to err


to to to let those people okay okay let me correct myself, in the beginning there should not even be something called abortion, why is that so, there should not be a need even for abortion, when, people plan or when people do things that


are are responsible, so this is a classic example abortion is a classic example of how, we human beings have created issues, and found a solution


to to resolve this issue when the solution itself is, also an issue so we're just we're just creating issues and adding more issues to the society, that's my take on abortion being a a social issue


and that it should be banned


it it okay, you brought up this sexual assault topic several times during this you know this debate, now sexual assault is unfortunate


but there should be lost to to prevent it to ban it, right it, it it it should not be it should not this this one one topic or one subject should not be the reason why


uh, or or rather should not be, the only reason, for abortion not to be banned, we we cannot simply say that uh you know abortion should should not be banned because of sexual assault right in the beginning sexual assault is not


appropriate it should not even exist in society, is is a totally wrong concept, so with that being taken out of the debate with that topic been taken out of this debate, it will bring to my point that abortion should be banned


why why are we condoning, you know the the criminals, who committed sexual assault, who who cannot control their, their instincts you know


who does not have a a moral value in them, and and why are we condoning such people, by saying that abortion should not be banned


but we but this, this argument tends to, tends to, you know show abortion as for form of contraception which is actually very crude, and and and and very drastic


in this day and age, that are, it there are many types of contraception available, okay , we should not use abortion as as one, one form of contraception because


of of the, negative effects, of abortion , be it a psychology psychologically physically, abortion should never be, an option, to to prevent unwanted pregnancies


so, more can be done to do to to educate, err, the general public and, more can be done to to deter, you know err, sexually assaults but it should not


hence on the fact that, abortion should not be banned, because, using abortion as a tool as an option is, not right, there should not be the choice given, to to anyone you know for for doing an abortion because ultimately for those who who


are not a victims of sexual assault, you know have have have to go through this err pregnancy to to to make them aware that you know that this is a life that that they've created as as a result of their irresponsible action


and that, they they need to find a way to to live with that, abortion should not should not be banned, just just so simply as a form of contraception or as a form of you know


uh shirking responsibilities,


part one debate topic one


apes apes so I beg to differ so in twenty sixteen a harambe in US ohio zoo cincinnati zoo got killed because why because a toddler fell into the cage


and at that point of time, why did they choose to kill the gorilla instead so it's it's more of like a human life at that point of time is that stake, so why should there be an equality in terms of you know value as human life as is an animal lives so can a animal life bring to court and charge if they're killing each other I don't think so because based on the past history


there were some you know animal activists trying to get, and and and a dog suit because the dog killed another dog so based on this debate I don't think you know animal lives and human lives are equal in that perspective I would say is more on the morality of like you know


should human and animal live in harmony and while the things that you know we're valuing because human life are still, valued more because it seems like you know we are we have the smarter uh intelligence in terms of you know over the animals and we're not killing those animals that we want to kill but of course in terms of survival but survivor


some animals are killing each other for food so what what why do we value this equally I think human life is still above the animal lives, that's from now that uh opposition points of point of


so everything aside from you know the spirituality the metaphysics and feelings and also you know coexist in the planet right so from the human point of view is, we we are we're not saying that we are superior in terms of comparing our life with


animals but more of like you know can they be in the discussion of like making decisions for themselves or for others so we do have like what you mentioned you know share feelings but ultimately


you know in the perception and communication can animals be part of this discussion, which bring back to the point that you know human beings are there to build a better environment for everyone for even animals be it you know as a companionship entertainment but of course


is still back to the moral question we value them as much as I love them but I don't think it's equal because a lot of things we are we humans are making most of the


decision making building the whole environment for them as well, and even human are protecting them but at the same time are they trying to survive in their own world of you know animal kingdoms they are so that there are still a lot of things out there like you know we we we are still in the position where we are still


over them or rather, more of like co existing but we still have human life value higher than an animal life because we are in the in in this discussion with humans so there's no animal making this discussion point with us


feelings may be there but can they be in this discussion are they you know are they have having the same uh sentiment as us are they trying to attack us are they trying to you know, trying to survive like you know an~ancient days the apes


are so called the humans but they are also the same thing they are trying to survive will they kill humans yes they will just just for survival as well so I don't think it's equal but you know it it's more of like how you value each other rather than equality in this sense


so yeah I guess it's it's still back to the sentimental feelings you know uh in terms of pragmatism you know how how can we value them equally because


