Kaleidoscope 2020

1
Editor’s Foreword
Growing up, many of us have surely read model essays and compositions to prepare for
our various examinations. Kaleidoscope is a continuation of this tradition; each essay
represents a strong effort – crafted under challenging examination conditions – to interpret a
given question thoughtfully, organise a response coherently, and argue a viewpoint
convincingly.
There is no magical formula to doing well in General Paper; hence, I hope for all
Kaleidoscope readers to read the essays here with care, as more than pieces to mine and mimic.
Weigh what it is that makes one argument more persuasive than another in an essay, and
evaluate these against your own viewpoints and knowledge. Through this process, you can
hone your mind to consider multiple perspectives, consequently reflecting this in your writing.
I would also encourage you to keep abreast of what is happening around the world, and anchor
your arguments with reference to communities, countries and contexts.
While this volume of Kaleidoscope was being published, the entire world has been
grappling with the unprecedented COVID-19 outbreak. This pandemic has shone a light on
many different areas of our daily lives, from the importance of good governance to the
interconnectedness of societies in today’s world. We hope you find value in this resource, both
as something to parse while staying at home, and as a reference to better understand the
multifaceted dynamics exposed by our current crisis.
At the end of the day, the most important thing about essays is that they should be
personally meaningful and true, and I urge you to take these essays as inspirations and
suggestions. I hope you will read the various essays with an open mind, and use them to
develop your own personal voice.
Have a joyful time reading.
Yours Sincerely,
Lee Young Kai
Chief Editor
2
Contents Page
Editor’s Foreword 2
Contents Page 3
Notable Events of 2019: A Kaleidoscope Perspective 7
Arts & Culture 10

“Music unites people.” To what extent do you agree? 11
Aung Miri Yin-Toe (19S33)
‘The Arts cannot create positive social change.’ How far do you agree? 13
Ng Xuen Yi, Alexe (19A12)
Brigette Teo (19S34)
Kee Chong Wei (19S61)
Assess the view that attempts to regulate new media can never be truly effective. 19
Julianne Faye Ong (19S33)
Ang Peng Xuan (19S43)
Joey Tan Jia Yi (19S61)
‘Social media has reduced the quality of discussion today.’ Is this a fair view? 28
Samuel Oh Wen Yong (19A14)
Chia Wee Boon John (19S47)
“Artists should be valued less than scientists.” Do you agree? 37
Nicole Chew Shi Min (19S43)
‘The Arts are a distraction from the problems we face today.’
To what extent is this a fair viewpoint? 40
Kieron Seven Lee Jun Wei (18S46)
To what extent do you agree that ancient myths and legends have
little value in today’s world? 42
Wang Zi-Ming, Sean (18S33)
3
Thian Jiawen (18S45)
Wong Boon Jhee (18S62)
Politics, Economics & History 50

Do we expect too much of political leaders today? 51
Jin Enyu (19S55)
“Governments should be more concerned with domestic affairs than international ones.”
To what extent do you agree? 54
Felicia Hoe Ling Xuan (19A11)
“Governments should be more concerned with domestic affairs than international ones.”
To what extent do you agree? 57
Heather Tan Yung Yu (19A11)
How effectively is healthcare managed in your society? 60
Tan Lip Guo (19S37)
Zhao Junyao (19S38)
Neo Yi Ting, Beryl (19S311)
‘Society has progressed at the expense of the poor.’
Is this an accurate reflection of your society? 67
Vedantam Sarada Priyaraman (19S38)
Is migration to be welcomed or feared? 69
Ethan Yam Xianze (19S43)
‘Democracy has lost its appeal in modern society.’ How far do you agree? 72
Ma Xueqing (18A11)
‘Democracy has lost its appeal in modern society.’ How far do you agree? 75
Tan Dyllan (18S52)
‘A world without borders results in more problems than solutions.’ What is your view? 78
Nigel Tan Wei Xuan (18S63)
Does thrift have any relevance in our consumerist society? 81
Grace Wang Shi Jia (18A11)
4
Science & Technology 84
How far is science fiction becoming a fact? 85
Chung Ying Qiao Winnie (18S42)
‘All countries have an equal responsibility to conserve the environment.’ Discuss. 88
Fathinah Al-Husna Subhan (19A11)
Tan Shi Xin (19S47)
“Environmentalism is a futile endeavour.” What is your view? 96
Oy Cher Xuan (19A15)
‘History has no relevance for tomorrow.’ To what extent is this a fair viewpoint? 98
Regine Ong Jia Xuan (18S62)
‘Technology has revolutionised sport, but not necessarily for the better.’ Discuss. 101
Rafi Bayhaqi Nur (18S32)
‘Given the problems countries face today, resources should not
be wasted on space exploration.’ Comment. 104
Yuki Tai-Kotsuji Yong Cheng (18S44)
Has technology made modern society a more dangerous place? 107
Tan Yi Hui (18S36)
Has technology made modern society a more dangerous place? 110
Rubesh Suresh (18S63)
Society 113
‘I earned my degree from the university of life.’ Do you agree that
real world experiences are more valuable than formal education? 114
Hrishiraj Mandal (19S47)
Is it justified for the state to place restrictions on what its citizens can say? 117
Phua Shyn Wei (19S33)
Lim Zhao Xun Jerrell (19S55)
5
‘Results are valued over character.’ How true is this
of the education system in your country? 125
Jewel Woon Si Wei (19S34)
of the education system in your country? 127
Muhammad Farhan (19S62)
Consider the view that society should always strive to be inclusive. 129
Sabarna Manoharan (19A11)
Consider the view that society should always strive to be inclusive. 132
Rachel Siew Hui Xin (19S31)
‘Young people today are like strawberries: they bruise easily.’
Do you think this is a fair view? 134
Chinthakayala Jyothika Siva Sai (19S47)
Are young people today overly concerned with image? 138
How far should the government involve itself in the reproductive lives of its people? 141
Chun Lei Suen Charlene (19A12)
Consider the view that an ageing population is the most
devastating crisis that society is facing today. 143
Darren Ang Wei-Cheng (18S62)
Miscellaneous 146
‘We can be optimistic about the future of the world.’ Discuss. 147
Sitara Manoj (19S54)
‘We can be optimistic about the future of the world.’ Discuss. 149
Amber Ang Jia Qi (19S63)
Is the food we eat becoming increasingly unsafe? 151
Tang Shi Jie (19S33)
Is the food we eat becoming increasingly unsafe? 153
Lim Wan Xuan (19S51)
Do you agree that the future of Singapore is a bright one? 156
Lee Young Kai (19S38)
‘There is no room for creativity in a society that prizes efficiency.’
Discuss this with reference to your society. 159
Amelia Tay Li Jia (18S46)
6
Notable Events of 2019: A Kaleidoscope Perspective
March 2019: Christchurch Terror Attacks

Two consecutive mass shootings occurred at mosques in a terrorist attack in Christchurch,
New Zealand. Police charged Brenton Harrison Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian man, with
murder in relation to the attack. The attack was linked to an increase in white supremacism
and alt-right extremism globally observed since about 2015.
https://tinyurl.com/christchurchshootings
https://tinyurl.com/riseinaltright
Tags: #alt-right #shootings #supremacism #politics #social media
April 2019: Lori Lightfoot Becomes Mayor of Chicago

Lightfoot became the first black female and first openly gay leader of Chicago, which is now
the largest city in U.S. history to have an openly LGBTQ mayor, and the largest U.S. city to be
headed by a woman.
https://tinyurl.com/lorilightwood1
https://tinyurl.com/lorilightwood2
Tags: #diversity #politics #governance
April 2019: First Image of Black Hole Captured

Accomplishing what was previously thought to be impossible, a team of international
astronomers has captured an image of a black hole’s silhouette. For scientists, the challenge
was how, from thousands or even millions of light-years away, to capture an image of the hot,
glowing gas falling into a black hole.
https://tinyurl.com/blackholecaptured1
https://tinyurl.com/blackholecaptured2
Tags: #science #technology #astronomy
April 2019: Notre Dame Fire

A structure fire broke out beneath the roof of Notre-Dame de Paris cathedral in Paris. By the
time it was extinguished, the building's infrastructure had been severely damaged and
destroyed. Many works of art and religious relics were moved to safety early in the emergency,
but others suffered some smoke damage, and some exterior art was damaged or destroyed.
The cathedral contained a large number of artworks, religious relics, and other irreplaceable
treasures, including a crown of thorns said to be the one Jesus wore at his crucifixion, a
purported piece of the Cross on which Jesus was crucified, the Tunic of St. Louis, a much-
rebuilt pipe organ by Aristide Cavaillé-Coll, and the 14th-century Virgin of Paris statue.
President Emmanuel Macron said that the cathedral would be restored by 2024, and launched
a fundraising campaign which brought in pledges of over €1 billion as of 22 April 2019. A
complete restoration could require twenty years or more.
https://tinyurl.com/ublkcvy
https://tinyurl.com/yy5vtwd2
https://tinyurl.com/ur6tak4
Tags: #art #culture #history #society
7
May 2019: Passing of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation (POFMA) Bill
On one hand, the rationale was to ensure the legislation was in line with the growing concerns
regarding falsehoods and misinformation online. On the other hand, critics were worried that
the bill would lead to excessive governmental control over the expression of ideas online.
https://tinyurl.com/may2019-pofma1
https://tinyurl.com/may2019-pofma2
Tags: #media #new media #government #censorship #freedom of speech
May 2019: Huawei Ban

The trade war between China and the US led to Trump limiting the business US companies
could do with Chinese corporations like Huawei. There were also fears that Huawei's
equipment could be used to spy on US countries and companies. Consequently, Google
blocked Huawei's access to future Android updates.
https://tinyurl.com/may2019-huawei1
https://tinyurl.com/may2019-huawei2
Tags: #politics #innovation #international relations #trade #economics #sovereignty
May 2019: San Francisco Bans Facial Recognition

San Francisco became the first city in the US to ban facial recognition technology. The
authorities used the technology to help identify the suspect in the mass shooting at an
Annapolis, Md., newspaper in June 2018. But civil liberty groups have expressed unease about
the technology’s potential abuse by the government amid fears that it may shove the United
States in the direction of an overly oppressive surveillance state. Matt Cagle, a lawyer with the
A.C.L.U. of Northern California, summed up the broad concerns of facial recognition: The
technology, he said, “provides the government with unprecedented power to track people
going about their daily lives. That’s incompatible with a healthy democracy.”
https://tinyurl.com/y5nadego
https://tinyurl.com/y3hrp3q4
Tags: #governance #identity #privacy #big data #civil rights #democracy
June 2019: Australia Bushfires

Australia experienced a series of bushfires which spiralled out of control and resulted in severe
environmental and economic damage. Over a billion animals have been killed, and endangered
species have been driven to extinction. Air quality had severely deteriorated, leading to a rise
in health complications. The bushfires have burnt an estimate of 18.6 million hectares of land,
destroying homes and killing 34 people.
https://tinyurl.com/AusBushfires1
https://tinyurl.com/AusBushfires2
Tags: #environment #climate change #bushfire
August 2019: Amazon Rainforest Fires

The 2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires season saw a year-to-year surge in fires occurring in the
Amazon rainforest and Amazon biome within Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru during that
year's Amazonian tropical dry season. Fires normally occur around the dry season as slash-and-
burn methods are used to clear the forest to make way for agriculture, livestock, logging, and
8
mining, leading to deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. Such activity is generally illegal
within these nations, but enforcement of environmental protection can be lax. The increased
rates of fire counts in 2019 led to international concern about the fate of the Amazon
rainforest, which is the world's largest terrestrial carbon dioxide sink and plays a significant role
in mitigating global warming.
https://tinyurl.com/uxs2h7a
https://tinyurl.com/rxnj9a6
Tags: #environment #climate change #law #climate scepticism
2019: The Year of Protests

2019 saw an abnormally large number of high-profile protests across the world. Many of these
protests were due to economic issues such as corruption, inequality and poverty, democracy,
and immigration. These protests resulted in major shifts in governmental structure, the
replacement of several heads of states and several human rights violations and repression.
February: Kazakhstan and Algeria

March: Hong Kong
July: Moscow
August: Papua riots
September: Egypt
October: Iraq, Bolivia, Spain, Chile and Lebanon
November: Italy, Iran and Malta
December: India and Sudan
https://tinyurl.com/2019protests1
Case Study: Indian CAA Protests in December 2019

The Citizenship Amendment Act (Bill) protests, also known as CAA Protest, occurred after the
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was enacted by the Government of India on 12 December
2019. The move sparked widespread national and overseas ongoing protests against the Act
and its associated proposal of the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Protests broke out
rapidly across the country, although the concerns of the protesters vary.
The amendment has been widely criticised as being discriminatory on the basis of religion,
particularity for excluding Muslims. Protestors against the amendment demanded that it be
scrapped and that the nationwide NRC not be implemented. The bill raised concerns among
the Indian Muslim as well as poor Indians as they might be rendered stateless that could lead
them to detention. They are also concerned that all citizens will be affected by the bureaucratic
exercise of the NRC where they will have to prove their citizenship for inclusion in the registry.
The protesters have also brought to light the suppression of such protests through police
brutality and crackdown.
https://tinyurl.com/wg9sxs5
https://tinyurl.com/tx3gz5n
Tags: #democracy #government #inequality #racism #discrimination #society #politics
9
Arts & Culture
10
“Music unites people.” To what extent do you agree?
Aung Miri Yin-Toe (19S33)
“It don’t matter if you’re black or white,” the voice of Michael Jackson crooned before
a stadium of screaming fans, through car radios and loudspeakers, sweeping whole nations and
societies with the same message of welcome and unity. The lyrics “black or white” could be
replaced by any other cultural markers – “women or men”, “straight or gay”, “young or old”, and
the same message that we are all loved as one would still come shining through. This is the
nature of music – it transcends social barriers, it invokes an experience of shared identity and
carries messages of hope and togetherness in the face of division. While it is undeniable that
some aspects of music have discriminatory and divisive elements, it is my ultimate belief that
the nature of music is to unite people.
Music is a universal language. The same flowing melodies can invoke shared
experiences that transcend all social barriers, allowing people from all walks of life to share in
the human emotions of love, grief, and failure. The sweeping emotions evoked by music
transcend both cultural and language barriers – K-pop, for example, is a genre of music that is
sung in Korean and originates from Korean culture, and yet has risen to attract hordes of
screaming cult followers from the US, from Britain and Africa, transcending national boundaries
to be celebrated across the world. Bands like BTS have risen to perform their showstoppers on
entirely different national and cultural landscapes like the American Music Awards - for the
very fact is that their thrumming anthems like ‘Fire’ are equally appreciated and relatable, even
for those without knowledge of the language the lyrics are sung in. Music also transcends
language. The emotions of love and longing evoked in timeless instrumental music like
Beethoven’s ‘Für Elise’ or Yiruma’s ‘River Flows In You’ need no lyrics to communicate their
messages. Rather, the rises and falls of the piano invoke the same emotions in listeners
regardless of their language, age or place in time. It is no wonder that timeless anthems from
the 80s loved by today’s parents still blast through their children’s speakers, years after their
release; people, both young and old, from entirely different societies are equally able to
understand the human experiences of grief and attempts at self-expression conveyed in
Queen’s ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, or the almost inevitable draw of romance expressed in Elvis
Presley’s ‘Can’t Help Falling In Love With You’. Music thus acts as a universal medium that is
beyond time, culture or individual situations - music unites people by finding a basis through
which anyone can relate to or understand each other, through experiences they all can share
in.
Moreover, music can unite people by celebrating a sense of pride and group identity.
Cultural and social groups from across time have turned to music as a way to express and
celebrate their shared experiences, which can in turn, spark a sense of identity and belonging.
Many take pride in and define the decade of their birth by its music, be it the jazzy blues of the
20s or the Rock n’ Roll 80s, igniting a sense of shared identity. National music, such as national
anthems or National Day songs like ‘Home’ in Singapore, is proudly sung in unison every
National Day, forming a huge platform through which Singaporeans express their national
identity and sense of belonging to the nation. Often, repressed social groups find respite and
11
celebration in using music as icons of their identity – ‘Born This Way’ by Lady Gaga has become
an anthem for the LGBT community that is sung every Pride Month, inspiring individuals
“whether gay, straight or bi” to take pride in who they are. In such a way, music can often be
the key medium through which social groups express and define themselves, uniting people
with shared experiences by becoming markers of a group identity and a sense of belonging.
However, some may also argue that music has the capacity to divide people. Critics
point to the genres and pieces of music that may carry discriminatory undertones layered over
their melodies. The rap genre, for example, has been repeatedly criticised for the way women
are often objectified as sexual objects in its music, with vulgar lyrics such as those in Kanye
West’s ‘Famous’ portraying even successful women as mere sexual conquests to the singer.
Furthermore, entrenched prejudices may be embedded in the frequent use of racial slurs - such
as the N-word against African Americans in rap music - that may normalise or even encourage
racist and prejudiced sentiments when heard by young and impressionable audiences.
Therefore, discriminatory undertones expressed in certain types of music have the capacity to
widen social divisions, by exacerbating or encouraging prejudiced stereotypes and attitudes as
depicted in their music and lyrics.
However, this possibly discriminatory effect of music is overshadowed by the fact that
while music can carry messages of division, this same nature of music also allows it to bring
people together through messages of unity and peace. In the face of a complex world scarred
by terrorism, tragedy, prejudice, and war, music has often acted as the balm to help societies
recover from their wounds and the glue that holds people together in times of utmost division.
After a brutal terrorist attack on an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in 2017, it was the
‘One Love Manchester’ charity concert organized by the singer one week later that brought
hundreds of musicians, victims, recovering community members and thousands of supporters
together in a celebration of communal strength, resilience, and support in the face of such
horror. The nature of music is that it communicates messages – and while it is true that some
of these messages can be warped or prejudiced, they can also speak of unity and mobilize
people to come together as one. Lil Dicky’s ‘Earth’ involved dozens of artists who implored the
world to come together to fight climate change as one people, while Michael Jackson’s ‘Black
or White’ spoke to creating unity between different races as one human race. In such a way,
music can unite by carrying messages that implore people to come together in the face of any
situation; music is thus a tool for unity.
Music is a universal language, a source of communal identity and a tool for social
cohesion – it is through music that we are able to bring worlds together beyond national or
cultural boundaries, regardless of one’s walk of life. Thus, music unites people and brings our
society to new heights.
Comments:
Ending could be a tad punchier. The nature, significance and strength of unity brought about by
music could have been more deeply explored, and the counterargument is relatively weak. Having
said that, these are quibbles compared with the relative sophistication of your arguments as well as
the wide and relevant selection of examples. Good job!
12
‘The Arts cannot create positive social change.’ How far do you agree?
“I followed the thread of art and somehow discovered a path that would allow me to
live.” With internationally renowned artist Yayoi Kusama’s words - alongside her evocative
works - echoing in the minds of aspiring artists, there seems to be a growing belief in the Arts’
ability to incite social change. From installation artists to performance artists, artworks have
evolved beyond the individual and have become the frontier of social commentary. The ability
of the Arts to evoke rich emotional responses often accredits its ability to bring about social
change. However, due to the subjectivity of art, the limited premise on which it influences
people’s reactions and the potentially negative consequences the Arts may bring, I believe to
a large extent that the Arts cannot create positive social change.
It is commonly argued that the significance of an artwork in its social climate lies in the
artist’s intended message. At times, these messages are powerfully thought-provoking and can
prompt their audiences to reconsider their acceptance of the current state of things. In turn,
this may inspire them to take a stand for certain causes and advocate for change to be made.
Ai Weiwei’s art commenting on the repressive Chinese regime is an example of such artwork.
In this case, the artist enables his audience to recognise the structural issues of the country,
evoking in them strong emotional responses that would hopefully inspire them to take action.
By conveying such messages through art forms, artists are able to incite intrinsic responses in
their audience without explicitly feeding them with information, thus creating a deeper
impression on particular issues.
However, the effectiveness of this approach in creating actual, tangible changes in the
social or political landscape is realistically limited to the impression the artwork creates and the
receptiveness of the viewer. As heart-wrenching and powerful as artist Dede Eri Supria’s works
are in depicting the harsh reality of poorer communities suffering in the face of Indonesia’s
developing urban landscape, the impact they leave on viewers is limited to this revelation and
recognition of suffering. The Arts may plant a seed of concern in the audience’s mind, but real
social change can only be taken when this awareness is coupled with other avenues outside of
the Arts. In an economy like Indonesia’s that prioritises growth, it is challenging for anyone to
start sustainable, effective change simply from their inspiration by the Arts. Therefore, the Arts
alone are very limited in their ability to create positive social change.
Another limitation the art scene faces in its endeavour to create social change is an
increasing divergence from explicit social commentary and the intention of artists themselves.
The Arts are founded on subjectivity, which validates limitless possibilities in what an artist may
want to convey, and the medium through which they communicate it. This results in a large
majority of art in the Arts scene catering to subjective audiences and thus having a highly
limited impact on viewers, therefore often failing to amount to much of a following that may
be inspired to bring about real social change. ‘White On White’, ‘Bridge’, ‘Untitled (White
Square Lavender)’, ‘White Stone’ and ‘The Study for the Homage of the Square’ are examples
of such subjective art. Despite being critically acclaimed and adored by some, they are simply
13
blocks of white canvas to the general public, who do not respond as receptively. The meaning
of art being lost through its form occurs more extensively in the undecipherable realms of
Minimalist or Abstract art forms. In fact, the rise of social media has created a landscape in the
Arts scene which prioritises the ‘Instagrammability’ of artwork. This means that art forms are
now often reduced to their face value even if they have deeper intentions, as the majority of
their audience is not concerned beyond how they would look on their social media accounts.
A survey by The Atlantic found that 79% of visitors at the highly popular art installation ‘The
Beach’ were not aware of, or did not consider, its commentary on the universality of memories.
This makes apparent the limited impact the Arts scene has on viewers in inciting any kind of
powerful response that could result in a strong enough desire to create positive social change.
On the other hand, some may argue that art forms need not directly evoke passion to
advocate for a cause to constitute social change. In fact, many artworks contribute to changing
the mindset of the general public towards certain issues, and even changing their experiences
with less commonly raised topics. Art often serves to create platforms that enable discussion,
which may be enough of a catalyst to subtly change the social landscape. Yayoi Kusama’s
‘Infinity Mirrors’ exhibition, for instance, opens doors for otherwise sensitive discussions about
mental disorders like Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. The global initiative ‘The Artidote’
connects 4 million users around the world to share vulnerable and raw artwork about
themselves, and serves as a support system that builds a community, changing what defines an
inclusive social landscape entirely. These examples make apparent how the Arts can be utilised
as a platform for social change in discreet yet impactful ways.
However, the success of such initiatives is restricted due to the subjectivity of an

audience’s response to art due to varying backgrounds and social climates. Performance artist
Millie Brown, for instance, was met with heavy criticism about her form of art, which includes
vomiting coloured soy milk on a canvas to create an art piece. Her performances have been
criticised for romanticising bulimia, thus bringing about negative consequences. A more
extreme example would be the Charlie Hebdo case, in which French artists explicitly produced
sensitive commentary to evoke reactions and start discussions. Unfortunately, this was
responded to with a shooting after highly offensive drawings about Muslims were produced.
Therefore, it is evidenced that the subjectivity of art brings about its fragility in evoking
constructive social responses.
In conclusion, while the Arts create a very promising platform by allowing messages to
be conveyed to the public in emotionally evocative and powerful forms, a lot of their
effectiveness in inciting social change lies in the artist, the art form, and the audience’s
response. The limitation the Arts have in inciting real change may be combated with more
external pillars of support such as government funding, but the Arts alone are limited in
creating significant social change.
Comments:
A refreshing and insightful read with thoughtful & well-explained arguments. Examples used were
also sufficiently detailed and used to good effect. More thorough explanation of argument & better
choice of examples were needed towards the end, but overall an enjoyable read. Language is
generally fluent, but check for accuracy of vocabulary.
14
Brigette Teo (19S34)
Leo Tolstoy, a famous author, once said, “Art is not a handicraft, it is a transmission of
the feelings of an artist”. The Arts provide platforms for artists to express their views and to
voice their thoughts in their own unique ways. Some may be of the opinion that the Arts exist
simply for their entertainment and aesthetic values. However, I would beg to differ, as I agree
to a large extent that the Arts are powerful mediums to catalyse positive social change.
First off, it is easy to see why people would feel that the Arts cannot create positive
social change due to the individualistic nature of the Arts. Through creating art, artists are able
to express themselves. However, these expressions are not necessarily inclusive of society’s
views, and are only exclusive to the artists themselves. An example would be the famous
abstract Expressionism artist Jackson Pollock. His paintings are merely splatters and drips of
paint that only corresponded to his mood during the process. His paintings simply provide a
visual record of a single man’s emotions, but do not convey any message nor incite any strong
feelings for social change. Thus, the Arts can be seen as rather exclusive and only having
aesthetic qualities, with no power to create positive social change.
On the other hand, expressions through the Arts, more often than not, have conveyed
strong messages and started social change. Through the use of forum theatre, it has utilised
visuals, music and audience interaction to shed light on issues and change perspectives. Drama
Box in Singapore is a forum theatre which presents plays circling more taboo subjects such as
AIDS and multiculturalism. This actively engages its audience in thinking beyond their
preconceived notions about such topics, and promotes a more positive outlook on them.
Through visual artworks, artists such as Dede Eri Supria or Duane Hanson make use of
Surrealism to create works that reflect their society. Dede reflects the social injustice and the
cycle of poverty in Indonesia in his paintings, while Hanson creates realistic and life-sized
sculptures of the common people we often overlook in society, highlighting the issues with the
flawed and broken American Dream. These artists make use of the Arts to bluntly present the
reality of their societies, and their artworks serve as an urgent call for action to act on said
issues. This in turn heightens public awareness and eventually alleviates these problems faced
in society.
The Arts can also create positive social change through teaching important values.
Through the Arts, valuable lessons are served to their audience in a more palatable format
through the use of their entertaining qualities. ‘The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas’ is one such film
which talks about the effects of war and the need to maintain peace and harmony. Books such
as ‘The Giver’, which is a dystopian novel, gets people thinking about the state of our society
through motifs and symbolisms. The use of the Arts tugs at the heartstrings of audiences and
conveys messages more effectively than a standard speech would. Thus, the Arts have the
ability to create positive change.
15
However, some forms of the Arts may bring about negative social change, as the
messages could be misinterpreted. ‘Vomit artist’ Millie Brown seemingly glorifies bulimia
through puking dyed soy milk on canvases in a Jackson Pollock splatter style. Even though
these unconventional methods of art exist, the public has to truly understand the minds of
artists before misinterpreting them. Positive social change can be brought about, even through
the acts of censoring or criminalising the Arts. Censorship may seek to silence the voices of
artists, but this ironically brings more public attention to whatever the government is
attempting to hide. Sonny Liew’s ‘The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye’ was banned from being
circulated in Singapore, as it was seen as a threat to the government’s legitimacy, and could
potentially create negative sentiments towards the government despite it simply being an
alternative view to Singapore’s government. The book has even gone on to win three Eisner
Awards. Calling out the Sticker Lady or the Golden Staircase as acts of vandalism sets the public
thinking about the fine line between art and vandalism. This opens the minds of people to
alternative forms of art, instead of simply conforming to the perspective that art only belongs
to museums.
On a more economic-centric note, there is a common misconception that science is

more valuable in its abilities to create technology for social change. However, this is not true
as the Arts develop creative and innovative minds, and crucial skills which are equally important
in our increasingly volatile world. A job in the Arts works hand in hand with any other
profession to kickstart social change.
In conclusion, the Arts will always serve its basic purpose of entertainment and
aesthetics. However, beyond the merely shallow façade of the Arts, it is no doubt a powerful
medium for voices to be heard. Social change can be brought about by any standard speech or
letter, but in the hands of a just artist, the Arts will bring positive social change to an even
higher level.
Comments:
Brigette,
Evident personal voice in your writing, but could do with fewer grammatical mistakes. Clearly, you
do know quite a bit and have an interest in the Arts. A wide range of issues and examples provided.
Balance is evident and sufficiently reconciled, but a pity the last two issues on vandalism and the
Arts collaborating with technology weren’t completed.
16
Kee Chong Wei (19S61)
The late artist Georges Braque once said, “Art is made to disturb, science reassures.”
This provides an insight into the critical role that the Arts play in unravelling complex and
controversial topics that society shuns and blinds themselves to. Deteriorating work-life
balance, destruction of our natural environment and the disparaging over prioritisation of
material values are but a handful of topics that the Arts seek to magnify and spark discussion
on. While there exists the view that the Arts cannot evoke positive social change, I disagree
with that view, as many real-world examples have exemplified otherwise.
Firstly, the Arts are able to draw attention to major issues that mainstream media may
choose to ignore or are disallowed from covering. This is particularly noticeable in countries
where citizens are often withheld the full scope of issues within the country, through heavy
censorship and filtering by an oppressive government body. In situations like this, the Arts
serve as a source to expose the genuine, unadulterated truth behind every source of
information. For example, artist Ai Weiwei once created art pieces to uncover and reveal the
tragic event of an earthquake striking a school and claiming many lives that the Chinese
government prohibited coverage on, due to the event reflecting badly on their efficacy in
reacting to issues. By exposing the lapse in integrity by the government and providing the
whole truth to the citizens of China, the Arts were able to evoke positive social change by
driving and uniting citizens to rebel against an oppressive regime and demand access to their
basic right to the truth, preventing further occurrences of such censorship.
Secondly, the Arts are able to captivate people, and more effectively persuade them to
direct attention and resources towards pivotal problems plaguing society. Contrary to how
information is usually presented with paragraphs upon paragraphs of text with few to no
images, the Arts display themselves largely as visual representations, with some even
containing sound bites and little to no text. This attracts our attention more effectively by
catering to our desire to be entertained as well as dislike of focusing our energy on intensive
reading. For example, local artist Chun Kai Feng’s art piece ‘He's Satisfied from Monday to
Friday and on Sundays He Loves to Cry’ is a visual representation of the stress and
consternation that affects Singaporean citizens on a regular basis. By presenting a seemingly
normal office cubicle that contains tools like sharp knives and other objects, it portrays the
suicidal tendencies less discussed by hectic individuals in the ‘pressure cooker’ work culture of
a first world country like Singapore. Additionally, exhibits like ‘Breaking Waves’, a collective
arts display composed of pieces from artists like Kheyton Lim and Nicolette Teo, seek to bring
up and raise awareness of the topic of mental well-being. Individual artists such as David
Crawford from the University of Minnesota also utilise the freedom of Arts to represent issues
like the reality of climate change, by composing a guitar riff with each note corresponding to a
certain year’s temperature, producing a high-pitched, piercing discord when played. These
examples show how the Arts are able to help visualise and alert the masses to a certain issue
by captivating them and creating unique representations of the issue. In doing so, communities
of people united under the common inspiration from the art pieces are formed, and thus
17
construct a more formidable front against issues like climate change and deteriorating mental
well-being, thereby evoking positive social change.
However, in certain cases, the Arts may have unintended consequences due to their
ambiguity, which gives rise to cacophonous opinions. When comprised largely of scrutiny and
criticism, it reduces the effectiveness of the Arts in evoking positive social change. For example,
anonymous artist Banksy once spray-painted a wall with an elephant from top to toe in order
to draw attention to the ‘elephant in the room’ that was animal abuse. However, due to an
unintended perception of the art piece by the general public, Banksy was instead criticised for
his usage of spray paint that only worsened the issue of animal abuse. Another example of this
is an art piece, also by Banksy, that was a painting encased in a special frame. Upon being
auctioned off for a hefty price, the painting automatically fell through its own frame, which to
the horror of the auctioneers was a shredder. Although Banksy’s intended purpose was to
provide a commentary on how society is excessively materialistic and always tries to represent
everything with a price tag, his art piece was viewed as staggering and vulgar in doing so.
However, as artists have personal motives, it is unavoidable that instances like this occur,
although it unfortunately tarnished the reputation of the art piece and prevented it from
creating positive social change.
Taking all factors into consideration, it is pellucid that the Arts, given its vibrant and
entertaining nature, is able to evoke positive social change in certain ways that are
unachievable otherwise. Yet, accompanied with its immense freedom of expression are the
ramifications of public scrutiny that ruin the products of the Arts. I personally feel that artists
should not compensate for this. Borrowing a quote from the late artist Pablo Picasso: “When
crafting art, close your eyes and sing”, it is only with genuine emotion and expression that the
Arts can achieve its purpose and serve as a ballast for positive social change, not with self-
censorship and certainly not by passing it through the lens of a larger organisation that is in
control and tainting its purity.
Comments:
Chong Wei, arguments raised are insightful, examples given are also detailed, well-explained and
show a good knowledge of the topic. The counterargument & rebuttal needed to be better explained.
Language is assured, with evidence of felicitous expression.
18
Assess the view that attempts to regulate new media
can never be truly effective.
Julianne Faye Ong (19S33)
In today’s modern world, the internet and burgeoning new media have become very
importantㅡon the verge of being a necessaryㅡpart of human life. People have transitioned
from flipping through newspapers to scrolling through online articles. Even the way we connect
with each other has undergone a tectonic shift; people now have online profiles and the liberty
to post about their lives as a means to socialise, so much that meeting face-to-face has become
almost obsolete. The rise of the new media, the virtual world where people today receive and
disperse information, creates convenient access to a plethora of knowledge. However, it
engenders a new concern as to whether the information being disseminated to the millions is
appropriate, much less true. Overarching bodies such as the government and new media
companies have been at the helm to regulate information posted on respective platforms, but
the extent of success they have achieved in doing so is largely questionable. I believe that the
attempts to regulate new media can never be truly effective, despite the fact that salient efforts
by governing parties and companies have been made to do so.
The essay question posits that regulation can ‘never be truly effective’; however, this is
too much of a sweeping statement that undermines many commendable efforts by new media
companies and governments to regulate the media. Through government campaigns, people
are becoming increasingly aware of fake news and the deliberate spread of disinformation to
serve political agendas. Social media and news media companies have been pressured by critics
to have tighter control over what they permit to be posted on their platforms. For instance,
three years ago, an image online of a terrace roof collapsing in Punggol rapidly circulated the
internet. It triggered fire departments to deploy emergency services to the site - however, upon
arrival, it was discovered to be a hoax. The doctored image had resulted in unnecessary distress
to the public and wastage of resources. This is one of a hundred instances where fake news
has derailed productivity. However, in 2019, the government released the Protection from
Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which grants them permission to sieve out
any fake news and have them removed from corresponding platforms. This allows fake news
to be removed in a matter of 3 hours, and the act of prompt excision can prevent the spread
of misinformation that could negatively influence society by creating political bias, et cetera.
Facebook has also announced that it will have stricter regulations to control what is posted on
their platforms, narrowing leeway and promising to promptly remove politically biased images,
offensive images and other such harmful and dishonest information. To an extent, these
attempts to regulate the new media are effective in thwarting misinformation, because artificial
intelligence and resource teams are employed to quickly root out harmful content. However,
with the internet itself and the amount of information expanding at exponential rates, the
ability to effectively regulate new media is incredibly stunted.
In the same vein, as the amount of information grows at an unprecedented pace, it is

increasingly difficult to differentiate fake news and misinformation. Hence, the attempts to
19
regulate new media can never be truly effective, as it is difficult to discern and remove
information quickly enough before it causes extensive damage. Studies have shown that
manipulators are often able to disguise their online posts or articles such that they emotionally
appeal to readers to foster a sense of trust. This creates a problem where people who are
especially gullible allow themselves to be influenced by these posts. An example is the
‘Pizzagate’ incident that happened in Washington D.C. Conspiracy theories circulated online
about the small pizzeria being a masquerade for a covert sex ring where innocent children are
trafficked. Before Facebook could take the posts down, a man had gone into the pizzeria with
a rifle and could have potentially shot everyone down before realising that what he had read
was not actually true. With millions of opinions and theories being posted online every hour,
how is one governing body able to discern or sieve out fake news from innocuous and fictitious
postulations that serve to entertain? Furthermore, they face the threat of potentially infringing
on an individual’s freedom of speech and rights, when they selectively remove content that is
perceived very differently from both sides - what one might view to be harmful, another could
perceive as absolutely harmless, especially when so much more of the same content thrives in
the shadows online but has yet to be identified. According to research, millions of news articles
and social media posts are uploaded every minute, which makes it nearly impossible for
governing bodies and singular companies alone to make careful and deliberate decisions
removing harmful content without interfering with the public’s freedom to post what they
want. It is then very easy for people with personal agendas or malicious motives to sway others
and spread their opinions and beliefs, defending it as their right to free speech. Hence,
regulations can never be truly effective, when realistically looking at the sheer amount of
information online and the governing parties’ limited ability to discern harmful content.
What makes new media even more difficult to regulate is that the regulation process
itself comes at the expense of employees’ mental health, which has adverse impacts on the
lives of these people. Human resources are required to filter through reported posts and to
make careful decisions as to whether the content deserves to be deleted. An interview with
ex-Facebook employees divulged their traumatic experiences working as filters to regulate
harmful posts. Many of the interviewees gave tearful and emotional testimonies to the endless
hours of animal abuse, child abuse, terrorist killings and torture that they had to individually
vet through before they quit their jobs. Most of them were diagnosed with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorders from the macabre videos and images that they were forced to sieve through.
Although many social media companies leverage artificial intelligence to regulate online media
quickly, that technology alone is unreliable in making emotional discernments as to what might
affect people negatively. However, the use of people to sieve through and bear the brunt of
these horrendous and scarring videos has a debilitating effect on the lives of these individuals.
It brings into question: is the sacrifice of a few people justified to ensure the regulation of new
media? Even so, the innumerable videos, information and images come into play. Regardless of
how these people suffer to extract the explicit content, their work means very little in
effectively cleansing the Internet of disinformation and harmful posts as the numbers are just
too large. Therefore, the psychological harm to individuals and incessant inflow of information
are cracks in the attempt to mould a perfectly effective regulation system.
Another factor that makes new media incapable of being effectively regulated is the
fact that a hierarchy exists, where people with the right amount of power and status have a
20
greater degree of freedom to say what they want. Powerful politicians and famous celebrities
not only have a greater influence over their followers on new media, but also have more liberty
to post what they want. Recently, Facebook announced that it would not regulate the posts of
politicians as they did not want to be mistaken for interfering with public opinion of these
politicians or for showing bias if they removed certain posts. It is notable that within these
regulatory processes, companies must consider their own reputation before using their
authority to remove what they might deem inappropriate or fake. Yet, this paves a dangerous
path for politicians to spew their extreme views without moderation and sway the people's
perception of politics. If social media companies give leeway to politicians who have an
understandably large influence over their demographic, allowing them to be able to say
whatever they want could result in abuse of power and mandated freedom to manipulate the
public. In another example, famous celebrity turned UNICEF Goodwill ambassador Priyanka
Chopra drew flak for tweeting in support of Indian military in the midst of tensions with
Pakistan. Twitter also went under fire for not promptly removing her offensive tweet that
seemed to encourage war. Power and status apparently entitle people to get away with more
than they should online. Perhaps social media companies do so as a way to maintain cordial
relationships with these powerful and influential people as it ultimately results in personal gains
when more people seek to follow these celebrities. The way companies can turn a blind eye to
these powerful people is understandable to an extent, as they have to safeguard their own
reputation. However, it creates a dangerous gap where the outspoken and influential can abuse
this freedom and post misinformation, making regulation ineffective.
In the end, it is the consumers who need to make careful discretion, as they receive
their information from the new media. Completely effective control of new media is nearly
impossible, given the limited resources that are available to do so. However, this does not mean
that efforts by the government or new media companies should be discredited. The public must
cooperate with these bodies to ensure the spread of misinformation and harmful content does
not affect society adversely.
Comments:
Wide range of points, laudable attempt to develop paragraphs. Sound reasoning present. Some areas
need to be explained and linked better.
21
In the past, the public was often dependent on large traditional news outlets for
information regarding current affairs and social issues. The birth of the World Wide Web,
however, gave the public the power to voice their opinions and gain access to multiple news
sources independent of the traditional media. New media today refers to any platform that
allows people to share content or their own opinions. These platforms are largely online,
ranging from forums to social media. With the advent of new media, governments around the
world are coming up with measures that seek to regulate them. These measures range from
censorship to laws, and while they may appear to be effective on the surface, the vastness and
far-reaching effects of new media means that it is nearly impossible to regulate it fully. Thus,
attempts to regulate new media can never be truly effective.
Proponents of the counterargument suggest that censorship can be truly effective in

