Now let's begin. One from the affirmative side will begin with their opening statement for four and a half minutes.

　　Ladies and gentlemen, dear professors, our judges, and honorable opponents. Today, we are here to argue for the proposition that the quality of government officials is more crucial than institutions in driving economic progress. We acknowledge that both the quality of officials and robust institutions are essential components of economic driving. However, we believe that the quality of individuals in positions of power plays a more important role in global growth. This is because, at the heart of every institution is the human element, and it is the actions, decisions, and leadership of these individuals that ultimately affect the economy.

　　Firstly, consider the transformative power of leadership. History has shown us time and again that great leaders can inspire and drive their regions to unprecedented heights of economic prosperity. The quality of government officials, with their integrity and commitment, can create an environment conducive to innovation, investment, and sustainable growth. They can set ambitious and achievable goals, foster a culture of excellence, and inspire their teams to reach benchmarks.

　　Secondly, the quality of government officials is paramount in the effective implementation of policies. Institutions, no matter how well - designed, are only as strong as the people who operate them. It is the government officials who ensure that policies are not only created but also executed with agility and efficiency. They are the ones who must navigate the complexities of the real world, making decisions that directly impact the lives of businesses and the health of the economy.

　　Thirdly, in times of crisis, it is the quality of government officials that can make a nation's economic resilience. Whether it is economic disasters or pandemics, it is the decisive and compassionate actions of leaders that can steer a country towards recovery. We submit that it is the quality of leadership that provides the direction and the drive to overcome adversity.

　　Furthermore, the quality of government officials is essential to foster trust and confidence, both domestic and international. Investors, both local and foreign, look to the stability and reliability of the nation's leadership when making investment decisions. A government full of officials with high moral standards and a track record of success instills confidence, encouraging investment and economic activity.

　　In conclusion, while institutions provide the necessary structure and checks and policies, it is the quality of government officials that brings life into this system. They are the catalysts for change, the guidance of policy, and the architects of economic prosperity. It is through their leadership and their actions that economies flourish at home and abroad.

　　辩题为：Quality of government officials is more important than institutions to economic growth vs Quality of government officials is not more important than institutions to economic growth。

　　环节为：反方一辩·Debater A opens。

　　Thank represent your opening class our opponent like outside very（此句语义不明，可能为语音转写错误，暂不处理），the strong institutions are more important than the quality of government officials for the world. Our co - arguments are as follows:

　　Institutions provide the framework within which government officials must operate. A strong institution, such as a functioning legal system, property rights, transparency in markets and an efficient bureaucracy, is essential. No government official can (此处语义不完整，可能转写有误) the economic growth. This argument is firmly supported by the Nobel Prize for economics laureates Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson for their paper "Institutions as the Fundamental Cause of Long - Run Growths".

　　First, strong institutions provide long - run growth. Strong institutions provide long - term stability and consistency. They create a predictable and secure environment which is essential for growth. Businesses and investors need certainty to plan, invest and innovate. Imagine a country where each government official changes the rules of the game based on personal interests. Such an environment leads to uncertainty and undermines confidence in the economy. It is institutions that create the necessary framework while policy continuity ensures that economic growth is not subject to individual government officials' changes. For example, in the United States, the stability of these institutions has allowed for steady economic growth regardless of the political leadership in power. No single leader is indispensable. It is the strength and the ability of the institutions that keep the economy resilient.

　　Second, strong institutions minimize the risks of corruption and poor governance. While competent leaders are valuable, they alone cannot safeguard the economy from the negative impacts of corruption, cronyism and mismanagement. If institutions are weak, even the most capable government officials will struggle to prevent corruption and sustain economic growth. In fact, weak institutions often undermine good leadership, enabling corruption and poor governance to flourish in spite of the officials in charge. Look at countries like Venezuela or Zimbabwe where poor governance and corruption have persisted for decades despite presidents who came to power with promises. The lack of strong institutions has led to collapse.

　　Third, strong institutions are important for trust and reduce transaction costs. Strong institutions create trust and transparency that investors need to make long - term commitments. They create the foundation for development by enforcing contracts, protecting property rights, promoting innovation and ensuring a level playing field for all economic actors. High - quality government officials may inspire confidence in the short term, but it is institutions that create the environment for long - term investments and innovation to thrive. Take the example of the Asian Tigers. These economies experienced remarkable economic growth. It was not the positive government officials that drove their success but the presence of strong institutions that enabled governments to implement effective policies and ensure sustained growth.

　　In short, strong institutions are more important than quality of government officials for long - term economic growth. We will elaborate on this argument.

　　In the debate with the topic "Quality of government officials is more important than institutions to economic growth vs Quality of government officials is not more important than institutions to economic growth", in the part where the anti - side's second debater (Debater B) refutes Debater 1.

　　We admit that the quality of government officials and strong institutions are both important. But which one is more important? Before my refutation, I want to emphasize my arguments again. A strong set of institutions provides long - term stability and consistency in combating corruption and for governance, promotes trust and reduces transaction costs, and endures beyond individuals.

　　My opponents gave us their key arguments on how quality officials impact economic growth. However, with strong institutions to support them, quality officials can achieve those high economic growth achievements. Here are my counter - arguments.

　　First, regarding the visions of officials. The transformation of the economy is a long - term process that requires stability and continuity. Relying on the vision of a single official is risky, as it can lead to policy reversals when decisions change. This ensures that transformation policies are not dependent on each new administration. For example, not all economic transformations are good. The Soviet Union implemented shock therapy in early 1992. This radical reform strategy aimed to quickly eliminate financial repression, establish a financial system arrangement system like those in developed countries. However, this critical reform did not bring the expected positive effect on the country but led to a severe economic depression and social chaos.

