Previously, I posted a quick brainstorm of possible points of discussion related to the heated issue on The Flipside: Blanket Ban of PMDs from footpaths in SG from 5 Nov 2019!
If you go through the reading materials that I have included in the link above, we can come up with these possible arguments for AGREEING to lift the ban. We can use the ‘PEEL’ structure to craft our paragraphs.
(P) Argument 1:
Firstly, the ban should be lifted because it takes away jobs from lowly-skilled workers who have no technical expertise, as well as the physically handicapped.
(EE) Elaborate with examples:
- From many interviews reported in major news sources, the sudden announcement of the ban on PMDs on footpaths has adversely affected as many as 7,000 food delivery riders – many of whom are solely depending on food deliveries on their PMDs as a means to support themselves or their families.
- Apart from the able-bodied, the ban also takes away the hope of independent-living from the disabled. Some of these food delivery riders are persons on wheelchairs and have rejoiced at the viability of drawing income using their electric wheelchairs as a ‘Grab Food’ or ‘Food Panda’ employee. With this ban, the disabled may find themselves back at square one, having much difficulty finding work to defray their living and medical costs.
(L) Link back to the topic sentence (direct or long-term effect):
As a result of the blanket ban, many individuals or families may find themselves thrown into dire financial situations.
(P) Argument 2:
Secondly, the ban may prove to be counter-effective as Singapore may not have the resources to actually enforce the new law.
(EE) Elaborate with examples:
Typically, the police officers will be looked upon as the enforcers of public safety. However, they should be focusing their efforts on fighting bigger threats of terrorism and deterring other crimes, rather than ensuring that errant riders keep their personal mobility devices off the pedestrian footpaths.
(L) Link back to the topic sentence (direct or long-term effect):
If our police officers are deployed to deter errant PMD riders, our police force may become unnecessarily overstretched and not be able to carry out their core duties of safeguarding our national security.
(P) Argument 3:
Thirdly, although there are good intentions behind the ban, the ban may lead to worse situations.
(EE) Elaborate with examples:
Road users who are recalcitrant will continue to be reckless, flouting any traffic rules that have been implemented. Even after the ban had been announced, many PMD riders continue to illegally ride on public footpaths during this ‘adjustment period’ of only doling out warnings to those caught by the law enforcers. Furthermore, many online businesses that rely on fast delivery services will suffer from having a smaller pool of delivery men to deploy.
(L) Link back to the topic sentence (direct or long-term effect):
This will no doubt stunt the growth of these companies which are undoubtedly a part of our future economy, yet may not absolutely deter the PMD riders, especially those in the suburban housing estates.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you agree that the ban should be lifted?