regulating the new media. They posit that just the mere threat of censorship is enough to deter
people from posting offensive content online, as people will fear the repercussions of their
actions. This is especially so in countries such as China where the Great Firewall exists,
censoring any topics that are viewed negatively in China. Users who attempt to circumvent
this censorship find themselves blocked from social media platforms, with the risk of arrest and
going through the opaque justice system in China. Thus, it is very rare to hear of anything
critical of the government in China, and conversations on their social media platforms are
stifled. By using such an example of censorship in a dictatorial country, proponents of the
counterargument show that regulating the new media can indeed be truly effective.
However, such strict regulations are rare around the world - and even in China, users
find creative ways to get past the censorship without arousing the suspicions of authorities
monitoring the conversations. As with any rules, there will always be those who seek to
challenge them. For example, despite the topic of the Tiananmen massacre being highly
censored in China, Chinese netizens have found ways to use cryptic numbers and Chinese
characters to discuss the topic, effectively bypassing the censorship. Despite the increasingly
tough censorship laws imposed as the government restricts anything associated with dissent,
the public will always find ways to circumvent the censorship and voice their views on the new
media. This applies even to other countries, where people find increasingly creative ways to
show their support for views that are either censored or taboo in the country. Thus, attempts
to regulate the new media can never be truly effective, as online users will always find ways of
getting around the censorship.
Another way in which the government attempts to regulate the new media is by
introducing laws. Yet, the anonymity that social media and online forums provide makes it
difficult for such laws to be enforced. This results in such laws being ineffective, in serving as
a deterrent to those intending to use the new media for malicious intent and sowing discord
among the public. For example, fake news laws have been introduced around the world in
22
varying forms, such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)
in Singapore. Such laws seek to punish those who knowingly spread fake news with malicious
intent, which can be detrimental to society in various ways. Many of such laws give the
government the power to directly intervene when malicious content is published online,
allowing enforcers to request for such content to be removed or for the perpetrator to face
the punishment. Yet, enforcing such laws can be extremely difficult, as the new media allows
anyone to post content anywhere anonymously. This makes it difficult for enforcers to find the
perpetrator and take them to task. Furthermore, the speed at which such content spreads
online makes it hard for enforcers to keep track, and to prevent others from spreading it
further. The ability of enforcers may be hampered further if the perpetrator is not even within
their jurisdiction. For example, in the American Presidential elections, despite knowing that
falsehoods were being published to sway voters and manipulate the election, not much could
be done as the perpetrators likely came from another country, Russia, which enforcers had no
jurisdiction over. Therefore, attempts by the government to regulate the new media are
hampered by a variety of factors, from the anonymity of those who post malicious content
online to the location from which the post is made, meaning that such regulations can never
be truly effective.
Social media and other new media organisations have attempted to regulate their own
online platform, by coming up with algorithms that can enforce policies put out by the online
platform. Yet, such algorithms are often flawed, making them ineffective in regulating online
platforms. Many of these algorithms aim to weed out harmful content from users’ feeds,
responding to the reports that users make against content that they deem harmful. Yet,
manpower is still required in the process to help look through online content that the
algorithms might have missed. The lack of manpower means that such regulations are often
not effective. For example, the livestreamed New Zealand shooting was posted on Facebook,
it was allowed on the platform for quite a long period before being taken down, despite
numerous reports from users. By then, the harm was done, traumatising those who had
watched the explicit portrayal of violence. This shows that the methods used to enforce the
policies are insufficient in actually regulating content in real-time, with a lot of malicious
content slipping through. Another example is how the innocuous Peppa Pig cartoon and
various other characters were used to depict violence in videos posted on YouTube. Such
videos even got past the restrictions imposed on the children’s channels where these videos
were published. This shows how even algorithms can be easily fooled into letting content that
goes against the policy set out by the company be published. Thus, these examples show the
limitations of regulations that companies attempt to use in regulating the new media, and that
such regulations can never be truly effective.
All in all, while social media and the new media companies, as well as governments
around the world, have taken many new measures in the past few years to regulate the new
media, more needs to be done. It may be true that no attempt can be truly effective, but an
attempt at regulating the new media is still better than none in most instances. Thus,
governments and new media organisations still have a responsibility to a certain extent, to
regulate the new media and protect the public from harmful and malicious content spreading
over the internet.
23
Comments:
A thoughtful and thorough essay that considers various measures and their effectiveness, with a
good range of examples. You could have elaborated more on the evaluation in the conclusion in the
main body. Language is fluent, with felicitous expressions.
24
Joey Tan Jia Yi (19S61)
From Facebook’s controversy over its role in influencing the 2016 US Presidential
Election, to the spread of deep fakes propagating falsehoods, it seems like the emergence of
new media has brought with it constant debate over the need for and effectiveness of
regulation. New media is thriving in the digital age, taking on more benign forms as digital news
by credible outlets like The New York Times, as well as more malignant forms like conspiracy
theories and misinformation. I agree with the view that attempts at regulating new media will
never truly be effective. Although it faces numerous challenges from the anonymity the
internet provides, free speech battles, as well as differences in value judgment within society,
there is still some hope in potentially effective regulation strategies currently being developed.
Firstly, I believe that the main reason attempts to regulate new media may never truly
be effective is the anonymity provided by the internet. Regulations, in general, are only
effective if individuals flouting the rules can be identified and held accountable – without
consequences, what are regulations? In the digital realm, concealing your identity is as easy as
using a VPN to mask your location, or using Bitcoin to make untraceable payments on the
blockchain. Perhaps the most famous example would be hacktivist group Anonymous. This
group of hackers has launched cyberattacks at everyone from the Thailand prison websites and
servers to the Islamic State, yet their true identities remain a mystery. The group’s cyberattacks
could be deemed illegal – and have been in the United Kingdom – but without suspects,
prosecuting them has consistently proven to be an issue. When users can remain anonymous
and untraceable, they are free to upload any content they like, free of any repercussions. Even
with regulations in place, who will be held accountable for their actions if the perpetrators
could not be identified? As such, the anonymity provided by the internet to users contributing
to new media, in my view, is the main reason attempts at regulation are unlikely to ever be
effective.
Secondly, differing views on free speech and what can be allowed is another big reason
for attempts at regulation to likely be ineffective. A key characteristic of the new media is that
everyone has a voice through digital platforms, but to regulate that voice would be a great
challenge. Based on socio-economic status, political alignment, religion, race, and other factors,
everyone draws the line on free speech differently. These differing and inherently conflicting
opinions mean that applying a blanket regulation inevitably causes conflict and is hence never
truly effective. One has to look no further for an example than YouTube’s messy fight with its
content creators. What started as a video sharing platform for pet videos and home videos has
now become a corporate behemoth struggling to find a way to effectively regulate the growing
diversity of content being uploaded to the site. In response to the rise of right-wing political
commentary channels spreading falsehoods and promoting xenophobic sentiments like Alex
Jones and QAnon, YouTube swiftly demonetised all political content. This also affected
legitimate political commentary and news channels, and even satirical content. Moreover,
these right-wing channels argued that YouTube’s actions have infringed upon their right to free
25
speech, sparking a messy debate over what free speech allows for and hence how to effectively
regulate content. YouTube, like many other new media platforms, faces the uphill battle of
striking the right balance. As Vox news journalist Ezra Klein said in his own YouTube video,
“cast the net too wide and innocent content creators get hurt, cast the net too narrow and bad
actors get away.” It is for this reason that effectively regulating new media has thus far been
impossible, and seems likely to say that way for the foreseeable future.
Lastly, I believe that differences in value judgement pose a sizable challenge to

effectively regulating new media. Before the rise of new media, traditional media like movies
and music were already subject to various regulations in different societies, based on differing
value judgements. These regulations were effective for traditional media because they were
localised and addressed specific concerns of that society – such as the decision to have parental
advisory labels on albums and age ratings on movies. New media is starkly different, in that it
is much more universal in nature and has a wider reach than most traditional media ever had.
Just this year, an episode on Saudi Arabia from comedian Hasan Minhaj’s Netflix series Patriot
Act was removed from Netflix in Saudi Arabia for apparently flouting cybercrime regulations
there. In the episode, Minhaj criticizes Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman’s human
rights abuses, including the assassination of journalist and Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi.
The removal of the episode sparked outrage in the United States (US) as people across the
political spectrum jumped to Minhaj’s defence and criticized Netflix, an American company, for
doing the bidding of an authoritarian leader. From the US's perspective, what Saudi Arabia did
was a blatant violation of free speech, but from the Saudis’ perspective, they were entirely
justified to regulate content coming into their country. It is precisely because new media (like
a series on an online streaming platform) provides everyone the same content and access
regardless of where they are in the world or their value judgement that it is almost impossible
to effectively regulate new media in accordance to everyone’s values.
On the other hand, as modern technology develops, I believe that there are potentially
effective regulation methods we can make use of in the near future. One such example would
be the deepfake detection technology currently in its early stages of development. Deepfakes
are doctored videos, commonly face swaps, used to create a convincing video of someone
doing something they never did or saying something they never said. The technology
essentially has the capability to turn everyone into a digital 3D model – easily manipulated and
edited. We have already seen some scary applications of deepfake technology: the
phenomenon of revenge porn, and scamming tens of millions of dollars by impersonating a
CEO on calls to company executives. Despite the dystopian possibilities of deepfake
technology, many are already working on ways to regulate them. A recent CNBC news clip
explored the development of detection technology and found that there are in fact companies
dedicated to developing such technology, who are working with tech giants like Facebook to
better regulate this particular form of new media on their platforms. Although there is currently
only a small market for these capabilities, as one executive said in his interview, one can remain
optimistic that as the market for such technology grows, it will continue to develop and
improve, hopefully catching up with the deepfake technology one day and becoming an
effective form of regulation.
26
That being said, such regulation methods with the potential to ever truly be effective
are few and far between, and our challenges in adopting effective means of regulation mostly
stem from other external causes, like fundamental disagreements in the beliefs we hold. New
media is a child of the internet that has grown to have its unique perks and challenges, vastly
different from traditional media. Regulating it effectively has been largely unsuccessful thus far
for many significant reasons, but as technology develops, there just might be potential for
effective regulation methods to emerge.
Comments:
A very insightful essay that thoroughly evaluates and examines the challenges of regulation.
Examples raised are also recent, relevant and well explained. Evaluation in the conclusion could have
been developed further. Language is very fluent and assured, but the stand needed to be clearer in
introduction.
27
‘Social media has reduced the quality of discussion today.’
Is this a fair view?
Samuel Oh Wen Yong (19A14)
In recent years, social media has become increasingly prominent. Now, it is no longer
just for youths, with people of all ages and of all walks of life using social media sites and apps
like Reddit, Instagram or WhatsApp. Many claim this to be a new ‘revolution’ akin to that of
the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, opining that social media has increased debate
and discussion about various social issues like inequality, women’s rights and environmental
protection. While social media has indeed granted a voice to people who otherwise have no
way of expressing their thoughts on issues, the actual quality of discussion has been
deteriorating since. This is because social media has created the space for communities to stick
together without debating others, and people more often than not rely on their feelings to
discuss topics. Fake news has also stifled attempts at having informed debates. Thus, it would
be fair to say that social media has indeed reduced the quality of discussion today.
Proponents for social media argue that social media is an excellent platform for
different schools of thought to talk about issues in a civilised manner. Social media's high
accessibility, they argue, allows for an ever-increasing number of views, many of which are
differing. Using Instagram, Facebook or YouTube would expose one to a myriad of liberal,
conservative or centrist content, with comment features facilitating civil discourse. YouTube
channels specialising in fact-based discourse allow for well-informed public discussions with
viewers, who then are able to express agreement (or lack thereof) with supporters or
challengers in the discussion via comment sections or with a like or dislike button. Reddit
community forums allow people to post whole essays and research papers for other fellow
users, also known as Redditors, to comment on. Proponents of social media often celebrate
these examples, touting the high quality of such channels which allow discourse.
However, such an argument does not hold up upon closer scrutiny. The increasing
number of discussions (which cannot even be entirely attributed to social media) does not
equate to an increase in their quality. Indeed, social media has garnered quite the reputation
for reducing debates to the use of mere appeals to emotion instead of facts. In fact, the very
feature of community building granted by social media platforms which defenders of social
media celebrate is its own downfall. Social media encourages groupthink and reduces an
individual’s critical thinking. Online communities on social media tend to have users who
already are in agreement with each other, and are prone to sideline the few mavericks who
have different opinions. This creates an echo chamber effect whereby people surround
themselves with others who do not deviate from their world views. This is very evident in
Reddit, with so many community forums vilifying others who disagree with them. Reddit
communities like r/Capitalism and r/Socialism rarely come into contact with each other to
debate, viewing each other as either too uneducated or radical to talk to. This generates an ‘us
versus them’ mentality in the users of social media, notoriously famous on Tumblr, a blog-like
social media site. Many threads on Tumblr are dedicated to a single cause like
environmentalism, religion and politics. Moreover, very few of these threads ever contain an
28
argument, with most if not all posts being similar in views. Therefore, not only has debate and
discourse decreased, contrary to the claims of proponents, but the very quality of such
discussions has also fallen.
Still, some argue that the quality of discussion today has not been reduced by social
media since it provides a platform for research gathering, allowing views to be substantiated
with hard evidence. The Internet has arguably increased the ability for everybody to access all
kinds of statistics and data. This allows social media users, who are already online, to simply
Google for evidence to support their claims made on social media platforms. Furthermore,
many researchers like Canadian linguistics professor Steven Pinker and America social
psychologist professor Jonathan Haidt have utilised social media platforms like YouTube and
Skype to debate topics like the Enlightenment values of Humanism and the increasing
emotional fragility of youths today. Academics are now using such platforms to engage each
other and teach other social media users the arguments for and against certain societal issues.
Thus, social media platforms provide users with the means of interacting with many
intellectuals and collecting information, allowing for discussion to be substantiated and well-
informed.
While such an argument does hold some weight most of the time in the academic world,
this is not the case outside the field of academia. Contrary to popular belief that people are
inclined to conduct research on social media platforms, most people do not. The majority of
users do not conduct their own research before participating in debates. This is for a number
of reasons such as research being too time-consuming, the aforementioned confirmation bias
in online communities, and that people are simply not inclined to make educated arguments
online. Research from multiple universities shows that people, especially on social media, tend
to rely more on anecdotal evidence to support their beliefs, and people tend to be highly biased
when conducting research without prior training, cherry-picking their research. This is most
evident by the infamous anti-vaccination and climate change denial movements found on
almost all social media platforms. Psychological research from the University of Toronto has
presented evidence suggesting that humans are already naturally biased in their views, with
social media only serving to enhance such a bias, hindering the research process in most people.
Hence, social media has actually reduced the likelihood of people conducting research to
support their views online, reducing the quality of debate.
Again, some may still argue that at the very least, the fast-paced, up-to-date nature of
social media allows users to access the news and read about the newest developments across
the world. This allows users to at least be on the same page when discussing issues like
terrorism, science and philosophy. Many news companies today use social media like The New
York Times, The Economist or The Straits Times to increase viewership of their content. This
allows users to have discussions about topics and issues as they are happening by the day.
When the recent COVID-19 epidemic first started in December 2019, people on YouTube and
Facebook were already talking about the Chinese government’s healthcare policies and
healthcare system, arguing whether the Communist Party was equipped to handle such a crisis.
Another example would be the assassination of the Quds Force commander Soleimani in Iraq.
When the news broke out about his death and the subsequent diplomatic fallout, one of the
first sites to engage in debate over US foreign policy was Twitter, with the hashtag #Soleimani.
29
News developments such as these facilitate discussions on social media, since they become big
talking points for people to express their views on current affairs.
Yet, this is still not the case. Up-to-date debates can easily be ruined by fake news,
which has the potential to go viral on social media. Fake news can erode the quality of debate
which news outlets on social media platforms provide. This is because users no longer know
what sources of news to trust since hearsay is so common on social media. There is no
obligation on the end of the user to provide the sources for any of his or her claims. An
infamous example of fake news hurting the quality of discussion on social media would be in
Taiwan where the Mainland Chinese government flooded social media sites with fake news
about Tsai Ing-Wen’s faking of her college degree and ‘selling out’ of Taiwan to the US and
Japan. Many incidents reported, like the Mainland Chinese embassy saving Taiwanese tourists
stranded in Osaka due to a typhoon, were not even real, and photos were doctored. The
government in China also flooded sites like Facebook with pro-Chinese users, who spammed
pages with comments expressing disappointment with the ‘weak’ incumbent government. This
created debate over non-existent issues, wreaking havoc online and harming Tsai Ing-Wen’s
standing in Taiwan. Russia also did a similar trick in the United States during the 2016
Presidential Elections, with fake news about the DNC and Democratic nominees being spread
on Twitter and Facebook. This shows how hard it is to confirm the credibility of statements
made on the internet, and by extension social media. Hence, fake news on social media has
called into question the quality of discussion today.
In conclusion, it is obvious from the above arguments that social media has hurt the
quality of discourse today. While it can be conceded that every now and then educated,
unbiased and fruitful debate has sprung forth from social media, the fact remains that social
media has made discussions too emotional and less substantive, too poorly researched and not
credible for it to be argued to have increased the standards of debate today. Thus, the view
that social media has reduced the quality of discussion today is a fair one.
Comments:
You have presented an adequate and balanced discussion supported by relevant examples. Could
broaden the scope of discussion by examining other features of social media, such as the ability to
allow users to remain anonymous as well as what algorithms do. Language is clear and fluent.
30
Over the past decade, the use of social media has gradually proliferated in our daily
lives, becoming a platform for people to connect with one another around the world. Social
media has also become the provider of a constant stream of information, and a place where we
can discuss our ideas freely with anyone willing to listen. With a more diverse range of people
being able to take part in discussions online on various platforms, from Facebook and Instagram
to forums such as Reddit, one would expect a higher quality of discussion today as more diverse
views can be heard and be brought out in such online spaces. Yet, this is not necessarily the
case, as the algorithms and anonymity granted in social media give rise to misinformation and
echo chambers. It is thus a fair view to claim that social media has reduced the quality of
discussion today.
Proponents of the opposing view suggest that discussions on social media have
increased the quality of discussions today, since many such platforms have mechanisms in
place to filter out posts that are not constructive to any discussions. This is especially true in
forums such as Reddit, where there is the ‘upvote’ and ‘downvote’ system for Redditors to
condemn replies and posts they deem irrelevant to the discussion, and moderators who
enforce rules surrounding discussions in a subreddit. Such mechanisms allow discussions to
take place in a rather safe environment, where those with valid points regardless of their point
of view can discuss freely on such platforms. The relative freedom of online platforms also
allows access to a larger group of people, allowing for more diverse groups of people from
around the world to discuss a topic freely on social media. Such free exchanges of information
and ideas would not have been possible without social media. The diversity of such ideas also
has the potential to give rise to higher-quality discussion on social media. This can be seen from
the active discussions of climate change on social media platforms such as Facebook where
different people around the world can weigh in on the topic based on their point of view. Thus,
some argue that the quality of discussions has risen with the availability of social media today.
However, these mechanisms allowing free discussions to take place can be flawed as
well. The very system that is supposed to filter out non-constructive discussions can actually
make such a post popular, as what makes a post rise in popularity is ultimately decided by the
online community, which may not always be responsible online. For example, fear-mongering
advice on social media regarding the recent COVID-19 outbreak helped spark panic among the
population, which resulted in mass buying of daily essentials. Such posts, despite not being
constructive to any discussions, were quickly popularised before professionals and experts
were able to debunk them. This shows how the uncontrolled nature of social media can allow
for individuals to dominate online discussions with such panic-inducing posts. Thus, the quality
of discussions today has not necessarily increased with social media, as certain people can
easily dominate online discussions and drown out opposing views.
31
Another reason social media has reduced the quality of discussions is the flawed
mechanisms and algorithms running social media, which easily gives rise to echo chambers.
Echo chambers in social media platforms are becoming increasingly prevalent over the years,
polarising society and significantly lowering the quality of discussions taking place. For
example, Facebook algorithms keep track of the type of posts that a user reads and likes, taking
into account such factors to tailor a set of posts to the user which conforms to their views. This
often gives rise to one-sided discussions where such online users end up merely affirming their
own views all the time, limiting any discussions regarding a topic. For a constructive discussion
to take place, points from people of differing views should be heard, which is not possible when
algorithms such as the one Facebook uses inevitably groups users of similar views together.
Another example is the forum 8chan, where violent and sadistic views are often aired. Such
forums where racism and violence views are aired merely reinforces the users’ beliefs, and little
if any actual discussions take place. Thus, the very mechanisms that run our social media
platforms tend to group people based on their views and create echo chambers, where
discussions often become one-sided and non-constructive, reducing the quality of any
discussions significantly.
Another reason why social media has reduced the quality of discussions is the
anonymity that it offers, allowing the spread of misinformation without consequences, which
often end up undermining any discussions. On all social media platforms, users can easily create
an account to generate and spread misinformation without their identity being found out.
When such misinformation is then used to justify one’s viewpoint in a discussion, the viewpoint
is undermined as the substantiation used becomes invalid. For example, during the haze period
in Singapore, there were posts discussing how a mask should be properly used to combat the
haze. Such discussions stemmed from misinformation that the two sides of the mask have two
uses, which was later debunked by The Straits Times. Yet, as seen in this case, it can be difficult
to counter such misinformation; rather than accounting for a larger issue such as the haze, such
fake news has to be addressed first. Even in other parts of the world, scientists and experts
struggle to counter such fake news in discussions taking place on social media. A prominent
example is global warming, where the lack of understanding of this issue by the general public
allowed misinformation to thrive, with people claiming it to be a hoax by citing fake news
articles and drawing the discussion away from the original issue regarding global warming.
Thus, misinformation and fake news which spreads readily on social media platforms severely
undermine the quality of discussions we have today.
All in all, while the presence of social media has allowed people from around the world
to discuss a common topic, the flawed algorithms and misinformation that currently plagues
social media mean that such discussions are often lacking in quality. For the quality of
discussions to be raised, professionals such as experts and scientists have to step in more
readily, to join in the discussions online and combat misinformation. This will allow the public
to move past such unnecessary controversies and discuss in better quality the larger problems
at hand.
32
Comments:
A fully relevant essay with clear understanding of the issue. The word ‘reduced’ suggests the quality
of discussion was higher. Some comparison between social media and mainstream/traditional media
in the past would help put a bit more focus on this word ‘reduced’.
33
Chia Wee Boon John (19S47)
“What the f*** did you just f***ing say about me, you little b****? I'll have you know I
graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals…” This is a short part of a well-known reply on
social media to a serious comment criticising a man’s actions. Comments like these are not very
hard to find these days on social media. More and more people are taking to social media to
discuss topics, but this is not surprising. Humans are social creatures and will always have the
drive to learn more, and one way we can do so is through discussion. These discussions can be
beneficial and rich in information, where two or more parties try to prove their points.
However, it is fair to say that due to social media, the quality of discussion has gone downhill.
Some argue that social media was designed to encourage and enhance discussion.
Various forums and discussion boards have been created to allow people to express opinions.
Not only that, popular social media sites expressing one’s opinion even easier. With the tap of
a button, one can show that they agree with a comment. This way, the comment section will
not be cluttered with comments like ‘I agree’, ‘good point’, or ‘same’. It improves the quality of
discussion, since well-structured and comprehensive opinions or arguments will appear at the
top of the comments. If one disagrees with said comment, they can easily write out a reply, and
their reply will be shown underneath that top comment. This system encourages discussion,
and in fact boosts the quality of the discussion. Low-effort comments will be filtered through
and be sorted at the bottom where no one would see, while high-quality comments will be
praised and put at the top for everyone to read and think about. Some discussion boards work
in a slightly different way, where comments are sorted by how recent they are, and there is no
‘like’ button. However, low-effort comments are greatly frowned upon, and moderators of the
board can simply delete troll comments which add nothing to the discussion. Hence, because
of these systems where high-quality comments are the most visible and the discussion easy to
follow by clicking ‘view more comments’, social media has enhanced the quality of discussion
today.
However, social media is just an echo chamber with these ‘like’ systems. More often
than not, popular, well-received comments will be the ones with the most likes and the most
visible. After all, if you like what you see, of course you would ‘like’ it as well. People lose the
ability to think for themselves, and will naturally start taking the more popular side. Humans
want validation, and getting likes on your comment is one way to do so. Simply comment a
popular opinion, and watch the likes flood in. When more people see more of these comments,
they subconsciously start believing in them more too. “Since everyone is on this side, shouldn’t
I join it, too?” This system gets even more flawed when you look at social media sites with the
ability to express your dislike for a comment. For example, Reddit implemented both upvotes
and downvotes into its system. The intended use of upvoting was not to agree with a comment,
but to reward someone who took time and effort to write a good comment, regardless of
whether you agreed or not. Downvoting was to discourage people from commenting things
like “LOL, that was funny” which adds nothing to the discussion. However, people upvote
34
comments they like, and downvote comments they do not. Also, social media is often divided
into people who agree and people who do not. Even if people have valid points, if they post it
in the wrong place, their comments will not be well received. For example, if a scientist posted
an explanation as to why the earth is round on a forum for flat-earthers, of course he would be
met with a lot of hate comments. If one does not post in the correct place, they will receive a
lot of backlash. In this sense, social media has become somewhat of a hive mind where one
must have the popular opinion or be outcast. Humans being humans do not want to be left out,
and more than often will join the side with popular opinions. Hence, social media is a giant echo
chamber and reduces the quality of discussion, since there is little or no discussion even going
on, just people milking the same cow over and over again for validation.
Another point some have is that the anonymity on social media allows people to speak
out. In 2013, a North Korean defector posted on Weibo telling people how to successfully
escape from North Korea. He did so under a false name and identity, since what he did was,
after all, illegal in North Korea. He was never caught. That post generated much discussion,
with people generating more ideas to escape. Some other North Korean escapees joined the
discussion too, but only under the safety of anonymity. Because of that reassurance that their
identity would remain secret, people could speak out, not being fearful of any backlash that
could strike at them. They would be truly free to express their opinions online, instead of talking
to people outside on the streets, where their identity could be easily found out. Hence, social
media gives people the courage to speak out online, improving the quality of discussion since
they may be afraid to do so otherwise.
Anonymity, however, is also the reason for the amount of toxicity and troll comments
which reduce the quality of discussion. Since people are under cover of a false identity, they
have the freedom to do whatever they want online without having to be accountable for
anything they say. This leads to a rise in troll comments, directing the flow of the discussion
somewhere else. Referring back to the example in the introduction, that comment was turned
into a ‘copypasta’ where if people do not like a comment, they simply copy and paste the
comment as a reply. It adds nothing to the discussion but instead hinders it, as the comment
sections will be cluttered with paragraphs of unrelated content. How can one say that social
media enhances discussion when all replies to a well-written comment are something along the
lines of “OMEGALUL what is this pepega s***?” These comments do not even make sense, but
are widely enjoyed because they are funny. Former President of the United States, President
Obama, did a question-and-answer segment on Reddit in 2015. One of the replies to his
answers was mocking his name. The person who commented this only did so because he was
under the safety net of the anonymous. If this took place at a press conference in real life, that
person would definitely not dare to make such a ridiculous comment. The anonymity also
makes it so people can spout vulgarities everywhere without any repercussions. This just
discredits their argument and makes them seem unprofessional and immature. Thus, if not for
the anonymity on social media, the quality of discussion would be much better.
Some argue that with social media, it is very easy to keep up with the latest news by
following news stations. This news can be very helpful in discussions to prove a point. These
discussions do not necessarily have to be online, too. If two were to be debating about
something face-to-face, and they were not too sure of the facts, they can just head to Facebook
35
to verify whatever they were saying. Before the age of social media, they had to pull out a
newspaper and flip through it to find an article, but now, with just a bit of scrolling, it is
convenient to find the latest news. This improves the quality of discussion by making
information easier to find.
However, fake news is everywhere today. There is a saying, “On the internet, there are
three things. Information, fake information, and pornography. The third one is very easily
explainable, but the first two are hard to tell apart.” If one hops onto social media and use the
fake news on their home page to prove a point, their argument would be false and discredited.
Hence, fake news reduced the quality of discussion.
In conclusion, the quality of discussion has been reduced by social media because of
fake news, anonymity and it being an echo chamber. Let us work hard to make social media a
better place by being more welcoming and less toxic, and stop spreading fake news. This way,
the quality of discussion would not worsen as much as it has now.
Comments:
Thoughtful response that consistently argues why and how social media has reduced the quality of
discussions, both online and offline. Balance is consistent, reflecting depth of evaluation and
understanding of the issues, such as how social media works. Scope is adequate: examines three
ways in which quality is reduced. Illustration mostly apt. Remember to use appropriate signposting
to distance yourself from the opposing view.
36
“Artists should be valued less than scientists.” Do you agree?
Nicole Chew Shi Min (19S43)
Ever-present around us in society is the inherent tension between the Arts and Science.
From the time we make a decision to join the Arts stream or the Science stream, there appears
to be a preconceived notion that only one or the other can exist - Science over Art or Art over
Science. Due to the dwindling relevance of Art in today’s Science-driven society, some might
argue that artists should be valued less than scientists - they might even feel that artists’
contributions to society appear mundane and insignificant in comparison to the breakthroughs
in science scientists have equipped the community with. However, I beg to differ. Artists and
scientists alike should be valued equally, for the fundamental values of creativity and empathy
that Art promotes lays the foundation for Science to progress. Moreover, artists illuminate
issues that scientists address, perhaps even in a more effective way due to the nature of their
art, and their works serve as a relief and escape from today’s technology-driven society. Simply
put, both scientists and artists should be valued equally: what is optimal would be a good
balance between the Arts and Science.
Some might argue that in today’s technology and science-centric society, artists should
be valued less than scientists due to the dwindling relevance of the Arts, as compared to the
universal relatability of Science. There appears to be a preconceived notion that for the work
of artists, their art, especially high art, is reserved for an exclusive fraternity of people who are
able to ‘properly appreciate’ the works of art, and many shy away from the work of artists due
to this preconceived notion of the work of artists being reserved exclusively for a demographic
of people. Conversely, the work of scientists, their inventions and breakthroughs, appears to
be more relevant and relatable to society at large. The mobile phone, the Internet, the television
- just to name a few - are scientific inventions that are used by a majority of members of society.
Even in choosing which path to study, there is a stigma among students that choosing the
Science stream would give you more certainty for success later on in life. As such, some might
argue that artists should be valued less than scientists due to their dwindling relevance and
limited outreach.
Additionally, some might add on to this argument by positing that the work of artists is
seemingly less important and pressing than science because of it being less concrete in nature.
In other words, scientists should be more valued because their inventions and creations have
a much more concrete and visible effect on society’s progression. Take for instance, the
invention of the kidney dialysis machine, the invention of genetically modified food, and the
progression of the Internet in recent years - all of which can be attributed to the advancements
in science, and by extension, scientists. Tangible and concrete results or benefits can be
observed as a result of these inventions: people see it in the new medical treatment available
to them, in the food they eat, and in the increased Internet speed they can make use of. In
comparison, the impact of artists’ work and the benefits they bring society are much more
abstract in nature; one could even argue that they are intangible. Take, for example, the most
famous painting of all time, Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. While there is no doubt that the
painting boasts immense artistic talent, with the eyes of Mona Lisa following the viewer
37
wherever they go, many are unable to see the benefits or effects of the painting, at least any
impacts on ourselves. There appears to be no apparent benefit to society. And such is human
nature that we value concrete benefits, results that we can see and measure with our words
and numbers over intangible enrichment. As such, this might fuel the argument that artists
should be valued less than scientists, as the benefits and impact of Art on society cannot rival
that of Science.
However, the work of artists, even though seemingly less important and tangible than
the work of scientists, is just as important for society to progress. Artists can make use of their
platforms to evoke real, tangible change. Take, for example, local 17-year-old artist Toh Bing
Wei. Toh sells his works of art, the most recent being sold at S$55,000, with all the proceeds
being donated to Prison Fellowship Singapore to help rehabilitate ex-convicts. Contrary to
popular belief, artists can make concrete and tangible change through their work. Moreover,
artists and scientists alike are crucial for society to progress - as such, they should be valued
equally. It is important to recognise that the fundamental qualities that are not only required
of an artist, but that Art promotes, fuel the creativity that society needs to progress. In order
to be a good, prominent and unique artist, one needs to think out of the box, of how to express
what one wishes to say in a way that has never been done before in order to appeal to the
masses. Surely it is not a coincidence that many inventors and prominent figures in Science
were first and foremost artists. Just to name two, Leonardo Da Vinci was not just an inventor,
he was first and foremost a painter. Samuel F.B Morse, who invented the Morse Code, also
had origins in art and painting. While it is undeniable that scientists fuel the progress needed
in society in a more concrete and tangible way than artists do, it is equally as important to
recognise that the creativity and unique thought processes that Art promotes is inherently
needed for society’s progression. Perhaps the implication is that the line between artists and
scientists need not be so definitive. Scientists can be artists and artists can be scientists - but
the message is that the underlying qualities that both promote is what is crucial for the benefit
of society.
Moreover, artists should definitely not be valued less than scientists as they serve to
illuminate the issues that science aims to address as well - sometimes they even serve as a
check against the moral and ethical issues that Science raises. Art does serve its own function,
with many artists addressing social, political issues that resonate with them. And because of
the nature of art, in its ability to appeal to the empathy of the masses and bring across strong
messages in a subtle way, many times Art is able to address social and political issues in a way
that is palatable for its audience. This is something that Science, with its hard facts and cold
truths, will not be able to achieve. Yugoslav artist Marina Abramović’s work of performance
art, titled ‘Rhythm 0’, consisted of her standing completely still for six hours, leaving her fate in
the hands of the audience; they could do to her whatever they wished. This legendary work of
art served to illuminate true human nature and posed a very important question - how far
would a person go if all restrictions had been completely removed? The subtle yet strong
message that was brought across by Rhythm 0 illuminated the dark yet necessary truths of
human nature - something that Science would never have been able to achieve. Street artist
Banksy’s ‘Bomb Hugger’ serves as a critique of not only the invention of such nuclear weapons
of mass destruction, but also the media and government’s portrayal of war in a positive light,
expressed through the iconic image of a young child cuddling a nuclear warhead with a smile
38
on her face. In some instances, artists even serve as a check against the moral and ethical
questions that Science sometimes raises. Therefore, artists should definitely not be valued less
than scientists, for the messages that their works of art bring across are just as, if not more
important than that of scientists. Moreover, the method of delivery of such messages is
arguably more sophisticated and effective than the cold, hard facts that Science provides.
Artists should be valued equally as scientists, as their works provide the masses with
relief and refuge from a long day’s work in today’s society. In a modern technology-driven
society, Science is undoubtedly prevalent. Many deal with numbers, facts and truths every day
at work, at school, and for the majority of their day to day routine. The work of artists offers
balance to science, and a refuge. Musicals and plays such as The Book of Mormon, with its
crude take on religion, offer people with relief and laughter after a long day at work. Classical
music, such as the legendary Canon in D, evoke feelings of joy and relief in its listener. The
beauty in the nature of artists’ works is in its versatility - while more serious works such as
Rhythm 0 serve to raise moral questions and address inherent societal issues, other works are
created with the intention of pure entertainment, creating a necessary balance to the
mundanity and rigidity of Science.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the statement. Artists and scientists alike should be
similarly valued. Rather than the belief or the notion that Science and Art cannot coexist, that
we have to pick one over the other, I feel that it need not necessarily be so extreme, so black
and white. Perhaps what is needed for society is a balance between Science’s concrete
definitive nature and Art’s ability to instil creativity and empathy. That would then be optimal
for society’s progression, and the first step to achieving this balance would be to value artists
and scientists equally.
Comments:
Nicole,
A commendable essay that defends the value of artists robustly, looking at not just the works but
also the nature of the arts. (Do not confuse the artists with arts education, or scientists with science
education. Be clear about the definition of the arts; it is not about subjects studied!)
39
‘The Arts are a distraction from the problems we face today.’
To what extent is this a fair viewpoint?
Kieron Seven Lee Jun Wei (18S46)
In the 21st century, the wave of democratisation that swept across the globe in the past
few decades has dethroned dictators and converted authoritarian societies into capitalist ones.
With companies driven by greed and the masses engulfed by consumerism, there has been a
slew of irrevocable changes mankind has brought onto the planet. Populist political leaders
around the world do not seem troubled by these environmental concerns, as they are engaged
in resolving geopolitical issues which seem insurmountable as the threat of a large-scale war
looms in the background. Even with how things have turned out, it would be unfair to claim
that there has been a misplaced focus on the arts. Communities and individuals should continue
to focus on the arts due to their social impact and relevance. It should not be seen as a
distraction, but a necessary part of being human.
The arts have always been a platform for artists to raise awareness of issues in society,
provide their viewpoint and commentary, as well as to incite social change. Artists are able to
use various mediums and tools, be it the canvas, walls along streets or dedicated installations,
to garner the attention of the masses and government, and redirect them onto social issues
close to home. With the recent refugee crisis in the Middle East, Europe and other regions of
the world, it has been appalling to witness many states turning a blind eye to migrants and
individuals in developed nations, dehumanising these refugees and wanting them out of their
countries. Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei used his installation, titled Laundromat, to raise awareness
of the crisis in New York by displaying thousands of pieces of clothing worn by refugees and
hanging them on clotheslines. In addition, the photos he took at the ground zero aimed to
appeal to the emotions of the audience, as he wanted them to realise that refugees were similar
to the audience - they wore sneakers and were equally as human. Popular street artist Banksy
had created a street mural depicting the young girl in Les Miserables on the French Embassy’s
walls in London. This raised global awareness of tear gas use on protesters pushing for migrants
to be accepted in Calais, France. Hence, the focus on the arts is not misplaced, as it raises
awareness of crucial social issues around the globe. Any attempts by the government to
remove or censor them may bring about more people knowing about it instead, according to
the Streisand effect.
The arts may not solve problems as Science and Technology can, nor can it answer the
important questions in life. However, it still has a crucial and unique role in bringing about
balance to the lives of most individuals that cannot be neglected. Even in developed and fast-
paced societies like Singapore, where effectiveness and pragmatism are valued, the arts help
to hone the soft skills of individuals, such as critical thinking and being receptive to other ideas,
as artworks usually have multiple interpretations. The arts serve as a necessary distraction from
our everyday problems and ensure we stay grounded with a common sense of identity and
understand what it is to be human. The Singaporean government understands that exposure
to the arts through displays and exhibits in the heartlands and shopping malls, galleries and
installations in museums and conservatories, or even festivals and concerts in the city or parks,
40
help us take a breather from the rat race or paper chase at work or in school. The arts help
transform us into empathetic and understanding individuals who are not too cooped up with
solving their own financial or family issues while neglecting those around them. With the rising
trend of mental disorders and youth suicides in Singapore, the arts can serve as an important
respite for many and help them to recharge. As such, the arts can be a necessary distraction
for those living in modern, developed and fast-paced societies such as Singapore. At the same
time, the youth in less developed countries turn to the arts to express themselves and distract
them from the circumstances they live in. Murals and street paintings all over slums in Rio de
Janeiro appear to be a means of escape for the thousands stuck in poor living conditions. As
such, the arts can be a much-needed distraction to remind us of what it means to be human.
Some critics may feel that there has been too much financial resources or attention
given to the arts, and it should be reallocated to solving real environmental, social or
geopolitical issues instead. Others may feel that the arts only serve to entertain the masses,
and attention should not be given to them. When looking at the yearly budget of most world
governments, only a tiny fraction of it is provided to the upkeep and restoration of museums,
and grants given to artists are mostly privately funded. Yet, tens or even hundreds of billions
are spent on defence in many developed nations. It would simply be unfair to claim that too
much attention has been provided to the arts when there can be a better allocation of
resources. In addition, the arts have cultural and historic functions to help provide us with a
common identity in an increasingly globalised world, and teach us valuable lessons to ensure
we do not make similar mistakes in the future. Pablo Picasso’s Guernica raised awareness about
the bombings of multiple cities during the Spanish Civil War. Hence, the arts are not just
mindless distractions, but also serve as a bulwark against the vicissitudes of an uncertain world.
Though the arts may seem to take our attention away from rising carbon dioxide levels
in the atmosphere, rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East or the spate of mass shootings
and terrorist attacks around the world, the arts do the job that sensational newspaper headlines
are unable to do, and redirect our attention to other problems which are just as real and
deserving of our focus. Furthermore, the arts play a fundamental role in keeping us human and
grounded, a necessary distraction for many in modern-day society regardless of where we may
come from. As such, it would not be fair to claim that the arts are misdirecting us and that
attention should not be given to it.
Comments:
An insightful and well-written piece. Some minor grammatical issues.
41
To what extent do you agree that ancient myths and legends
have little value in today’s world?
Wang Zi-Ming, Sean (18S33)
In our technologically-driven and fast-paced lives, it is difficult to view ancient myths

