Last night (18.12.2007) I happened to watch the Debate (in mandarin) between NUS and Ta Nan University teams held in Beijing University.
The motion was: "Should the great number of stray dogs and cats found in cities be exterminated". NUS was debating for the motion and Ta Nan U against it.
The NUS debaters painted a picture how the great number of strays were causing epidemic and diseases in various cities threatening the population so there was no choice but for government to take action by resorting to exterminating the strays. They repeated asked the opposing team what alternative solutions could there be to selective culling of the strays.
To the NUS debaters Singapore government has been sucessful in exterminating the strays and preventing the spread of epidemic and diseases thereby protecting the human lives. The NUS debaters were exceptionally eloquent in pitching the argument that there is no other way as the whole issue is between life and death for humankind.
The Ta Nan U team surprised with the audience with its own plaudible stand with the following key rebuttal:
(1) Strays were not caused by the animals but by men who at first kept them as pets and later ill-treated and abandoned them. So the animals should not be blamed or made to suffer for the irresponsible actions of men.
(2) Making a decision to exterminate the animals under such circumstances on the ground of pragmaticism or protecting the lives of men from danger is being irresponsible as it reflects on how men uphold their whole values and ethics towards others in this planet and their fellow men which will have larger consequences on the whole society. At first if we men decide to exterminate the strays what will be next.Will it not at the end lead to our adopting the same careless pragmatic approach, towards our fellow men. From exterminating strays at first will we not later use the same reasoning and discriminated against our fellow humankind with the weak being bulled by the strong. Will not our whole society degenerate to one where policies will be made out of convenience with the strong bullying the weak.
(3) There are many other alternative practical solutions to extermination of the strays for example: e.g. calling on the agencies to come up with other measures like isolating the strays from human population or educating people to love and care for the pets and finding more hygienic way to keep the pets.
As commented by the debate chairman and the three university guest speakers all professors Ta Nan U debated has put up a even more convincing rebuttal in this debate by a big margin of 10 to 5 votes.
One of the guess speakers pointed out this: what disquished the Ta Nan debates is their ability to present a more convincing view from the larger angle of human values and how humankinds view its role and how it should act in this whole planet. He emphasised that the debate topic is more than the immediate concern of strays but on the larger debate of how as humankind how man should act to uphold greater human values taking into consideration that without these values society could not possibly exist.
If our leaders have also watch this debate let us hope they will reflect once again how they as leaders should learn to govern the whole country with a larger perspective and not just out of their own pragmatism or convenience as presented by NUS debaters.
Singapore should adopt a more caring attitude and learn a more refined way of governing the country from this little yet significant debate between two reputable universities from two different political and social system to pave the way for progress.
I'm not surprised by the result but to know that the main land Chinese U students are better thinking outside the "box” is!
Sadly, Most of our U students are only good for paper work, exams oriented and fun