we are doing most of the work to to you know make this environment , more friendly for everyone but it seems like they're not making anything easier for human beings so for example I mean


in the safari you know some of them might be hunting but some of them are you know feeding them giving them the food like even for some of the zoos, you know that they are helping them but some some of the animal animals don't even care so it's not like you know we don't care but it's more of


we value our life more because we are making the whole planet a better place for everyone it's not being self centered but it's more of like you know it it it's still a survival survivalrity of you know human beings over them because we are building an environment for everyone


so if it it it it's more on selfishness no I don't think so because it is fairly feeling oriented sentimental towards the animal life but are those people you know really


turning to a vegan and not kill animal life no they're still a cycle a food cycle there so animals are eating animals humans are eating you know animals to survive at the same time as well , and also you know if they are not killing each other why should I mean if they're still I mean if the animals are killing each other to survive why are we valuing them equally as humans so human you know murder someone for some reasons of course but at the same time


animals are purely killing each other for survival, so I feel that, so correct so even human we don't kill each other for food


ya so others but


so imagine the whole street roaming of lions tigers is this a safe environment for us I don't think so because we still need to be, in a very safe place, to survive as human beings so if we have all these animals running around creating havoc are they


being you know selfish as well are they trying to take over the whole planet as well so I I guess it's more of we can co exist but in a way that you know we are we need to protect ourselves from them


and because animals may go crazy at times


(hmm)


so I I mean I'll still beg to defend in terms of that cause (ppc) I mean situation are different


when in when this in a wild there's no such thing as a quality, so we are protect each other, at the same time human life you know why why in all those uh ancestors where human lives are at risk they they have to choose to kill


the animal because ultimately we don't know what the animal will do to the human as well, can we understand them they can't can they understand us, I don't think so because if it's equal that means they have to understand us we have to understand them at the same time


so, so that's why I feel that there's always you know there's no equality in terms of you know humans and animals there should be someone you know controlling or rather you know managing the environment


to have a you know better planet with coexistence so if it's equal are they you know building things for us are they doing things for us I beg with differ on that


yup, debate topic two change is always good


okay so I, think change is not always a good thing, so although it may force force us out of like you know prior habits and might impose a better one one us but it can also be though you know stressful costly and it might even disrupt our life


but you know it it's things like sudden change in life, that we may have to be forced to adapt but is this something that everybody should or need to go through I don't think so because changed for the cheap change of change for the sake of changing


is always a risk so people always say the grass is always greener on the other side I don't hundred percent agree because, it might be better or it might not be because there's a risk behind every change that you are going to make in terms of you know career switch for life changes because some some some of some of the life changes are unexpected changes


and you're being forced to adapt to things that happens you know problems are created by the speed of things that's occurring and the threats that happening throughout the times like COVID nineteen we're forced to change habits


but is it getting better I don't think so is the economy getting better because of such rapid change of like you know natural disaster or anything I don't think so, but we are only being forced to adapt so that's why I feel that change is not always a good thing it's inevitable


at a certain point of like time where you know like for example technology do we need to change at sudden speed I don't think so because, are you happy with what we are is more of like you know forcing something of things that you might or might not be happy with so ultimately I feel that change is not always a good thing yet


okay so but I do agree, some changes that some changes teach us to adapt and you know help us develop resilience but, only if we understand our own capacity for you know growth and learning so to a certain extent certain things we know we are able to adopt and you know it it helps us grow but it's not always everything that changes


help us understand things that is moving because certain change might not be something positive certain change are positive hence you know if if it is everything is changing and change is always good I don't think all changes are good


I feel I still you know I still think from a personal, of I mean mean or rather not, personal but you know in general point of view a lot of things were being forced to change and some of things that


we might not want it to change because it's really disruptive like what I mentioned in the beginning so this COVID situation changes because of situation like this everybody needs to go online but


is this something that is, you know adaptive for every single one of them is it for every industry they can do a major change of this for example manufacturing


can it be change certain things yes but certain things no there're still a operational process for a lot of things there's still a lot of parts for even, personal developments for changes so ultimately it's still back to whether you know your own capacity of growth


whether are you able to move, when there's changes occur, and how you adapt to it because if you can't adapt to it it might brings out the worst case and it might not be better for yourself you're taking a lot of risk you know disrupting your own life you know changes that


might not even need to be happening to to things that you have already gotten now and you know can it be better I don't think so can it be worse it might


so, so back to the same thing right so when change occurred occur occur occur, for for example industry wise like they are trying to make a lot of things automated which ends up for companies you know making a lot of stuff redundant


which from a business point of view it helps for the business but for the people, if they are being made redundant because of such changes then I think I I still think that it's not always good because


that means they have to move out of this place and start to look for another place and keep going the same cycle again and again because even if they upgrade themselves in terms of skill set


things are not always positive for them because there's too much constant change and make their life even difficult to survive in terms of in the corporate world as well so by the time you know if you are at the age of forty


forty five you only got how many years left to retirement and if this constant change in is making your life not any easy, can you know how how how will you adopt to all these changes so I feel that certain change are still not always good of course there will be certain changes that helps you but not every changes are always good