and legends as anything more than relics of the past. The heroic tales and superstitious beliefs
that define those stories seem to hold little weight as we approach the 4th Industrial Revolution;
gods and magic certainly do not coexist with our urban cities and pragmatic mindsets. While
ancient myths and legends may appear to be irrelevant due to the vastly different sociocultural
and historical contexts they feature, they certainly hold an immutable value in today’s world.
Transcending time periods, one can see the immense cultural significance of such legends, the
everlasting heroic qualities they celebrate, and the wonder they ceaselessly bring into our lives.
Some may argue that ancient myths and legends are out of touch with present
sociocultural contexts, and thus meaningless and trivial in their lack of relevance. This is not
entirely false. Due to the dissimilar historical contexts in which these myths and legends are
created and propagated in, one finds that oftentimes, many aspects of their stories are entirely
alien to 21st-century audiences. In our democratic governments, one surely struggles to
comprehend and appreciate the warring kingdoms in the Chinese epic ‘The Tale of Three
Kingdoms’. This historical unrelatability renders these stories foreign, easily dismissible as
anachronisms in our current lives. Furthermore, due to advances in technology and human
progress over the centuries, many legends lack the impact that they used to have. While
legends and myths strive to depict feats of superhuman abilities, one can hardly be impressed
by Hercules’s feat of killing the Nemean Lion. As we view lions in solitary cages in the zoo, or
as game for poachers, the triumph of man over nature is much more commonplace to us than
it was to the defenceless people in the past. The physical struggle between Man and animal is
now inefficient, easily overcome using guns, rather than a feat. Inevitably, these ancient myths
and legends lose some of the wonder that made them so popular in the first place. Most
pernicious are some of the values they contain, which are not just alien to, but incompatible
with our modern sensibilities. The debaucherous orgies that Bacchus indulged in are disgusting
in our sex-averse societies, where censorship restricts rather than celebrates such hedonistic
sexual pursuits. The current audience is thus not only put off by these legends, but threatened
by the immoralities they contain. Therefore, in many ways, the disparate historical contexts
render these myths unrelatable, prosaic and immoral – trivial at its best and disgusting at its
worst in our modern society.
However, one must recognize that for many, these ancient myths and legends serve as
pillars of cultural identity and national pride. Many of the aforementioned problems, while true,
are easily resolved by understanding and appreciating the historical contexts of the stories. The
ancient civilisations and values they capture become as much a part of the story as the plot
itself. Often, one can trace their roots back to the societies that created these legends, finding
a sense of identity and cultural authenticity in the experience. While legends like Hou Yi and
Chang’e may seem archaic due to the mysticism it invests into physical scientific truths like the
number of suns, one still finds the image of Chang’e’s rabbit plastered all over mooncakes
42
during the Mid-Autumn Festival. These stories allow the current generations to feel a cultural
connection with their ancestors, investing a greater significance into traditional customs and a
wholehearted appreciation of one’s cultural roots. Epitomising the cultural impact of such tales
is the naming of places after them, tying their stories to locations and inadvertently forming a
part of one’s identity. In Singapore, the myth of Sang Nila Utama naming our country after a
lion may be far from believable with our understanding of tropical environments, but it still
forms an important facet of our national identity. Evident in the motif of the lion present on
our currency and crest, it is a myth that unites the country with a sense of shared identity.
These myths invest our countries and places with a deeper significance, one that allows us to
better appreciate our locations, as well as forge a sense of community in the shared
understanding created. Therefore, due to the importance and significance it invests into
traditions, festivals and places in the modern world, these myths still hold a great value despite
the historical disparity.
Moreover, one quality that is found in many of these myths and legends are the human
qualities that they celebrate. The universality of these values that they expound on make them
a highly valued educational tool in modern society. This is no surprise as oftentimes, these tales
celebrated and immortalised the pinnacles of human achievement, and the qualities that enable
those achievements still strike a chord with today’s audiences. Allegories like Aesop’s Fables
have become a part of curricula around the world. The condensation of his stories into idioms
like ‘sour grapes’ symbolise the immutable and relevant values they contain. Other values like
Mulan’s subversion of gender roles still relate to current feminist movements and the fight for
gender equality. The values that these myths and legends contain thus inevitably hold an
emotional resonance even with today’s society. What makes them even more relevant is the
memorable and entertaining ways in which they depict such values. While trying to define and
explain abstract moral values is difficult, these myths serve as excellent parables to convey
such values. The situational contexts allow for a greater understanding of intangible moral
values, acting as a perfect supplement for the real-life experience required in understanding
human values – ideal for children. Therefore, the transcendent values celebrated by these
stories not only make them relatable to the modern audiences, but enable them to be used as
an excellent educational tool.
Lastly, the simplest yet most valuable aspect of these myths and legends lies in the
entertainment they provide. Tales of human impossibilities are embellished with glamorised
historical contexts and a supernatural element. The wonder these stories evoke allowed them
to flourish in the past, as they do in the present. The many fantastical elements of these stories
capture aspects of the human imagination inaccessible to the modern audience. With the
advent of science and technology, our relentless classification, qualification and quantification
of our physical environments have left many stripped of an active imagination. Stories of
monsters like Scylla, the Hydra or even the local Pontianak succinctly imbue everyday
experiences with an irrefutable mysticism. It is the Odyssey’s whisperings of sirens that have
translated into our cultural fascination with mermaids. Embodying the supernatural and fantasy
we seek into our bland lives, these myths and legends capture our attention and spark our
imagination like no other. Most evident of this is in the constant reimagining of these legends
into film and literature. The Percy Jackson series, built on Greek mythology, has been a
43
commercial success. Our constant infatuation with these stories stems from their mildly
imaginative content. Therefore, they maintain an indelible value in today’s world.
Overall, one must appreciate these stories in their ancient historical contexts to fully
understand their value. Reconciling the historical disparity are the universal values they hold
and the transcendent emotions of awe and wonder they evoke.
Comments:
I really enjoyed this essay, Sean. You showed sound balance and evaluation, and your examples were
wide-ranging and even local! There was the example of Aesop’s Fables which didn’t quite fit, but that
was a minor problem in the light of what you have accomplished.
44
Thian Jiawen (18S45)
Thrilling adventures and tales to astonish, dashing heroes and fearsome creatures are
a staple of many elements of ancient myths and legends, which contributes to their enduring
power over our imaginations. However, in today’s volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous
(VUCA) world, the relevance of these stories has been questioned, especially in light of the
rapid technological progress and dramatically different lives we lead in this digital age.
Nevertheless, I believe that the myths of antiquity are not doomed to collect dust, abandoned
by the wayside in the course of humanity’s foray into the future. Rather, I believe that ancient
legends continue to hold much value as a source of entertainment, inspiration and moral
guidance, even in today’s world.
It should be conceded that there are certain aspects of ancient stories that should be
left in the past, especially after considering how attitudes today are much more progressive
than those of antiquity. This is especially applicable to attitudes towards women today as
compared to thousands of years ago. For example, many Greek myths contain stories involving
rape and womanising which went unpunished, especially when the perpetrators were all-
powerful deities such as Zeus. This certainly does not gel with the narrative of today’s world,
with burgeoning female empowerment movements and the #MeToo campaign which called
out sexual offenders regardless of their power and influence, such as Harvey Weinstein.
However, one must consider the context in which the myths of antiquity were written. In
ancient Athens, for instance, women were only expected to fulfil household duties and had
rights comparable to that of slaves, which is ironic considering Athens’ status as the cradle of
democracy. Furthermore, the prevalence of manly heroes promotes a limited form of
masculinity which is very different from more liberal attitudes today. Hence, I believe that care
must be taken to analyse ancient myths, especially when considering outdated prejudices and
attitudes which have no value in today’s world. On the other hand, the existence of these
archaic dogmas in legends serves as a reminder of how far humanity has progressed in terms
of societal equality. While shocking, the prejudices of antiquity compared to today is a
testament to the successes of equality movements as well as a manifestation of the toxic
attitudes we seek to eradicate today. Hence, while outdated beliefs have no value in society
today as guidelines for how to act, they still hold value as an indicator of our progress in
achieving true equality.
Ancient myths and legends continue to hold value in today’s world when it comes to
fulfilling one of their original purposes, which is to entertain. Many of the stories and tales of
antiquity were originally oral traditions, such as those passed down by Native Americans and
the Inuit people. While they were also used to pass down societal norms, communities in
ancient times would gather together and pay rapt attention to the tales their local storytellers
would weave every night. These colourful stories of heroes and monsters captured the
imagination of people now as well as they did back then. This is evident from the popularity of
franchises such as Percy Jackson and the Olympians, as well as Marvel superheroes which riff
45
on the tropes and characters employed by ancient myths, adapting them to suit the tastes of
today’s audience. Some wildly popular superheroes, such as Thor and Wonder Woman, take
direct inspiration from Norse myths and legends about the Amazons respectively. Hence, it is
undeniable that ancient legends possess a great amount of value as a treasure trove of
inspiration for modern storytellers, who continue to rake in profits from retellings of myths
which act as escapism from today’s increasingly worrying global climate.
From a technological and scientific point of view, however, ancient myths and legends
have not withstood the test of time, especially in light of rapid scientific advancement which
continues to accelerate today. The pantheons of deities dreamed up by ancient storytellers
worldwide served to explain natural phenomena before the scientific method was established.
For example, the Greek deities Apollo and Artemis were responsible for ‘driving’ the Sun and
Moon across the sky, while the wrath of Poseidon manifested itself in destructive waves and
earthquakes. Ancient civilisations also worshipped nature deities, from Frey to Demeter,
believing that appeasing them would guarantee a bountiful harvest and angering them would
mean drought and famine. The discovery of astronomy and biology quickly disproved these
beliefs, and even young children in today’s world of big data and smartphones know better
than to believe that magical creatures are responsible for the changing seasons. With
humanity’s current faith in the power of scientific theories continuing, it is difficult to see how
antiquated myths can add value in explaining natural phenomena as compared to the sciences.
However, saying that myths are completely unable to add value to our future repository
of knowledge, specifically technology and science, would completely ignore their invaluable
contributions to the lives and culture of ancient civilisations, as well as possible lessons from
them which we can apply to our future. From a historical aspect, myths and legends are far
more useful than excavated ruins in terms of learning the culture of ancient people. Myths are
how the people of antiquity communicate with the people of today, and researching their
cultural issues could help us draw parallels to today’s issues, possibly finding solutions or
inspiration as to how to tackle today’s problems. From the perspective of literature enthusiasts,
examining ancient poetry and prose can allow us to glean insights about the evolution of
language, and these myths also help to preserve the beauty of the written word, especially in
today’s world where communication has devolved into a deluge of abbreviations and emojis.
Hence, preserving a record of ancient cultures through their myths also preserves valuable
contributions to humanity’s literary and artistic history, which can serve as an inspiration for
future academics.
Myths and legends still hold value in today’s world, as they enable us to pass down time-
honoured traditions as well as societal values. The legend of the ‘Nian’ monster, and its
subsequent defeat by virtue of fireworks and red decorations, forms the basis for some of the
most recognisable aspects of boisterous and festive Chinese New Year celebrations. Ancient
tales about monsters threatening people during their birthdays created the tradition of having
loud festivities and lighting a candle during one's birthday. The plethora of venerable traditions
during traditional festivals can find their origins in ancient myths and legends, and these stories
are easy to pass down to the next generation through storytelling.
46
Furthermore, myths and legends provide us with a framework of socially acceptable
cultural norms. For instance, the story of Chang’e shows the value of loyalty to one’s spouse,
while many mythological heroes were rewarded by deities by virtue of their courage, loyalty
to family as well as their heroic deeds, hence espousing these values to those who read or
listen to the tales. Many of these myths are hence reflections of their societies in terms of
cultural norms, and people today can still take inspiration from these ancient morals when
building their personal moral code, which is crucial especially when dealing with today’s morally
ambiguous world, and ethical issues such as artificial intelligence and genetic modification.
Passing down treasured cultural norms also helps to strengthen the social fabric by creating
common values between the generations. Hence, ancient myths hold value in imparting
cultural norms and creating one’s moral code.
Lastly, ancient myths are able to capture our collective imagination, spurring us to
venture into places unknown. Mythological places such as El Dorado or Atlantis have inspired
generations of explorers to explore new frontiers, from the depths of the jungle to the darkest
abysses of the oceans. Although their quests might have been unsuccessful, their journeys have
provided us with newfound knowledge of the world around us and new contributions to our
collective knowledge. People of the future can harness the same spirit of discovery and wonder
in order to venture into new frontiers such as space, or to solve current issues by exploring the
unknown.
In conclusion, I disagree to a large extent with the notion that ancient myths and
legends have little value in today’s world. While certain beliefs are outdated and ridiculous in
terms of today’s liberal and scientific attitudes, I believe that the tales of antiquity still hold
much value in entertaining us and inspiring us to do great things. These myths and legends
would continue to preserve our traditions and provide societies with shared values,
contributing to our shared histories and cultures. Hence, ancient myths and legends are very
much alive and relevant today, and their influence continues to be valuable in today’s world,
inspiring us to be as heroic as the mythical figures of antiquity.
Comments:
A very enjoyable read (when I could actually read it). You need to work on penmanship. You don’t
want illegibility to cost you. Some lovely points and examples. I’d rather you omitted the last
paragraph as it detracted rather than added to your overall argument. Good job!
47
Wong Boon Jhee (18S62)
The legends of Zeus’s countless affairs with mortal women or the smiting of unfaithful
followers of Christianity may appear to have little bearing on today’s world. After all, it is hard
to see how these tales, as outdated and archaic as they seem, can have any bearing on our
increasingly technologically driven and connected lives. While it is the widely accepted opinion
that myths and legends have little value in today’s world, I would argue that such myths and
legends hold more value in today’s world than we believe.
However, I believe that credit should still be given to the opposing viewpoint. In our
increasingly scientific and information-driven world, we are now more informed than ever. This
would mean that the myths and legends, used previously to explain these observations beyond
our comprehension, are now invalid as we have managed to use reasoning and the scientific
method for a more logically sound answer. An example of this would be the phenomenon of
the sun rising and setting. This has captured the imagination of our ancient forefathers and is
often explained to be the work of mythological beings. In Egypt, this was believed to be the
work of the sun God Ra, who would ride his ‘sun’ boat across the sky, emerging from the land
of the dead when the sun rises and entering it when the sun sets. The Greeks also had a similar
myth that the sun God Apollo rode a sun chariot across the skies in order to bring sunlight to
the world. Of course, we know now that our observation of the sun rising and setting is due
to the rotation of the Earth around its axis. In fact, it has now become a painfully obvious fact.
Hence, myths and legends appear to have no place in today’s world, as they can no longer be
a meaningful substitute for facts and the scientific method.
However, such an evaluation is exceedingly narrow, as myths and legends serve many
purposes that are not limited to explaining the unknown. Myths can also serve as moral
reminders, and this is perhaps their most important function, given that more people have
atheist beliefs as we progress further into the 21st century. Myths are often the work of ancient
thinkers, and in the many ‘ridiculous’ stories, there are implicit lessons to be learnt which can
be applied to our daily lives. For instance, the tale of Arachne would be a fitting reminder of
the danger of hubris. Arachne, a Greek master of tapestry, challenged Athena to a contest and
was then turned into a spider as a consequence of her pride and insolence, despite the fact
that she was arguably the winner of the contest. This can perhaps also be seen as a timely
reminder of the dire consequences of challenging a higher authority, which many have
forgotten due to the allure of democracy. Even the scandalous affairs of Zeus can be distilled
to caution us of the consequences of adultery and promiscuity, as it ruins our relationships with
our loved ones. These moral lessons are timely and absolutely needed, as given the shifts away
from religion, many in today’s world have become amoral. Thus, even in the 21st century, myths
can have an important function: to serve as a meaningful substitute or complement to religion.
Myths and legends also serve to preserve the culture of an ethnic group, as given the
phenomenon of globalisation, more and more people have lost their connection to their
48
culture. They serve as a cornerstone for most cultures and are important in ensuring that future
generations keep in touch with their cultural roots. They are also often connected to cultural
festivals, which help to keep us connected to our culture. The Mid-Autumn Festival would be
a good example, as it is connected to the myth of Chang’e after becoming immortal and flying
to the moon to reside there. Christmas is also the celebration of the birth of Christ, and for
most, Christmas serves as a time for Christian families to bond. Our cultural preservation can
undoubtedly contribute to our individual identity, and in a world where concepts of gender and
sexual identities are blurred, perhaps having the constant reminder of our ethnic identity is
needed to keep us grounded and in touch with our human side in the ever-changing 21st
century. Hence, myths and legends have value in today’s word.
Finally, perhaps the least tangible benefit and value of myths and legends is that they
are able to fill us with a sense of wonderment, and appreciation of these myths. Stories in
Norse mythology, or the tales of Hercules slaying the Hydra and the Nemean lion, are things
that instil in us an inexplicable sense of wonder or admiration. These tales would capture our
imagination as we begin to be able to draw parallels with the characters in these legends. Some
philosophers have even taken the stories of Greek mythology as inspiration for their works,
and saw the similarities between Sisyphus, a man forced to roll a boulder up a hill for eternity
while failing countless times, and our daily lives, where we strive for the summit we can never
reach, while failing many times in our pursuit of the pinnacle of life. This captures the intrinsic
and inexplicable value of myths and legends; they take us away from the pragmatism prevalent
and needed in today’s world, and instead allow us to freely explore the depths of our
imagination, beyond our construct of logic. A famous philosopher once said, “I think, therefore
I am”. Indeed, myths and legends encourage us to think beyond the realm of what we believe
to be possible, and our ability and willingness to think exceedingly is central to our existence
and identity as humans. Thus, myths and legends provide a human aspect to us as they capture
our imagination and our ability to think beyond our constructed boundaries.
In conclusion, I disagree that ancient myths and legends have little value in today’s
world. I believe that the value of myths and legends lies in what we are able to make out of it,
and depending on our approach, it can be of significant value. While I concede that they are no
longer needed to explain natural phenomena, I believe that the value of such myths and legends
lies beyond that, and are much more intangible but by no means less important. In a world
where pragmatism and progress prevail, myths and legends may perhaps be a reminder that it
is just as important to take a step back and keep in touch with our humanity.
Comments:
An enjoyable read. You know your myths and legends, and have given apt references (except for
Christmas).
49
Politics, Economics & History
50
Do we expect too much of political leaders today?
Jin Enyu (19S55)
In almost all states, the government is the highest body with the most power and
influence. Decisions on the governmental level can affect the livelihoods of all citizens in almost
any manner. Therefore, it is little wonder that they expect much from the government and
politicians - the provision of public goods, correction of market failure, defence of territorial
sovereignty among them. Nevertheless, even though politicians in the government are
responsible for their promises, we do expect too much from them due to low political literacy
and the human tendency of psychological projection.
Some might argue that we do not expect too much from political leaders, since it is their
responsibility to realise the campaign promises made to the public. In electoral democracies,
politicians would gain popularity among voters through a process of campaigning and lobbying
for votes, in which the candidates would lay down political promises to the electorate. This
essentially becomes a reciprocal agreement in which the electorate votes for a politician in
exchange for the benefits and outcomes promised. As such, once politicians have been elected
into office, they now have a responsibility to uphold their end of the bargain, which is to bring
about the aforementioned promised outcomes. Therefore, since the public's expectation arises
from promises made by the politicians, and the politicians have a responsibility to realise those
promises, the public does not expect too much from politicians. This is famously illustrated
when George W. Bush promised no new taxes during his term and arguably won on that
promise. Public backlash was probably justified when he introduced new taxes due to pressure
from the House. Neither was it too much for the public to expect that Obama close the
infamous Guantanamo Bay prison camp, given he consistently promised to do it ever since
2009. As the examples show, many of the public's expectations arise from the campaign and
political promises made by politicians, and given the politicians' responsibility to uphold their
promises, we do not expect too much from political leaders today.
While I do concede that promises lead to expectations and promises entail

responsibility, the context of the promise as well as the change in context during a politician's
term must also be taken into account. The length of terms of politicians varies from two to six
years, depending on the office held. That said, given the volatility of the political landscape
today, the situation of a state can change drastically even in two years. Such changes, which
could be abrupt in nature and drastic in scale, would render certain promises irrelevant at best
and impractical at worst. Thus, it is too much to expect politicians to keep to their initial
obsolete promises, irrespective of circumstances. This is also illustrated in the aforementioned
cases of Obama and Bush. Obama was simply unable to close Guantanamo Bay Detention
Camp due to legislative laws that made it impossible to transfer detainees elsewhere. Bush was
forced into introducing new taxes because of a recent recession which widened the
government's deficit. At times, due to changes in circumstances, keeping to certain promises
would result in far worse outcomes than if politicians deferred from them. As such, even if
politicians made those promises, it can be too much to expect them to keep the promises when
the situation does not permit. This is especially true due to the separation of power within most
51
governments, meaning that every politician is limited and affected by other politicians from
other branches of the government. Thus, their ability to keep to promises is significantly
swayed by the actions of other politicians.
In addition, I would argue that we expect too much of political leaders today due to the
lack of political literacy among the general masses. Political literacy refers to the understanding
of the mechanics of governance, the problems that the state has to tackle and the powers
vested in each branch and individual. In most states, political literacy tends to be low since it is
not included in the formal education system, and individuals have no incentive to learn about
the political system. The result of this is a lack of empathy for political leaders and the
challenges they have to tackle, which manifests in the form of unrealistic expectations of them.
This could include expecting widespread political reform even though a politician may not have
enough influence in the legislature, or expecting the provision of excessive welfare when the
state is experiencing a large and persistent budget deficit. To illustrate this point, in Burma,
many expect Aung San Suu Kyi to be the silver bullet to military rule and oppression, yet they
are oblivious to the fact that Suu Kyi's power is severely limited by the military. This shows that
because the public is ignorant of the power balance within the government, they expect
politicians to accomplish the impossible. In the US, supporters of the Democratic Party expect
the Democrats to attempt impeachment of Donald Trump. However, they are unaware that
the Democrats require an overwhelming majority in the Senate to successfully convict Trump,
yet they do not even control half the seats. They also choose to be oblivious to the fact that
Trump's strategy of dividing the vote along partisan lines makes it even more difficult for the
impeachment to succeed. This lack of awareness of the political climate and the mechanics of
government in the US has resulted in the Democratic supporters putting political leaders in a
position where they face overly idealistic standards. Their ignorance has directly resulted in
them having unrealistic expectations. Hence, political literacy in countries results in citizens
expecting too much of political leaders today.
Lastly, we expect too much from political leaders today because of the tendency for
psychological projection. Through the process of psychological projection, humans protect our
ego by diffusing blame for unfavourable circumstances onto others. People do this to cope
with difficult emotions as well as circumstances. While this is certainly not universally true for
all individuals, most of us are susceptible to this to different extents, since we all have a
fundamental tendency to protect our emotions and ego. The result of this is that it creates an
illusion where the blame for our undesirable situations lies in third parties, and since the
government is the most influential body in a state, this blame would usually be shifted to the
government. As such, we would disproportionately blame political leaders for our
circumstances, and thus expect them to do more to fix our current situation. Thus, we expect
too much from political leaders. In the US educational system, many often blame structural
reasons for their failure to progress through formal education. Certainly, there are structural
reasons behind why some from lower classes are disadvantaged; however, with the
introduction of standardised, academic-centred testing, it is undeniable that personal factors
also have a part to play in one's circumstances. This shows that while governments can be at
fault, the blame is disproportionately assigned to them, and thus we expect too much of them.
Another example would be the younger generation blaming the establishment for
environmental degradation and a lack of sustainability. Of course, the establishment is to blame
52
for irresponsible monitoring and inertia; however, it is the consumerist culture developed by
these youths that fuels pollution. This is a case of individuals who refuse to accept the fact that
they are to blame, so they choose to conveniently shift the blame to politicians. Thus, our
tendency to psychologically project blame leads to us expecting too much of political leaders.
In conclusion, even though political leaders have a responsibility to realise their

promises, given the lack of political literacy and individual tendencies for psychological
projection, we do expect too much from political leaders, and often as a result incorrectly
interpret promises made by political leaders. This, of course, varies by population and
demographic: those who are more educated are less susceptible to these influences and
cognitive biases, while those who are less politically active will experience a higher disconnect
from political leaders. Thus, this applies to them to a larger extent.
Comments:
The points were insightful and valid, but the examples overwhelmingly American, and there isn’t
enough explanation of how the examples support the arguments.
53
“Governments should be more concerned with domestic affairs than
international ones.” To what extent do you agree?
Governments have the sole responsibility of caring for their people, since their people
elected them into power; that is the assumption many would have of their politicians. Across
the world, governments are assumed to have prioritised domestic affairs such as protests,
unrest and social welfare. However, there are more pressing concerns that a government
should be worried about. In an increasingly interconnected world, governments should be more
concerned about international affairs as well. This essay hence argues that governments should
be worried and concerned about international affairs, as they have the potential to affect local
security, welfare and economic conditions. This essay thus agrees to a small extent that
governments should be more concerned with domestic affairs than international ones.
Many believe that governments should be more concerned with domestic affairs when
the country is facing unrest and high levels of political instability. When protests or civil unrest
plagues a country, and the country is constantly in a state of chaos, it is pertinent that the
government places domestic affairs as the top priority. In such scenarios, the government
should definitely prioritise the needs of its people, and strive towards quelling the unrest. A
prime example would be the Hong Kong protests where protestors have been rioting for
months. Hong Kong’s leader, Chief Executive Carrie Lam, should be more concerned with
domestic affairs in such a situation, and the government should try its best to reach a
compromise with protestors. Leaders of politically unstable areas such as Yemen, Syria and
Sudan should also prioritise quelling dissent and bringing back peace and stability into the
region. Hence, in areas of political instability, governments should be more concerned with
domestic affairs than international ones, as their people’s needs are top priority.
However, this essay believes that in countries where there is no political instability,
countries should be more concerned with international affairs than domestic ones. This is
especially so for developed nations that can afford to place greater priority on international
relations and global affairs. Extremely crucial issues such as terrorism and climate change need
to be tackled and dealt with by multiple countries working together instead of in silos. For
terrorism, while terrorist attacks in the United States (US) or in Indonesia may seem like an
international issue, the Singaporean government has viewed it as one of Singapore’s key issues,
given the fact that this international issue may turn into a domestic one anytime. As Singapore’s
leaders have repeatedly mentioned, it is not a matter of “What if, but when”, and have urged
citizens to remain vigilant. For issues such as terrorism which have a high threat level, it is thus
crucial for governments to be concerned about them, as they may threaten national security.
Climate change is another pertinent issue that governments should prioritise over domestic
affairs. As sea levels rise and forest fires burn, climate change has become a key concern for
bodies such as the United Nations and ASEAN. While many countries have agreed to work
towards reducing their carbon emissions during the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement,
governments who only seek to enhance their economic growth with no concern for the
environment will only worsen the situation. As Earth is the shared home for billions of us,
54
governments should think of the greater good and work together towards slowing down
climate change, an international issue that impacts each and every country. Governments
should be more concerned with international issues such as terrorism and climate change, as
they have the potential to affect each country on a domestic level. At the same time, complex
issues would require the partnership and commitment of many countries around the world,
and should thus be a key concern for many governments.
Additionally, governments should be more concerned with international affairs than

domestic affairs when the country is intrinsically linked to others. With globalisation, many
countries are becoming interdependent on others. The old and traditional belief that countries
can work independently and on their own is evidently flawed, as seen in how communist China,
which initially chose to remain closed off from the world, decided too to open up in 1978.
Many countries end up depending on each other for trade, while others tend to have a stake
in others due to geopolitics. International affairs thus often become issues that governments
should be more concerned with. An example would be how the attack on oil production
resources in Saudi Arabia immediately jacked up oil prices. Though such an issue may seem like
a domestic affair, it became the main concern for countries such as the United States, who are
dependent on the Middle East for oil supplies. Another example would be the South China Sea
dispute, an international dispute involving countries such as China, the Philippines, Vietnam
and even the US. China’s assertions regarding the Nine-Dash Line angered many nations.
Countries such as Vietnam were worried that this would affect the livelihood of their
fishermen, while the US was worried about China’s dominance over sea and global trade.
International issues thus become key concerns of the government when they have the
potential to affect the welfare of locals. Governments should hence be more concerned with
international issues, rather than merely focus on domestic affairs.
Governments should also be more concerned with international affairs than domestic
affairs when it is a matter of human rights or humanitarian aid. As leaders of a nation, they
should not only be concerned with the welfare of its own people, but also be concerned with
the welfare of the international community. When humanitarian crises strike, it is crucial that
governments work together to aid people who are suffering and in need of help. An example
would be Myanmar’s Rohingya refugee crisis, where millions were displaced and forced to flee
from their hometowns. Many governments came together to provide food, water and shelter
to the refugees. While some countries did not offer asylum, other governments did choose to
offer aid in times of such a dire humanitarian crisis. Other examples would include international
aid that pours in after a natural disaster such as during that 2011 Japan Earthquake or the 2008
Sichuan Earthquake. During such disasters, international aid is extremely beneficial in saving
lives and providing necessary aid. While some may argue that money should only be spent on
locals who pay taxes to the government, to ignore the plight of those in neighbouring countries
or around the world who are suffering would be extremely inhumane. As a shared human race,
we should care for one another. Governments should hence be more concerned with
international affairs than domestic affairs, provided they have the financial means to do so.
Lastly, governments should be more concerned with international affairs than domestic
affairs in light of rising trade tensions. With an interconnected global economy, the trade war
between China and the US has far reaching consequences. The US government chose to
55
prioritise domestic affairs over international affairs with its protectionist trade policies, and
implemented many trade tariffs on China. The globalised economy has pushed leaders around
the world to pay close attention to this trade war, as it pushes the global economy closer and
closer to a recession. Singapore’s economic growth has even reached the lowest it has ever
been in a decade. This goes to show that while a government may strive to improve its own
domestic economy, the reliance on global trade is something that many countries cannot run
away from. This is evident in how during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, many countries
plunged into recession, and some countries are still recovering from it even today. International
issues such as the trade war are thus a key concern for many countries today. After all, the
US’s protectionist measures have clearly shown that only caring about one’s own economy can
prove to be a futile endeavour that will only lead to trade tensions, slowing exports and import
levels. Hence, governments should not neglect the affairs of international economies.
Governments should thus be more concerned with international affairs than domestic ones, as
global trade tensions have the potential to affect local economies.
In conclusion, our increasingly globalised world has pushed for governments to

prioritise international issues. This essay thus agrees to a small extent that governments should
be more concerned with domestic affairs than international ones. While this may be true for
countries that are facing political unrest, this does not hold for many other countries in a variety
of sectors. For international issues that have far-reaching impacts such as terrorism, climate
change and trade wars, governments that are capable should be more concerned with these
than domestic affairs. The same can be said for humanitarian crises. As such, international
issues require the cooperation, commitment and partnership of many nations. Given the
interconnectivity of our world today, it is pertinent that governments do not govern using a
microscopic lens, but rather widen their scope and think on a larger scale. Thus, international
issues should not be on the back burner, as they have the potential to affect each and every
one of us.
Comments:
Felicia, safe use of expression, with limited grammatical mistakes. Note the use of ‘this essay’ may
not be so appropriate for GP. A wide range of reasons, situations and examples explained. The initial
paragraph (balance) could have been better evaluated to address the question. You did attempt to
do it in the conclusion, but too little, too late. The other arguments are more on point, except for the
discussion narrowly focusing on trade war.
56
“Governments should be more concerned with domestic affairs than
international ones.” To what extent do you agree?
Heather Tan Yung Yu (19A11)
Governments are at the forefront of their countries, representing the common man and
the nation as a whole. They serve as a pathfinder, paving the way for improvements and
developments for their respective countries. As such, many would argue that governments
have a greater responsibility in managing the internal affairs of the country and ensuring a
cohesive society. However, I believe that governments have a more imperative role to play on
the world stage and that some problems, such as managing security, cannot be achieved
through solo efforts. As such, I would agree to a small extent with the statement in question,
as I believe that governments should be more concerned with international affairs than
domestic ones.
The viewpoint that governments should be more concerned with international affairs
is not one meant to denounce the efforts made by governments in handling domestic concerns.
Indeed, governments do have an essential role as leaders of their countries to build national
unity and maintain stability in order to engender harmony. National unity is of paramount
importance to any country - it allows governments to engage the populace and mobilise them
to achieve greater goals. Thus, it is unsurprising that many governments strive to achieve this.
Events in history have shown the consequences of the lack of unity, and in cases such as
Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), a great number of ethnic insurgent groups emerged after
policies made by the government alienated minorities and disregarded their concerns. Such
ethnic insurgents proved to be a destabilising force in society, and in 1998, such movements
even paralysed the government for three months! Such cases serve as a reminder to
governments of the importance of handling domestic affairs and ensuring that the populace is
satisfied. This would then allow the government to focus on greater goals such as improving
the infrastructure of the country and providing healthcare. Governments of countries such as
Switzerland have seen great success in moulding the population into a cohesive whole, with
The Economist magazine even rating it as the third happiest country in the world. Hence, a
government does need to adequately address the needs of its people, and be concerned with
the domestic affairs of their country.
However, while domestic affairs can be of concern to the government, there is a more
pressing need for governments to be involved with international ones. The world is a collective
whole, and governments must not only be in pursuit of their own domestic interests, while
ignoring greater problems such as terrorism or environmental concerns. Threats such as
terrorism affect the entire population on Earth, and it is of utmost importance for countries to
work together and eliminate such threats. Terrorist attacks have become increasingly prevalent
in this day and age, where technology can easily radicalise a teenager and countless groups
claiming to be protectors of their country emerge while using warfare as a bargaining tool.
Terrorist groups such as the Mujahideen pose a threat to the entire international community,
and if countries do not come together and channel resources to deal with such international
affairs, they risk making themselves vulnerable to such attacks. This is especially pertinent in
57
Singapore, where as a small country, we are often perceived as weaker and more susceptible
to attacks. Thus, there is active participation on the government’s part to be part of
international organisations such as the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and
Five Power Defence Arrangements in order to be more involved with international affairs.
Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has also spoken about his views on the importance of
international affairs, and the need for countries to contribute to worldwide efforts. In the long
term, such contributions may actually improve the collective welfare of countries. There have
been terrible consequences in the past when this was not heeded, and countries were more
concerned with domestic affairs. A prime example would be America during World War II,
where they declared isolationism and refused to engage in the War themselves. This only
proved to have dire results when France and Poland fell to Nazi Germany, and the collective
security of all nations was at great risk. If a country cannot even protect itself and its land, then
there will be no need to even be concerned with domestic affairs, as control of the country will
be relinquished. Thus, I believe that international affairs should be of greater concern to
governments.
Furthermore, international affairs are more important than domestic ones in achieving
long-term progress, security and stability. As mentioned previously in my first paragraph, while
restive ethnic minorities in Burma may cause temporary instability, these groups have
ultimately signed ceasefires with the government due to the encouragement and pressure
placed on the government by the United Nations (UN). The UN has guided the government to
be more attuned to the needs of the people and to be more accommodating. In the long term,
it is truly international affairs that governments need to be more concerned about. Having a
network of allies is definitely imperative, and can provide the country with more aid when
needed. Take, for example, when a junior Thai football team were stuck in a cave in 2018.
International aid was received, and almost every country flew in researchers and workers to
help assess the situation. It was with the help of everyone in the international community, from
countries like New Zealand to China, that the boys were safely rescued. Involving oneself in
international affairs may seem like a waste of resources, but it allows for the gaining of allies,
and such allies will be of great help in times of need. Singapore’s frequent aid to countries such
as Indonesia in dealing with their forest fires has also strengthened relations between both
countries. This has allowed us to reap great benefits, with Indonesia selling cheap agricultural
produce such as corn and wheat to us, helping to sustain our population. More importantly, it
has allowed for more collaborative opportunities, with Indonesia being one of the countries
Singapore works with frequently for military exercises, strengthening Singapore as a whole and
ensuring the nation’s security. Indeed, it is only through greater involvement in international
affairs that such partnerships and aid which contribute to a country’s growth in the long term
are secure. Thus, governments should be more concerned with international affairs.
While I strongly believe in greater concern being placed in international affairs, it also
depends on the state of the country. Under-developed and poverty-stricken countries such as
Vietnam should focus more on economic growth and on the standard of living of its people
before expanding outwards. This is crucial since the government’s first service is to its people
and to maximise their welfare. Even when countries place greater concern on international
affairs, it is crucial that they do not disregard domestic concerns completely. Countries such as
Indonesia, under Sukarno, suffered greatly due to his foreign adventurism. His insatiable
58
ambition to play a larger role on the international stage only served to worsen the economic
conditions of Indonesia, as he repeatedly prioritised the attainment of Indonesian pride over
economic achievements. Huge sums of money were diverted to the erection of prestigious
monuments, and the country’s debt soared. Inflation skyrocketed. Indonesia soon experienced
hyperinflation of 600%! Such an example thus illustrates the importance of the role of
governments in juggling between both international and domestic affairs, ensuring that while
one is more heavily prioritised, the other should also not suffer.
In conclusion, I believe that while international affairs should be of greater concern,

