Okay, so the motion we are giving forth today is that should public officials be banned from trading online stocks? Okay, so, firstly what the motion is saying is that on my side the motion, as I am in the foresight, the motion is clearly seen. And my context is the reason that public officials should be banned from trading individual stocks. Here are the reasons why I believe that Here is the reason why I believe that the public officials should indeed be banned from trading individual stocks. Firstly, they are in the public offices, so they should restrain from engaging in any activities that violate their integrity and devalue their trust in what they are doing. The conflict of interest is that public officials already have access to training or make laws that are related to the market or that are related to the ways in the individual stocks. The can use the power they have to buy the individual stocks and they can just roll out the ways that will benefit their stock that they have. This drops inside trading before it starts. This will stop the trading before it starts. This will stop inside trading as it will commit things like libertism, corruption and fraud that will cause us. The speaker is just talking about a topic. The speaker is very important to me. Have you lived with me in RABB? The speaker is very important to me The speaker is so important to me He is also very important to me as people who are part of you The speaker is making their compare their personal benefits with their personal job If you ban this, it means that we prevent them from focusing on themselves and building up their portfolios. Now they are going to focus on public service and making public service to us and making us get to receive 100% service, deliver 100% good jobs and 100% services and work on the ground and improve the constant and leading economy. So if we ban them from trading individual stocks, it helps separate the public's interest and their private gaining. It helps us to separate between. It helps them to separate and to be able to see what is needed in our economy. It helps them to separate their jobs and their personal lives in such a way that in gaming, as they'll now not be focused on them building up their portfolio and getting more money than the cost in the public and what the public needs. So the against side will come and say this violates personal freedom. For the fact that they have obliged and taken an oath to be in the public office, this shows that they have also limited their freedom, their personal freedom, as they are now obliged or forced to serve the public first rather than serving their personal lives or serving their personal gains. Thank you.

Okay so now we are back at it again. So if everyone votes, this shows that they did. So now if everyone votes, the politicians will work to their power to satisfy the needs of every citizen in their country. Because they know if they don't deliver, if they don't give out results that the citizens need they're gonna be. Talk of they're gonna lose their political positions and they're gonna lose their political offices. So if it is mandatory it helps the country for the politicians to work to the best interest of every citizen in the country. So if everyone The vote will be issued with everyone opinion in the country This will make the voting system to be clear whether the parliament is being shared by political parties Everyone votes the majority party. A party with the majority vote will take the parliament, meaning they won't be sharing. As everyone and people should their views, everyone will vote to the political party that they like or they think is best to cover the country. Tthe government are saying multiple political parties governing, for example now in the parliament, we have political parties are sharing the parliament, political parties such as ANC and AAS. Now we have a minister of education who is from the political party of DA and our president is from the political party of ANC, meaning that these two political parties have their The speaker is making the vote for the country. The speaker is making the vote for the country.

First point, the opposing side said we should punish everyone for the bad actors. We are not punishing anyone, but we are just saving the country, thinking for them and making things to the best interest of the country. We are not saying everyone is bad, but we are actually being specific and saying that public officials should not or should be banned from trading. Because now this is one of the root problems, which is corruption. It leads to public officials squandering the government or the country's money through this kind of trading because it's also part of gambling. The also said that low turnout shows the best interest. But low turnout instead makes the government to put out resources for smaller groups or for smaller people instead of everyone. We are not forcing anyone to take any decision but we are saying everyone should think for the best interests of the country The Mandatory vote means that they are better for the government because now it will perpetuate everyone opinion Everyone will have a say and everyone will be responsible for the political party that they have put in practice. After all, everyone is affected by the laws that are put in place by the government. So if everyone votes, they'll be able to be... If now everyone doesn't vote, meaning that they'll be affected by the laws that they knew nothing about. So if everyone votes, they'll be well informed about the laws because the government, before implementing laws, They go through the green paper, white paper and the bill which are published in the government gazette. Also we are saying that everyone should be educated in terms of vote, in terms of the parliament or the government operation so that everyone doesn't be surprised and everyone can be well informed about how it operates.