(hmm) I still beg to differ on that because whenever change happen in the life, there bound to be you know like there will be symptoms of like for example in corporate world there will be conflict there be more mistakes


low morale you know even lower the product productivity of people in that environment and, how does it do good to the company and even during this COVID certain change are too drastic for some people who tried to survive based on how they're doing their businesses like for example hawkers


a lot of hawkers doesn't have the capacity to you know move to digital because some of them might relatively old like seventy years old hawkers they can't move because of the change that happens


can they do it within a short period of time how are they going to make the change they're not able to adapt because of their personal capacity is not because they don't want to change is because they are not able to change because of their situation


so it brings now to, survivor, how are they going to survive with this digital age where they have been doing this for the past fifty sixty years and at the age of sixty seventy


it's gonna be very hard and how long can they survive with all these things, so ultimately I still think that changes are not always a good thing because some of them are being forced to change because of policies or even like no anything that


the environment is changing technology is changing, so you know there will be about that there are bound to be have having a group of people who are not able to change because of their capacity of changing in terms of their own knowledge their skill sets and everything


so I still think change is not always a good thing


the abortion should be banned


so I same, here I beg to differ abortion it's not okay but should not be banned mainly, because there are always a lot of various reasons why abortion happens one you know unplanned pregnancy because of you know a women getting sexually assault


and you know what if the second reason mean being there might be a possibility that there's a major disability to the baby, which will cause the child to suffer it's a whole life


and also you know thirdly, there will be a trauma for things like you know if you are sexually assault and your baby turns out to be trauma by because that you know I don't have a father because my mom was assaulted so there will be


such cases that abortion, may need to happen, to prevent you know trauma to the mother to the baby so it it isn't towards


like a death sentence of killing a potential I mean a baby because you're not having birth control or getting a vasectomy to the same thing right so , I don't think abortion is okay but it shouldn't be banned because based on all the reasons that have stated


so what happen to victims of sexual assaults this potentially cause a lot of mental issues to the victims if


you know abortion is banned because what if the same thing happens to the child because the child of us mentally then ask the mum where the father so it would cause further you know issues


down the rip because what what what what's going to happen to the women who get sexually assault and this keep hunting them going around and around to them and causing them mental breakdown


eventually you will cause harm to the unborn or rather the the the children if there wasn't an, an an abortion done during that stage so there is a lot of you know reasons that might need an abortion


of course abortion can be harmful but from the mental perspective is going to make it worse if abortion didn't happen because of various reasons, and then for child who you know there's a good technology now that can help to scan whether the child has major disability in the future when is born


what happen there's a huge you know a a very bad, illness that the baby has you're causing causing more harm and the child would suffer the whole life rather than you know


and I think that maybe comes out come out and then, the baby suffer so why not you know do an do an abortion prior so that the living you know thing won't get


the suffering because of certain unplanned or consequences of the adults, so it's not okay, but it shouldn't be banned at all because


you know that there are a lot of reasons why, things happen unplanned pregnancy happened of course one you may say that you know sending a message to people that you know


they should be responsible they should learn to do birth control protection but these are people not within the category of women being sexually assault or due to health


reasons what if the women her herself has certain you know uh complications and there's a risk very high risk of not being able to


survive if she is pregnant and how can this be justify if abortion is banned and how to make this better when abortion is banned


so is like what you mention issues creating issues for so I mean social creating because of issues but


to a certain point I, there's still one main reason you know abortion shouldn't be banned because you know what if a woman is being assaulted and we don't know who is the culprit


and the victim is suffering because first the the victim is already assaulted second the victim is pregnant, and this will go through even you know trauma in her life ya you are right you are right to say that you know some because of major disability you know some mothers were still persist to giving birth to the children and


sort of you know continuing the the the, motherhood mothership I mean the mother journey but what if is a victim of sexual assault, because this is not something even the victim wants it's back to a issue that is totally unplanned and unexpected