governments need to learn to strike a balance between both in order to maximise the welfare
of the country, and ensure that the country continues to thrive.
Comments:
Heather, clear stance presented in a fluid manner. Could have scored higher for language if not for
careless mistakes as well as what seems like a rushed effort towards the end. Much awareness shown
in various circumstances that dictates the government’s focus. A wide range of examples, too,
though you should use more recent examples for better relevance and persuasive power. Balance is
shown in various parts of the discussion but a pity you ended without proper evaluation/explanation
of the last point.
59
How effectively is healthcare managed in your society?
Tan Lip Guo (19S37)
In Singapore, where we face the problems of an ageing population as well as fast-paced

and often unhealthy lifestyles, we see more and more people with deteriorating health. Further
compounded by sedentary lifestyles of the affluent, illnesses such as diabetes and
hypertension have also been on the rise. However, the government has been taking proactive
steps to manage the healthcare situation in Singapore, and I believe that they have been
effective in doing so.
Firstly, the government has introduced numerous campaigns to improve the lifestyle
habits of Singaporeans. These campaigns range from encouraging people to exercise more to
educating them about healthy diets. For example, the Health Promotion Board introduced the
‘Healthier Choice’ stamps for food and beverage products. These stamps, often printed
alongside the nutrition information, help Singaporeans identify products that may be healthier,
such as those with lower sodium content, higher protein content and others. The stamps were
so effective that just months after they were introduced, many products that did not carry
these stamps had fallen in demand rapidly and were taken off the shelves. Another example is
the National Steps Challenge introduced in 2017, which aims to encourage Singaporeans to
step outside of their house or office and walk more. For every ten thousand steps, users are
awarded points which can then be used to redeem vouchers or coupons. This initiative had
such an overwhelming response that the government had to collaborate with third-party
organisations such as Singtel and AIA to take over. In schools, the Ministry of Education has
also made physical education lessons compulsory for all primary and secondary schools, as well
as junior colleges. Students are often taught and reminded of the importance of a healthy diet
and an active lifestyle. Therefore, I believe that the Singaporean government has been effective
in taking measures to improve the overall health of its residents.
Secondly, public hospitals and polyclinics help even the less well-off receive medical
attention and care. In Singapore, there are both public hospitals and private hospitals. Private
hospitals such as Mount Elizabeth, Raffles and many more cater to the more affluent citizens.
Often, even foreigners come to Singapore for their treatments, due to the robustness and
advancement of Singapore’s private healthcare scene. Public hospitals, on the other hand, cater
to the general public with lower prices. Before the 2000s, it was observed that many people
would avoid seeing a doctor or entering a hospital due to the high costs. This is where public
hospitals and polyclinics play a huge role. For lower-income households, the government
partially subsidises their medical fees when they go to a public hospital, polyclinic or even some
private general practitioners. These households are given a Community Health Assist Scheme
(CHAS) card, which helps them get discounted fees. The government also routinely gives out
vouchers to non-working elderly for them to visit the doctor when they fall ill. On a community
level, there are also free health screenings organised from time to time. These free health
screenings are usually held in neighbourhoods with a high percentage of lower-income families
or the elderly. They are organised at community centres, where volunteer doctors and nurses
60
come to support. As such, I believe that Singapore is effective in managing healthcare as most,
if not all, of its residents from all socio-economic classes are able to receive healthcare.
Some argue that Singapore is ineffective because of how she overly cares and provides
for her residents. Due to all the financial assistance schemes and other initiatives offered such
as insurance, Singapore’s residents have become over-reliant on the healthcare system,
especially the elderly who have the lowest medical costs and fees compared to other
demographics. This results in many of them visiting the hospital even for minor issues. This
would lead to overcrowding in hospitals, which may be bad for other patients requiring more
urgent and detailed care. For example, Tan Tock Seng Hospital was flooded with patients in
May 2014, to the point where beds were set up along the corridors of the wards. In the same
year, over fifty nurses resigned, claiming that it was too stressful and that they were
overworked. People also keep going into hospitals because they feel that insurance can cover
their costs. However, the government is taking measures to prevent such occurrences from
happening again. For example, the government is introducing a policy to make all insurance
companies offer co-payment. This means that all residents will have to pay a portion of their
medical fees. This is helpful as people will tend to avoid costly and unnecessary tests unless
they are strongly recommended by their doctor, hence freeing up beds in hospitals. Another
initiative by the government in the funding of homecare start-ups is Jaga-Me, a startup aiming
to bring healthcare home, which has received about two million dollars in grants. These
companies hire freelance nurses and connect them to patients, very much like how Grab works.
In fact, in the start-up scene, Jaga-Me is known as ‘the Grab for healthcare’. This allows for
simple procedures such as tube insertions, wound management and intravenous injections to
be done at home, keeping the hospitals free for acute and urgent cases. In the last two years,
the home-care sector has grown, with currently over eight hundred freelance nurses and care-
aides and more than five thousand cases per month.
In conclusion, based on the numerous campaigns and initiatives by the government to

reduce healthcare costs, improve lifestyles and manage structural resources like hospitals, I
strongly believe that healthcare is effectively managed in my society. Nonetheless, it is
important that we continue to strive and work hard to improve further, especially with
advancements in technology that make us lazy and lead sedentary lifestyles. As an individual, I
find it of paramount importance to take responsibility for our own health as well, instead of
just relying on what our community has in place for us.
Comments:
Arguments raised are relevant and some very insightful arguments and examples are raised.
However, not all examples are equally insightful nor well explained. Language is fluent with good
expression.
61
Zhao Junyao (19S38)
It is a decreed human right that everyone should have access to basic healthcare for
the treatment of diseases and enhancement of health. As the great leader of China Mao
Zedong once said, “A good health is the basis for any undertaking” - the prosperity and progress
of a society may largely depend on the overall health condition of its citizens. Therefore, in
order to ensure the welfare of the state and to strive for social development, it is pivotal that
effective healthcare management is constantly carried out and maintained. From my
perspective, the effectiveness of a healthcare system is indicated by the availability and
affordability of such services to citizens from different socio-economic backgrounds. This essay
will primarily be discussing the effectiveness of the healthcare system in Singapore, a
developed country with a densely distributed population as well as an ageing demographic.
Though some may argue that healthcare is not effectively managed in Singapore because of
the rising cost, I stand firmly in my belief that the multi-tiered healthcare insurance and the
wide scope of medical establishments in Singapore ensure the effectiveness of healthcare
management, by keeping medical services affordable and readily accessible.
Firstly, the multi-tiered insurance policy adopted by the government ensures the
effectiveness of healthcare management by providing subsidies for needy Singaporeans. Unlike
the market-driven healthcare systems in other developed states like America, where one needs
to bear most of the healthcare costs, the Singaporean government encourages a shared
responsibility approach through co-payment between citizens and the state. Healthcare in
Singapore is first heavily subsidised. Then, under the MediSave scheme, Singaporeans are
required to deposit a monthly portion of their income into the Central Provident Fund, a
savings account from which withdrawals can be made. When the occasion arises, healthcare
costs can be paid with savings and subsidies offered by the state. Besides this, MediShield Life
was introduced by the government to provide additional assistance for Singaporeans who
come from the lower-income bracket. As a result of various subsidies given by the state,
Singaporeans can enjoy healthcare at an affordable price, and are not denied healthcare
completely even if they fail to pay up the amount at the current state. More importantly, since
a portion of their incomes is used to pay for their medical bills under the MediSave Scheme,
Singaporeans are encouraged and spurred on to take care of their own health and not abuse
the provision of subsidies. Therefore, the multi-tiered healthcare scheme, consisting of
subsidies, MediSave and MediShield Life, is able to effectively manage healthcare in Singapore
by granting extra help to needy Singaporeans and encouraging them to take responsibility for
their own health.
Moreover, the myriad of healthcare services provided by different medical

establishments ensures the availability of medical aid. Singapore's government allows the
operation of private hospitals or clinics, apart from the public healthcare providers regulated
by authorities. It is a fair statement that there are simply too many healthcare options for
Singaporeans to choose from. They can choose to make an appointment at the government-
run polyclinics, private clinics or even hospitals owned by large enterprises. Clinics and
62
hospitals often work hand in hand. Qualified general practitioners are able to provide
preliminary medical check-ups and the prescription of drugs at clinics, while detailed
treatments or surgeries can be conducted in hospitals. Besides, given our ageing population,
authorities are placing increasing emphasis on the role of family doctors who can provide
immediate healthcare advice and treatment to the elderly, who are more likely to be stricken
with illness and require consistent care. As a result of the thriving public and private sectors in
healthcare, the doctor-patient ratio is constantly kept high in Singapore, almost twice that in
India. The abundance of various healthcare options encourages Singaporeans to go for
treatment because healthcare is readily available at their doorstep. Costs involved in travelling
to healthcare providers and time incurred from such visits are greatly reduced to accommodate
the fast-paced and costly lifestyles of Singaporeans. Hence, I believe that healthcare is
effectively managed in Singapore, because medical advice and treatments are made easily
obtainable by the co-existence of private and public sectors in the healthcare industry.
Critics of my claim may argue that the attempts made by the Singaporean government
will fail to lower the price of healthcare in the long run because of increasing demand. One may
contend that given the current low birth rate, the workforce will continue shrinking. Eventually,
the tax burden, which is partially translated from the healthcare subsidies provided for all
Singaporeans, will fall onto a smaller number of working adults, while the number of elderlies
who require more intensive care will keep on rising. This will ultimately put extra strain on
future generations, and healthcare costs may still soar despite efforts to contain them. For
example, it is estimated that by 2050, the elderly will make up almost half of Singapore’s
population. The higher demand for healthcare derived from such an ageing demographic will
drive up the costs, and the multi-tiered insurance may not continue to hold because of a lack
of tax revenue due to a smaller working population. This means that the current healthcare
system may not necessarily be effective in the near future given the changing conditions.
Although I do concede that the above argument raises a valid issue, I cannot accept it in its
entirety because the Singaporean government has always been and will still be nimble enough
to adapt to changing societal landscapes. For example, the government was able to revise the
previous MediShield Scheme to MediShield Life, by considering feedback from fellow
Singaporeans to cover citizens with pre-existing conditions with extra bonuses. Besides, the
Community Healthcare Assistance Scheme (CHAS) was also introduced to accommodate the
increasing popularity of community hospitals. To resolve issues related to the ageing
population, the government has already proposed the change of focus from hospital to home-
based healthcare to reduce the costs of healthcare by providing immediate care to the elderly.
Although new policies regarding this proposal have yet to be formulated, it is only a matter of
time before the authorities take control of the situation. Hence, given the previous successful
attempts by the government, I believe the healthcare system will still be effective in the long
run with relevant, decisive and sound new policies.
In conclusion, the healthcare management in Singapore is effective because it ensures

the affordability and availability of healthcare services for all Singaporeans. Although the
situation may change in the future, the authorities will be able to make changes to its current
policies and still ensure the welfare of its residents. I believe that our society will be able to
thrive given the current approach.
63
Comments:
Some valid points raised, though not all are fully relevant. Focus should be on current/ past measures
rather than on something that has not happened. What was good was the clear focus on the unique
features and needs of SG. Scope of discussion could have been broader, e.g. to focus on education
of the public in managing their own health. Language is fluent and expression felicitous.
64
Neo Yi Ting, Beryl (19S311)
Ever heard of the saying “health is wealth”? Health is something many people desire,
yet cannot be bought. With an increasing number of people becoming obese, coupled with an
ageing population in Singapore, the Singaporean government has been taking measures to
reduce obesity rates and increase the quality of our healthcare services. I agree that healthcare
is effectively managed to a large extent in Singapore. This is due to the subsidies put in place,
the presence of social safety nets to help the poor as well as public education, which serves to
educate and raise awareness among the general public on the importance of healthy living.
However, even the effectiveness of public education can be limited due to the
unresponsiveness of the people.
Firstly, the government has put in place subsidies to help everyone be able to afford
healthcare. Healthcare is a necessity that everyone should have access to, regardless of one’s
race, religion and socioeconomic background. In Singapore, due to an ageing population, the
demand for healthcare services has been on the rise, with a limited number of professionals in
the medical industry causing a shortage of manpower. This causes the prices of healthcare
services to rise, leading many elderly and the poor to be unable to afford these services when
they are the ones that need them the most. The government has put in measures to tackle the
rising medical costs by providing subsidies, so that these people are able to have access to
healthcare at a much lower price, enhancing the affordability of healthcare. For example, heavy
subsidies are given to people who are undergoing expensive treatments, such as chemotherapy
and cancer treatments. Also, for people staying in public hospitals in B and C class wards, prices
will be made much cheaper, especially for those with a lower income. Community Health
Assistance Scheme (CHAS) cards, which can be presented when visiting doctors at clinics and
polyclinics, give people subsidies based on their income levels. There are three categories: the
blue card, the orange card and the green card. Depending on which card one has, subsidies will
be given accordingly. In some cases where people are still unable to afford healthcare,
especially the elderly with no income, the government provides basic healthcare screenings
and services for free or for the very low price of $5. These screenings will be held at
neighbourhood places such as community centres, as the elderly visit them often. This ensures
that this group of people will not be neglected and be priced out of the healthcare market.
Hence, healthcare is managed effectively through the low costs of healthcare services.
Secondly, social safety nets have been put in place for people, even for the younger
working population. The government does not provide healthcare services for free due to a
limited budget. However, many policies are put in place to ensure people still consume the
necessary health treatments. For example, the 3Ms (Medisave, MediShield and Medifund) are
put in place in Singapore. They are designed to ensure that Singaporeans are not priced out of
the market, and these social safety nets help the poor gain access to healthcare. In addition,
the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is also implemented, in which all employees have to
contribute 5% to 20% of their salary into the CPF, with their employers contributing 7.5% to
17% to it, both depending on the age group. These funds in the CPF can only be withdrawn
65
after the age of 55 for healthcare purposes. This ensures that everyone in Singapore has at
least some funds in order to afford healthcare, especially at old age. Thus, healthcare is
effectively managed in Singapore.
On top of that, the government also makes sure people remain healthy, and at the same
time encourage those that are not to adopt an active lifestyle. This is done through public
education, such as campaigns and events that encourage and promote active lifestyles and
healthy eating. Campaigns and events are held regularly at places that many Singaporeans
frequent. For example, Our Tampines Hub (OTH) holds Zumba and dance classes for free.
Anyone is welcome to join, and these classes are held frequently twice a week. Also, OTH
organizes events such as ‘Lose to Win’, where people have to lose weight through exercising
and can redeem prizes such as supermarket vouchers. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) also
has a ‘Healthy 365’ app to encourage people to eat healthily through buying products with the
‘Health Pyramid’ logo. Households will obtain QR codes, and scanning them will allow
households to earn points and redeem prizes as well. There is also a programme called AIA
Vitality run by the insurance firm AIA, which encourages people to complete weekly challenges
through physical activities in order to earn points and redeem prizes. With a wide range of
campaigns and events to encourage Singaporeans to be active and maintain a balanced diet
using incentives, there has been a large increase in the number of people participating in these
activities, hence effectively managing healthcare.
However, even extensive public education islandwide may not be very effective,
especially amongst the younger generation. With more and more fast food chains in Singapore,
ranging from McDonald’s to KFC to Jollibee, as well as an increasing number of bubble tea
shops, many from the younger generation have been consuming more of these unhealthy
foods. As Singapore is a fast-paced society with many being workaholics, expediency combined
with the persuasive power of advertising means people often turn to fast food as an alternative
to regular meals. Fast food is cheap, quick and convenient, which appeals to both the working
population and students. Along with the ‘bubble tea craze’, where people excessively drink
bubble tea with a high sugar content, the increased consumption of fast food and bubble tea
has led to a rise in obesity rates. Even if information is communicated to the public about the
negative impacts from overconsumption of unhealthy food, consumers may choose to not take
this information into consideration and continue to over-consume them despite knowing the
negative impacts. Consumers’ habits may be hard to change as well. As a result, healthcare may
not be as effectively managed.
In conclusion, I agree that healthcare is effectively managed to a large extent, with some
exceptions. However, it is nearly impossible to ensure that everyone is healthy. Hence, it is
important for the government to mitigate the impacts of unhealthy lifestyles and an ageing
population, by increasing the quantity and quality of healthcare services.
Comments:
Consistent reference to unique features of the Singapore society and how these issues are dealt with.
Largely relevant, though some overlaps noted. Examples clearly support the arguments raised.
Language is clear, though with some grammatical and expression issues noted.
66
‘Society has progressed at the expense of the poor.’
Is this an accurate reflection of your society?
Vedantam Sarada Priyaraman (19S38)
“To achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation” — this is a line from the
Singapore Pledge that Singaporean students recite on a daily basis. It is a reflection of society’s
aspirations, and progress is one of them. However, in her pursuit of economic and social
development, Singapore may have inadvertently left behind the poor. The poor in Singapore
are those that are less wealthy compared to the national average. These people do not live in
absolute poverty, but are nonetheless less well-off than the rest of the population. Critics may
argue that Singapore’s growth is inclusive, and that Singapore has progressed but not at the
expense of the poor. However, given the rising income inequality in Singapore, coupled with
many other factors, I believe that society is indeed progressing at the expense of the poor.
Critics may argue that Singapore is largely an inclusive society where everyone is given
equal opportunities. They cite that education, which is seen as an ‘equaliser’, is made available
and mandatory to all citizens. Primary education in Singapore is compulsory for everyone,
regardless of their family background. This levels the playing field for students because
everyone, including the poor, has access to education. Furthermore, education is also
subsidised for low-income groups under the Ministry of Education (MOE)’s various Financial
Assistance Schemes, further increasing the accessibility of education to low-income families.
Since everyone is given education, everyone is also given equal opportunities in Singapore’s
meritocratic society. Therefore, people believe that the poor are given equal opportunities and
thus, in its pursuit of progress, society has not left behind the poor.
While this may be true, critics may overlook the fact that the education system in
Singapore is highly competitive and the majority, who are Asians, place a high emphasis on
supplementing their child’s education with enrichment classes and other co-curricular activities
to give their children an advantage over others. This can be seen in the billion-dollar tuition
industry in Singapore, which is almost always facing high demand. According to a study by the
Straits Times, almost 60% of students across all levels are enrolled in extra enrichment classes
beyond their school curriculum. However, such classes are usually expensive, and low-income
families are usually unable to afford them, whereas students from rich families can do so
without much financial burden. This gives students in enrichment classes an advantage over
less well-off students, and they can perform better in school. They will thus be given more
opportunities in Singapore’s meritocratic system, and they can advance. It is a myth that
everyone in Singapore is truly given equal opportunities, since this makes it more difficult for
the poor to progress in society while the rest can advance relatively easily as they do not have
to worry about the financial burden. Therefore, society is progressing, but indeed leaving
behind the poor.
Another issue that has come to light in recent years is the growing rich-poor divide in
Singapore. Singapore has seen rising incomes and economic development, especially as a
financial hub in Asia, in the past decade. However, there has been an uneven distribution of
67
income within the population. This is especially evident in the fact that Singapore has one of
the highest Gini coefficients in the world. This has also been corroborated by studies conducted
by the National University of Singapore (NUS), which found that the rise in income for its high-
income graduates far outpaces the rise in income amongst its graduates working in low-income
jobs. This shows that there is a significant gap between the socio-economic statuses of
Singapore citizens, and that Singapore’s growth has been uneven leading to inequality of
income distribution. This is a significant problem that the government is trying to tackle,
showing that society has indeed progressed at the expense of the poor.
The situation is further exacerbated by the high cost of living in Singapore. Singapore
is a developed country with one of the highest costs of living in the world. In such a society,
the poor, who earn less than others, have to spend a higher proportion of their income to afford
the same necessities as the rest. A study by the Department of Statistics found that the bottom
10% of Singapore citizens earn less than $1,500 monthly, far less than the national average.
With Singapore being ranked one of the most expensive developed countries to live in, it is
hard for these families to live with the same standard as the rest of the population. The
government, however, is introducing policies such as SkillsFuture to allow these workers to
upskill themselves. Despite these efforts to ensure that they can progressively command
higher wages, Singapore also has one of the highest inflation rates among developed countries,
further exacerbating the rich-poor divide and undermining the pace of income growth for these
workers. Thus, society’s progress has undermined the poor in Singapore.
In conclusion, while Singapore is indeed constantly striving for equality, looking at the
current situation, society has inadvertently left behind the poor in its pursuit of progress over
the past decade. Rising inflation rates, coupled with existing income inequity alongside
inequality that runs in the education system, have resulted in a growing gulf between the rich
and the poor in Singapore. Thus, it is an accurate reflection of Singapore that society has
progressed at the expense of the poor. However, the government’s efforts to reduce this gap
cannot be overlooked, as they can reduce income inequality in the long run and ensure that
society progresses as a whole.
Comments:
Relevant arguments raised with clear supporting examples. Thoughtful response with clear evidence
of evaluation. Language is fluent and assured.
68
Is migration to be welcomed or feared?
“Go back to where you belong!” These are the words that migrants dread most. Having
gathered the resolve and resources to seek a new life abroad, many migrants can attest to the
feeling of rejection and hopelessness at a foreign country's borders. In this age of globalisation,
safe travelling options and the blurring of borders has led to the rise of international migration.
Despite the benefits migrants bring to the table on the economic and social front, the dangers
they pose can easily rip apart the social fabric of society, impinging on the livelihood of the
natives. Hence, I am inclined to agree that migration, if left uncontrolled, is a cause for worry
and should be feared.
Many liberals and democrats postulate that migration should be welcomed, due to the
economic and social value they can add to society. Migrants from Less Developed Countries
(LDCs) like Bangladesh and the Philippines play a key role in jobs in the construction industry
and service industry respectively. In Singapore, similar menial jobs are often out of favour with
the increasingly educated Singaporean workforce, due to the physical labour involved. Hence,
it is often the case where such migrants have to take on these essential jobs to keep the
economy going. This ensures the key segments of the Singaporean economy, notably the
tourism and manufacturing sector, remain largely unaffected and continue to grow. Hence,
given that migrants can be a huge manpower resource in adding value to the economy, they
should be welcomed.
In addition, migrants should also be welcomed due to their contributions to the cultural
makeup of society. Every group of migrants has a unique background and lifestyle, and can
easily import such key fragments of their cultural identity into society. In the age of
globalisation, the rise of cosmopolitan societies can be attributed to the social value migrants
add to society, which contributes to the melting pot of cultures in the country. This is best
exemplified by their contributions in food. Unique styles of cooking and ingredients allow such
migrants to introduce new forms of cuisine to the country they now reside in, which not only
helps to fill the local palate but also plays a role in the creation of fusion food. For example, the
influx of Turkish restaurants into the United Kingdom has led to the opening of many Turkish
restaurants, allowing Britons to experience the savoury taste of kebabs and other Turkish
delicacies. In the local context, the effect of Westernisation brought on by the arrival of
Western immigrants has inspired a slew of local fusion foods that have become popular
amongst the locals. Examples include the Nasi Lemak Burger and Chilli Crab Pasta, all of which
blend local flavours with Western cooking styles to make for a novel culinary experience. As
such, given the social contributions towards the aspect of culture, migrants should be
welcomed.
Unfortunately, despite all the valuable contributions of migrants to society, there are
still many dangers that migrants pose to the country to move to. On the social front, migrants
can tear up the social fabric of the society they are in. Although bringing in their cultural
behaviours and norms can value-add to the cultural makeup of the country, insisting on
69
adhering to them at all costs, at the expense of others, does the opposite. A prominent example
comes in the form of Chinese migrants, who bring along their perceivably loud and rude
behaviour to various societies worldwide, such as that of Hong Kong, where they were seen
defecating the streets. Such behaviour is unacceptable from a local standpoint, especially if it
negatively affects local livelihood. In New Zealand, the honesty box payment system at local
farms was destroyed largely due to migrants mistaking the farm produce as free food. Such
developments fuel hatred against migrants, leading to the rise of xenophobia, tearing up the
social fabric of society. Furthermore, migrants can tend to form enclaves when they are not
welcomed, as the Hispanic migrants in the United States can attest to. This prevents society
from reaping the cultural benefits of such migrants entering the country. Hence, due to the
adverse impact of their behaviour on society as a whole, migrants should be feared.
Furthermore, the rise of globalisation has made migrants more transient in nature. From
what was previously just the immigration of people for the long run, migration became a tool
for foreigners to leech off other societies. They would settle on local soil, reap the benefits of
living in the country, and move out once they had enough. Such parasitic behaviour strains
societal resources without any benefit in return, adversely impacting the lives of the natives.
One such example would be the South Koreans who would migrate with their children to
English speaking countries like Singapore in order for their children to receive an English
education, taking up spots in schools that could have gone to other local students. Once their
education is completed, they would return to South Korea to reap the benefits in employment
opportunities. Although such behaviour is completely rational from the migrants' point of view,
it can adversely impact not just the economy of a country but the welfare of its people, due to
an increased competition for opportunities and resources. Hence, given the rise of transient
migration, which adversely has an impact on society on all levels, migration should be feared.
Lastly, migration can pose a safety hazard to the locals residing in the country.
Oftentimes, due to being detached from their family and having little friends to communicate
with, migrants become increasingly stressed. Such stress increases their vulnerability to radical
ideology, which can lead to self -radicalisation. Terrorist groups like the Islamic State often take
advantage of this very fact, radicalising Muslim migrants in foreign countries. They would
encourage such migrants to conduct attacks for the group as lone wolves, leading to bombings
and gun massacres worldwide, causing a major loss of life. Despite this, it is important to not
portray all migrants in the same light as these militants, which only comprise a small percentage
of the migrant population. Failing to do so would lead to the rise in xenophobia, sparking hate
crime and similar acts of violence against such groups, which we ourselves do not condone.
Hence, given the increased vulnerability of migrants to radical ideology, migrants can pose a
security threat to society, especially if they do not have any social support systems they can
turn to. Migration should, therefore, be feared.
In a nutshell, although the benefits migrants can bring to society on the economic and
social levels are plenty, they carry a risk of damaging the social fabric of society and pose a
safety hazard to the country they reside in. In light of this, governments across the globe should
not focus on shutting down migration. Instead, they should focus on better policies that allow
migrants to become as integrated into society as locals do. Doing this will help to nullify the
potential negative impacts they may bring and encourage them to make more positive
70
contributions due to a heightened sense of belonging, enabling us to build an interconnected
world where everyone feels welcome in.
Comments:
Ethan, knowledge of the issue is evident. The economic impact can be looked at not just from the
positive perspective but negative as well. (Foreign talent? Not all economic migrants are the low-
skilled, low-wage kind.) Besides cultural integration, what are other policies or measures to manage
migration?
71
‘Democracy has lost its appeal in modern society.’
How far do you agree?
Ma Xueqing (18A11)
The 1980s saw the astonishing collapse of the Soviet Union, as each of its states
declared independence and pushed for democracy over communism. The democratic process
of free speech, separation of powers, checks and balances, and free and fair elections seemed
extremely appealing to these newly independent states, given that they had just escaped a
tyrannical and controlling Communist regime. Yet, the same cannot be said of the appeal of
democracy in modern society today. With the rise of technology and social media, the free and
fair debate has been subverted by the proliferation of fake news, which undermines the
sanctity and thus appeal of democracy. Similarly, an increasingly polarised society means that
the democratic process is increasingly less inefficient. That said, although democracy might
seem less appealing today, I believe that its appeal is not entirely lost, as people do indeed
value being able to participate in politics.
Firstly, democracy’s appeal has diminished in a modern society characterised by

advanced technologies, social media and rampant misinformation. In principle, democracy is
valuable because it is a process that gives every individual a voice in that country’s politics, and
ensures that everyone’s personal concerns can be heard through the way they cast their votes
in free and fair elections. However, social media and fake news today have undermined both
the voting process and the sanctity of elections. With social media, anyone can become a
commentator on politics and influence people’s opinions, unlike in the past where campaign
information was usually passed to readers through reputed newspapers that were gatekeepers
of information. As a result, right-wing extremist platforms like Infowars and Breitbart News are
free to spread blatant misinformation – like how Hilary Clinton ran a paedophilia sex ring in the
basement of a pizzeria – which corrupts the information voters have in choosing their leaders
in a democracy. For a democracy to be truly representative of the people, voters need to be
informed and vote based not based on groupthink or false information, but what truly affects
them. However, given how even Russia was able to meddle in the US elections through a
misinformation campaign against Hillary Clinton on social media sites like Facebook and
Twitter, it seems as though the democratic process of voting and campaigning is now a means
for foreign manipulation and intervention in domestic politics. As a democracy is only as good
as its voters, and since voters today can no longer be relied on to make informed decisions,
democracy has increasingly become less attractive.
Secondly, the increased polarisation in today’s modern world of politics means that
democracy is now an inefficient means of organizing a country. With more people who are
educated about civil participation in modern society, many are now bringing their diverse
backgrounds into politics by joining it. This is why the recent 2018 US Congress midterm
elections saw the election of the most diverse pool of candidates to date, with an African-born
Muslim immigrant being one of them. Having said that, the increased representation and
diversity of opinions within parliament has meant that politicians are less likely able to agree
and more likely to spend time debating bills or legislations. However, this only exacerbates the
72
problem that has plagued democratic governments throughout history: inefficiency. For
example, Brexit had to be delayed three times until February 2020, since the British Parliament
consisting of the conservatives, liberals, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots could not agree on
the Brexit deal. Frustrated by the complete stalemate, the new Prime Minister Boris Johnson
sought approval from the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks, in order to expedite
the process – even if it meant leaving the European Union (EU) without a deal. Similarly, earlier
in 2019, wary of immigrant sympathisers and left-wing liberal Democrats, Trump resorted to
shutting down Congress in order to ensure that he could get approval to build his border wall.
Since some of the most liberal and democratic institutions of the free world seem to be
incorporating authoritarian elements into governance in order to enforce certain policies, this
clearly indicates how frustrating the democratic process of debate and representation can be.
Hence, democracy seems less appealing.
That said, even though democracy in all its forms is not flawless, this does not mean
that democracy’s value is lost on us. However exasperated we may be with certain weaknesses
of the system, we still cherish democracy and its power in giving a voice to the people. With
the rise of right-wing extremism, anti-immigrant rhetoric and even climate change denial, it is
precisely because we live in such a polarised modern world that democracy remains the best
way in which everyone’s opinions are heard, and people keep a check and balance on each
other’s opinions. Just because the Brexit process is an arduous one of debate and disagreement
does not mean that democracy is any less important or useful today. In fact, given the severity
of Brexit and how it determines the economic, social and political future of the country for
generations, it is thus far more important that there is a democratic process of debate such
that the government is able to decide on a course of action that accommodates most of its
people, rather than just the Nigel Farage’s pro-Brexit movement. The significance of
democracy is perhaps best seen in the ongoing Hong Kong riots, where the otherwise usually
conservative and docile population is protesting against the Chinese government’s
authoritarian control, and demanding greater freedoms in terms of elections and civil
participation. Hence, the appeal of democracy is enduring in spite of its weaknesses.
Similarly, democracy in our relatively stable and wealthy modern society is important
to prompt continuous revolution and prevent government complacency. Even though our
society today is far more stable politically and economically, largely absent of wars and mass
famines that plagued the past, there is still continuous change that can be made, which is best
alerted to the government through the democratic process of free speech. For instance, the
Black Lives Matter movement in the US which protested against police brutality was a crucial
signal to the government that it had to better govern against racial inequality, as the ending of
Jim Crow era segregation laws and passing the Civil Rights Act alone were insufficient in
reaching true equality. Similarly, the #NeverAgain movement for gun control was an important
way for the people to express their discontent with the Trump administration’s lax gun laws.
Hence, the freedom of speech and assembly remains a critical function of democracy that
people value until today.
In conclusion, although democracy in its entirety is imperfect, it is still the lesser of all
evils. It gives the people representation and prevents governmental complacency that has led
to many authoritarian regimes failing. Moreover, the problems associated with democracy can
73
be mitigated through careful legislation to limit the spread of misinformation. And even if
people vote based on what they see and hear, there is still some agency in their decision.
Comments:
A controlled and mature discussion, demonstrating a sound understanding of the issue and
knowledge of current events. Arguments are largely well-developed and supported by relevant
evidence. Confident and functional use of language. Overall, a decent effort.
74
‘Democracy has lost its appeal in modern society.’
How far do you agree?
Tan Dyllan (18S52)
Ever since the beginning of the Cold War and the arduous process of decolonisation
around the world, many people have sought after democracy in one way or the other: as a
political system that could finally empower the common folk and liberate them from centuries
of tyranny, oppression and exploitation. Varying interpretations of the meaning of a true
democracy arose, from the fervently revolutionary ideas of Marxist socialism to the system of
parliamentary democracy peddled all across the world by the United States. Yet, with the end
of the Cold War and the diminishing relevance of socialism, the ideas of parliamentary
democracy have become the standard model of what a democracy is today. However, with the
current rise of nationalism and the growing disillusion with the ineffectiveness of democratic
systems, more have begun to doubt the ubiquitous notion that democracy is the best answer
to all problems of governance today, and some may even assert that democracy has lost its
appeal in modern society. Nevertheless, as is evident from the multitude of pro-democracy
march events across the globe that advocate the empowerment of the people, as well as the
fact that democratic ideals still remain the standard by which the deeds of governments and
regimes across the world are judged, it cannot be convincingly argued that democracy has truly
lost its appeal in modern society.
Sceptics of the overly populist ideals of democracy today often argue that the current
system of parliamentary democracy leaves the public with a mere illusion of choice, when in
reality, the choices of candidates presented to the people never really account for their
interests, causing electoral proxies to ultimately be a dirty game of bribery, deception and
sweet-talking to determine who will lead the people next. Parliamentary democratic systems
are often so intertwined with capitalist economic systems, especially in developed nations
across the globe. Thus, while the process of elections is lauded with high praise as being
righteous and embodying the true spirit of human freedom, it often boils down to the question
of money and influence in actuality. Politicians who possess a great deal of financial capabilities
use their wealth to buy their way into the political sphere, where they need only sway the
masses with honeyed rhetoric and false promises in order to attain leadership over the people.
Populists of such an argument would not hesitate to highlight the American elections of 2016,
wherein the two candidates for the presidency, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, leveraged
upon their wealth and prestige to overwhelm their arguably more reputable competitors such
as Bernie Sanders, whose immeasurable experience on the political sphere ultimately did not
suffice in winning over the masses. As such, Americans were forced to choose between two
candidates they never really supported, as attested by how only 55.5% of the American
population actually bothered to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, indicating just
how unrepresentative the elections truly were. The examples of elections in European
countries also attested to the fragmentation and discord inherent in a democratic system, as
British parties are able to emerge victorious with just 30% of votes in a constituency, while in
Germany, the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party does not even need 50% of the
75
popular vote to stay in power. The list of examples of democratic elections being unpresented
stretches on, leading many to claim that, ultimately, democracy has lost its appeal today.
Furthermore, some critics reason that the rise of nationalism in many parts of the globe
today has shaken the system of democracy in its foundations, and that the upward trend of
nationalist sentiments today has resulted in the erosion of the appeal of democracy.
Nationalism’s rise and its powerful rhetoric prioritising national self-interests above all else
ultimately capture the hearts of aggrieved folk. Great dissatisfaction emerged as even more
people began to question the current democratic establishment for its feebleness in protecting
national self-interests against the rising occurrence of socio-economic calamities. Moreover,
as the capitalist economic system integrated into most parliamentary democratic systems
across the world has failed to deliver the fruits of economic progress to the common folk, many
of the disillusioned masses have begun to look forward to more authoritarian political systems
of the past for solace. Supporters of this line of thought would put both the growing
discontentment with democracy in some European countries today as a result of the
unprecedented influx of immigrants from the Middle East, while this is because of the widening
household inequality and frustration with governments making false promises to placate the
masses in others. In France and Germany alike, the effects of the migrant crises still reverberate
throughout society, leading to the ascension of right-wing, Islamophobic movements such as
Pegida in Germany and Golden Dawn in Greece. In Eastern European countries such as
Ukraine, Poland and Romania, polls show substantially favourable views of Marxist-nationalist
authoritarian regimes from the past, with one in five people in Poland and more than 50% of
people in Romania affirming that life under Communism was preferable to the more democratic
yet more unequal system that was foisted upon them after the end of the Cold War. As such,
many claim that nationalism, both left and right wing, is testament to how the democratic
system is losing its appeal in the eyes of the masses.
While many of these arguments against democracy are justifiable and even persuasive
in their own right, it is nevertheless undeniable the democratic system is still dominant in global
politics today, and for countries and peoples less fortunate than those in the first world,
democracy is still an ideal that many are willing to fight for, even if it fundamentally has
significant problems of its own. All over the world, pro-democratic movements continue to
make the headlines, and even though some receive more attention than others, the masses are
ultimately still seeking empowerment through the implementation of democratic reform, even
if said democratic reforms do not completely replace their current political establishments with
foreign ideals of parliamentary democracy. Testaments to this yearning for democracy are
prevalent, especially in developing nations with more authoritarian regimes, particularly in the
Middle East. There, the Arab Spring of 2011 and more recent movements in countries such as
Algeria, Iran and Tunisia have serious campaigns undertaken by the people to oppose
Presidents whose tenures have extended to absurd lengths, such as Abdelaziz Bouteflika in
Algeria or Beji Caid Essebsi in Tunisia. In Hong Kong, despite the obvious absurdity of some of
the protestors’ actions, the message of the people of Hong Kong is still clear for all to witness
— the trust in democracy. Despite the aggrieved sentiments of so many people across the globe
against democracy, the majority do not seek its abolishment, but rather demand reform that
finally prioritises the will of the masses, even in Europe. Nationalist discontent, while strong,
has repeatedly failed to garner the support of the level-headed masses, who still recognise the
76
merits of democracy. It is evident then that democracy has by no means lost its intrinsic value
in the eyes of many people groups around the world, who despite being cognisant of its very
arguable flaws, remain staunch advocates for democratic reform and the transfer of power
from political elites to the hands of the masses.
Moreover, democracy cannot be said to have lost its appeal in modern society, when it
remains the standard with which the deeds of governments across the globe are assessed and
judged. With oligarchic and dictatorial political systems still flourishing in many countries across
the world, often due to massive popular support from the common folk, democratic guidelines
are present to ensure that leaders of these nations, no matter how popular or outspoken
support for them may be, do not misuse their legitimacy and popularity to impose policies that
run counter to the will of the masses and simply oppress them. The ideals of democracy so
often attract high praise and vows to commit to them, thus delivering a firm signal to
authoritarian regimes throughout the world, reminding them to constantly assess if they truly
have the support of the masses. In Syria, despite harsh criticisms from Western nations for
Bashar al-Assad’s allegedly brutal dictatorship, international observers even from the United
Nations have deemed local elections in Syria as being free and fair, by extension proving that
Bashar al-Assad’s support from 70% of the Syrian people is not falsified. In Russia, criticisms
regarding the unrepresentative nature of Russian elections have forced Putin’s government to
constantly attempt to win the hearts of the Russian people, despite frequently being labelled
as a dictatorship that need not consult the approval of the masses to implement national
policies. Evidently, even for dictatorships and oligarchies, democracy remains a principle that
governments have to convincingly attempt to adhere to, as the perception of the public is
ultimately contingent upon the ability of the incumbent government to respect their will.
In conclusion, it is easy to discern the growing displeasure and outrage against the
current system of democracy for its obvious fundamental flaws, and this is particularly
noticeable from the rise of nationalism today. Yet, democracy has not lost its appeal to the
majority of the global population today, as even people residing in authoritarian regimes and
supporting them still use democratic guidelines to check the power of the regimes. Support for
democracy, embroiled by pro-democratic movements across the world, is still as prevalent as
ever before. Nevertheless, the problems of the democratic system cannot be lightly dismissed
by simply asserting that democracy is still popular today; it is imperative that governments
work towards reforming their ailing democratic systems in order to truly represent the will of
the people, which so many democratic governments have neglected to do or failed to achieve.
Ultimately, politics is not a question of one size fits all, as all countries have unique
circumstances that democracy must adopt in order to flourish.
Comments:
Excellent linguistic ability. You have good control and write with confidence and conviction. An
insightful and engaging response with a wide-ranging use of illustration. Context of a modern society
could be more explicit, and examples more current. Nevertheless, you impress with your knowledge
of current and global issues.
77
‘A world without borders results in more problems than solutions.’
What is your view?
Nigel Tan Wei Xuan (18S63)
In recent years, many countries have been opening up their borders to refugees from
war-torn countries seeking asylum. This decision by the respective governments has been met
by both support as well as anger. On the one hand, human rights activists fight for the rights
of such refugees, claiming that they deserve to seek shelter from the dangers of their home
country. On the other hand, many xenophobic citizens are angered by the possible notion that
the inflow of refugees might worsen their standards of living, by stealing jobs or overpopulating
their cities. If a world without borders were to exist, where there are absolutely no restrictions
or control on the flow of people across countries, similar sentiments are likely to arise due to
the nature of such an event in bringing about both benefits and issues to residents of a country
and immigrants alike. Fortunately, having a world without borders would result in more
solutions than problems, on account of the fact that it would stimulate economic growth in
both the country that is receiving immigrants, as well as the country where people are
emigrating out of. Moreover, despite causing possible problems such as overpopulation in the
country receiving immigrants, the problems are short term and can be dealt with, allowing the
country to enjoy long term benefits of a world without borders. At the same time,
overpopulated countries can enjoy the benefits of a reduced population. Lastly, a world
without borders would also allow for better cooperation between countries in finding solutions
to problems created at a faster pace. Hence, I disagree with the view that “A world without
borders results in more problems than solutions”.
A world without borders, which allows people to flow from one country to another
freely, would stimulate economic growth. Labour can easily flow from countries where there
is a lack of jobs to countries where there are gaps in the labour market. Countries such as
Singapore would benefit greatly from the inflow of foreign labour, as talented individuals who
possess skills that Singaporeans lack can take up job vacancies that need to be filled.
Furthermore, lower-skilled foreign labour can also be employed to fill up the vacancies in
occupations that Singaporeans often shun, such as the cleaning or construction industries.
These are both vital to Singapore in its bid to be a clean and green city, as well as in its goal of
continuous development in infrastructure. Filling up such job vacancies would allow Singapore
to stimulate its growth, as it is more able to function at its full potential with a larger labour
force under its wing. This is especially important in light of the fact that Singapore, like many
other countries in the world – apart from eighteen demographically anomalous countries – is
facing an ageing conundrum. Having a world without borders would thus bring about solutions
to the existing ageing population problem. On the other hand, in countries where people are
emigrating out of, the problem of a ‘brain drain’ might arise, where many of their skilled workers
emigrate out of the country in search of higher wage rates in more developed countries, leading
to slower growth in the country due to a shrinking labour force. However, although this is a
rather significant problem, the benefits to these countries that arise from having a world
without borders can outweigh the costs, because citizens who emigrate in search of better job
opportunities often send remittances back to their home country. Research conducted by the
78
World Bank in 2011 showed that remittances to India amounted to seventy billion dollars,
whilst China and the Philippines received sixty-six billion and twenty-four billion dollars
respectively. These large sums of money allow for the families at home to enjoy a larger
disposable income, and to enjoy a greater standard of living. Furthermore, if the increased
income is spent on consuming goods and services or investing, it can stimulate economic
growth and infrastructural development in the country. Moreover, if the emigrants return to
their home country after working in more developed countries, they can bring back more
advanced knowledge to pass on to the younger generations. Hence, the negative effects would
be offset by the positive, and more solutions would arise than problems, as existing issues such
as the lack of labour force in Singapore can be solved.
Critics of immigration may claim that a world without borders would result in many
problems for the country receiving immigrants, such as overpopulation and the problems that
come with it, like lack of housing or more congested public transport. This may be true;
however, it is only a short-term issue and can be easily dealt with by an efficient government,
to allow the country to overcome the short-term issues and indulge in the long-term benefits,
such as those addressed earlier. Singapore, for example, relies quite heavily on foreign labour
to deal with its shortage in the labour force; however, some citizens are angered by the
decreased availability of housing due to foreigners occupying them, as well as more congested
public transport. Fortunately, the Singaporean government has been able to successfully
alleviate the problems by increasing the supply of public housing and building more train lines,
as well as buying more trains and buses in recent years.
On the other hand, overpopulated countries would benefit from a world without
borders, as they can substantially reduce their population and benefit from the reduction as
they would now experience a lower unemployment rate. Bangladesh, for example, has one of
the highest population densities in the world, which leads to its high unemployment rate. A
world without borders would allow these unemployed labourers to seek jobs elsewhere instead
of overcrowding their home countries and consuming its resources unnecessarily.
Furthermore, having lower unemployment rate from the reduction of population can also bring
about greater peace and political stability to the country. A World Bank survey showed that
40% of those who take part in rebel movements are spurred on by the lack of jobs.
Furthermore, pervasive unemployment amongst the youth has been shown to make the youth
easy targets for the African terrorist organisation Boko Haram. Hence, reducing unemployment
by lowering the strain on the labour market, via decreasing the population size through
immigration with the help of having no borders, can help bring about peace and stability in
overpopulated countries, especially the less developed ones. Hence, although some problems
may arise in the countries receiving immigrants, these countries are typically more developed
and are well equipped to deal with the issues so that they can enjoy the long term benefits.
The overpopulated countries, which are generally the less developed countries, can enjoy
greater peace and stability and less overcrowding. Thus, not only do new benefits for both
countries arise, but solutions to existing problems are created as well.
Lastly, a world without borders would allow for greater cooperation between countries,
as well as allow for information to be spread easily and quickly. For example, if dangers that
threaten the safety of a country or the world were to arise, countries can work together to
79
solve the issues, with fewer restrictions on the flow of the manpower needed to resolve the
issues. Even if problems arise due to the lack of borders, they can be quickly dealt with the aid
of experts around the world. For example, if a lack of borders facilitated the spread of diseases
across countries, they can be managed through the quicker pace with which scientists can
travel across countries with fewer restrictions, so that they can tap on more advanced facilities
or work with their counterparts in that region. It also allows for the quicker spread of
information. For example, during the SARS outbreak in 2003, scientists scrambled for effective
containment measures, and Singapore was the first to discover some. This information then
spread to all other countries quickly, thanks to the lower barriers when it came to the spread
of information between countries. If there were no restrictions to the flow of manpower or
infrastructure in a world without borders, such issues could arguably be solved at a quicker
rate. Another example would be the Amazon rainforest burning down. A whopping one and a
half football fields worth of rainforest are burning down every minute, and leaders around the
world are offering aid, but due to the borders set in place, these world leaders do not have the
jurisdiction to intervene without the allowance of Brazil’s president Jair Bolsonaro.
Unfortunately, Bolsonaro is a climate change sceptic and has rejected aid from large
organizations like G7 (Group of Seven) and from French President Emmanuel Macron, who has
been advocating for environmental protection. Without borders, the issue of forest fires could
be solved more easily, as countries can send aid efforts faster and to a greater extent. Hence,
a world without borders can allow for solutions to existing problems, as well as solutions to
problems that may arise from having no borders as well, as it can facilitate better cooperation
between countries.
Thus, in conclusion, having a world without borders does indeed create its own issues.
At the same time, though, it brings about solutions, not only to the problems that it creates,
but also to existing problems that the world faces. It mitigates its own issues and brings about
benefits to both countries people are flowing out of and countries people are flowing into.
Hence, a world without borders results in more solutions than problems, and is generally
desirable.
Comments:
Very fluently written and sustained. Just be aware of minor errors. Plan carefully so that you offer a
wide range of examples. Overall, an excellent job under time pressure. Keep it up!
80
Does thrift have any relevance in our consumerist society?
Grace Wang Shi Jia (18A11)
Each day, we encounter billboards on the way to our workplaces, advertisements on

