A debate speech

32
0



Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen,

 

Listening to the affirmative side’s argument just now, I’m appalled to see how narrow-minded and superficial our opponents think. Today’s motion is concerned with the promulgation of a social policy. A social policy is aimed at doing its citizens good. I believe that’s a common ground they all agree on. But sacrifice an asset as valuable as country parks, the lungs of the city, so to speak, to make way for yet another cluster of mundane, concrete-made residential blocks? Our side strongly doubts if it will do the city and its citizens any good. Based on this principle, our team line is that turning country parks into housing sites in Hong Kong is both unwise and unnecessary. I’m now going to conclude our side’s case.

 

Destroying country parks is unwise in environmental and recreational terms. We all know that country parks make up 40% of the total area of Hong Kong. While Hong Kong is under the harm of outrageous pollution from sources such as mainland factories and vehicles, our country parks have always been there to purify the air and regulate the carbon cycle. If we have to keep our moments of blue skies, the imperative measure is not just turning off idling engines as the government advertised, but save our country parks from annihilation. I noticed that our opponents like quantifying matters. They claimed that a hectre of land can bring about a certain sum of money return, and thereby boost the economy and mitigate the plight of Hongkongers. Fine, I’ll follow suit. If country parks are reduced by even the smallest fraction, the health of citizens will deteriorate. Health deterioration leads to rising clinical costs and decreasing working population and efficiency. As a result, the GDP of Hong Kong will plummet. Just look at the consequences. In recreational terms, we’ve all enjoyed country parks, and the relish applies to all ages and races. If its boundaries are by any means curtailed, Hong Kong’s status as a world-class national park and natural reserve will flag, once again leading to immeasurably tremendous repercussions.

 

Destroying country parks is also unnecessary. There are still more options available for consideration: land for indigenous villagers in the skewed Small House Policy, and land unjustly occupied by some privileged such as the Fanling golf course in the New Territories, where tycoon users only need to pay HK$1 a year. On no grounds simply should the government forgo all these options and intrude into our country parks, used and cherished by all ordinary citizens, with axes and saws.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, our opponent’s case is flawed. Shown by me and my other speakers to you, no cry in society ever calls for destruction of parks on the altar of housing. Surely, housing is a serious problem in the city that we have to confront, but we surely should not be so short-sighted and focus only on our current problems. Country parks act as the ‘houses’ of all of us, plants and animals, me and you. It is our shelter, the dwelling of the nature. Spoiling it is without doubt the last thing we want to see happening on our already pollution-plagued city. Thank you.