so sexual assault is uh


so I I mean we're not condoning, the corporate for for sexual assault but I mean based on statistics in Australia one out of


six adult women over the age of fifteen have been sexually assaulted it's a society issue yes but what if it's something that's happening because the topic here is about whether abortion should be banned and there's a lot of reason why


there's a lot of unplanned pregnancy, be it like what I mentioned you know those reasons we can not avoid those because it's happening of course it's back to a separate topic or separate case together where sexually assault


women or rather the culprit or you know which should we we should be having rules of course there's a lots of all these sexual assault raping uh culprit uh you know criminals but it still within this topic where abortion should not be banned because


things happen, even though there's a separate laws you know regulations saying saying you know all these thing shouldn't happen right from the beginning, so closing is solved we still within this topic whether should or should not be banned and I still believe that shouldn't be banned is not okay but should not be banned


because of you know majority I mean there's a lot of reason why there's unplanned pregnant pregnancy, yeah


ya I I


part one debate topic one


K so thank you ed, so allow me to summarize what you have said just now so you have mentioned three points, first cost effectiveness second which is to meet the target of twenty thirty, last but not least will be the journey time will be reduced by ten per cent as compared to the alternative options so let me counter that err one at a time so with regards to cost-efficiency


err all along since our founding fathers days like Lee-Kuan-Yew has been stressing upon the importance of environmental protection, and we have undergo many we have taken many steps to achieve this goal of, like uh having a environmental


conscious country like as you can see in singapore nowadays like there are many trees built along the road we the purpose why the reserves was set up in the first place was to promote, this idea of environmental protection so I feel that by saving two billion dollars now it's not


it's not uh work worth, in a sense that we are going against what we what we plan err what we have planned for this country originally, and these two billion dollars, if there's any damages this can't be, like, repair in the future


so for the second point of meeting the target of twenty-thirty I think you putting across singaporeans as a very unreasonable group which we think that oh it once a twenty-thirty target is set we must meet the target by twenty-thirty this I believe that singaporeans as like sensible


intellectual citizens should be aware and should be conscious of the fact that either the the deadline is delayed because of like , a decision to help conserve the nature for future generations I believe that most singaporeans will not be


do affected by this like delayed completion last but not least journey journey time of ten per cent which I agree with you I think, err like exploring the other options the journey time of like the extra journey of ten per cent might be a bit too much for some and in a short term we will all enjoy it


but allow me to ask you this question if, we allow ourself just to enjoy this ten per cent of, like shorter journey time but we endanger the nature that we have preserved all along for this past sixty years for our future


generation the who will bear the responsibility of it, yeah so I think that will be my points so I'll pass it back to you edward


K err thank you edward, so, to summarise again your point so first would be the wasted of land because of like this land could be way better utilised for like building houses or you to for housing purposes I will just lump them under


what I believe is for the second alternative of like building houses I think in the short run, in a short one we will be spending more money and this money and I believe these owners will be well compensated because, for my understanding of how government repurchase houses these repurchase scheme is we are we are met we are meeting the current resale price in the market so they are


for one the owners in terms of pricing they I'm very sure they won't be dissatisfied that's one and secondly I think what you think you are talking about land terms of light shortage of land for future housing purposes I agree with you but, this is just a short one purpose with our technology advancement in the present day who knows what we can do with the land in the future


like for example if we use the land for building now in the short run in the future we can actually I don't don't disclose a probability that we might use the land for other purposes maybe you can build other things like such as like like recreational facilities such as err


like shopping malls we and I even don't err this err I it might be even be for housing purposes which you have said but might not be as well utilised as it might be today if I'm given it if I give you the


if I I correctly understand you so for the regards to your second point which is engineering challenges, I think for this point, engineering challenges has been a huge part of, found finding a I mean building up singapore up to the end of these days look at the HDB flats that we stay look at the


MRT lines that we already have existed cup I mean at this present point of time , I believe all these engineering challenges are just cheap shots to try to choose the easy way out, and I do believe like


there was there are so many doubts in the past that with regards to how , err whether we can successfully build a underground line as you can see with the east west line but, we have succeeded and I don't believe this is a challenge that we cannot overcome at in this present time and last but not least I think by choosing the easy way out we do have our consequences that we have to consider for one government has a like there was one previous incident of like the