our social media platforms, and the DJs on our radios are always raving over the ‘hot new’ hair
gel that we “just cannot miss out on!” As consumers in a capitalistic society, we are constantly
bombarded with marketing schemes that entice us to spend lavishly on new products and
services. Frugality is thus increasingly seen to offer little value to economic growth, which
depends instead on consumption. Yet, this may not be the case for all capitalist countries
worldwide, some instead prizing their economic stability upon the government’s thrift.
Furthermore, thrift allows society to combat the banes of a consumerist society: inflation and
environmental degradation. Thus, thrift may seem an outdated and archaic concept, but it truly
has immense value in our consumerist society.
Consumerist societies run on a capitalist economy, essentially fuelled by a cycle of

consumption and demand to allow for increased production, rendering frugality irrelevant and
perhaps even detrimental to economic growth. Consumerist societies thrive on spending,
which would explain why literally everything has been targeted towards marketing goods and
services to the population, from the television advertisements nudging us to purchase a new
car to the DJs’ excitement over the new hair gel so infectious we simply must purchase it, to
the social media advertisements knowing just where we should go for lunch. All of the
marketing schemes serve to incite users as consumers to purchase goods and services, and
hence to feed the conglomerates which form the base of our economic growth, further driving
economic progress. To give an illustration, Singapore and Malaysia came up with effective
measures during the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, literally spending their way out of the crisis
and successfully so. Their regional counterparts, Thailand and Indonesia, embarked on security
measures which aimed to decrease government spending and ensure the government
remained thrifty, to save themselves from the crisis. This was a dismal failure, frugality simply
failing to jumpstart their economies for recovery, as the thrifting acted as a hindrance to the
cycle of consumption and production, which fuels economic growth. Therefore, thrift very
fundamentally runs counter to the mechanisms of a consumerist society, underscoring its lack
of viability in a consumerist society.
Yet, this is not always the case for all capitalist countries that run on a culture of
consumerism. For some countries, governmental frugality is utterly essential for economic
stability. This is especially pertinent in the case of sovereign debt, where government frugality
will allow for the evaluation of financial reserves to pay off debt, and hence be able to focus
on productive economic growth. In such situations, lavish spending with no limits simply
further plunges the country deeper into the mire of debt, sinking and preventing economic
progress. For instance, Latin American countries have been grappling with sovereign debt for
numerous decades since the 1980s. Year after year, their growth is restricted by a lack of
government finances due to the government being preoccupied with servicing their loans.
Their inability to service their loans stems from the absence of government thrift in their
spending. Brazil decadently spent billions of dollars during the World Cup, and Argentina
81
forked out gargantuan sums to fund their soccer team. Their lavish spending has depleted their
financial reserves, culminating into fiscal deficits which render them unable to pay back their
loans, and hence be trapped in the stagnation of being debtor countries. In fact, Argentina,
which recently just defaulted on their loans for the 17th consecutive time, had been mired in
poverty, as evidenced by their dilapidated slums which populate the country. Thrift and
frugality can serve as an ailment to economic woes for such countries, raising them from the
depths of debt and propelling them into economic growth. This would also explain why the
International Monetary Fund preaches austerity measures in times of economic crisis, believing
frugality is the cure to economic recession and stagnation. As such, to claim that thrift has
absolutely no relevance to all capitalist countries with consumerist cultures would be parochial.
Furthermore, thrift allows the individual to overcome the inevitable inflation that comes
with a society run by a system of consumption and production. This cycle of economic growth
is driven by increasing demand for various goods and services, which would inevitably lead to
inflation in the long term, as scarcity is exacerbated, and people use their money to fight for
the possession of limited commodities. With this, items used on a daily basis such as food and
electricity are seeing price increases, gradually but undeniably substantially. For instance, a
plate of chicken rice from the local hawker used to cost less than $2.50 a decade ago, and now
people pay almost twice the price as a result of inflation. These price increases inflate the
average cost of living for households in society, threatening their ability to provide for
themselves, especially for the low-income households already struggling to make ends meet at
current prices. Thrift hence becomes of utmost importance for such individuals, as their savings
could be their only means of survival in a future, where prices have soared, and with this the
cost of living. The well-known advice of ‘save for a rainy day’ has never been so relevant, with
frugality, a way to survive in view of the insidious inflation that a consumerist society entails.
The Singaporean government also champions thrift and frugality to ensure survivability in the
long run, as evidenced by the Central Provident Fund (CPF) policy. This policy subtracts a
percentage of workers’ incomes and puts it aside until they reach retirement age, where this
CPF supplements the elderly with a source of income to assure their survivability. In the short
term, CPF ensures that the population is frugal by literally limiting the amount they can spend.
Yet, in the long run, this necessitated thrift serves to ensure the livelihood of the retired elderly
in light of increasing prices. As such, our consumption culture and the inescapable inflation it
entails makes thrifting all the more essential for survival.
On top of this, thrift also plays a crucial role in combating the environmental
depreciation that is exacerbated by our consumerist culture. Consumption fuels production,
which in turn utilises the Earth’s limited resources such as oil and minerals. In catering to our
infinite wants, producers are rapidly depleting the Earth’s entire resources. This environmental
degradation is utterly devastating, as not only does it prevent sustainable growth in the long
run, but it also compromises our quality of life, as our clean air is replaced by the suffocating
carbon monoxide and greenhouse gases emitted by production plants busy churning out goods
and services. Thrift, through purchasing cheaper, older goods, serves to mitigate this. The lower
prices of used goods being resold entice the frugal to head to thrift shops instead of
supermarkets. This leads to the reuse of perfectly viable commodities which had been
arbitrarily discarded. As such, this serves to combat overconsumption, which drives
environmental degradation prevalent in consumerist societies. To give an illustration, Johor
82
Bahru has seen a proliferation of a myriad of various thrift shops, boasting vintage selections
of fashion and jewellery. Some famous store names include Loopgarms and Death Threads,
which have even branched out to Singapore. Reselling old clothes, the shops provide a trendy
alternative to the mass-produced fast fashions by stores like Uniqlo and H&M. Diverting one’s
consumption to the former cheaper option, from the latter more expensive ones, allows for the
mitigation of demand for new goods. This, in turn, would reduce the strain on our environment
and its already limited resources. Hence, thrift is absolutely crucial in mitigating the
environmental degradation that is exacerbated by our consumerist society.
Consumerist societies can enjoy decadent lifestyles, constantly obtaining new goods to
satisfy our never-ending desires. Undeniably, lavish spending helps to fuel the growth of this
culture and the capitalist economy. Yet, whether this is truly desirable in the long run is a
different matter. This consumerist culture entails inflation and disastrous environmental
degradation, which threatens our very livelihood. Perhaps then, to embrace frugality and the
decreased consumption it brings is the way to ensure the survival of humanity.
Comments:
Sound knowledge of the issues is demonstrated, and there is apt use of supporting evidence for your
points. A largely relevant discussion with good insights shown. Arguments are well developed and
substantiated. Sound command of language.
83
Science & Technology
84
How far is science fiction becoming a fact?
Chung Ying Qiao Winnie (18S42)
In the 21st century, so many technological advancements have occurred in our lives that
have made science fiction reality. These technological and scientific advancements in classic
stories, once thought to be impossible, are slowly being realised one by one. However, not all
of what was envisioned in fictional fantasy has been realised as of yet, either due to the
limitations of current resources and research, or due to the sheer impossibility of accomplishing
such feats. In my opinion, science fiction has become a fact for relatively smaller-scale feats,
like tablets and smartphones for example. They are by no means easy feats, but comparing this
with the scale of other technologies illustrated in science fiction, like time travel and living in
space which are comparatively on a much larger scale, the achievements that have become a
reality are small in comparison. For the larger inventions and advancements described in
science fiction, I feel that they have not become a fact, and would take many decades more of
research until they become fruition, or might even be impossible to become a reality.
Science fiction is becoming a fact because what was once envisioned in books has
become a part of our lives. Science fiction is a depiction of what the writer or director envisions
would happen in the future, and it may or may not become a reality eventually. Since certain
predictions in science fiction have indeed become a part of modern-day life, I feel that it is safe
to say that science fiction is becoming a fact. Examples of this would be the rampant use of
smartphones and tablets, and the rise of artificial intelligence. The tablet was introduced in
science fiction through Star Trek in the 1980s, where it was shown in use. Back then,
touchscreen technology was thought to be a thing of the far future. However, in 2007, Apple
released its first touchscreen smartphone - the iPhone, revolutionising touchscreen technology
for commercial use. Later in 2010, the iPad was released, and the very tablet in Star Trek
became a reality. Now, ten years later, almost everyone owns a smartphone or smart tablet,
showing how much it has been integrated into our lives. Artificial intelligence is also another
example of how science fiction has become a fact. It currently appears in our daily lives in the
form of voice assistants such as Siri, Google Assistant, Cortana, Alexa and many more. They
help us accomplish tasks such as setting reminders or sending emails for us, and can even help
control the appliances in our homes, as with Google Home and Amazon Home. This is in
comparison to how artificial intelligence was depicted in science fiction franchises like Tron
and Code Lyoko, where the main antagonists were artificial intelligences. While in the real
world, the artificial intelligences that exist are no sentient sinister beings bent on world
domination, both fiction and reality versions of artificial intelligence share similarities, namely
their ability to reason. The closest humankind has to a sentient artificial intelligence is one
developed by DeepMind. This bot is able to play the board game Go, beating out top players
in the game without any handicap. This shows the rising ability for artificial intelligence to
reason and analyse, almost like a human. Therefore, science fiction is becoming a fact due to
predicted inventions from these stories becoming a reality and being a part of our lives.
Another way science fiction is becoming a fact is the way society has evolved to
accommodate technology in our daily lives, much like the ways it is depicted in fiction. As more
85
technologies are developed and integrated into the lives of people, society would most
definitely evolve as habits and routines change due to the impact of technology. These changes
mould society to be similar to societies described in science fiction, and as a result, we are
slowly moving towards societies like those in science fiction, bringing science fiction closer to
fact. An example of a society in science fiction is the society of cyberpunk Japanese anime
Psycho-Pass. In Psycho-Pass, there is a powerful network of biometric scanners, scanning
every single move of its citizens and actively measuring their minds and mentalities using a
‘cymatic scan’ of the brain. This assesses the likelihood of a citizen to commit crime, measured
against a Crime Coefficient. If the likelihood exceeds the threshold, the citizen is arrested or
even killed. While this depiction of a futuristic society sounds rather dystopian and dark, we
are closer to a similar society than we think. In China, a similar social credit system is being
developed to scan their citizens’ behaviour. Those who commit crimes or violate social codes
would face undesirable consequences, such as impacted opportunities to apply for jobs or
schools, or reduced ability to travel domestically or internationally. This is strikingly similar to
the system applied in Psycho-Pass, with similar consequences to those who do poorly in the
system. Therefore, the societies in science fiction are slowly becoming a reality, and hence,
science fiction is slowly becoming a fact.
However, not all of science fiction is becoming fact, due to current resource limitations.
Such limitations include the lack of equipment and research needed to develop the technology
shown in science fiction. As a result, scientists are unable to make these technologies a reality
because of the lack of knowledge and ability to do so. Some of these include time travel, as
depicted in Back To The Future, and extensive manned space exploration, as depicted in Star
Wars. As of now, the technology to travel through time does not exist, and many even proclaim
time travel to be absolutely impossible, hence leaving time travel to remain as something of
the imagination. For time travel to exist, enough research must be made to ensure the traveller
is able to travel safely through time and back, as well as enough research and technological
capacity seasoned enough to develop the equipment allowing such travel to happen. Until
then, time travel may never be achieved. In comparison, space exploration has become a great
feat for humanity because it allows scientists to analyse the planets in the solar system and
beyond. However, most of the exploration on other planets has been done using robots and
not humans. Humans have also not been able to live in space for extended periods of time.
Currently, astronauts living on the International Space Station stay in space for about half a
year before returning to Earth, due to the effects the lack of gravity has on their bodies. In
order to make space travel to be anywhere similar to that shown in Star Wars, more research
and development must be done to develop technology which ensures that human health and
safety is not compromised during space travel longer than six months. Vessels would also need
to be developed to accommodate humans to travel further into space. The research needed is
highly costly and much more advanced than the technology that exists today. As a result, it
may take a very long time before manned space travel becomes a fact for humankind.
Therefore, not all of science fiction is becoming a fact, mainly due to the extensive amount of
research and resources needed to make them a reality.
However, this does not mean that such technology would never become a reality. The
main reason why big science fiction feats like time travel and extended space travel are not
becoming a fact now is because current technology is limited and cannot achieve such tasks.
86
However, that does not mean that technology cannot be further developed to enable such
feats to happen. Just like how science fiction imagined in the yesteryears have slowly become
a reality due to the advancements in research and development as the years progressed, if
given more time, the resources needed for science fiction feats that remain unachieved may
be created, and this would allow more technologies in the realm of science fiction to become
a reality. Therefore, while not all of science fiction is a fact now, it does not condemn the
unachieved to be impossible to achieve.
In conclusion, much of what was shown in science fiction is a fact now. For matters that
were depicted in science fiction but not currently a fact, I believe that sooner or later they will
become a reality, because technology in modern society is developing every day. With enough
research and money to fund such progress, the current limitations scientists experience now
would eventually be eliminated. Moreover, many proclaim that the sky is the limit when
imagining how the futuristic world can be like, and as a result, science fiction is constantly
evolving and developing. So while more technology from science fiction in the past is becoming
a fact, there is also a growing pool of different possibilities of science fiction and the imagined
future, which also gives scientists more inspiration to develop the future. Science fiction is truly
endless, since it is up to the writer to envision what they wish the future to be, and there would
always be the division of achievable and non-achievable science fiction feats that can be
translated to reality. Hence, I feel that it would be difficult to reach a point where all of science
fiction can become a fact for humanity.
Comments:
A clearly structured and argued essay with appropriate examples. You understood the need to link
science fiction to scientific developments. However, the inclusion of the literature belonging to the
genre of science fiction would have made this a stronger piece.
87
‘All countries have an equal responsibility to conserve the environment.’
Discuss.
Fathinah Al-Husna Subhan (19A11)
Worldwide growth and development has led to worldwide environmental degradation.

From the concrete urban jungles to the vast plains and mountains, climate change and the
threat it brings is a major problem. Increasingly, people have been advocating for more climate
action, and have also taken it upon themselves to make small steps in reducing their carbon
footprint. Since environmental degradation is a global issue, many believe that each and every
country has the same duty in protecting it. However, we should consider developing countries
who have no luxury in setting aside resources for environmental protection, but who tend to
be vulnerable victims of the environmental effects from climate change. Hence, countries
should instead be held responsible for whatever pollution they produce, and be more conscious
in cleaning up and reducing it. Lastly, even countries that do not pollute as much, but have the
means to protect the environment, should do so and aid others in fighting this worldwide war
on climate change.
Environmental degradation affects each country and therefore, some believe that each
country should play the same role in conserving the environment. This issue transcends
national borders, and each country is almost equally affected by it. Take, for example, the UN
Paris Conferences, where green issues are discussed. Carbon emissions are capped, and all
countries need to be accountable and responsible for their emissions. All countries around the
world have also experienced an increased demand for better environment protection, as
people realise the threat it holds and how every country should do their part in protecting it.
Environmental degradation seems to be a threat that each country should be (and have been)
trying to address, and each country should play an equal part in protecting this Earth that is
shared. However, is this stance truly fair when some countries are less able to address this
issue in the first place?
The responsibility that countries hold should, therefore, be weighed according to the
means a country has and their national progress. Developing countries around the world are
much less able to expend their resources on environmental issues as compared to more
developed countries, who have enough to tackle this issue. In countries such as India, Thailand
and Cambodia, the government can barely provide people with jobs that support their citizens
in their day-to-day expenses, so what green technology available is not at all cost-friendly.
Alternatives to traditional pollutive methods are often pricey. Countries that are unable to put
as much emphasis on environmental conservation, and instead prioritise economic
development for the basic livelihoods, should therefore not be expected to hold as much a
responsibility as rich countries who have the means. This is also made problematic as some of
these developed countries take advantage of their money, and the lack of it in the developing
countries, to outsource their pollution to said countries. As such, the developing countries
should not be held accountable for the pollution that these developed countries produce,
especially since they are not responsible for it.
88
Hence, the responsibility a country has should be dependent on the pollution and
environmental effects of their actions. This applies better to the developed countries, where
their past pollution had been the cause of most of the environmental degradation in the current
day. Their advancements in green technology and green products make it seem as though they
do not contribute as much to pollution, when in reality the pollution they had produced to get
to where they are is significant. For example, China may seem to be a green leader on the
surface, especially since they are leaders in the green sector and all technological
advancements related to it. They are the world’s biggest suppliers of solar panels and are
significant users of it themselves. But as the world’s second-largest economy, China, in fact,
produces the largest amount of carbon emissions. They are also guilty of outsourcing their
pollution to nearby developing countries. Thus, they should have a heavier responsibility for
improving this. Coal is one of China’s biggest reasons for the pollution it produces, and since
then, it has improved domestic production by using cleaner methods in order to improve itself.
It has tried to improve its environmental conservation efforts, especially because pollution has
started to affect its citizens. Countries should be more conscious of and take measures to
address the pollution that they have created, rather than depend on international forces to deal
with it for them. However, not all countries tend to comply, and in China, more coal mines that
are significant effects of pollution are permitted to open, despite pledges to decrease
emissions.
The promises made by countries may at times be superficial and ephemeral, so other
countries with the means should step up and contribute to environmental conservation around
the world, even if they may not be significant contributors to the environmental problems.
Since environmental degradation and climate change are indeed global issues, countries with
the means to should play a larger part in conserving the environment, especially when no one
else is willing to do it. For instance, Japan has taken up a more sustainable lifestyle where
recycling is the norm. Their contribution to environmental degradation is already low, but they
have implemented countless measures to improve it further. It has also been decreed in Japan
that all government buildings can only have air conditioners set to a temperature of 28 degrees
Celsius during the summer. Though more expensive, Australia and New Zealand have also
switched to wooden utensils for takeouts, rather than plastic utensils which are more harmful
to the environment. In Singapore’s recent National Day Rally, the Prime Minister brought up
the ‘grave danger of climate change and announced that ‘Singapore would build infrastructure
to protect the lower rise buildings.’ This had however resulted in some responses saying that
Singapore, as a country not contributing too much to pollution, should still take small measures
to improve the situation, rather than just protecting itself. Countries such as Singapore should
use their platform to promote greener living, and still play a vital role in improving the
environment internationally.
In conclusion, though equal cooperation is necessary to conserve the environment, the

responsibilities countries hold are not equal, but circumstantial. As an international society,
countries should be accountable for the pollution they produce, and countries who cannot
afford to prioritise environmental conservation should be supported and given a little leeway.
However, this does not mean that they should be completely void of responsibility, but rather
make more eco-friendly decisions where they can, and minimise pollution for the most part.
Lastly, the international issue of environmental degradation requires all countries to take part,
89
though not equally, and those with the means to should pay attention to this pressing issue. If
countries around the world ignore and view this issue lightly, there might no longer be a world
to care about and conserve in the future.
Comments:
Rather clear piece of work, though it could be better if you avoid ending certain paragraphs abruptly.
Obvious attempt to make points flow between paragraphs. Content-wise, you showed maturity and
good knowledge, explaining various abbreviations and giving a range of examples. The final
discussion point could be better explained and you could consider deeper evaluation for some of the
issues identified.
Paragraph 1: Abrupt ending, link to your stand

Paragraph 2: Evaluation/Rebuttal
Paragraph 3: Count elaborate with illustration
Paragraph 4: Could have a smoother transition, abrupt ending, unclear what your point is
Paragraph 5: Rehash of second point. Don’t just list examples of actions. Evaluate and link to your
point. So equal/more?
Paragraph 6: Nice conclusion
90
Discuss.
In this day and age, humanity is facing a new problem - an existential threat to our
species. With the industrial revolution and now the technological revolution, mankind has
managed to improve our standards of living through the use of machinery. But at what cost?
Carbon emissions and pollution have led to significant changes in our environment and climate.
This has affected not just our species, but also the whole ecosystem at large. So here lies the
underlying question: should all countries bear equal responsibility in mitigating these effects
by conserving the environment? I am of the opinion that such responsibility should not be
equal, given that the abilities and problems of every country differ greatly, influencing their
ability to contribute to the conservation of the global environment.
Proponents of the counterargument posit that as climate change is a global threat, all
countries must have an equal responsibility in conserving the environment. They argue that
every country, however small, has an equal role to play to conserve the environment, as this
existential threat is global. However, I beg to differ as every country’s resources and hence
capabilities of protecting the environment vary, and bigger nations with plentiful resources
should assume the bigger role in leading the cause. Would it not be too much to ask, to propose
that a small country like Singapore be responsible for the conservation of foreign environments
such as that of the Amazon in Brazil? Hence, I am of the view that responsibility, though shared,
is unequal among countries in their role of conserving the environment.
To begin, every country has an unequal responsibility to conserve the environment,

given the varying levels of economic and material resources each country has. Every country
has different levels of development economically. Developed Countries like the United States
would be bound to have more resources to contribute than Less Developed Countries (LDCs)
like those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Given this large resource advantage, it thus has to be expected
of large economies to conserve their environment not only locally but also globally. This is
especially due to the LDCs being largely preoccupied with tackling their domestic situation,
having little resources to spare in caring about the global environment. This can be seen from
the absence of African involvement in the conservation of foreign environments like the
Amazon in Brazil or air pollution in China, while large economies like those in Europe often
send aid to mitigate these foreign environmental catastrophes. Hence, to expect equal
responsibility among all countries in conserving the global environment is fallacious, given the
low ability of LDCs to contribute given their level of resources.
In addition, given that every country’s environment and hence problems vary, it would
be largely the country’s responsibility to conserve their local environment, rather than
expecting other countries to bear equal responsibility. Problems that occur locally are best
handled by the locals, given that they often know the problem best, especially since they are
often the ones that led to the problems in the first place. It should not be the case where large
countries assume majority or even equal responsibility in handling the local environmental
91
problems a foreign country may face, given that their scope of influence is limited and that
they do have domestic issues to grapple with as well. This is especially so in Brazil, where weak
institutions led to the illegal burning of the Amazon rainforest to clear land for farms,
contributing to the 17 per cent loss of rainforest area over the past 50 years. Although such
environmental issues can be solved in the short term through foreign aid, they require local
involvement to eradicate the root cause of the issue, which in Brazil’s case is the weak laws
governing logging and are out of foreign control. Hence, countries - no matter how small -
should assume the majority of responsibility in caring for their local environment, instead of
expecting other countries to bear an equal share of the burden.
Lastly, all countries do not have equal responsibility in conserving the environment,
given that every country has varying levels of intellectual expertise in conserving the
environment. Countries with the intellectual property and capability have greater responsibility
to not only spread the knowledge, but to also come up with global solutions to contribute
greatly to the global conservation cause, whether it be through policies or machinery. Countries
like the United States often come to mind when thinking about sustainable technology, which
can not only ensure the conservation of the environment but also promote sustainable growth.
The use of sustainable technology like solar panels can greatly reduce carbon emissions within
the country of implementation. Other gadgets that can aid in enforcement, like the installation
of close-circuit television cameras, are also of great help in strengthening the effectiveness of
institutions that help prevent illegal environmentally damaging activities (such as logging and
inappropriate chemical disposal in factories), by providing greater surveillance of such areas
and conserving the local environment. This responsibility of coming up with globally accessible
solutions to conserve the environment thus should not be expected of LDCs, where education
levels are low, but rather of the developed countries with the intellectual capability to do so.
Hence, all countries should not bear equal responsibility in conserving the global environment,
given that the level of intellectual capability of coming up with solutions is not equal amongst
all countries.
In summation, it is extremely demanding to expect every country to bear equal

responsibility in conserving the environment given the different context of every country, be
it in terms of economic or intellectual resources, and most importantly the ability to eradicate
the root cause of the conservation problem. Hence, while developed countries should take
greater initiative in leading global efforts to protect the environment, the conservation of the
local environment should still be largely within the local country’s responsibility, given their
ability to tackle the root cause of the problem. It is only when every country works hand in
hand to tackle this environmental threat, with shared but not equal responsibility, that our
world can ensure the safety of our future generations to come.
Comments:
Ethan, the essay is well-considered and consistently argued, but the opposing argument and choice
of examples can be improved. Language is assured and with good expression, but need to work on
paragraphing and run-on sentences.
92
Discuss.
Tan Shi Xin (19S47)
Just about a week ago, many environmental youth activists from all around the world
campaigned for action against climate change. Meanwhile, we see forest fires happening
everywhere, and severe weather changes occurring. This is the consequence of immense
environmental degradation, and it is developing into a very significant problem. There have
been many attempts to advocate for protecting our environment. However, who exactly is
responsible for conserving the environment? Conserving the environment ensures that the
environment is being protected and not being degraded. Although many believe that all
countries have an equal responsibility to conserve the environment, I disagree with this to a
large extent.
Many people believe that all countries have an equal responsibility to conserve the
environment, as their very existence depends on its well-being. They would elaborate by saying
that every environmental problem affects every country in the same manner, threatening their
lives. As such, in order to minimise the impacts of environmental problems, they would all have
to be equally responsible for conserving the environment. An example given would be climate
change, where every country is experiencing similar detriments such as hotter weather,
irregular rain patterns and unpredictable natural disasters. Without tackling the issue, every
country is bound to suffer, and will be affected by the consequences of not protecting the
environment. This would then threaten their survival and hence might affect their existence.
As such, they believe that every country should be equally responsible for protecting the
environment.
However, the above statement fails to consider that not every country is being
impacted in the same way, and hence possesses differing responsibility towards conserving the
environment. Many environmental problems affect each country differently, or to different
degrees. Take, for instance, the rising sea level. This mainly only threatens the livelihoods of
people living on low-lying land like the Maldives. As conserving the environment is of different
importance to different countries since they are affected differently, not every country should
be equally responsible for protecting the environment. In fact, those who are more at risk of
the problems should be more responsible, as it directly threatens their existence and is more
of a concern to them. As such, every country is not equally responsible for protecting the
environment.
Furthermore, not all countries have an equal responsibility to conserve the

environment, as not all countries are equally capable of doing so. Different countries possess
different abilities to conserve the environment. Not all countries possess the same amount of
resources, money or knowledge to contribute to environmental conservation. This is evident
between developed and developing nations. For instance, many developed countries such as
the United Kingdom are more able to tackle the problem, as they have more money to fund
the protection of the environment. Many people there are also more educated and see the
93
importance of conserving the environment, making them pursue the act of doing so.
Furthermore, such countries are also more technologically advanced and possess more tools
to aid the conservation of the environment. For instance, the United States is recently
developing a machine that can absorb carbon dioxide in the air, reducing the amount of the
greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is a leading cause of global warming. As developed
nations possess much greater ability to conserve the environment, they have more
responsibility in doing so as it can lead to more significant results. On the other hand, most of
the developing nations lack the ability, as they are not as economically stable to fund such
efforts in protecting the environment. A few of these nations also have their own problems to
deal with. Such is the case in the continent of Africa, as most countries there face poverty and
hunger. Such countries need to deal with their own survival first, and hence are unable to
protect the environment. Some may also lack technological capabilities as well as knowledge.
Since they cannot contribute as much as developed nations, they are not as responsible. As
seen here, different nations have differing abilities in protecting the environment. Hence, they
do not possess equal responsibility in protecting the environment.
Due to differing nations contributing differently to environmental degradation, not all

countries have an equal responsibility to conserve the environment. Different countries may
damage the environment differently, and to different extents. This is seen largely between
developed and developing nations. Most developed nations are rich and hence have a culture
of consumerism. These people are more likely to be able to buy anything they wish to have.
Such a culture results in people buying more than they need, leading to a large wastage of
resources. Such wastage exerts pressure on our depleting supply of natural resources, largely
threatening it. This then leads to environmental degradation as we continuously attempt to
obtain such scarce resources and, in the process damage the environment around it. For
instance, in recent years, global food wastage has skyrocketed. As people buy more food than
they can finish, they wastefully use up the scarce resources required to produce the food,
leading to severe problems such as a loss of biodiversity in farmlands, as farmers use
technology like fertilisers and insecticides to increase the supply of food. As such, nations that
contribute more to damaging the environment should all the more be responsible for dealing
with the impacts and conserving it. On the other hand, developing countries mostly contribute
less, as most of them do not even have enough to survive, so even fewer would want to waste
such precious resources. Although many developing countries have factories which pollute,
most of these are operated or owned by companies from developed countries. Hence, any
pollution caused by such factories is attributed to developed nations. As seen here, developing
nations certainly contribute less to damaging the environment. Since developed nations
contribute more to environmental degradation, they should be the ones who clean up the mess
and protect the environment to tackle the problems they caused. As such, they should bear
the greater responsibility in doing so. Therefore, it is clear that countries do not all bear the
same responsibility in protecting the environment.
In conclusion, despite every country being impacted by the repercussions of not