　　Second, in every country, their leaders are among those with high - quality. They have better education, good experience, etc. Better education can give them the ability to make decisions. I believe every leader wants to contribute to a high rate of economic growth, but in the real world, this mission is impossible. The Great Depression from 1929 - 1933 in the United States made millions of people lose their jobs, and the stock market crashed. The basic reason for the Great Depression was that the US government pursued improper monetary policies, which turned a recession into a major depression. On the other hand, according to a report in 2023, one - third of countries' economies are dropping, and two - thirds of countries have a mostly slow growth rate. I believe every country leader wants their country's economic growth but cannot always achieve it.

　　Finally, thirdly, who determines economic growth? No one will deny that the world economic growth has been led by the United States for decades. Then who is controlling the US? It is its institutions, not just the President and the US government. The US Federal Reserve determines the US economy or institutions, and these institutions affect the world economy. But in fact, not all are the officials. So we reach the conclusion that they control the world's economy.

　　Now let's go into the cross - examination. Debater 3 of the pro - side will now question one of the con - side debaters. You have one point five minutes.

　　Secondly, you mentioned that institutions are provided for policy formulation. OK, you talked about capabilities and roles, and how to ensure the implementation. And as institutions work with the economic environment, please explain the role of officials in improving the adaptability of institutions.

　　That's important but we need to focus on the second point. I think in the government, there are some people. Some people may do something wrong. In the government, if it is about the leaders, there is a significant difference between a leader and others. So, in the end, when we are talking, I think if we consider this as significant, I think this may not be so. I question what you said. Yes, regarding what you said and the question you raised, the common answer is that it is not much. It is a kind of process. It is not much. It is the outcome of a process that has lasted for several years. It has to go through all sectors and all areas in the country. And it has to cover all in the country. So it is not something that has been created by officials or the leader. Actually, when a problem arises, the leader has to lead the country out of this crisis. But then he said that the next step is to exceed other countries. That's because of the continuous process of having strong systems. And the leader has to be formed in a way that we can ask questions.

　　辩题为：“Quality of government officials is more important than institutions to economic growth” vs “Quality of government officials is not more important than institutions to economic growth” 　　环节为：自由问答（Free questions/answer among Debaters）

　　在自由问答环节，请保持你们的回应以便我们能继续讨论。我们开始吧。

　　我有一个问题。这是一个长期的过程，涉及所有的规则和条例。这个过程需要规则和条例，通常它是集体参考的集合，源于集体或者社会需求、协议安排等相关的协商，制度性的解决方案就来源于此。这就是为什么我们认为，单个的政府官员没有某些制度重要，也就是说制度比官员更重要。如果参与者（官员）表现不好，这不是规则的问题，而是人的问题。实际上，他们首先想到的是制度，然后随着领导人的更替，在当时的经济环境下，例如新加坡，即使没有李光耀这样的人物，其经济仍然发展良好，这进一步证明了强大的制度占主导地位。

　　关于政府和制度之间的关系，我可以做一个比喻，政府官员就像鱼，制度就像水。没有水，鱼就会死。所以，制度能够确保将合适的官员安排到合适的岗位上，这是制度的一部分。我们改变规则，这就是为什么我们可以用这些规则来比较人，你们要明确他们执政多久来确保顺利过渡，你们要确切地知道如何正确应对经济转型中的问题。在经济转型过程中，有非常有能力的人处于政府职位却无法完成他们的任务，甚至无法让经济正常运转。这一点很重要。

　　再举个例子，有两个国家有着非常相似的制度安排，都在尝试改革，一个有非常自信的领导人，另一个则不然。一个能够实施政策，另一个则不能。所以，一个国家进步的首要因素在于建立强大的制度等能力。我们同意建立强大的制度在个人发展方面更具优势，因为合适的人能做出正确的决策。

　　例如，因为中国和美国没有相同的制度，美国是联邦制，中国是中央集权制。如果从意识形态方面来说，哪些制度能够回应基层的政府官员呢？对于中国以及世界来说，制度将人安排到相应的职位上。新加坡最优秀的人所做的就是确保未来的规则对人有利。所以，对于政府来说，重要的是拥有这些，这是政府发展的关键。

　　2008年金融危机时，中国仍在增长并且帮助了世界。在任何制度下，你都需要金融行业非常有能力的官员制定政策以确保国家稳定。中国有非常自信的领导力，而美国在危机期间有特朗普，他缺乏自信的领导力，导致数千人受到影响。因为你需要有能力的人来为政府设计未来，如果你想要变得明智的话。

　　You have four point five minutes.

　　The institutions are important for driving economic growth. They provide the foundation for economic development.

　　First, long - term stability and the transition things established in the long run create a stable and enabling business environment. For example, China has attracted foreign direct investment (FDI) and has become one of the strongest economies in recent centuries.

　　Second, minimizing corruption or governance failures of government officials. Anti - corruption and anti - inefficiency measures ensure that the government governs based on the concepts of transparency. For example, the respected legal new measures like CPI are initial measures and are made to be applicable for the whole data of institutions in order to govern the country.

　　Third, reducing transaction costs. Providing clear policies reduces transaction costs, encourages investment and promotes economic activity. We have all learned this from good institutions and investment.

　　Fourth, strong institutions transcend the influence of single individuals. Quality operations may rise to influence and ensure that the mechanism of governance and economic progress endures across generations, even during leadership transitions. For example, in South Korea, institutions have continued to influence industrial and political changes despite different leaders and experiences.

　　Capable governments are limited because of the need for strong institutions. It is not individuals that ensure resilience. This is true not only in Singapore, but also in Central American countries, sub - Saharan countries and Western countries. It is the institutions that ensure countries will move forward and develop.