Mandai lake road which the government err already say that they already put in sufficient mitigation matters err mitigation measures to help prevent all these like, harms to the wildlife but, with regards to wildlife err wildlife there is always a an aspect of a unknown which we cannot control and we cannot


like, successfully mitigate and if we harm the wildlife like the damages might be irreparable for the future K thank you


K I acknowledge your concern with regards to this point and I do agree with you that the, notion of how we should use our nature reserve, she will service will will be resurfaced, in the I will see it in a like in the coming like maybe decades or years


uh anyway so but the main point is like, we should only use these lands when there are there is no other way out, I mean right now right here there is there are alternatives on how we should construct these line and they


the, main drawbacks for these alternatives are mainly costs and efficiency, which I do, which I don't which I agree that, cost is a important factor on how how much we should spend on infrastructure but


we should outweigh the pros and cons of like will these costs incurred now help to bring, forward a better future for our future generation, I may not have the two billion dollars but I do agree that a two-billion-dollar trade-off is


worth worthwhile to, ensure that there will still be a thing like natural reserve in the coming future for our generation, and I think like, what we should do now is to really observe like all these alternatives and


I I mean like, we cannot control all the, things that will happen to our wildlife so the best you can do is you try to avoid it as much as possible while we still have the liberty to choose other choices now


two debate topic two


K man is helpless in the face of, climate change and that is my proposition to you edward, and why I say so, because I think we have to first understand, what causes climate change, is is just it's not just about


like we are using we are burning more fuel we are burning more coal or like soup like the effects of climate change which, which is like maybe like tsunami hurricanes like so on and so forth, men is really helpless because we failed to address the fundamental issue of why climate change is happening which is an


population growth which has, where population growth which has like exceeded all expectation in the past hundred years, I mean if you can if you have err done some research you can see that, men the total human population has been increasing


at a rate, unprecedented in the past it took us maybe err uh one thousand years to double our population but for the latest figures it took us less than fifty years if I'm not wrong, with more people we are bound to spend


we are bound to have we we're bound to have the need to work, harvest more err harvest more crops the err have more energy all these matters, all these matters are harmful to environment I would say, and


I will say that also that with the with population change no country is willing to like force forgo their population growth I mean, if you can see I think the main contributor now of population growth will be the continent of africa which majority of the population growth have been happening and


instead of like trying to import these people into the first world countries you you can see measures being promoted by first world countries to encourage their citizens to have more growth one very good example will be japan and singapore itself like


and we are unwilling to import these err foreign people, for the fear that they might snatch our jobs for the fear that they might take out our living stays so on and so forth, that's why I feel that men is truly helpless in the face of climate change


in a in a in addition right I feel that like you look at the number of natural disaster and has been happening look at the australian bush fire despite men best efforts to try to, uh put out a fire it took us how many days to successfully put out a fire it it


look at the devastation it has caused, and I would say for one that the australian government has already tried their best, and is, bush fire has been happening over and over again so they have ample time of preparing ample time of hack hack for formulating plans to deal with it yet they failed so miserably


thank you


I support your finding of like the, err, the increase in ozone layer after we have suspended like like major economic activities after two to three months like do err it yeah in all around the world


but you have to ask yourself this like man is helpless because man is the cause of the problem, in the long run no country is willing to forgo their economic growth just to save the world, in that sense


I can bring up world leaders like maybe like trump, where he repeatedly denies that climate change is happening, he, try to encourage more economic growth through like manufacturing through agriculture so on and so forth


because he want america to be the best again he want america to be the number one economic power in the world again and to be this number one economic power again what do we need we need more production we need more manufacturing so on and so forth, all of this


will constitute to more pollution into the err into the environment, which constitute, to our right here right now which is, worst like we we we constitute to climate change, and I don't like


talking about climate change like talking about man saving climate change is a very big topic , in a sense that everyone can say you and I both can say !hey! climate change's a bad thing we should do something about but but about it but, around the world I will say that the the cut the continent that is doing the best right now it will be the european union and look how far they have achieved thus far


they have set aside targets but majority of these countries are not hitting these targets and why so because they're in economic trouble so man will always prioritise their our own economic gains over like things like environmental change


not everyone is like in the sense like in singapore like when we pursue economic change the same time we are pursuing a environmental protection majority of these country will choose, the easy way out which is to sacrifice our environment and, to end


sacrifice our environment and to pursue economic change, like one example that I can err recall right now will be the, uh burning of like, the natural forest which is err in indonesia, and why are they doing so is two fertile the land in the cheapest and most efficient way