conserving the environment, not all of them have the same capabilities, and not all of them
damage the environment in the same way. Hence, they do not have an equal responsibility to
conserve the environment. However, all countries are to be responsible in some way or
94
another, as our environment is being damaged at an alarming rate. If we do not all play a part
in conserving the environment, we may not be able to see our future generations…
Comments:
Shi Xin, you have a keen awareness of the issues raised by the question, with appropriate examples
to support your points. However, the first half of your essay especially could have been strengthened
with more examples that are more specific. Your counterargument, too, was set up in a way that
was extreme and easy to refute. Language is clear and your response is well expressed.
95
“Environmentalism is a futile endeavour.” What is your view?
Oy Cher Xuan (19A15)
Last year, a girl just sixteen years of age became known to the world for her unusual
yet noble acts of truancy. She is Greta Thunberg, who, troubled by the looming issue of climate
change, started skipping school on Fridays to protest the inaction towards this area. As she
quickly amasses a following of students across the UK and the rest of the world to strike for
change, some might applaud her for her courage and initiative, while others may shake their
heads in pity at her naivete. After all, how much can humans do, especially a young girl like her,
when humans are so intrinsically self-motivated and when the environmental panacea seems
to require a miraculous amount of effort and sacrifice? Environmentalism may seem an uphill,
perhaps even impossible task, and I acknowledge that, but I would like to propose a more
optimistic perspective that small successes are still successes, and there is value in going down
this path of environmentalism.
Many are aware that the seeming futility of climate protection efforts stem from the
selfish nature of us humans. It is unavoidable that everybody will intractably seek to fulfil our
own needs, so much that economists view the world with the assumption that all people are
self-interested. If you look around, you will see that it is true; there is no lack of awareness
about climate change and its impacts, and green initiatives are becoming more abundant and
commonplace; yet, how many people are willing to sacrifice their lifestyle habits to go
vegetarian or sort out their recycling, even if it is for the greater good of the environmental
health? This self-motivation can also be seen in the wider scale of profit-motivated firms like
Google, who pledge to help tackle climate change on one hand and invest in fossil fuel
extraction technologies on the other. Perhaps the most illuminating example is that of Amazon,
owned by Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world. More than simply being in the lucrative but
waste-creating business of online retail: it is Amazon’s modus operandi and business decisions
to maximise profit that makes it go against the green agenda. Marketing tactics like creating a
sales event out of thin air like Amazon Prime Day and offering enticing site-wide discounts and
deals like free delivery successfully lure millions to purchase items that they may not
necessarily need in the first place. Many Amazon Prime members have admitted to buying
goods off Amazon simply because of the benefits and not out of need, meaning a lot more
waste generated for landfills. On top of that, Amazon deliveries often come in packages much
larger than the product needs, and are thus filled with a ridiculously large amount of packing
material, usually of a volume larger than the item itself. This mismatch stems from the relative
cost-efficiency of buying a single size of package box in bulk rather than buying a variety of
appropriate box sizes at a smaller quantity. This again demonstrates how corporations line their
pockets at the expense of the environment. With selfishness underscoring every decision and
playing out on both small to large scales, it seems nature can never heal as long as it is subject
to the destruction caused by human nature.
Others who are more big-hearted may have the intent to save the earth but may throw
in the towel, quoting the sheer enormity of the environmental problem. It is true that there are
a staggeringly large number of issues, be it air, land, or water pollution, desertification, sea level
96
rise, loss of biodiversity, or much, much more. I could go on all day, and there would still be a
list of challenges in resolving this avalanche of issues in light of the enormous population, which
is nearing 8 billion globally and projected to continue growing exponentially. One such
environmental threat would be the arctic permafrost, which is slowly but certainly melting, and
predicted to release a volume of carbon that would make up at least one-third of the world’s
greenhouse gases when it is eventually exposed to air. Due to the relative insignificance of any
carbon reduction in the face of this impending massive carbon release that would offset any
improvements, it is not unusual to take the stance that changing our lifestyle and actively
fighting for climate protection is not worth the effort. To this view, I would like to shift the
mindset from the inevitable crisis to the very probable and tangible impacts of our current
actions in alleviating the ills of climate change. Instead of focusing on what cannot be done, we
can bring our attention to how we can influence the current environmental situation in the
near future. China has taken pains to invest in the designing and construction of a ‘sponge city’,
with the use of green spaces and permeable road among others, to absorb water during flood
events. Responses to the effects of the adverse weather, for example, still bring a net positive
to society as a whole, and other measures similarly will also have an impact on a shorter scale.
This ultimately improves the lives of people for a longer time than if nothing was done, which
is precisely the purpose of environmentalism.
Moreover, with the advent of human technological advancements and innovations,

previously undiscovered methods can be employed to increase the success of environmental
efforts. Ecosia, for instance, uses an economically sustainable business model of providing a
search engine service to consumers, and using advertisement revenue to fund tree-planting
activities. Such initiatives increase the likelihood of successful environmental efforts. In light of
emerging innovation and technology, there is still hope that some future developments may
help the climate situation.
In conclusion, although the selfish human nature and pervasiveness and extent of
environmental problems are painfully apparent, if people just take the defeatist stance on the
issue, nothing will be achieved. In contrast, if we take up the onerous task, every improvement
will open up a brighter, slightly more sustainable future we can all look forward to.
Comments:
Cher Xuan,
Persuasively argued with a clear personal voice. Do avoid being too casual/colloquial though. Would
have liked to see more assessment of the actual success of environmental efforts, but you’ve
presented your case well. Good work =).
97
‘History has no relevance for tomorrow.’
To what extent is this a fair viewpoint?
Regine Ong Jia Xuan (18S62)
The evolution of mankind since the mysterious birth of the universe saw a long timeline
of significant historical milestones and era-defining events entrenched in our history. The
adaptation of past practices, and continual rejuvenation of processes and methods that our
predecessors have used, have helped us grow and outlive various tragedies, while innovations
continue to improve our lives. The discovery of fire and subsequent brilliant tweaks led to the
invention of gas cookers, in place of the traditional methods of using friction to create heat by
our primal ancestors. This shows how the history and historical doings of our predecessors
continue to stay relevant over time, even in today’s world, as we adapt from the works of our
ancestors. Mistakes of our previous generations continue to serve as a lesson for the current
society, creating timely reminders to not repeat the very same missteps our forefathers did.
While detractors may opine that the changing times have led to the insignificance of history in
our planning for tomorrow, I beg to differ from such ideas; I agree to a small extent that this is
a fair viewpoint, given the potential history has in store for our future in terms of socio-
economic and political viewpoints.
With that being established, it would not be completely apt to denounce the view that
history still has relevance in tomorrow’s world, as some critics have pointed out that the new
world context saw little value in history. In an age of innovation and technology, much of our
daily work is no longer adapted from the previous generations’ way of life. The world is
constantly looking to the future rather than the past; the creation of artificial intelligence with
‘deep learning’ abilities, ingenious inventions that have eased many of our daily processes and
the rise of Silicon Valley which saw many governments and organisations looking to invent
something novel, instead of adapting from the past. Due to changing contexts and time,
historical legacies have started to fade into the background as we throw our anachronistic
approaches to our grasp of the future world. Moreover, given the increasingly stabilised world
which saw greater integration and reduced hostilities between states, it could mean that the
mistakes and wars raged by our predecessors were nothing more than a figment of imagination
for the new generations. For instance, the majority of the world is now no longer living in the
memory of the last devastating global war, World War II. Much of the populace was never born
in that era, and would never experience the same hardships as their forefathers. The peaceful
international climate continues to accentuate this notion, resulting in history being irrelevant
for the current generation and their plans for the future.
However, it is imperative to note that despite changing global contexts, many of our
global mechanisms were inherited from our historical doings. Economic systems, political
structures, social cultures and traditions were mostly adapted from the crafting of our
forefathers. For instance, the United States of America’s (USA) main principle lies in the
foundations of freedom of rights and speech since its initial days. This principle continues to
play a large role in the legislative decisions by their government, as the government continues
to roll out policies along with such guidelines while planning for future bills that would similarly
98
be centred on the historical legacy set a century ago. Hence, changing world contexts do not
necessarily impede the relevance of history in the planning of tomorrow’s world.
Moreover, the successes of our forefathers set a precedent for us in planning for the
future, while failures educate us, preventing the repetition of tragedy and devastation in
tomorrow’s world. Unscrupulous world leaders and their constant thirst for conquests in the
past have led to wars and unrightfully usurpation of territories. Devastating wars resulted in
the massive deaths of innocent civilians and soldiers who could never return home, destruction
of infrastructural foundations and disruptions of the global economy. All these show that such
events in our history should never be repeated. Genocides and ethnic cleansing, such as the
Rwandan Genocide which led to millions of Tutsis dying as a result of unjustified differences,
or the Holocaust by the Nazi regime known for its notorious abuse of brutal methods in
eradicating the Jews, caused widespread suffering. These historical narratives are not fictitious
stories, but rather a factual reminder of the mistakes of our predecessors. This should deter us
from taking similar approaches in times of conflict but look to seeking alternative methods of
reconciliation. Such conflicts have led to the formation of several collaborative efforts between
counties such as the United Nations (UN) and its continuous efforts at maintaining international
peace and security. History still remains relevant in tomorrow’s world as it serves as a
testament to the dark side of humanity. For instance, in Singapore, the government has taken
a no-tolerance approach to racial discrimination and discourse. With its history of the
disastrous 1964 racial riots, Singapore continues to use the incident as a reminder of the need
for social cohesiveness between races through education and events such as Racial Harmony
Day. Racial Harmony Day was celebrated annually as an attempt to remind the current
generation of the devastation of the past. In 2013, the Little India riots stirred a great discussion
in Singapore as a riot arose out of a small dispute between a Chinese bus driver and a drunken
Bangladeshi national. This incident saw Singapore taking a strict approach, jailing the
perpetrators and subsequently enacting a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol after 10.30 pm.
The historical devastation of the racial riots in 1964 continues to serve as a haunting memory,
as raised by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his speech when addressing the incident.
Henceforth, it can be said that history continues to affect the stance and principles of
governments down generations, even in the future to come. History, therefore, continues to
be relevant in making an impact on the political mechanism and policies of the future.
Furthermore, history provides grounds for socio-economic evaluation, which are

entrenched in the past economic policies and outcomes by previous legislation. Over time, the
world saw itself integrating more in terms of its economies. Several severe recessions have also
hindered various eras such as the Great Depression in the 1930s and the regionally recognised
Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. These periods of economic hardship were a reminder of the
mistakes and inabilities of the economies of the past, as political structures failed to support
their economies with effective policies and intervention. For instance, in 1997, Thailand
undertook reforms to its economy during the financial crisis by introducing austerity measures,
which proved to be a mistake that cost their economy to worsen and the people to endure
unnecessary hardship. Such failures in policy, however, have helped Thai technocrats in their
future dealings with the economy, as they now know what is a more appropriate and fitting
solution for their unique economy, rather than use a blanket solution as their predecessors did.
While some may argue that different times call for different measures, it is imperative to
99
recognise that the previous failures in the economy are an indication to policymakers of the
structure of the economy they are dealing with and its workings. The great success our
forefathers found in economic integration in the 1950s during the Golden Age of Capitalism
also suggests that increasing trade links were the key to driving sustainable economic growth
and prosperity. This leads to the subsequent formation of economic integration mechanisms
such as trade blocs, as exhibited by the formation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), and regional collaborations such as the ASEAN organizations, to further
trade relations between countries. The work of organisations such as ASEAN can be witnessed
in the continuous intensity of trade discussions in today’s world, making plans for reduced trade
tariffs and contracts between states for the future. Henceforth, such instances counter the
judgment that history has no relevance for tomorrow’s world. On the contrary, history has
actually helped many countries to prosper when they look to past historical policies and events
for guidance in the future.
In conclusion, I would testify that history has great relevance for tomorrow, as the
benefits and possibilities that could be reaped from past legacies, policies and events serve as
a testament to the impact history asserts in our daily lives. Therefore, it would be largely unfair
to overlook or dismiss history’s relevance in tomorrow’s world; while it is acknowledged that
times change and we should not be anachronistic in our approaches to the new world, history
still retains its value in our world, albeit less over the passage of time.
Comments:
A largely sound discussion with attempts to address the key requirements of the question. Valid
points were raised, supported by apt examples, demonstrating a good grasp of global and current
affairs. Introduction can be clearer, though.
100
‘Technology has revolutionised sport, but not necessarily for the better.’
Discuss.
Rafi Bayhaqi Nur (18S32)
Aside from death and taxes, sport is arguably the third constant that has always been
present throughout human history. Sports has always been a prevalent hobby to humans, even
those from ancient civilisations. As humans evolved with the passing of time, sport has evolved
too. In the early days, humans tested their physical capabilities against one another in sports,
like running, swimming or boxing. After a certain time, humans learnt how to manufacture balls
from leather, and hence ball games like football and basketball were born that are still relevant
to this day. The modern age is no different. As technology has grown and developed
tremendously in the past few decades, sport has changed significantly. While there have been
a few trade-offs that had to be taken, technology has largely revolutionised sport for the better
in terms of quality, integrity and safety.
With the technology available today, the quality of athletes has massively improved.
With various high-end equipment at their disposal, athletes are able to push their physical
boundaries and develop themselves to unprecedented levels. Furthermore, with the advent of
video technology as well as a team of dedicated tech-savvy trainees, athletes can scrutinise
every single aspect and detail of their performance. For track and field athletes, they can
pinpoint every single mistake, from their posture and running style to the angle at which they
hurl their javelins. It is no coincidence that the world record for the 100-metre race has been
broken numerous times over the past few decades. While the likes of Usain Bolt do indeed
possess the talent, grit and hard work, a large part of their success is due to the incredibly
advanced machines they have used to better themselves. This is not limited to individual sports;
in team sports, video technology has proven to be an irreplaceable tool for coaches and
managers. With its aid, coaches can devise ingenious tactics, and communicate and explain
their tactical setup to their players with greater ease. They can also review match footage in
order to identify the flaws in their tactics, and then tweak them to improve. This has led to
greater tactical nuance at the professional level, as each team strives to be the cream of the
crop. Technology has indubitably increased the quality of every sport, which in turn has made
sport a much more entertaining spectacle to witness. Hence, technology has revolutionised
sport for the better.
Furthermore, technology has made sport fairer. Technology has evolved to such an
extent that it can be used to assist referees and officials. Referees are often criticised for
making the wrong call; however, it is so much easier to point and shame when watching the
game behind a television screen. On the pitch or court itself, it is much harder to discern fair
play from foul play. Judging whether or not the attack was offside, whether or not the ball
crossed the line and deciding if the players have fouled is much harder to see as a referee on
the pitch itself. They will undoubtedly make mistakes; after all, they are only human. However,
these wrong decisions can eventually decide matches on their own, which in turn can decide
competitions and tournaments. As such, refereeing decisions can make or break the legacy of
a team or icon that we adore. With so much on the line, it is absolutely imperative that the
101
correct calls are made. This is where technology comes in. In tennis, shots can be reviewed by
the umpire using video technology to determine if the shot was out of bounds. In races,
cameras that travel alongside the sprinters are used to objectively decide which athlete crossed
the finish line first. Recently, goal-line technology has been introduced to football. The sensors
on the ball would send a signal to the referee’s watch if the ball crossed the line, to prevent
controversy like Frank Lampard’s wrongly disallowed goal in the 2010 World Cup from
occurring again. In essence, technology has played a massive part in correctly deciding dubious
officiating calls. Hence, the deserved winners of the sport can be tested and decided fairly and
without a doubt.
Sports often create careers and legendary icons, and it is always a shame to witness an
athlete suffering a career-ending injury. However, the development of technology has
drastically increased the safety of the athlete, and safety equipment worn by athletes have
played a massive role in this. Take the sport of American Football as an example. A hundred
years ago, players often wore just everyday clothes with minimal protective gear. Nowadays,
the players’ jerseys are decked out with protective equipment; they have steel helmets as well
as shoulder and knee pads to cushion the falls and tackles they have to endure throughout the
game. While injuries do still happen as they are part and parcel of the sport, they are generally
less severe and widespread. Technological advancements in nursing and physiotherapy have
also largely contributed to the overall safety. A hundred years ago, a concussion or injury to
the knee or Achilles tendon often ended an athlete’s career, and sometimes even inflicted a
lifelong impairment. However, athletes nowadays can undergo rehabilitation to return to their
full strength and enjoy a fruitful career. Thus, technology has undoubtedly revolutionised
safety in sports.
However, some technological advancements have taken away joy from the sport. Some
of the video reviews used to help referees have been criticised for robbing the sport of its fun,
and players of their raw passion for it. The 2010 World Cup, for example, was the first World
Cup to introduce Video Assistant Referee (VAR) technology to its matches. VAR would often
take minutes to judge a single decision with the whole stadium at a standstill, waiting for the
decision before they can celebrate their goal. With multiple decisions being judged by VAR,
the long, insufferable minutes of plain waiting has been largely criticised for disturbing and
disrupting the flow of the game, hence reducing the joy of playing and watching the match.
Technological advancements in the medical industry have also led to performance-enhancing
drugs, which offer athletes an unfair edge over the rest of their competition. These drugs can
artificially cause hormonal imbalances favourable to the athlete. For example, athletes can
increase their heart rate by consuming a drug raising the level of adrenaline in their
bloodstream in order to supply blood to their muscles at a faster rate, thus increasing their
endurance and stamina. Doping can often destroy the validity of competitions or even the
sport itself, based on how prevalent the issue is. Hence, technology does not always improve
sport.
With that said, the technology used to detect performance-enhancing drugs has
improved, and has been put into practice. This technology prevents those who are doping from
competing, and this hence increases the overall fairness and legitimacy of a sport. For example,
many athletes who participated in the women’s 100-metre race were found to be doping three
102
years later, as technological advancements increased the length of the testing windows for
these tests. As a result, cheaters were stripped of their medals, and the deserved winners were
justly rewarded. As for video refereeing, the process is likely to be more effective with
progress, and hence less time would be wasted waiting for the decision to be called.
Furthermore, with legitimacy and glory on the line, a few minutes of waiting is a fair trade-off
to ensure the validity, fairness and legitimacy of the competition.
Overall, technology has undoubtedly revolutionised sport for the better. While recent
technological inventions and advancements have shown their ugly flaws and limitations,
technology will continue to evolve and improve to perfect itself and iron out its mistakes.
Technology has granted us the right to witness athletes pushing human limits and boundaries,
reaching unprecedented levels of achievement. With the limitless potential of technology, it
has and always will continue to revolutionise sports for the better.
Comments:
The last few paragraphs were well argued, and you have a nice turn of phrase. Unfortunately, this
was marred by the careless use of language. The counter was not so well done; it should have
developed each point more fully as individual paragraphs, and balance was thus somewhat affected.
Overall, a good effort. Keep it up!
103
‘Given the problems countries face today, resources should not be
wasted on space exploration.’ Comment.
Yuki Tai-Kotsuji Yong Cheng (18S44)
The Cold War ignited a furious technological and arms race between America and the
Soviet Union. With control over the land, air and sea heavily contested, these two superpowers
turned to the next frontier: space. However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many
American policymakers saw the development of spacefaring technology and exploration as an
expensive and impractical political manoeuvre, as it took up resources that could be used to
alleviate other economic, environmental and social issues instead. Despite this, I argue that in
the long term, space exploration will greatly help to alleviate the problems that countries face
today. This will not be a waste of resources as it is an investment for the future.
It can be argued that space exploration is a waste of resources, as it is not only

extremely expensive but also brings little immediate benefit to the investing nation, taking
away time, resources and skilled labour from arguably more productive industries. Countries
with limited economic resources should certainly stay away from an uncertain, risky and
expensive venture such as space exploration, and instead focus on growing its industries. While
the Soviet Union and the United States of America (USA) were heavily invested in their
respective space programs, countries such as China, Japan and India did not pursue space
exploration to such an extent. Instead, they focused on the industrialisation and development
of high-tech industries, allowing their respective economies to grow rapidly, and they soon
caught up to that of the USA. Furthermore, the heavy financial investment into space
exploration by the USA took away resources from public infrastructure spending, and today,
the USA is plagued with ageing infrastructure that could potentially have been upgraded if not
for the trillions in investment into space exploration. Hence, it can be argued that space
exploration is a waste of resources as it takes away resources that could have been used in
alleviating issues that countries face, such as failing infrastructure, and it has been shown that
in many cases, countries may be better off not investing so heavily in space exploration.
As shown, space exploration may not bring about economic benefits, and may even
serve as a detriment to economic growth. Although this argument is well-founded, I argue that
the benefits space exploration provides in solving issues that countries face are long-term, and
will not be immediately apparent. The industries that serve as the foundation for space
exploration - advanced materials, computing and aerospace industries - are all at the forefront
of technological progress, serving as the frontrunners of developing advanced technology.
Investment into space exploration will mean heavy development in such industries, pushing
the limits of applied science, and speeding up the progress of fundamental research. Many of
the modern conveniences today are a direct result of investment into such industries in the
past. Research during the Cold War for launching telescopes into space to observe and explore
the universe gave rise to the Global Positioning Systems (GPS) satellites and allowed the
proliferation of commercial satellites, as well as observatories and communication satellites
that enabled long-distance communication wirelessly. Many of the breakthroughs in
fundamental research take years, even decades, to be translated to applied science, and the
104
research during the Cold War has given rise to new technologies today, where practical
applications solve problems that countries face. For example, the need for long-distance
wireless communication for coordination of military forces was met with satellite
communication, and the need for greater navigational capabilities, essential for many countries
relying on maritime trade, was met with the GPS. Hence, space exploration is not a waste of
resources as it entails the development of cutting-edge technologies, which provides
technological solutions in the long run to problems that countries face today.
Furthermore, considering the geostrategic and economic implications of space

exploration in the long term, investing resources in space exploration is vital to the security of
any country, and not doing so will only increase the problems and geostrategic concerns that
a country will face. Hard power is characterised by a single aspect, which is the power and
ability to exploit resources. Today, the South China Sea is a hotbed for conflict, due to these
areas having vast amounts of natural resources, and gaining control over this region will allow
countries to exploit its vast wealth and dominate the region economically. Economic advantage
also leads to military advantage, as the country with the largest industrial output and resources
has the greatest capability to develop its military. The geostrategic concerns in the South China
Sea by the many countries that surround it will mirror the coming conflict over resources in
space, but it is also minor when compared in terms of magnitude. In 2018, an asteroid
containing precious metals and resources evaluated at a trillion dollars by today’s standards
was discovered. Such mineral wealth is not uncommon in the asteroid belt and around the solar
system. Furthermore, the Moon itself has vast amounts of mineral resources, such as isotopes
of hydrogen required for nuclear fusion that are abundant on the Moon but scarce on Earth.
The amount of proven resources in the solar system has already been shown to be greater than
that on Earth, and with such vast wealth in the solar system, the first country that can control
these resources will undoubtedly be the next superpower, even greater than the likes of the
USA or the Soviet Union at the peak of their respective powers. Hence, control over space will
become a vital geostrategic concern for many countries, prompting heavy investments from
many countries. In today’s context, the race for space development is pursued not only by the
traditional powers of the USA and Russia, but also notably China, Japan and Germany, which
are all heavily investing into research in asteroid mining, advanced robotics, propulsion systems
and other related fields crucial to space exploration. This geostrategic concern is also mirrored
in the white paper released by the White House regarding America’s foreign policy and for long
term geostrategic concerns. Space is arguably the next great geostrategic challenge, and to lag
behind in such a vital field will arguably be detrimental to nations, causing them to lose power
and influence to countries that invest in space exploration. Hence, space exploration is not a
waste of resources, but a necessary pursuit. Not doing so will result in an even greater
geostrategic problem to countries that are not able to control the vast wealth in space. They
will thus fall behind economically and militarily, and be dominated by other countries.
All in all, space exploration is a pursuit worthy of the investment of resources, as its
geostrategic importance will result in great benefits to countries that come into control of
space, while causing great detriment to countries that do not. Despite the apparent lack of
short-term gain from investing in space exploration, the development of cutting-edge
industries and fundamental research will yield both economic gains as well as technological
105
solutions to problems that countries face, making space exploration a pursuit worthy of great
investment.
Comments:
Comprehensive coverage of the issues involved in space exploration. Do provide more details in the
technology and its impact on people and society. Analysis can be better.
106
Has technology made modern society a more dangerous place?
Tan Yi Hui (18S36)
Technology, in its entirety, comprises of medical breakthroughs, surveillance - or some

would say spying tools - as well as a multitude of other innovative designs. As it is quickly
being integrated into our modern societies and institutions, it is only apt to consider its effects,
particularly its role in making the world a safer or more dangerous place, since many countries
across the globe have been thrown into the furnace of increasing security threats. Technology
may sound like a simple word on its own, but yet it symbolises an abyss of unknown and endless
possibilities. It can be likened to fire – when used and employed appropriately, it could serve
its masters well and benefit society in ways unimaginable, but if uncontrolled and unregulated,
it will overwhelm its creators and bring about a whole panoply of disasters. With the rise of
seemingly insignificant yet powerful technology such as that of 3-D printing, many have
questioned whether it could be capitalised by ill-intentioned stakeholders, bringing more
danger to modern society. Indeed, while optimists argue for the numerous ways in which
technology can make our communities safer, there are much more sinister consequences
underlying the facade of limitless potential. Therefore, I agree that technology has made
modern society a more dangerous place.
Naysayers of the aforementioned stand would claim that technology has facilitated the
attainment of a safer environment for most of humanity, such as citing how surveillance
technology has been developed to aid the authorities in capturing criminals. Undeniably, such
technology definitely fulfils its role in increasing the accuracy and efficiency of the justice
system in enforcing the law, and has thus allowed individuals to walk comfortably on the streets
without excessive fear of being attacked. In fact, such technology is not uncommon, and has
been employed by organisations all over the world. One of the most important of these is
closed-circuit televisions, which are camera-fitted devices used by security officers to ensure
peace and that law is abided. Be it commercial shopping malls or government institutions, such
cameras are planted in almost every corner of communities to serve as a form of deterrence to
crime, by acting as a constant reminder to would-be criminals that they are being watched,
thus propagating a safer environment.
However, the above argument may be seen as limited and uncritical of the possibilities
rendered by technology. It has to be recognised that technology is not a constant. Rather, it is
constantly evolving and developing to march towards new and unthinkable futures, as
researchers break societal norms and barriers to design revolutionary things. Surveillance
technology has its fair share of instilling fear in individuals contemplating going against the law,
but it can also be harnessed by the malevolent few who see a different potential in it. Such
technologies possess vast potential to segregate society, and it could lead to fissures and
fractures of the social fabric when used for less socially acceptable means. For instance, the
facial recognition technology, a form of surveillance technology, is used in China to identify
individuals based on their facial features, behaviours as well as walking styles. While such an
online database created by the government does not seem malicious at first glance, studies
have revealed that the authorities use such technologies to sieve out dissidents in the highly
107
controlled communist state, where freedom of speech is suppressed. This places these
individuals at an even greater risk of danger, because they are being closely monitored by the
authorities who are clearly not fond of their attitudes and actions. This fear is further justified
by the fact that China ranks near the bottom of the list for the Press Freedom Index, and there
have been countless incidents of political activists being captured for what the state deemed
as legitimate reasons. Often, these individuals are either exiled, placed under house arrest, or
are put through extensive propaganda, evidenced by how those released have proclaimed
loyalty to the State Party and the ideals it empowers. This problem is not only observed in
China’s authoritarian regime, but also in the bastion of universal human rights and democracy,
the United States. Discrimination is rampant, and further compounded by the surveillance
technologies used by the police, which have been revealed to disproportionately prosecute
black Americans due to the system’s influence: inherent biases, which have led to increased
incidences of false accusations towards particular races despite their innocence. Therefore, the
oppression reinforced by surveillance technology has proven to make modern society a more
dangerous place, due to the unnecessary and unjustified fears that have been instilled in the
public.
Other than surveillance technologies, the new and rising technologies often termed as
‘coming-of-age’ are proving their abilities to enhance external threats to human life. Amidst the
confusion and chaos in different parts of the world, from humanitarian crises in Myanmar to
religious extremism in the Middle East and Asia, another societal issue has been hitting the
headlines frequently – unregulated shootings. The number of shooting incidents has been
rising worldwide due to increasing disenchantment with xenophobia as well as various forms
of self-defeating ideologies such as Nazism. The bulk of the rise in shooting incidents has taken
place in America, which is being placed under the international spotlight for her inability to curb
such behaviour despite past president Barack Obama’s promise to give greater attention to the
problem after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which resulted in numerous
fatalities and caused a huge uproar. However, such a trend can no longer be attributed to the
government’s failure alone, because it has been fuelled partially by the use of 3D-printing
technologies. While this technology was used for simple crafting activities, it has been taken
advantage of by malicious agents who seek to cause greater harm to society. There have been
reports of how individuals are turning to use such technologies to manufacture their own
firearms and weaponry, bypassing the regulations established by firearms distributors and the
authorities. This is a great cause for concern because the government can no longer regulate
who owns firearms, since anyone who is able to manipulate a rather simple 3D-printing
machine would be able to create such makeshift guns and bombs, which are used to inflict
great harm on society, leading to unjustified loss of lives. Additionally, the use of bioterrorism
as a concept has been troubling security officials, because 3D-printing has the capacity to allow
viruses and bacterial strains to be replicated in huge amounts, and disseminated into a society
where they can cause epidemics. While such incidents have not been reported yet, these
possibilities can lead to catastrophic consequences, and arguably even bring forward the next
extinction age. Hence, technologies such as this have made modern society a more dangerous
place to be in.
One of the more prevalent issues closer to our hearts would be compromises made on
online privacy and security, which lead to undesirable exposure of an individual’s personal
108
details, giving life to greater cyber threats. With the use of communication technologies, as
well as Artificial Intelligence and its whole concept of deep machine or algorithmic learning,
many companies have dumped billions of dollars into developing their own set of Artificial
Intelligence (AI), or robots. These seemingly revolutionary technologies which promise greater
efficiency and enhanced productivity have become so wired into our daily lives, until questions
about the encroachment of our privacy have been raised. Not only are cyber threats more
rampant in today’s hyper-connected world due to the ease of sharing information while
remaining anonymous, but incidences of spying by such robots have also made individuals feel
less safe and comfortable, constantly feeling that they are at risk of being threatened or
eavesdropped by others. Recently, Amazon’s AI-patented Alexa has created some trouble
because it was activated unknowingly by its owners, and placed a call to the owners’ boss
despite not being commanded to do so. This is a minor example of how our security has been
breached by the use of communication technologies. Furthermore, reports are suggesting that
there is heightened fear of hackers breaking into such systems to collect personal data and
information of individuals, either through spying on their conversations or gathering data on
what they search about online. Such a massive loss of privacy has inevitably made modern
society a more dangerous place, with individuals receiving threats from unknown sources.
In conclusion, technology has made modern society a more dangerous place, whether
it is in the form of developed and employed technology, or in forms which are still under
development. The vast potential they bring along with them is also a reason why they should
be feared for the threats and risks they can confer onto society. One only needs to look no
further than the current driverless technology that is being tested yet still debated, where the
ethical issue of deciding who to kill when the vehicle has two alternative pathways to choose
from is still hotly discussed. Such dangers posed to society are incontestable, because
regardless of whether the Artificial Intelligence either decides to go ahead in its original path
to harm individuals or decides to switch pathways to actively kill an innocent human being,
both cases result in danger to society. That said, if technology is harnessed for the right
purposes and is well regulated, society can still benefit from it, though measures need to be
put in place to tackle the inevitable, increasing dangers they pose to us.
Comments:
Fluently and confidently written, showing an excellent grasp of the subject matter. A wide range of
examples were offered, which led to a thoughtful and comprehensive discussion of the question.
109
Has technology made modern society a more dangerous place?
Rubesh Suresh (18S63)
It has been claimed that mankind is currently undergoing the ‘Fourth Industrial
Revolution’, and it is with good reason. Technology is growing exponentially, and the
implications of this can be tangibly felt in a multitude of aspects of life in modern society.
Advancements in technology have led to an amalgamation of new and profound inventions
with varying effects on society. However, not all of these effects are truly beneficial to society.
In fact, it can be argued that the negative implications of technology – like the development of
nuclear utilities and the advent of artificial intelligence – have actually made modern society a
more dangerous place. Despite this, one must also acknowledge that technology has
nonetheless palpably made society a safer place, with the creation of medicinal technology and
developments in the automobile industry.
At a glance, it might seem that the development of nuclear utilities has made modern
society a physically more dangerous place. The Manhattan Project undertaken by the United
States government in the midst of World War II led to the creation of nuclear weapons –
weapons capable of destruction on a massive scale which had never been seen before. The
outcome of this project was great leaps in the development of nuclear science which led to the
creation of many more nuclear weapons, some with destructive capacity such as the Fat Man
nuclear bomb detonated over the Japanese city of Nagasaki that led to a great catastrophe.
The Tsar Bomba later developed by Russia had the destructive capacity equivalent to 57 million
tons of Trinitrotoluene (TNT), a compound used in dynamite, compared to the ‘mere' twenty
thousand tons possessed by Fat Man. More countries, like North Korea, are investing
exorbitant amounts of resources in the development of nuclear weaponry. With the global
political climate becoming increasingly tense and relations between countries becoming
increasingly strained, the possibility of the outbreak of an all-out nuclear war is becoming less
unlikely. The increasingly imminent threat of nuclear annihilation attests to the claim that
technology has indeed made modern society a more dangerous place.
However, it should also be taken into consideration that nuclear science and research
can provide danger-alleviating benefits to society as well. Nuclear energy – the energy
harnessed from the radioactive decay of radioisotopes in nuclear fuels – has greatly benefited
society and the environment as well. Electrical power generated from the nuclear fission of
these fuels is extremely resource-efficient compared to conventional fossil fuels. A given unit
mass of nuclear fuel can generate millions of times more energy compared to an equivalent
mass of fossil fuels, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Moreover, the energy
generated from nuclear fuels also tremendously reduces the emission of greenhouse gases
relative to fossil fuels. This can greatly benefit the environment by assisting humanity’s goal to
mitigate global warming. According to the NEI, the energy generated every year in the United
States would have produced 528 million metric tons less of carbon dioxide if energy were
generated through the means of nuclear power plants instead of conventional fossil fuel-based
ones. The reduction of damage caused to the planet via emission of pollutants and greenhouse
gases could potentially save us from dangerous consequences of global warming, such as the
110
expected rise in sea levels, destruction of wildlife due to acid rain and other environmental
effects which can endanger lives through the destruction of housing and property, and
shortages of food. Hence, nuclear utilities need not necessarily make society a more dangerous
place, and they can even make society safer if they were to be implemented in the right way.
Detractors of this argument might claim that the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) –
the latest ‘innovation’ of technology - can pose threats to modern society, in the form of
increased sociopolitical danger. In the recent 2016 United States presidential elections, it had
been discovered that anti–Democratic organisations in Russia had influenced the outcome of
the election via the proliferation of computerised posts on the social media platform Facebook.
This was made possible through the development of bots, which can be programmed with
elements of machine learning to emulate human intelligence, enabling them to make
automated posts on Facebook that seemed as though they were created by humans. This had
allegedly greatly influenced the US electorate to cast votes based on misperceptions from
online falsehoods. The creation of such computer software with the intention to misinform the
masses is made possible by developments in artificial intelligence. The intentional
misinformation is inherently dangerous to the integrity of a functioning democracy, and
advancements in computer technology have made this process all the more possible. Thus,
they claim that technology has made society a more dangerous place.
Similar to the argument against nuclear power, the benefits of AI should also be taken
into account before making the claim that it is dangerous to society. While there is a modicum
of truth to the negative implications of AI, it can still be utilised to serve humanity by reducing
the dangers that modern society can present. The rapid growth of computing has made the
once science-fiction concept of self-driving cars come true. For instance, the relatively new
automotive company Tesla headed by Elon Musk has succeeded in manufacturing cars with
the ability to drive themselves. Mounted with about eleven cameras and an onboard central
processing unit (CPU), the Tesla X is capable of navigating a multitude of road traffic elements,
like stopping at traffic lights, switching lanes, and most importantly detecting jaywalking
pedestrians. The onboard CPU, programmed using AI algorithms, can systematically
manoeuvre a car through visually mapping obstacles using continuous photographic input from
the cameras. This innovation has made it possible to circumvent the shortcomings of human
drivers, who can be prone to fatigue, carelessness and lapses in judgement of road conditions.
Thus, automobiles that are equipped with such technology powered by AI can greatly improve
road safety, for both the passengers and other motorists on the road. Further implementation
of AI in the automobile industry will definitely lead to increased road safety. It is therefore
appropriate to take the stand that technology has made modern society a safer place, not a
more dangerous one.
Lastly, the developments in medicinal technology have led to a safer society in terms
of healthcare. Inventions such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Positron-Emission
Tomography (PET) scans have made it possible for doctors to observe the internal organs of
patients without the need for invasive surgery, greatly reducing the risks and complications
that can arise from such surgeries. Diagnosis of health problems can be made much faster,
more efficiently, more accurately and most importantly, more safely. This considerably
improves the odds of recovery, especially for diseases and illnesses like infections and cancers,
111
which can rapidly metastasise throughout the body if they are not promptly diagnosed and
treated. The advancements in medical technology have undeniably improved the health and
quality of life for people all around the world, and this is evident from the trend of rising global
life expectancies. Hence, it can be said that technology has led modern society to be a less
dangerous place.
Comparing the arguments in tandem elucidates the common truth that the implications
of technological advancement are ultimately dependent on the means by which they are
utilised by humans, and they do not inherently possess the virtue of danger. If technology was
to be used with malicious intent by malevolent individuals and organisations, then the obvious
outcome would be the transformation of society into a more dangerous place as evident from
the manifestation of nuclear weaponry and AI in modern society.
Conversely, if technology was to be implemented by organisations whose intentions

are purely the reduction of danger, then the consequences – including but not limited to
medical technology, environmental and physical safety – would likewise follow suit. And if this
were not to be true of modern society as well, the antithesis would implicitly juxtapose the
Fourth Industrial Revolution with the First, Second, and Third Industrial Revolutions.
Comments:
Generally on the right track, but I felt that a number of paragraphs could have focused more on
unpacking the notion of danger (or lack of) in each point. That is the key to answering the question.
The rest of the information merely acts as a backdrop to it.
112
Society
113
‘I earned my degree from the university of life.’ Do you agree that real
world experiences are more valuable than formal education?
Hrishiraj Mandal (19S47)
In a 2015 dialogue session the then Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, Tharman
Shanmugaratnam, wryly acknowledged the fact that Singapore’s education system was indeed
pressuring. “The hardest question we ask ourselves,” he remarked, “is not what we add to the
system but what we subtract.” This outlook on education leaves us to ponder whether
educational institutions have any real purpose in today’s society. Given the fact that the world
has entered the fourth industrial revolution, many may claim that soft skills such as creativity
and teamwork, which have become the most important set of skills, can be developed through
gaining practical knowledge from the streets. However, I believe that such a claim is misguided,
and feel that learning in educational institutions is still highly prized. This is because there is
still a need to learn basic literacy and numeracy, and the need for a mentor.
Those who claim that real world experiences are more valuable do so on the basis that
schools are not the right place to develop certain important traits. The cutthroat competition
in schools makes it difficult to properly pick up and hone practical skills such as communication,
creativity and teamwork, to name a few. The TED-Ed talk by Sir Robinson highlights how
creativity and other such essential traits are being killed by schools. This is because schools are
fundamentally ill-equipped and under-resourced to impart such essential skills. With teachers
preparing students for tests instead of developing them to their full potential, the present
system is too structured and rigid. As a result, students feel the need to always give and craft
the ‘right’ answer, and are left with no time for free play – the perfect time to develop important
skills that cannot be learned in school. Furthermore, with the rise of automation, digitisation,
and globalisation, these integral skills are what students need to differentiate themselves from
the machines and robots that threaten to replace them. This effect of schools killing essential
life skills can be quantified through the Torrance Test of Creativity, where 97% of kindergarten
students who were classified as ‘creative geniuses’ decreased to a mere 3% by the time they
left college. As such, critics of formal education feel that more leeway should be given to
students for them to gain practical knowledge and thus, I feel that less emphasis and value
should be placed on formal education.
However, I also feel that this view is extremely myopic. While there is no doubt that
many practical skills can be honed outside of schools, there is still a need for basic literacy and
numeracy which can only be taught in established education centres. There is no guarantee
that students who are not given formal education will have the ability or desire to become
literate. Without this essential skill, it is unlikely that such students will be very successful in
life, given that literacy is essential in getting a job, and therefore being able to move up the
social ladder. Furthermore, there is also no guarantee that real world experiences would be
enough to teach certain basic hard skills that can only be taught effectively in schools, such as
coding, programming, and proficiency in a language. These skills are increasingly relevant in
today’s digitised age. Additionally, in the 2016 World Economic Forum, the Future of Jobs
Report found that many US employers were worried that their future employees were being
114
ill-equipped with foundational literacy and numeracy skills for the jobs just as much as they
were worried about their lack of soft skills. Without the basics in place, it would be a folly on
the student’s part for not going to established centres of education to teach them to read and
write.
Yet, this is not to say that all skills can be taught through the formal curriculum. Thus,
schools are increasingly realising that on top of basic literacy and numeracy skills, practical
knowledge, too, is crucial. As such, schools are increasingly changing their curriculum for their
students to experience ‘real life’. This is to allow students to gain the confidence and fortitude
to deal with challenges and failures that life may throw at them. At the same time, it is to allow
them to not only be ‘book smart’, but also ‘street smart’. For example, the Finnish education
system – one of the most renowned education systems in the world – recently introduced
phenomenon-based learning, where students were to research in teams about certain real
world problems and present their solutions to the teachers at the end of the school year. Using
this approach, students are not only able to learn basic literacy and numeracy skills, but also
develop certain soft skills. This kind of lesson allows students to string their knowledge across
various subjects and fill gaps in their knowledge during research. By brainstorming solutions
for real world problems, students can apply their critical thinking and complex problem-solving
skills. These purported 21st-century skills are what I believe only formal education can impart
to their students, and can only be acquired to a limited extent when gained through real-life
experiences. Moreover, this subject also enables students to communicate and work together
with their peers, which are opportunities to develop collaborative skills that life experiences
too can give us. Therefore, I believe that there is a lot of value in formal education, because it
can teach students just as much, if not more, compared to what real-life experiences can offer.
Furthermore, formal education is more important because it allows students to be

mentored, not just academically but in other aspects too. While real world experiences allow
people to fail and eventually learn from their mistakes, this may be too difficult and pressurising
for children and teenagers. This is because failing so frequently will give them a false impression
that they are not good enough, and as a result, they may be discouraged and easily give up. On
the other hand, formal education allows students to have a guide by their side. Using this
approach, whenever students fail, their mentors and teachers can tell them what went wrong,
and thus the students would be able to correct themselves. This is especially true when we
realise that students are very impressionable and can easily be led astray. On the other hand,
formal education helps students distinguish right from wrong, and thus guide them on the
correct path. As a result, students will become respectable members of society, become
respected by others and in turn grow respect for themselves. Realising the importance of
teacher involvement in students’ lives, the Ministry of Education of Singapore has emphasised
the need to shift from the ‘sage on stage’ model to a ‘guide by the side’ model. This policy not
only helps to increase teacher involvement with students, but also allow students to fail and
learn from their mistakes. Therefore, I believe that formal education still retains its value
because it helps to guide students.
All in all, I feel that formal education still retains most of its value. It may be true that
schools have done a dismal job of teaching life skills in the past. However, that notion does not
hold true anymore, given the fact that aspects of the curriculum are being tweaked and
115
students are being directed towards the right path. The thing is that no education system is
perfect, whether through formal education or education through real world experiences.
However, given the uncertainty of the future, I still find formal education to be more valuable,
in terms of being the least flawed option of preparing students for any curveball that the future
throws at them.
Comments:
Thoughtful response that is consistently argued, showing a balance of discussion which helps to
communicate a stance that is nuanced and evaluated with depth. Scope covered is also broad: value
for the individual, society at large, for employers, from the point of view of education, institutions
and governments.
116
Is it justified for the state to place restrictions
on what its citizens can say?
Often found in legislation such as the US Constitution and historical documents such
as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the freedom of speech and the right to voice
one’s opinions have been recognised as a basic human right since decades ago. However, as
the world evolves and societal needs change, the environments and circumstances that we find
ourselves in sometimes justify the state’s use of restrictions on what its citizens can or cannot
say. It can thus be argued that the government’s purpose in doing so is to uphold peace,
harmony, and stability. However, speech can serve as a stepping stone for people to achieve
greater social benefits, and I believe that restriction in the form of censorship and laws is
unjustifiable and merely used as a political tool to consolidate power. Thus, this essay argues
that restrictions placed on what citizens can say are often unjustifiable, given the ease of
corrupting the human mind.
People may argue that it is justifiable for the state to place restrictions on what people
say in order to maintain social cohesion and stability. In an age where xenophobia and racism
are becoming increasingly prevalent, such restrictions can serve as a way of preventing social
unrest from breaking out due to tensions between diverse groups of people. Words often have
the power and ability to hurt others’ feelings and as such, the regulation of hate speech can
serve as a way of upholding peace. For example, Amy Cheong and Amos Yee were given a
police warning and punished by the government respectively, after making use of online
platforms as a way to voice their displeasure against another race or religion. Such acts could
have led to social unrest and the tearing of the social fabric in a community with many races
and religions like Singapore. As such, restrictions and regulations of hate speech in cases such
as the Charlie Hebdo incident, among others, are justifiable as they are put in place for the
stability of the wider community.
Similarly, many states also place restrictions on what citizens can say in order to combat
and prevent terrorism. As terrorism becomes increasingly dangerous and prevalent, many
states deem it necessary to regulate speech that could possibly lead to the radicalisation of
others. Speech that may threaten the safety of others is also heavily regulated. For example, in
the face of rising bomb threats, passengers and airport goers who are heard to be saying
phrases that may threaten the safety of other passengers may be forced to disembark or leave
the premise. Such restrictions are necessary and justifiable, as they serve as a way to ensure
the safety of others. Thus, as the state steps up to fight against terrorism, restrictions to
prevent radicalisation and enhance the safety of the public are justifiable as they protect the
greater good.
However, the protection of the greater good and the upholding of social stability may
sometimes be merely used as an excuse by the government to consolidate political power.
Power-hungry dictators and governments may use the above reasons as a facade to mask their
true intentions of heightening censorship and regulations on what its citizens can say. The
117
silencing of dissidents and elimination of political opposition may very well be the true purpose
for power-hungry leaders to place restrictions on what its citizens can say. State restrictions
on what its citizens can say are therefore unjustifiable in such scenarios as it is used as a political
tool for the consolidation of power.
While stability and peace are often preached as the driving factor for many laws, the
ugly face behind the mask can often be that such regulations are merely a way for state
governments to enhance their own image and solidify their standing in society. A prime
example would be communist China. Many political activists and human rights lawyers who
were vocally against China have been arrested on counts of inciting social unrest. An example
would be a Chinese couple who had been meticulously recording protests in China and
uploading them on their own political website to raise public awareness on the real situation in
China, only to be caught and shut down by the Chinese government. Chinese social media
platforms are also heavily controlled. What citizens can say on Weibo, a Tencent owned
platform that Chinese use given that Facebook is banned in China, is heavily scrutinised and
regulated by the government. China is not the only country that uses such draconian and
Orwellian methods of censorship. While the situation in China may be one of the most extreme
cases, as censorship has contributed to Chinese President Xi Jinping remaining as one of the
most powerful leaders in the world, countries such as North Korea are also notorious for
placing restrictions on what its people can say. While some may raise examples such as the
Glasnost campaign in the USSR and the Hundred Flowers Campaign in China as failed attempts
at relaxing restrictions on what its people can say, this essay believes that those attempts were
grossly inadequate and fundamentally, citizens still and should have the right to voice their
opinions on their own country’s leadership and state of governance. It is only with feedback
from its people and the availability of diverse opinions that a country can progress and improve.
Thus, it is unjustifiable for the state to place restrictions on what its citizens can say, as it is
often used as a tool for the consolidation of power given the corruption and selfishness of
people.
Furthermore, it is unjustifiable for the state to place restrictions on what its citizens can
say when such restrictions can end up threatening the lives of people. During the recent Sudan
uprising, the military shut down the internet, thus blocking and barricading Sudan citizens from
the rest of the world. As many of its citizens suffered from injustices such as police violence,
rape, starvation, and sometimes death, they were unable to voice out their sufferings and call
for help from the international community as the state had restricted their speech by shutting
down the internet. Such restrictions only resulted in the compounding of the injustices faced
because there is no one to step in to help. They are thus unjustifiable, as they threaten the lives
of people as suffering is left unheard and people face injustices unbeknown to others. Similar
incidents include the Nanjing Massacre and other incidents of violence during war times, where
voices were left unheard due to such restrictions. As such, the state’s placement of restrictions
on speech is unjustifiable when it leads to violent acts being committed without justice being
served.
Lastly, it is unjustifiable for the state to place restrictions on what its citizens can say,
as it may result in a lack of checks and balances on the government. Media outlets often serve
as a way to expose the crimes of the government: examples include the Panama Papers
118
incident and the Watergate Scandal. Such cases prove the usefulness of journalists’ voices and
the media in exposing the structural flaws in the government, such as corruption. While what
citizens can say may be harmful to the government, it is pertinent and essential as it keeps the
government in check. This is obvious in how the Watergate Scandal led to the stepping down
of President Richard Nixon in 1974. Without such checks and balances in place, severe
consequences may result, as seen in China where the lack of alternative viewpoints present
led to the implementation of counter-effective policies such as the Great Leap Forward and
the one-child policy. Thus, while propaganda may be used by the government to make their
actions and means seem justifiable, the disastrous endings may be unjustifiable no matter the
means. The Great Leap Forward led to the Great Famine, while the one-child policy led to the
abortion of hundreds and thousands while resulting in a rapidly ageing population today. As
such, it is obvious that when restrictions are in place on what citizens can say, such as in China,
the lack of a holistic approach to governance is unjustifiable, given the devastating
consequences it may result in. Furthermore, issues such as corruption, when left unchecked,
will only lead to governments siphoning off the hard-earned money of its citizens. It is hence
unjustifiable that checks and balances are not in place due to the setting of restrictions on what
a state’s citizens can say.
In conclusion, it is justifiable for the state to place restrictions on what its citizens can
say. Government censorship may be used as a way to combat terrorism or to uphold social
stability. However, at the end of the day, the curtailment of basic human rights such as the
freedom of speech is unjustifiable. It may be used for self-serving purposes, and may threaten
the good of the nation in the long run due to the lack of checks and balances. As such, the
invasion of privacy and the sacrifice of a basic human right, while seemingly part of the social
contract between the government and its people, is not justifiable due to the harmful ends it
results in. Words have the power to change the world and to change lives, and like a double-
edged sword, it is up to individuals to use their words wisely. Governments do not and should
not have the power to influence minds by controlling what its citizens can say. The justification
of such restrictions is often a mere facade by the government, which should be carefully
viewed by its citizens.
Comments:
Very mature and considered argument with good use of examples. Keep up the good work! Work on
reconciling your argument and your counterargument.
119
Phua Shyn Wei (19S33)
The 2019 Sudan Massacre - citizens were silenced, and so the world remained silent.
Methods of communication have advanced by leaps and bounds over the past century. With
the unparalleled vastness of current media forms, communication and any expression of ideas
is as simple as the push of a button. This has undeniably opened up multiple avenues for the
freedom of speech and expression within many countries. However, as the saying goes, “With
great power comes great responsibility”. Unfortunately, this power of freedom is not always
employed responsibly. This has put increasing pressure on the government to step up
enforcement of restrictions on what its citizens can say. Yet, many fail to recognise these
instances to be a perversion of the true intent of freedom of speech, which stems from
malicious intent of the user, and therefore governmental sanctions would be limited in its
effectiveness. What citizens can say is no longer restricted to verbal forms of speech, but rather
extended throughout a diverse range of mediums, from online comments to even artistic
commentary. This freedom is vital, and it is not entirely justifiable for the state to place
restrictions on what its citizens can say.
Restrictions imposed by the state are not justifiable as freedom of speech can act as
the fourth estate in a democracy, and has the power to place pressure on the government or
institutions if their actions fail to align with their promises to the people. Without the liberty of
free speech for citizens, constructive criticism of higher powers in society would be scarce.
Less rigid regulation of what is said by the citizens allows for whistleblowing, which is effective
in increasing a government’s accountability to its people, and will pressure the government to
remain fair and transparent. An example would be Wikileaks, which exposed the inhumane US
Army manual on ill-treating prisoners of war in Guantanamo, sparking public outrage over the
matter. The voice that is given to citizens can also serve as a catalyst for change that could only
be carried out by the authorities. For instance, online petitions for both the repeal and keeping
of Penal Code 377A in Singapore garnered mass support, placing pressure on the government
to speak up about the issue. This is essential in maintaining a power balance between the
government and its people, preventing a single-party dictatorship which cannot be kept in
check.
Furthermore, without restrictions on what people can say, a culture of constructive and
valuable discussion can also be fostered. What is not said cannot be discussed. Freedom of
speech is a catalyst for social change, an important channel which enables the voices of people
to be heard. This is especially with the rapid development of the Internet, which serves as a
virtual marketplace for the trading of views and opinions by tapping on its accessibility and
incredible diversity. These exchanges of opinions and views cannot and should not be
restricted by the state, because they are the key to the progress as a society, which moves
towards accepting and dealing with pressing social issues that have constantly been silenced.
For example, the rise of social media has been paramount to the discussion of the LGBTQ+
community. Before, they were shunned, shamed, and hidden away in the shadows of society.
120
They were undiscussed and thus unseen. Now, using media platforms as a means of
communication, there has indeed been a shift in society’s perspective towards acceptance,
evident from the enormous support for Pride Month and the legislation of gay marriage in more
countries. It is essential that the state continues to allow for the discussion of social issues by
its citizens, so that society does not stagnate, but rather grow as a whole.
Some may argue that state censorship of what is said by citizens is necessary to
withhold violent, harmful or seditious content, which could cause inflamed public discourse. A
commonly cited example is Amos Yee, who openly celebrated the death of Singapore’s first
Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew, and spouted religiously offensive remarks about Christianity in
a YouTube video. Another is Amy Cheong, who publicly shared racist remarks targeted towards
Malays. Indeed, in a diverse, multi-cultural society like Singapore, such misuse of freedom of
speech has the potential to engender divisions in society, threatening to tear apart our social
fabric to leave a factionalised society. Yet, many fail to acknowledge that these behaviours
would eventually be dealt with harshly and legislatively.
More often than not, censorship of citizens’ expression is abused by governments for
their own political agenda. Restriction of what citizens can say is not used to safeguard the
harmony of society, but instead to eliminate any and all forms of criticism of the people in
power. There have been numerous examples whereby dictatorship is founded upon the state’s
fear of dissent and the people’s obligation to comply with the government. In older times, this
was seen from the strict censorship within the Soviet Union, whereby anyone who dared to
defy or criticise the Communist Party and its leaders were prosecuted and even killed. In
current times, such situations still exist, especially in authoritarian regimes such as those
present in North Korea and China. In particular, China’s heavy-handed approach to the
censorship of its citizens’ expression has caused many of its people, especially the youth, to
grow disillusioned with the system, and they are torn between compliance with the system or
fighting for liberty and rights. In this sense, censorship becomes counterintuitive, and society
is once again heading towards fragmentation, but without any of the benefits of enjoying
freedom of speech to balance the loss.
All in all, many instances of state restriction on what its citizens can say do not solve
the root of the problem, but rather alleviate the symptoms. The root of the problem, which
breeds instances of abuses of the freedom of speech, is none other than a skewed moral
compass and a perverted perception of the world. Thus, the key to responsible and ideal use
of free speech by all is to educate. This targets the very cause of the problems which
government sanctions can only serve to suppress, and not stop. Perhaps basic, moderate
regulations would do no harm, and may even enhance the effectiveness of free speech through
enforcing a culture of respect and tactfulness. However, beyond that, I believe that it is not
justified for the state to place restrictions on what its citizens can say.
Comments:
Some points could have been articulated in greater detail, especially with regard to some restrictions
on free speech; however, the rest of the essay is mostly assured in tone, with good arguments and
vocabulary (although try and have fewer Singapore-based examples in the future).
121
Lim Zhao Xun Jerrell (19S55)
On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, a list of fundamental liberties which an individual is entitled to,
amongst which was the freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression guarantees
that an individual will not be prosecuted for expressing a certain opinion, be it regarding a
public or private matter. However, any reasonable person can argue that the principle should
not be infinitely extended to cover all circumstances. Oftentimes, when the costs of promoting
a certain way of thinking outweigh the benefits, governments are usually the party to intervene
and take that right away. Governments all around the world might postulate that it is necessary
to place restrictions on what its citizens can say because it prevents real, irreversible harm from
being done to the fabric of society. However, the means simply do not justify the ends. Rather,
restrictions on freedom of speech have led to increasing authoritarian regimes, and stifled
social change, both worsening the lives of the citizens and society as a whole.
Some governments argue that the power of words has the potential to cause harm to
the social fabric and worsen divisions in an already turbulent society. Singapore, for instance,
whose government some have called a ‘benevolent dictatorship’, passed the Sedition Act in
1948 with the intention of making incendiary remarks ‘intending to incite racial or religious
tension’ punishable by law. The justification then was that Singapore is a multiracial nation
whose success could be compromised by irresponsible inflammatory remarks denigrating a
certain race or asserting another as superior. Even in the US, the ‘land of the free’, where the
First Amendment is routinely celebrated, individual states saw fit to place restrictions on what
its citizens can say, like not being able to shout “fire” or “bomb” in a crowded venue. State
legislatures and many citizens alike find such limits reasonable as speech, in this case, has the
potential to cause panic and injuries. Be it as trivial as the latter case, or as serious as
Singapore’s Sedition Act, the rationale for such limits is the same: freedom of speech is not a
universal right in all circumstances, because there are cases when the expression of that right
by a group or by individuals causes tremendous harm to other members of society. And since
the role of the government is to protect the rights and welfare of all members of society, not
just the few who wish to speak, some argue that such restrictions are justified.
However, here lies the underlying tension in this debate: to what extent can citizens be
trusted to exercise caution, and be responsible enough to not need draconian regulatory
policies? While it is true that malevolent entities exist and exist solely to divide and create
unrest, those individuals only represent a small fragment of society. The vast majority of
citizens with the ability to craft sensible arguments and exercise that right are also discerning
enough to know the impact their statements will have on the rest of society. Furthermore, with
the advent and ubiquity of social media, condemning and public shaming of irresponsible or
careless remarks has become more common. For instance, in 2012, Facebook user Amy
Cheong posted discriminatory remarks made towards the Malay race over noise from a Malay
wedding on her account. The day after, the outrage over her comments culminated in her
122
getting fired from her job, after which she promptly apologised. It is clear that individuals are
responsible enough to police, punish and deter harmful remarks by others, which calls into
question the necessity for governments to intervene. Power vested in the people, for the
people is also less likely to be abused; the only party involved, the individuals, would aim to
maximise their self-interest. However, power from an external entity (the government) may be
used to pursue agendas which are not in the interest of the citizens, the cons of which outweigh
the aforementioned pros by a huge margin, making such restrictions unjustifiable.
All over the world, governments which clamp down on freedom of speech have become
more authoritarian to varying degrees. Governments, in order to stay in power, have
introduced or twisted the good intentions of existing laws to be used for all-encompassing
censorship of the press or individuals who oppose the government. For instance, the Malaysian
Najib Administration in 2018 introduced a fake news law that critics claim was a thinly-veiled
disguise for a law that silenced dissent, after the administration cut subsidies for low-income
farmers and oversaw higher inflation rates than his predecessor. The Brazilian parliament also
introduced 14 similar laws after evidence of corruption began to surface in late 2017. Even if
governments introduce such restrictions with the best and purest of intentions, there is no
guarantee that the next generation of politicians will not twist the intentions to suit their own
agenda. It should go without saying that increasing authoritarianism leads to a whole list of
detriments for citizens. For one, it dissuades foreign investors from funding projects in the
country, for fear that governments may exert too much power on their businesses and they
earn losses. Secondly, it may also breed fear and resentment towards the government, and that
tension creates a perfect climate for social unrest. For instance, the authoritarian and
oppressive regimes of Sudan and censorship of atrocities committed on the ethnic minorities
in the country led to the start of the Sudan civil war, which saw the country split in two.
Censorship by governments can be arbitrary, and laws made as vague as possible to be
interpreted in arbitrary ways. Increasing censorship and restrictions is a slippery slope that
could lead to authoritarianism, which harms the country economically and socially to a far
larger extent than any benefits of censorship. Hence, governments are not justified in imposing
such restrictions.
Furthermore, fear of prosecution after these restrictions have been put in place could
stifle social change. Per a common sentiment, “to create change you must be willing to offend.”
What he meant was that only through challenging the accepted norms and beliefs would real
change occur. Not only do such restrictions make it difficult to organise protests and rallies
(especially if the message is contrary to the image the government paints), they also create a
climate of fear and self-censorship. As people grow more afraid and cautious about what they
say, they become less willing to offend and less likely to change the way of thinking in their
society. A case in point: following the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in China, the
government made a concerted effort to ban searches on the topic. Even to this day, a few live-
streamers who openly talked about the events of that day on social media were banned from
the site, fired and some even jailed. In response to such crackdowns, many activists and regular
citizens are unenthusiastic about expressing pro-democracy sentiments or discussing the
atrocities committed by the Chinese government, and change of the government’s oppressive
nature has been slow. Without social change and without people who are bold enough to
oppose the government, endemic and perennial issues plaguing the country may never be
123
addressed, may be neglected or worse still, denied. Given the impact on the moral fabric and
the quality of life of citizens due to these restrictions, the existence of any comparatively small
benefit does not justify the harm done.
Whether a government is justified in placing restrictions on freedom of speech boils

down to weighing the gains to social welfare and the costs. As outlined in this essay, the
benefits to censorship are small, as they would only be disrupting a small group of extremists
with the intention to cause harm. Furthermore, while the power of words is indisputable, the
power of individuals to regulate themselves and to be responsible enough to regulate others is
stronger. In the counterfactual, governments have had the tendency to misinterpret these
restrictions or use these restrictions in broad, all-encompassing ways, which lead to
authoritarianism and a climate of fear that stifles social change. Hence, the means do not justify
the ends in this case. To conclude, it is apt to examine the epithet “Freedom is not free”. On
one hand, some have interpreted this phrase to mean that providing freedom to all, extended
to cover all circumstances, comes at a price. That is to say, there needs to be regulations on
the freedoms we are given to prevent harm to society. However, another equally relevant
interpretation could be that achieving freedom itself comes at a price, that citizens have the
need to fight for some fundamental freedoms. While it is true that freedoms need to be
regulated, the regulatory authority should also be citizens themselves rather than the
government. And in the event that governments threaten to take away these fundamental
freedoms, citizens should have the will to fight, and stop these restrictions on what they can
say from tarnishing on their freedom.
Comments:
Thoughtful response. Consistently well-argued throughout by examining how it is not justified
because the harms outweigh the benefits. This is done through effective weighing of the benefits and
harms. Scope is broad; examples cover a broad range of countries. Do however note these isolated
incidents: room for further insight (in paragraph 3) and slips in logical reasoning (in paragraph 4).
124
of the education system in your country?
Jewel Woon Si Wei (19S34)
Singapore’s education system is globally known to be world-class. Especially in

Mathematics and Science, Singapore ranks as one of the highest in the world. On that account,
foreigners from all across the globe would possibly see Singapore as an attractive city to raise
their children in, because of our high education standards. However, people hardly mention
character development in their conversations about our education system. Many might find
that the education system in our country finds value solely in academic results. On the contrary,
recent changes and implementations in our education system show that value is placed in
character development, more so than in academic success.
Singapore’s education system has been putting more and more emphasis on the
importance of morals and values. Now, every school has a lesson in the weekly curriculum to
impart values to students. This lesson, called ‘Civics’, serves as a reminder to students that
academic achievement must not be the only goal that they should aim for. During these lessons,
teachers educate students on the importance of values in their lives and how they can start
applying these in school, at home, and within our communities. Putting this lesson in the
curriculum alongside other academic subjects shows that character is just as prioritised as
results. Every school in Singapore also has compulsory Values In Action (VIA) projects that
students would take part in. These VIA projects allow students to apply values in learning to
care for other people in their community. Taking part in these VIA projects make values a more
ingrained part of every student’s lives, as they will have to practise being more morally upright,
and also learn to have confidence in reaching out to help others around them. The education
system’s move to make some VIA projects compulsory, and also the availability of several other
optional VIA projects, shows how valued they are in our society, just as much as results. In fact,
VIA hours are given to students as an addition to their portfolio, rather than having only
academic achievements in it. With the large emphasis on gaining values and applying them in
society, it is evident that results are not valued over character.
In Singapore, results are not the only mode or criterion for admission into schools;
Singapore offers several pathways to be admitted into schools other than through academic
results. For students in secondary schools, they can opt for admission routes other than the
Joint Admissions Exercise (JAE). Traditionally, the only route to enter schools is through JAE,
which only considers the students’ results at the ‘N’ or ‘O’ level examinations. Now, there are
two other pathways that students may consider. There is the Direct School Admission (DSA)
that will also look at the students’ capabilities in non-academic areas, such as excellence in
sports, performing arts, or leadership. On the other hand, students can enter Polytechnics
through the Early Admissions Exercise (EAE). This exercise guarantees a spot in their school of
choice for the less academically inclined students who have a deep passion for a specific
course. The availability of alternative routes that take character, passion and non-academic
excellence into consideration shows that results are not valued over character. Even in courses
that require academic excellence, such as medicine, results still do not stand as the sole
125
criterion. Applicants are also required to take an ethics test to prove that they are morally
upright and are sincerely applying for the course in hopes of utilising their intellect to help
others. Seeing that results are not the only way to guarantee success and open doors, our
society is undoubtedly seeing more value in character over results.
Critics argue that Singapore’s education system still values results over character.
Humongous efforts have been put into ensuring students’ academic success, which is evident
in the booming tuition industry. Many believe that despite having programmes such as VIA
projects and service learning as part of the school system, there is still a major emphasis on
results. It is difficult to focus on character because at home, parents are constantly reminding
their children to strive for academic excellence in order to succeed in the future. Parents send
their children to several different tuition centres to improve their grades, and even take it upon
themselves to help their children achieve better results. Marshall Cavendish offers a workshop
called ‘The Write Way’ to teach parents how to coach their children on schoolwork at home.
This could be the result of the education system pressuring parents to ensure that their children
achieve good results, so as to succeed in the future and obtain a good job. Ultimately, even
though there exist DSA and EAE as alternative routes to enrol in schools, the majority of
students must enrol through the JAE. Hence, the efforts of the education system to emphasise
character over results might be limited.
Nevertheless, it is a noteworthy point that Singapore’s education system also rewards

students based on character alongside results. Singapore offers deserving students several
different Edusave awards annually, and one such award is the Edusave Character Award
(ECHA). This award is for students that demonstrate exemplary character. Secondary school
students in Singapore also have the LEAPS 2.0 system, which consists of certain criteria
pertaining to character, that can give students a maximum of two bonus points if fulfilled to
deduct from their aggregate score at the ‘O’ or ‘N’ levels. This improves their chances of
entering the school of their choice. Hence, Singapore’s education system does prove that
character is valued as much as results.
All in all, Singapore’s education system does show that character can be equally as
important or even more important than academic success. There, however, could be flaws or
limitations that send signals to students and parents to focus on achieving academic success.
However, more changes are being made to the education system to remind students that
striving for academic excellence alone in our society is not ideal, and both should be achieved
to attain success in the future.
Comments:
An engaging essay start with a fluid flow of ideas, until the balance ended, where it got a bit jerky
and less catchy. A broad range of issues discussed, with in-depth analysis, clear justification, and
relevant examples for your stand. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for your balance and
rebuttal - tuition culture is not relevant and the influence of school on parents was not explained or
illustrated properly.
126
of the education system in your country?
Muhammad Farhan (19S62)
“Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever
devil.” This quote by C.S. Lewis aptly encapsulates the dangers of receiving an education that
disregards the importance of values. In Singapore’s highly competitive culture and environment
today, many facets of society are results-driven, with Singaporeans vying to outdo one another
in terms of the results they produce. Such mentalities and mindsets abound due to them being
ingrained from a young age – from the time we step into the education system. Such a singular
drive for results has made us neglect the other side to education which teaches us character.
Thus, though attempts have been made to place greater emphasis on character in the
education system, results remain largely valued over the former, as they remain the main
criterion for progression and success in the education system and are celebrated by society.
Results largely remain as the main criterion used by the education system to assess
whether students are performing reasonably to be allowed to progress in the system. From as
early as seven years old, students are introduced to the notion of exams in schools. They are
confined to their seats for extended periods of time to take tests, with the sole aim of
producing the best possible results. They are only allowed to progress in the education system
if their results are up to par with the standards set in place. For those who progress, the
frequency and difficulty of these tests only seem to increase and consequently, the demand
for better results rises as well. These results are thus used as the main indicators to assess
students’ performance in school. It would not be an exaggeration to say that a student’s worth
is often reduced by the education system to mere test scores on their exam paper. The
paramount importance placed on results by the education system is evident from its
implementation of national examinations, such as the Primary School Leaving Examination
(PSLE) and the ‘O’ and ‘A’ level examinations. These nationwide exams are used to stream
students into different schools based on their results. The fact that results are even used to
determine which paths students can take in their educational journey evinces that results are
highly valued, due to them being the criterion for good performance and progression.
Students’ results are also the education system’s main source of pride and celebration.
When students perform proficiently and produce good academic results, they are often lauded
and rewarded by the education system. These rewards take on many forms, one of them being
scholarships offered to students who perform well. These scholarships encompass many
different kinds of academic achievements, increasing the incentive for students to produce
excellent results. There are the annual Ministry of Education (MOE) scholarships such as the
Edusave Scholarships and Pre-University Scholarships given to students who perform well
overall academically. Due to the great emphasis on good results, there are also new ‘niche’
scholarships that are more targeted and catered to those who perform in specific areas, such
as the science A*STAR Scholarship and DSTA Scholarship. Yet another avenue through which
the education system applauds results is through announcing the results of Singaporean
students’ academic exploits in International Assessments. MOE often reports on Singaporean
127
students’ test results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which
Singapore has topped the charts for in recent years. The myriad of platforms through which
the education system lauds and celebrates students’ results and achievements is a testament
to the high value and importance placed on results.
There are some who argue that character is beginning to be valued over results in the
education system in Singapore. They point to shifting mindsets in the education system to a
more character-based approach, and cite evidence such as the implementation of many
character-building programmes in schools like Character and Leadership Education and Civics
and Moral Education. Such programmes have been made compulsory in primary, secondary
and tertiary institutes by MOE, with the aim of inculcating good character and sound morals in
students. Proponents of this argument also note that the education system’s fervent desire for
results seems to be weakening, evident by less emphasis being placed on PSLE results. Test
scores are to be replaced with only alphabetical grades and bands in order to reduce the
emphasis placed on the results. Thus, it would seem that such policies would indicate changing
mindsets and greater importance being placed on character over education.
However, though it may seem like results are taking a back seat while character is taking
centre stage in the education system, this may not be the reality. Though attempts evidently
have been made to show the importance of character, the implemented programmes are
miniscule vis-a-vis the programmes catering to results and academic performance. Civics and
character lessons take up usually about one and a half hours per week, compared to the hours
of other academic lessons that students take. Similarly, despite the emphasis on exam results
appearing to become more relaxed, the very existence of such stressful examinations is proof
of the education system’s drive and desire for results.
In conclusion, in Singapore’s education system today, results still continue to be valued

over character. Results are used as the basis upon which students’ performance and progress
are judged and are a source of pride and celebration, highlighting the importance given to
results. However, such over-emphasis on results and neglect for character is hazardous and
can have serious repercussions on students as well as society. As cautioned by C.S. Lewis,
educating students without teaching them morals can lead to a generation that possesses
knowledge and competence, but lacks the moral compass to guide them on how to utilise these
assets in the right way. With programmes being implemented to build character in students, it
would appear that mindsets are changing for the better. However, more has to be done in the
education system if students are to truly imbibe these values whilst they are focused on results
and performance. Perhaps what is needed in this volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous
21st-century world is not those who can perform well on tests, but those who have the
strength of character to apply what education has taught them and make the right choices.
Comments:
Well supported arguments that clearly respond to the question. Introduction and conclusion are also
highly effective. Good attempt!
128
Consider the view that society should always strive to be inclusive.
Sabarna Manoharan (19A11)
We, humans, are social creatures who constantly feel the need to be included, to
belong, and to be part of something bigger. From ancient Aztec civilisations to modern
metropolitan cities, people have always strived to belong - whether it is to a religion, social
group or country. Almost everyone, regardless of their status, abilities or background, wants to
share a common identity with the people around them. However, looking beyond the
individual's desire for a sense of belonging, some claim that pushing for complete inclusivity,
without any segregation, is an impossible feat, and even if achieved, it may do more harm than
good. Albeit the negative implications, a society should always strive to be inclusive, as it is an
ennobling act of human virtue as well as because there is unity in strength - an inclusive society
can climb to greater heights of success, whereas a segregated one can potentially spell doom.
Governments, which are usually bound by a social contract to serve all members of
society to the best of their abilities, should be at the forefront of creating an ultimately inclusive
society so as to uphold the virtues of compassion and kindness - the very same values that
define us as humans. Some may feel, however, that aiming to project these virtues and serve
everyone equally may adversely impact society as a whole. For instance, to expand land for
increased job and education opportunities, countries like Brazil may make use of forested areas
like the Amazon rainforest. As there will be greater economic growth and development of
various sectors and people's lives as a result, this has to come at the expense of forest tribes
and those who depend on the jungle for their livelihoods. Hence, it may seem inevitable that
for the greater good of the majority, sometimes minorities will have to be disadvantaged.
However, this does not mean that such a pragmatic approach is the only way to ensure societal
growth and success. In fact, values-centric governance can still ensure the well-being of
everyone by making concerted efforts to help those who are inevitably marginalised. In many
countries like Germany where the free market economy bestows the rich with even greater
wealth and widens the inequality gap, they still aim to be inclusive towards the poor, by taking
additional steps like granting welfare payments to ensure that the poor can also break away
from the poverty cycle and be part of the middle-class majority. On the other hand, countries
like Singapore also make efforts to include disabled people in the workforce with the notion of
equality and compassion for all, regardless of abilities. People with disabilities get flexible
working hours and other benefits that ensure equity for them, so that all members of a society
can enjoy similar standards of living. Hence, governments should always try to build a more
inclusive society because they can and they should.
Moreover, a more inclusive society will become a more successful one as strength lies
in unity. Contrary to popular assumption, high levels of exclusivity will only limit countries and
their people from reaching their full potential. Pundits often claim that trying to rope in
everybody to progress together is not always feasible due to various constraints. For example,
many believe that ‘the old should make way for the new’ and that the aged should be
retrenched from the workforce or be given less help and privileges, as compared to the vibrant
and energetic younger generation who can do more for the society. On the other hand, this
129
mindset is narrow-minded as once again, the pragmatic approach of replacing old with new
does not take into consideration that old does not mean useless, just because it does not fit
within an existing system of operation. Fundamentally, the aged have more wisdom that can
be tapped on, if society is able to include them in a more appropriate way. Many top universities
around the world have quite a number of experienced professors and mentors who are
considerably old. Countries like Japan have also raised the retirement age so the aged can
continue to contribute to the economy to the best of their ability. Along with Japan, Singapore
also has a falling birth rate and an ageing population; thus, by offering job upgrading through
SkillsFuture initiatives, the country effectively manages to re-recruit the aged into the
workforce to ensure greater stimulation of the economy and continued growth. Furthermore,
more developed countries today like Norway and Canada also tend to have higher female
labour participation rates as compared to developing countries like Iran and India, where
females are often not given equal rights to education and excluded from the standard
workforce due to restrictive gender norms set by family and religion. When females, who might
as well account for half of any generic population, are eased into the workforce, they perform
on par with their male counterparts and can be made to feel like they too can achieve success
with hard work, without lagging behind in terms of social mobility. Most importantly, this
successful inclusion of gender into the workings of a society will result in the greater good for
all. Hence, inclusion should always be a priority for communities and firms, as it is the formula
for achieving an abundant amount of success.
Lastly, an inability and eventual failure to accommodate all members of a society may
possibly lead to the breeding of a disenchanted group of people, which deepens social tensions
and fuels nasty conflicts between different groups. Many would be strongly in favour of
excluding certain groups of people like terrorists and those convicted of crimes. Indeed, it
would seem like an obvious fact that harmful notions and beliefs of religious extremism, for
instance, should be excluded completely and decried. Trying to accommodate self-
radicalisation in an age of growing international terrorism would be akin to suicide, as a few
harmful individuals can infect a whole society, causing it to fall from grace and lie in the hands
of terrorists who propagate dangerous one-sided beliefs. While this may be taken to be true
as not everyone deserves to be included, it must be considered that sometimes inclusion, the
act of accommodation and hence support, is also required to efface the problems societies face
as a whole. Though actively denigrating acts of terrorism may help keep danger at bay, it is not
a long-term or the ultimate solution to mitigating this global issue as it may only lead to more
violence to combat violence, retaliatory attacks, and the possible decimation of the masses.
Perhaps a more peaceful approach, such as inter-state or politically motivated inter-religious
peace talks, can get more work done in terms of deradicalisation, as well as finding common
ground with those we have long considered our foes. Sometimes, inclusion is the way to a
greater understanding between parties, and allows for greater integration of people all the
while ensuring safety and peace for the innocent masses. This also applies to ex-convicts in
various countries who are often alienated by society because of their past crimes, which has
proven to be the trigger for many of these individuals to commit crimes again - which is not an
obvious sign of prosperity for the society as a result. Hence, striving for inclusion will enforce
the spirit of forgiveness and the willingness to accept, which can even lead those tainted with
crimes and hatred to turn over a new leaf for the betterment of the society.
130
In conclusion, societies should always make sanguine attempts to be inclusive to
everyone, regardless of age, ability, gender or background, as this will ensure a stronger
community with a stronger sense of purpose towards achieving success, while eschewing the
implications of segregating or marginalising a few.
Comments:
Sabarna, lucid writing present, with a strong command of the language. The introduction and
conclusion could have been more engaging. You picked a difficult stance, but did well in reasoning,
with fair attention to balancing views. However, your examples tended to be vague and lacked
elaboration of their effectiveness to further convince readers that absolute inclusivity is the way.
131
Consider the view that society should always strive to be inclusive.
Rachel Siew Hui Xin (19S31)
As John F. Kennedy once said, “If the rights of one man are threatened, the rights of all
men are threatened.” Societies all around the world have become a melting pot of people from
all walks of life, and equal treatment for all has become a highly contentious issue. I agree that
societies should always strive to take all who vote under their wing, as it could bring economic
benefits as well as social unity to the country.
A society that is accepting of outsiders such as migrants could benefit economically, as