and, they are ignoring all the environmental damage they might have done, and this is also seen in like err south america where the brazilian amazon rainforest is being burned down by the thousand of acres a day maybe hundreds and thousand of acres a day and why is no one doing anything about it because we are the main goal right here right now is economic growth and not environmental protection


uh edward I pass it to you


to sum up your point you talk about like man is not prioritizing it enough which brings to a point which is equivalent to my point is that's why man is helpless because, we no longer prioritise environmental change in the current future let me bring the issue closer back to home let's say in singapore I mean due to err err a report stated that in twenty-thirty we need to cut down all our err I will say for lack of a better word like rubbish by fifty per cent


but, and their constant advertisement constant articles constant bombardment of media like through media uh social media websites and like !hey! uh this is happening that is happening but have you seen anything affecting our life recently do you see people before they on their air condition


okay I'm thinking about environmental change no we straight away go on the air con because we we are doing it for our own comfort, do you see people when we go to supermarket !aiya!, I okay this is I won't speak for the all of us but majority, when we go to a supermarket okay do you like say no to plastic bags because err


I'm I am environmental friendly no but you still take a plastic bag you see so that's why man is helpless because precisely your point we are not prioritizing it enough, that's why we are helpless in the face of climate change and I don't see this changing unless like what you say there's a there's a major event that change everyone thinking but by then it will be way too late and by that moment we will be truly truly helpless


part three debate topic three


K err thank you ed, err thank you edward so you brought up the notion that going green but it's a win win in onto err accounts first the first win will be less cost and more efficiency


the second green will be help environment and to raise awareness for the companies that err goes green I will say so I'd like to challenge your notion of a less cost and more efficiency, does going green really means less cost you can think about it in this uh think about it in like when all of us go for take-outs will you pay more money to use a sustainable


err container to take your food, and does it make business sense for the business owner let's say we talk about disposal disposable forks and spoon and chopsticks, if the cost of a non if a non-biodegradable chopstick is like maybe five-cent ten-cent and the cost of a biodegradable disposal chopstick cost fifty-cent err mid err onwards


do you still agree do you still think that it lowers cost and raises efficiency and efficiency-wise I think that our current, the way our current society is run efficiency by introducing green measures might not I won't say for all industry but


for most industry it might actually instead of err increasing efficiency it might reduces efficiency , K then the second point of like helping the environment and raising publicity and awareness for companies to take part in it


K let me address the one that I agree with you more slightly which is uh increasing awareness for companies that take part in it yes it's true by taking part and like there are many cases that I can help you support with it like things like face shop which they promise no animal cruelty so on and so forth


that's one but you have to think in a sense that, are they doing it to help the environment or are they doing it to help the company, and yes a majority of these measures help to promote the company but they're they're not actually doing it just err to help the environment


as err I will quote the, the great economist err milton friedman on this view the primary primary criteria for business performance are economic efficiency and growth in production on goods and services I already dismiss your


err proposition of like it enhances economic efficiency however in terms of growth on in production of, goods and services all it's the same it's bring back to the same point of efficiency and the primary goal for businesses is profit


and going green does not necessarily means that there are more profits coming in and you have to answer your stakeholders will your stakeholders be happy to tell you !hey! guys we lose we spent two billion dollars to save the world but your share but you don't in you don't earn like any money from having a stake in our company


which investors I may err I might ask will want to invest in this type of company okay thank you


so it all boils down to whether your statement, fulfils the line of going green make good business sense which in what you have articulated thus far it shows that you agree with my point that going green does not always mean it makes good business sense because of the cost incurred and err I would say like efficiency involved


then again you brought up another point of like starbucks okay starbucks did it well it yes but fundamentally why how did starbucks did it well because they have the capital to tie through like all these like all these changes, and


err I will say like, incur all these losses at the start to I and I but majority of these conglomerates can afford to do it, but what we are talking here is err about majority of the small, medium enterprises ya I mean back in singapore you can talk about the small like hawker centre stalls I mean to us maybe a pair of chopsticks like which bring back to my previous analogy of like chopsticks maybe like forty cents per pair of chopsticks may not bring a big differences but we incurred it over


the cost of one month how much do you actually how much do you think this actual this small amount of cash can sub add up too I believe it's a substantial amount and all these small hawkers does not have the amount of funds to tie through the whole thing like starbucks as you have mentioned in your articulation previously


and another point that I want to say is uh and like you talk about just now you were previously want to mention about talking about uh environmental protection, but, err if you heard about the invisible hand theory which