these migrants bring with them a plethora of different skill sets. People are the principal driving
force of innovation and development; hence, welcoming those with various skill sets could be
the golden ticket for technological or economical advancements in a country. This is embodied
by Sanjay Ghemawat, an Indian migrant to America, who then went on to create much of the
infrastructure that powers Google, such as the data processing system MapReduce. The
inclusion and acceptance of migrants could give countries the manpower and innovative
capability that promotes growth. In the same vein, the rejection of migrants could bring dire
consequences to the country. What started off as a move fuelled by anti-immigrant sentiments
and bolstered by nationalism, Brexit, soon became Britain’s downfall, causing a 2.1%
contraction of its economy. This loss is on par with Britain’s losses in the 2008 Wall Street
crash. The country’s staunch rejection of migrants only led to economic losses and political
chaos within the government. Hence, it can be seen that accepting migrants could benefit the
country economically. On the other hand, outrightly repudiating them could spell economic
trouble for the country. Hence, society needs to be inclusive.
Moreover, an inclusive society would be one with a tight social fabric, because
interactions between people of different races and abilities promotes acceptance and
appreciation. Simple interactions, be it a ‘hello’ on the streets or at meetings in workplaces, can
help to inculcate an appreciation and understanding of one another’s culture. For example,
despite South Africa not being the epitome of inclusivity historically, it is taking big steps in
accepting and promoting its tribal languages like Sotho and Zulu by teaching these languages
in local schools. As a result, students who speak different languages get to interact, as well as
learn about one another’s cultures and practices, giving them a wider perspective of other
cultures. Such an effort to include and integrate those from minority cultures into mainstream
society could herald a halt to the growth of xenophobia, as well as stop the crystallisation of
the ‘them against us’ mentality that is so prevalent worldwide. Hence, inclusivity would breed
interactions, which allows people to empathise with one another, promoting unity.
On the other hand, others may argue that inclusivity should be conditional, and that
those of extremist ideologies should be completely and unequivocally rejected from society.
Granted, white supremacists and radicalised terrorists pose a perennial threat to societies all
over the world, as they actively seek to sow discord in our society through terror acts both
offline and online. The Christchurch shootings is one example of hate crimes against a certain
religion, with a white supremacist opening fire in several mosques, killing at least 50
132
worshippers. Many see these extremists as a danger to the safety and wellbeing of the
population, hence refuse to accept them at all. I agree that such radicalisation is dangerous and
downright deleterious for society, but rejecting them would be brash and ludicrous, as it does
not do anything to defeat their extremist ideology.
Instead, we should try to reach out to those who have been radicalised, and help them
to reintegrate into society. Rejection of these persons is naïve idealism at best, and fatal to our
population at worst. By encouraging them to interact with those of different races and
religions, they can gain a deeper insight and empathy towards the people they might have once
resented. For example, Daryl Davis, an African-American, engaged with members of the white
supremacist Ku Klux Klan (KKK), convincing 200 Klansmen to leave and denounce the KKK.
His ‘secret’ was always to go up to them and strike up a friendly conversation, a testament to
the impact of simple interactions on extremist ideology. Hence, once society makes the effort
to communicate and interact, appreciation would replace hatred, and empathy would replace
violence. As a result, helping extremists abandon their hate-filled ideologies would no longer
seem like a Sisyphean effort anymore.
In conclusion, I agree that society must continue to strive for inclusivity. Not only does
it benefit countries economically and socially, but it can also bring greater peace and safety for
the population. A society that is accepting and understanding is analogous to one that is
prosperous.
Comments:
Absolute stand should be moderated slightly, but arguments raised are relevant and well-
substantiated. The principle argument about the fundamentality of rights should have been
mentioned. Language was very fluent.
133
‘Young people today are like strawberries: they bruise easily.’
Do you think this is a fair view?
Chinthakayala Jyothika Siva Sai (19S47)
‘Strawberry Generation’ and ‘Millennials’ have become derogatory terms to describe

the current generation, denoting naivete and immaturity stemming from a privileged
upbringing. Young people below the age of 25 are widely criticised for being coddled and
unable to face adversity like the generations before them. Therefore, they are said to ‘bruise
easily’, which implies that they are easily negatively affected physically, psychologically or
mentally by failure and challenges that come their way. Conversely, newer generations are said
by others to possess the grit and tenacity to face such situations and come out relatively
unscathed. This is due to them having to navigate an increasingly volatile and dangerous
environment, having to fulfil a higher standard of societal expectations and bearing burdens
borne to them from the shortcomings of previous generations. I am of the latter view, and
hence, I believe that the former standpoint that young people are like strawberries is a largely
unfair statement.
Firstly, the general environment of today has evidently become more tumultuous and
unstable, as seen from the constantly shifting global trends, the rise of radical political
ideologies and an increased risk of being deceived or manipulated faced by the masses today.
Young people are often bombarded with many overwhelming pieces of news and headlines
every day, both concocted and true ones. From wars erupting and spilling over to unnaturally
destructive weather phenomena, young people exposed to these events and blood-curdling
media have developed an immunity to panic. Young people are more aware of threats and are
able to more aptly identify and mitigate problems as they come. During the 2004 Boxing Day
Tsunami in Thailand, many were alerted ahead of time by a young British girl who was a tourist
there. She spotted signs of an oncoming tsunami from what was emphasised and taught during
her Geography lessons in school, and competently displayed spontaneity in applying her
knowledge to this real-life scenario. This is what school curricula have adapted to become. It
aims to teach students important twenty-first-century skills, like quick thinking and application
of the wordy chunks people may have simply memorised and forgotten about before. It better
prepares the younger generation to face these issues head on in a calm and conducted manner.
Comparatively, older generations may not have even previously experienced, seen or been
prepared for such instances. Many events, like the one mentioned, have taken place, where
young people have taken the initiative to help the wider community with their versatile skill
sets for the VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world they live in, as many
global analysts term. Such an environment has led to young people having a diversified and
relevant skill set to face a multitude of challenges, and also given them the adaptability to apply
their skills and not fear threats, but dissect them and come up with a sensible way to overcome
them, reducing undesirable outcomes.
Nevertheless, it is argued that a good portion of young people are sheltered from such
life-threatening or terrifying situations, especially in the developed world. Young people are
often said to live in their own comfortable bubble and are not ready to face the real world.
134
With over ninety percent of people who are in poverty living in developing countries,
statistically these young people will probably not face such situations. Despite this, they are
seen to take concerted efforts to be informed of crises elsewhere, and take appropriate action
when they are able to. This can be seen in the recent gun control strikes in the United States,
where many school-aged children spread awareness of the issue through online platforms and
strengthened the lobby for gun control in the United States. Although some were at a
significantly lower risk of being involved in school shootings due to appropriate laws enacted
in their state, they still showcased their support by joining the strike outside the White House
that took place over a few days in early 2018. This shows that young people today are
recognising pertinent social issues and not taking their sheltered lives for granted, but rather
taking active steps to provide support for others and the future of the wider community.
Secondly, societally-determined expectations have been rising for the young people of
today. Getting a university degree and securing a well-paid and cushy job are just two of the
many expectations placed increasingly on young people today by society. While such
expectations are rising, obtaining a university degree has become even less accessible than it
was in the past. Many young people have to take out loans of tens of thousands of dollars for
higher education, with no guarantee of a well-paying job to repay the large loan that accrues
interest over the years, especially in a competitive job market. University placements and
employment opportunities are becoming harder to come by with the rise in competition from
rapidly advancing technology replacing menial work, and an expanding urban population vying
for a limited number of jobs. University tuition costs have increased tenfold in the United States
and the United Kingdom. Even in states where university may be almost free, like in Germany,
the rise in supply of university graduates, the decrease in the quality of education, and the
strain on resources from increasing enrolment rates has culminated in a saturated job market.
This has made having a degree almost worthless in achieving an important secondary aim of
many young people: to earn more income. Rising costs of living have not made it easier for
aspiring young people, as many are unable to afford rent or homes in urban areas and major
cities like New York City, where the cost of living is high. This is evident from the increasing
number of graduates staying with their parents to save on rent. With all these hurdles,
expectations and aspirations, it is easy for today’s generations to feel worthless or incapable.
However, many are constantly fighting against these odds to fulfil their duties, displaying grit
and an ability to plough through tough times.
Some may argue that with higher expectations, the rise of helicopter parenting has
come. This type of parenting involves parents coddling children, fulfilling their every whim and
shielding them from the harsh realities of life, which eventually would make them incapable of
surviving today's environment alone and facing adversities. This is because every single detail
of their life is being carefully curated to lead them on a pathway to success by the parents, who
hold their hand every step of the way. This sort of privilege of having everything handed to
you is uncommon for previous generations, who were often subject to harsher parenting styles
that involved “tough love”. Such parenting exists in an extreme form in Asia, and it is known as
‘tiger parenting’, where parents resort to everything, such as getting tutors and enrichment
classes, to give their child a headstart in life. While such parenting techniques exist, young
people eventually will have to escape their privileged mindset, due to the events that happen
around them. Young people often are forced to move away from their parents for university
135
or to seek better job opportunities, due to the scarcity of employment everywhere. Tiger
parenting has also been shown to expose young people to high levels of stress, which they
would eventually face in adulthood, due to the competitive economy and pervasive time
poverty.
Lastly, many young people are also forced to live with the consequences of the actions
of previous generations. Due to the push for fast economic growth over sustainable economic
growth in the past, the environment in several countries has degraded to a large extent. For
example, in developing nations like India, the water can be highly polluted due to unethical
practices by large corporations, which has led to the deteriorating health of a large proportion
of people living in and around polluted areas. This can be shown by the high rate of diseases
like cholera in many areas there. Accumulation of trash in open areas is also an eyesore to
many, and young people need to live with such outcomes and consequences. Nonetheless,
they feel the need to enact change to their surroundings, rather than simply continuing the
trend. The recent worldwide climate strikes have displayed young people’s willingness to
counter environmental degradation, and push for governments to adopt more
environmentally-friendly practices. Greta Thunberg, the face of this movement, has explicitly
echoed the sentiments of many young people that the collective responsibility of the entire
human race. Young people who live in Flint, Michigan in the United States have pushed for
reform to protect their people from hard water, and have achieved some success in chasing
away a few unethical corporations. This shows that not only do young people have to bear
with the consequences of previous generations’ actions, but also have to be prepared to put in
the elbow grease for change, forgoing their own comforts of consumption. This, once again,
shows maturity in accepting the existing problem and finding solutions to improve the future.
This forward-looking mentality is a testament to young people’s emotional and psychological
strength.
Several may believe that young people should not be making such a fuss about these
issues, and that they are being whiny for doing so. They believe that young people complaining
on online platforms shows how they take everything for granted. This obscures the fact that
simply ignoring problems stagnates progress. In order for society to continually progress and
develop, young people need to call out injustices and unethical practices before they
completely destroy society, and is a form of preventative measure. Prevention is better than
cure, as said by a teenager in the United States, who publicly shared the fact that he had to
vaccinate himself against his parents’ will to show that vaccinations are for the betterment of
society by decreasing the incidence of deadly diseases, shutting down orthodox outcries
against vaccination.
Overall, young people are increasingly deviating away from the stereotype of being
‘strawberries’ as they face more and more challenges presented to them by a more difficult-
to-navigate world, where nothing is presented to them on a silver platter. While they may be
more privileged than previous generations, they put themselves through more and use their
privileges to enact bigger changes.
136
Comments:
Jyothika, you show a keen awareness of the issues raised by the question and your response is
insightful, linking to the characteristics and challenges of the world today. However, you should
consistently link back to the question to ensure relevance with clarity. Language is clear and your
response is well expressed.
137
Are young people today overly concerned with image?
With the modern age comes a wave of social media proliferation, outstanding figures
emerging in industries and the growing political presence of youths. The most apparent trait
these changes in the societal landscape share is undoubtedly the spotlight on people’s images.
Young people all around the world are latching onto these various trending methods to stand
out, and very often share a common prioritisation of their personal image to do so. Due to the
current landscape in today’s world, coupled with the youths’ ever-growing hunger to establish
themselves through their enhancement of reputation, it is my belief that to a large extent,
young people today are indeed overly concerned with image.
The most obvious development that has paved the way for the interest taken in image
is the increasing scale of the social media landscape. It is a platform that the majority of youths
participate, or even invest themselves, in. When such platforms see millions of uploads daily, it
is unsurprising to see the lengths that users have, and will, go to enable themselves to stand
out. On Instagram, for instance, a user’s worth is characterised by a simple glance at his profile
page and the first nine pictures that appear. A quick glance at the most popular teenage profiles
will find them filled with provocative or suggestive images of themselves, or pictures depicting
absolutely carefree lifestyles. These posts may not hold true to the realities of these
personalities’ lives, but because they are the most captivating form of content, users are
obliged to keep up images of luxurious lifestyles instead of being true to themselves. Not only
does this have a suffocating effect on these individuals’ openness about the truth of their lives,
but its falsification of glamour also bleeds into the fascination of their viewers - other youth -
who invest themselves in aiming to mirror similar lifestyles, and create images of themselves
with the same standard of living. This significance placed on image is not limited to Instagram
– youths from all walks of life also avidly consume content from popular platforms like
YouTube and TikTok. The most tangible evidence of youths’ increasing regard for image can
be observed in the emergence of ‘Influencers’ as a career option. Youths are dominating the
growing ‘Influencer’ pool, using their appearances and showmanship to sell and promote
products to earn actual income. Netflix producers have even created a reality show titled ‘The
Circle’, starring this phenomenon and spotlighting the notion of ascribing a person’s value to
the image they portray online. This excessive attention placed on one’s image thus
demonstrates the dominance of youths’ concern for appearances in their lives.
The desire for young people to project their best selves goes beyond their online
presence. In a bid to stand out from the masses in light of the celebration of uniqueness that
has spread rapidly with today’s generation of youths, young people often readily resort to
transforming themselves to become prominent figures. While this rising liberty to have
autonomy over one’s decisions for themselves may be celebrated as the freedom of expression,
it is often also criticised as rash and outlandish decision-making. There is an increasing
prevalence of youth spending huge amounts of money on make-up products by popular
beauty-gurus like Jeffree Star, James Charles and Kylie Jenner in hopes of recreating famous
looks and projecting themselves with similar zest. The concern comes when youths often go
138
out of their way to purchase such experiences, from queueing overnight outside make-up
stores to spending large amounts of money they are still unable to earn back at their age.
Sometimes, this attitude of focusing on appearances manifests in behaviour that can dictate
the course of one’s career. There is an increasing number of high fashion youth models jump-
starting their careers by claiming to have unique traits, even if some are entirely falsified. For
example, a young model launched her career with Playboy by claiming to have a Heterochromia
disorder which resulted in one of her eyes being blue while the other was brown. It was later
revealed by her father that the trait was a complete lie and that she uses contact lenses to
create the effect, but until today, she stands by her claim. The prioritisation of appearance in
such youths’ lives, such as to create an entire identity around fabrication, showcases the over-
the-top significance placed on image by young people. On top of such examples are the
commonly heard-of clients of cosmetic surgery, which has increased alongside the rising
popularity of ‘K-beauty’ among youths today. To be willing to alter one’s biological self in
attempts to live up to beauty standards or stand out among crowds thus shows the extent of
youths’ obsession with their image.
Some may opine that young people today are concerned with much more than image.
In figures like Greta Thunberg and Malala Yousafzai, it is apparent that there is a rising political
voice from youths enabled by globalisation and media. More TED Talks organised and hosted
by young people around the world have also demonstrated that while there is a growing
interest in one’s public image, it does not dominate the attention of youths and thus is not an
excessive concern among many.
Although the prevalence of youth figures standing up for their beliefs is undeniable, we
should also not overlook the herds of young people who simply attempt to engage in the
political or philosophical scene because of the glory of being deemed an ‘educated intellectual’
such actions are associated with. For every prominent youth activist, there are thousands of
others who simply follow the crowd, paraphrasing speeches and replicating existing arguments
for the sake of establishing a reputation as a learned individual. Proliferating social media
hashtags concerning global issues like #BlueForSudan and #BlackLivesMatter are passed
around hundreds of thousands of social media accounts, and have a tendency of losing their
original intentions along the way due to personalities joining in the discussion to appear
knowledgeable without knowing the actual facts. This was the case in the issue of Flint’s Water
Crisis, in which many fabricated news items were spread by individual youths who wanted to
stand out by sensationalising the topic. This behaviour has ever been coined ‘slacktivism’, in
which people only comment on issues for the sake of doing so without contributing anything
constructive. There is thus a clear prioritisation of one’s image that may indeed be overly
consuming.
In conclusion, the current focus on image in determining one’s presence in society is a

behaviour that has been repeatedly adopted by youths due to the nature of the landscape they
have grown up in. While it is unfortunate that it can often lead to unhealthy and perhaps toxic
mentalities, educating the youth about maintaining a balance between their image and
individual lives can be productive and empowering.
139
Comments:
Alexe - There is a good attempt to show the harmful impact of the concern with image, supporting
your stand for ‘overly concerned’.
The rebuttal for those youth who support causes (and hence not concerned with image) is insightful
and well-supported. The part about influences is not clearly argued. Is it about the influences or the
young people they are about to ‘influence’ with their image?
140
How far should the government involve itself
in the reproductive lives of its people?
Chun Lei Suen Charlene (19A12)
Our reproductive lives are a deeply personal area of our lives. We all instinctively want
to protect it and rail against any outside involvement in it, government involvement included,
in the way of policymaking and legislation. Yet, one cannot deny that as deeply flawed humans,
we cannot argue that we are the best decision-makers, even when it comes to our own bodies.
At the same time, one must call into question if the government really makes the best decisions
for the country and for the people, our bodies included. This is why I believe that the
government should be allowed involvement to an extent, but should not completely restrict
our choices or dictate decisions for us regarding our reproductive lives.
On one end of the spectrum, we have the argument for no involvement of the
government whatsoever. People argue that we alone hold the right to our bodies, and that this
bodily autonomy means that no one should be allowed involvement in our reproductive lives
besides us and those we choose. This argument commonly presents itself in the pro-choice
fight for unrestricted access to abortion across the world, or even for the unrestricted access
to birth control in some cases. The powerful slogan of “my body, my choice” is one that
resonates deeply, and seems almost undeniable. It is a powerful, stirring argument of four
words, and one that I agree with, as a pro-choice supporter myself. But we have to question if,
given this unrestricted access and complete freedom to do what we want reproductively, we
will we always make the right choices? As human beings, we will not always make the best,
most rational decisions in life, even regarding our reproductive lives. Perhaps, then, we do need
government involvement to help us best manage our bodies?
This brings us to the other end of the spectrum: full and complete government
involvement. The reproductive lives of a country’s people will have great effect on the country.
An ageing population with a declining birth rate means a shrinking workforce, which does not
bode well for the economy, while overpopulation presents the challenges of unemployment,
poverty and the increased reliance on welfare from the state. The government should thus be
allowed to do what is best for its people: to best maintain the country’s state, even if it means
getting fully involved and controlling peoples’ reproductive lives. China’s infamous One-Child
policy was aimed at reducing overpopulation, as did Singapore’s less drastic “Stop at Two”
campaign.
But oftentimes, full involvement of a government ends with the government going
unchecked in its power over the people, and its involvement in people’s reproductive lives can
quickly turn inhumane, going completely overboard. South Africa’s forced sterilisation of
women with AIDS, and teenage and single mothers - women deemed undesirable by social
standards - has only come to light recently due to the victims of the policy speaking out. Yet,
the South African government has remained unapologetic over such a shocking policy.
Seemingly less drastic, yet equally restrictive, is the complete prohibition of abortion in almost
a quarter of the world. It is hard to justify a total ban, save for the fact that it serves as yet
141
another archaic tool to oppress women. But this is the reality for countless women, because
their governments have been allowed full involvement in this area of its people’s reproductive
lives, and this is what they have deemed fit. Along the same line of thinking is the restricted
access to hysterectomies that women have to face, needing to be married with children and
obtain spousal consent before being allowed to undergo the procedure. It is undoubtedly a
double standard, where men can choose to have a vasectomy, no questions asked. Again, full
involvement of the government in its people’s reproductive lives allow them power to oppress
women in a variety of ways. Additionally, such drastic policies that full involvement entails will
also mean drastic consequences. China’s One-Child policy, while aiming to stop
overpopulation, also led to an increase in female infanticide, due to the traditional and cultural
preference for males. The argument against full involvement of a government in its people’s
reproductive lives is as strong as the argument against no restriction is weak.
In the face of such polarising stances, it seems only natural to take on a more balanced
perspective on things. The government can be allowed some involvement in its people’s
reproductive lives, but should not make any complete restrictions on any aspect of it, nor
should they make any decisions for their people. While full involvement often means blanket
laws that are unable to cater to every different need, no involvement means that there would
be no precedent to allow the government to step in when needed. Thankfully, most
governments of the world recognise that a balanced approach is the way to go. Abortion is
partially restricted in most of the world, allowing people the freedom to choose when to have
children, while protecting us from the moral ramifications of taking a human life that has
already started. We have also not seen similar policies to the One-Child Policy, and even China
itself has struck it down from law. Experience has taught us that a balanced approach to our
reproductive lives is the way to go.
In conclusion, when it comes to our reproductive lives, an all-or-nothing stand, whether

it be for no involvement or full involvement, is not viable and too extreme. What is needed is
a more measured, balanced approach that is more forgiving on the flaws of man, yet not
restricting on our rights as humans; respectful of our bodily autonomy, and how we exercise it.
While partial involvement is most preferable and needed right now, perhaps we as a species
will grow and learn, so that in the future, we may be allowed, and be deserving of complete
autonomy of ourselves.
Comments:
Charlene, this is an insightful and knowledgeable response to the question which shows maturity.
Excellent use of examples to substantiate your points! Consider the use of ‘nudge’ for the ‘partial
involvement’ you are advocating. Incentives, rather than preventive measures?
142
Consider the view that an ageing population is
the most devastating crisis that society is facing today.
Darren Ang Wei-Cheng (18S62)
“An ageing population is the ticking bomb at the heart of Singaporean society” was a
statement Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Law and Home Affairs for Singapore once made at
a forum, expressing that an ageing population was the most devastating crisis that society faces
today. An ageing population is defined as (when there is) a sizable and increasing proportion of
the population that is above 60 years old, and must be supported by the ever-dwindling
younger proportion of the population. While some may hold the view that an ageing population
is the most devastating crisis due to its economic and social consequences, I take the stand
that an ageing population is not the most devastating crisis, on account of its relatively limited
magnitude and impact, especially in comparison to larger and more severe crises to society
such as the threat of climate change and nuclear proliferation.
Some hold the view that an ageing population is the most devastating crisis facing
society today, because of the economic consequences and social implications it brings about.
An ageing population is indeed economically devastating because it leads to a shortage of
labour, as the elderly are less able to take on jobs with the same vigour as when they were
younger due to the increased physical problems they face. While it is true that the elderly bring
a considerable wealth of experience to the workforce, this is undermined by the fact that
modern jobs and industries are very volatile and change very quickly, especially due to the
unrelenting advancement of technology. As digital migrants, the elderly are less able to adapt
to the new technology, resulting in a workforce that is less adaptable and competitive. This is
especially evident in Japan, where the ageing population has been a particularly difficult
problem to solve, resulting in an economic slowdown due to falling competitiveness. China,
too, will face the prospect of severe economic slowdown as her one-child policy has resulted
in a smaller portion of the society having to support a significantly larger one.
The social effects are devastating too. There has been an increasingly severe problem
of ageism, where employers discriminate against the elderly as they are perceived to be less
useful and productive on account of their physical frailty and reduced ability to adapt to new
technology. This has led to an increasingly disgruntled elderly population who, due to their
rising numbers, are a significant electorate. This has heralded a rising wave of populism where
politicians exclusively target the elderly in their promises of increased welfare, as evidenced in
Australia where the government, while cutting the budget, has spared the elderly’s social
benefits while compromising the social welfare of the younger generation. Increasing social
welfare also requires an increase in taxation to support the new expenditure and this tax
burden again falls on the younger generation. Taxation will also have a contractionary effect
on the economy, again resulting in economic consequences. Thus, an ageing population is seen
by some as the more devastating crisis, due to it being the cause of an economic contraction
and slowdown, alongside social issues of ageism and a rise in populism.
143
However, I still stand by my stand that an ageing population is not the most devastating
crisis due to its relatively limited impact, as there have been solutions to the problem of an
ageing population. In Singapore, there have been measures to combat an ageing population,
such as bringing in more foreign labour to make up for the labour shortage. Despite potential
social problems like migrants not integrating well, the solution so far has been effective as the
economy of Singapore is still relatively strong, and any slowdown is not due to its population
problem. The problem of ageism is taught in schools to allow the younger generation to
empathise with the elderly, and schemes like MySkillsFuture help teach the elderly
technological skills to help them adapt and become more competitive. The prevalence of
effective solutions means the problem is less severe and devastating. In addition, the
magnitude of the crisis is also relatively limited to developed countries. Societies in developing
countries such as India, the Philippines and Thailand are not affected by the problem of an
ageing population, and even have a bumper crop of young people. The presence of effective
solutions for an ageing population and the fact that this crisis is largely limited to the developed
world, being almost non-existent in the developing world, clearly demonstrates that while it is
a severe problem, it is not the most devastating crisis that society faces.
An ageing population is also not the most devastating crisis facing society today,
because there are even more devastating crises such as the crisis of climate change. Climate
change is a more devastating crisis because it is profoundly impactful beyond the economic
and social sphere, and is a crisis that threatens human survival on earth. Climate change is
defined as a negative change in the environment due to human activities. Global warming, a
major aspect of climate change, is a problem that is very severe as it leads to the melting of the
polar ice caps, resulting in a rise in sea level which poses a threat to low-lying countries like
Singapore. An example of the severity of this problem is how in mid-2019, an entire Alaskan
glacier was reported to have melted. The crisis is only likely to worsen as seen from how in late
2019, the Amazon rainforest was on fire, threatening the survival of the world’s largest carbon
sink and significantly worsening the problem of climate change. The economic consequences
are dire as well, as when a heatwave struck Western Europe in mid-2019, temperatures were
as high as 40°C, leading to a slowdown in productivity as it was literally too hot to work. Unlike
the issue of an ageing population, climate change affects all of society as it is a global issue.
This considerably greater impact is coupled with how effective solutions are harder to
implement due to political pressures. Deforestation and environmental depletion, the
exacerbating causes of climate change, is a result of economic growth that is very attractive to
politicians, making them reluctant to curb this growth to save the environment. In Brazil, the
burning of the Amazon Rainforest is allegedly supported by the state to allow more land to be
cleared for the lucrative cattle industry. During the recent G10 summit, France’s attempts to
focus on the issue of climate change were derailed and insulted as “irrelevant” by American
officials. The stormy political resistance to effective solutions magnifies the impact of the crisis
of climate change, and along with its global nature and potential to threaten mankind’s survival,
makes it a far greater threat to society today than an ageing population.
Another crisis that is far more devastating than climate change is that of nuclear
proliferation. Nuclear proliferation is defined as many countries possessing nuclear weapons,
and these are often countries that have tensions with one another. Like the issue of climate
change, nuclear proliferation is a crisis that can potentially wipe out humanity. This is a
144
profoundly more significant impact than that of an ageing population, because the highly
destructive nature of nuclear weapons causes many other countries not involved in the conflict
to be caught in the nuclear crisis and be destroyed as well. Evidence of the severity of nuclear
proliferation can be seen in how North Korea has repeatedly tested her nuclear arsenal, often
testing such weapons in the straits between the Korean Peninsula and Japan. America, too,
recently backed out of a nuclear test-ban with Russia on account of alleged Russian insincerity
in following the treaty. Escalating tensions between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region
are magnified by the fact that both countries possess nuclear weapons. The magnitude of the
problem is clearly established as there are many conflicts around the world where one or both
sides possess nuclear weapons, increasing the likelihood of such weapons being used in
conflicts and the world being destroyed as collateral damage. Unlike an ageing population,
effective solutions are not forthcoming as countries are highly resistant in giving up their
nuclear arsenal as a matter of national security. Hence, an ageing population is not the most
devastating crisis because the crisis of nuclear proliferation is more devastating to society.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists maintains the proverbial Doomsday Clock, which
is a symbol which represents the likelihood of a man-made global catastrophe. When the clock
reaches 12 midnight, it means the annihilation of humanity. The clock is two minutes to
midnight, and the given reason is the crisis of nuclear proliferation and climate change. An
ageing population is not in that list of reasons, demonstrating how despite its severe economic
and social impact, it is not the most devastating crisis in every society due to its limited impact,
severity and magnitude as compared to other crises.
Comments:
A compelling argument. You dealt with the central issue and made a good comparison with other
crises facing society. Ending was a bit rushed!
145
Miscellaneous
146
‘We can be optimistic about the future of the world.’ Discuss.
Sitara Manoj (19S54)
Thousands of years ago, in the cradle of humankind, there stood six human species.
Now, there stands just one. That is us, homo sapiens, or if you will, the ‘Wise Man’. Through
thousands of years of trials and tribulations, we have managed to grow and thrive. We have
built a world today that our ancestors may have never even conceived was possible. I believe
that we will continue on this extraordinary path of creation and discovery into the future, for
which there are several reasons; we have cultivated a world that is much more accepting and
encouraging towards all people, developed a rich artistic and cultural legacy, and are making
leaps and strides in the development of technology that improves our quality of life. Every
single one of these reasons is why there is hope for the future.
To begin with, we have been steadily creating a world that is more accepting towards
all people than it started out to be. Until recently, LGBTQ people in many parts of the world
had to keep their true identity a secret, for fear of being socially isolated or even stripped of
their jobs and means of financial sustenance. Furthermore, there was little opportunity for
them to connect with members of their community, leading to many falling victim to their
isolation. However, in many countries across the globe today, their presence is being accepted.
Even Asian countries like Taiwan and India, who tend to lean towards more conservative
values, have taken concrete legal steps forward to expand the rights of the LGBTQ community
through acts such as the legalisation of gay marriage and decriminalisation of homosexual
sexual acts. Furthermore, through events like the Pride parades, they are able to be free as
themselves, which has been liberating for so many. In today’s world, women are also rising
from the rubble of millennia of ironclad patriarchy to greater freedoms and opportunities. This
can be very clearly seen in the global political landscape, where women now play a far bigger
role with prominent leaders like Angela Merkel of Germany and Jacinda Ardern of New
Zealand. We have made remarkable progress in this area, which is why we have faith in a better
future to come.
Another important reason why there is hope for the future of this world lies in our
dedicated pursuits. All living beings are born with instincts to survive, which is why we as a
species stand here today while so many others have perished. Knowing that, we must ask
ourselves why this is so. To this, I posit a less spoken about reason for our advancement as a
species and a development of a world that is far better than the one we were given. Our
strength lies in our desire to not just survive, but live. While most of the animal kingdom
focuses on daily tangible needs and challenges, we have found the will to do more than just
feed and shelter ourselves. We have managed to develop ourselves into higher-order thinkers
through the exploration of what is not real and what is not tangible. We sought to create fiction
and stories of new worlds. We created art, which prompted us to question aspects of our own
real world, encouraging us to better it in new ways. Through the sonnets of Shakespeare, the
cadence of Mozart’s iconic musical pieces and Pablo Picasso’s mind-bending works of art, we
as a species, grew and continue to develop cognitively far beyond our feathered and scaled
friends in the animal kingdom. To this day, we continue on this creative journey and continue
147
to weave a rich tapestry of cultural and artistic accomplishments, giving hope that an even
more wonderful future lies ahead.
However, at the same time, we must acknowledge that our pursuit of better lives has
hurt the world we are trying to better. A burgeoning issue we have been facing in recent years
is the advent of climate change as a result of our rapid urbanisation, mass production of goods
and features of our daily modern life such as cars and planes. All of these have had devastating
impacts on the nature and the environmental state of our world. We are now grappling with
the consequences of our actions, particularly stemming from the time of the Industrial
Revolution. The deadly plastics polluting our oceans, rising harmful emissions and destruction
of animal habitats are just a few of the many problems being faced. However, that does not
mean that there is no hope for a better future in this world. There has been great international
cooperation to resolve this issue through agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. Even more
so, individual communities across the world are doing their part to reduce the environmental
damage. In Nigeria, some schools are now working with organisations to allow students to pay
for school not with money but with plastics, which is the reality in many schools there. This
kind of international as well as smaller scale community efforts gives reason to still be hopeful
for the future of this world.
To conclude, through our cultivation of a more accepting and open world for all, our
dedication towards greater cognitive heights through artistic and creative endeavours, as well
as our united efforts to tackle the grave environmental crisis that we face, it can be said that
there is hope for a better future. We have not yet achieved the ‘perfect’ world, which is not
something that we should be disheartened by. Rather, we should see it as us not having
reached our peak yet, which means that there is room to grow and continue to work towards
a world in the future that is even better. We have come so far since our early days on this
planet, and as long as we still possess the impetus to do better and seek higher goals, there is
no reason not to have hope for the future of this world.
Comments:
Fluent, persuasive, with a distinctive personal voice. Would have loved to see the point about our
creative pursuits being less fuzzy/vague (how a rich legacy helps?) but that was a minor point. A
pleasure to read. Well done :)
148
‘We can be optimistic about the future of the world.’ Discuss.
Amber Ang Jia Qi (19S63)
Dynamic and ever-changing, the world we live in today has transcended vastly from
the past. In light of the push for technological advancement in today’s 4.0 economy, the world
calls for an intellectually versatile workforce that is outstanding and works together for the
better good of our future. Opportunities are increasingly accessible, and more are granted
freedom and worry-free lives. However, it is parochial to see the world through rose-tinted
lenses, for insecurity and inequality is still rife that ossify our progress. Despite this schism that
exists, I am of the opinion that we can indeed be optimistic about the future of the world.
Opponents may vindicate that the future of our world is destined to be bleak, due to
the rise of threats that continually arise and attack the social fabric of society, tearing apart
humanity. It is indisputable to acknowledge how in recent years, social media has been
unscrupulously weaponised in the hands of extremists to further their malicious causes. Such
is prevalent in the case of ISIS, an infamous terror group that has frequently been known to
harness social media to recruit adults and children likewise to participate in their extremist
causes such as launching attacks on Western and Shi’ite targets. Fake news is also burgeoning
in voluminous amounts, such as through ‘deepfakes’, which are technologically manipulated
videos that use face recognition and voice swapping techniques to spread false ideologies. This
reinforces the matter at hand of persistent threats that continue to destroy, rendering the
future of the world as a doomed one.
However, the world also seeks to ameliorate the adverse impacts of such factors. There
are indeed a multitude of institutions, organisations and individuals who are keen to make a
difference and change such devastation. For example, France runs a comprehensive school
programme that effectively educates school children how to discern reality from untruths,
under its well-established anti-fake news laws.
We can also be optimistic about the future of the world, as seen by how the world is
progressing towards inclusivity. In light of this issue, the eleventh of the seventeen United
Nation Goals seeks to create sustainable, inclusive and resilient communities for all. This
implied that not one person, regardless of ability or background, should be left behind or slip
through the net. In 2019, the coveted Access City Award was awarded to the city of Breda,
which made impressive and concrete strides to accommodate the physically disabled in the
community. For example, authorities pulled up cobblestones on walkways, turned them
widthways and sliced them. The result is a flat surface that allows for smooth access by the
wheelchair-bound, whilst maintaining the city’s picturesque landscape as before. Shop owners
also laid out portable threshold ramps, and the city’s forest was likewise fully wheelchair-
accessible. This sets an elaborate and remarkable example as to how the world is much more
cognisant of the disadvantaged, and are empowered to brainstorm and set aside resources to
accommodate, as well as give them a tangible sense of inclusivity and belonging to the
community. In addition, technology has also been efficiently tapped on to promote inclusivity
in today’s era, thereby not limiting its impacts to the digital world but also other social aspects.
149
Even ‘talking’ kitchen tools such as induction hobs have been created to make cooking possible
and easier for the visually handicapped. Virtual reality has also been used to simulate situations
to calm and offer emotional help to those with mental illnesses.
We can also anticipate the future of the world to be a pleasant one, as there is a
concomitant rise of activists and individuals who are passionate for what they believe in, and
are unafraid to voice out their views publicly as well as champion these causes. This can be
seen by the increasing pool of young activists today such as Greta Thunberg, who frequently
led and rallied strikes to protest against climate change in her country, remaining undeterred
in the face of authorities who may not be as supportive of her deeds and causes. ‘Stranger
Things’ star Millie Bobby Brown also encouraged fans to sign the #GoBlue petition, a call to
world leaders to fulfil and uphold children's rights. Such a strong-willed group of youths in the
world is indicative of determined leaders in the future who would be able to direct the masses
compassionately and effectively.
Lastly, we can be optimistic about the future of the world as education is seen as more
of a social leveller due to its increased accessibility, even in third-world countries where socio-
political systems are unstable and fragile. There are certainly more opportunities for education
compared to in the past, where patriarchal systems insisted that girls should not receive
education, and education was considered unequal in many places. African refugees in Jordan
are now given opportunities to learn, as seen by how a mobile startup company, Orange Jordan,
specifically created educational tablets named ‘Zedni Elman’ for them to be exposed to the
Jordanian curriculum. Another mobile startup, Tigo, also implemented an ‘E-Library on Wheels’,
retrofitted with tables, tablets, books and more so that African children are granted accessible
and innovative learning environments which they rightly deserve. In countries like Singapore,
recent initiatives and schemes such as DreamFund have been implemented, allowing lower-
income students to spend a given amount of credits for their chosen school materials, and even
on extra-curricular activities which impart soft and hard skills. Therefore, as education becomes
more accessible and innovative for a growing part of the community, we can be optimistic of
the world’s future, which requires a group of intellectually versatile and diversely educated
people to counter the challenges in the present and future.
In conclusion, the future of the world can definitely be an optimistic one, with many
compassionate individuals being unified and motivated to quell the exacerbating effects of
destruction, as well as championing for social rights and constantly innovating to create an
authentic and inclusive future.
Comments:
Good range of examples used. It was clear that you were mindful of the need to ensure that your
language was not repetitive. This made it a refreshing and pleasant read.
150
Is the food we eat becoming increasingly unsafe?
Tang Shi Jie (19S33)
As the saying goes, “You are what you eat.” In today’s world, one is exposed to an
increasing variety of food – some that have been injected with hormones or sprayed with
pesticides to look and taste better, while others have been altered in laboratories to increase
their nutritional content. Such adulteration of food raises the question of whether what we
consume today is becoming progressively unsafe for our bodies. Is humans' primary source of
energy - food - becoming a threat to their health and very own well-being as time progresses?
There are people who claim that it is Man’s interference in the production of food that has
made them more dubious and increasingly dangerous for human consumption. However, I beg
to differ. In our increasingly advanced and progressive world today, food has been made even
more beneficial to our health, through the use of science and technology to make them even
more catered to people’s diet preferences. In addition, not only is the government constantly
putting checks and guidelines in place to ensure that food sold in the market is safe for
consumption, today’s consumers themselves also have the backing of social media and the
internet to make sure that the food they ingest does not harm their own bodies but boost their
overall health instead.
In view of how the food we consume today has become highly processed, detractors
believe that what we eat now is much more unsafe for our bodies compared to the food people
in the past used to consume. Contenders raise the fact that one is unable to be fully aware of
what has been added into their wholegrains or meat today, which is understandable
considering how lab-cultured meat has started to become common in our society today. In
Singapore, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) laboratory has even
started to experiment culturing meat from Chinese hamster ovary cells, and in research-
oriented countries such as America, the stem cells of pigs, chicken, lamb and cow have also
been used to grow meat to help meet the demand. In view of this, people’s fears and
uncertainties regarding the safety of the food they consume are justifiable and definitely
understandable.
However, it is important for one to note that the progress of science and technology in
our modern society has also made possible the production of food that is not only of good
quality, but also of high nutritional value. Although such food is typically associated with terms
such as ‘highly-processed’ and ‘artificial’, which are in turn linked to being unnatural and hence
harmful to our bodies, one must also acknowledge how these processes have given us the
means to alter food to benefit our own bodies. For example, scientists have successfully
created ‘Golden Rice’ through genetic engineering to feed over 300 million children in 147
countries, as well as help treat those with Vitamin A deficiency, a major public health issue and
the most significant cause of child mortality and blindness globally. Today, the Golden Rice
humanitarian project has been recognized as one of the most influential projects of the past
50 years by Project Management Institute (PMI) in its 2019 Most Influential Projects list. In
Singapore, in order to combat the issue of insufficient nutrients in the diets of many elderly,
laboratories are also inventing ways to raise the protein, calcium and vitamin content in food
151
items, including porridge, ice cream and milk, while simultaneously decreasing their sugar and
fat content to combat illnesses that come with old age such as high blood pressure. Therefore,
food processing is not always negative or unsafe, and can be manipulated to benefit everyone’s
health.
Furthermore, governments worldwide also put in immense effort to ensure that the
food being catered to us does not pose as a danger to our health. In many countries, there are
sets of rules and federal requirements, such as those from the Food and Drug Administration
of the United States, which must be met by local producers as well as food imported into the
country to be sold to consumers. In Singapore, one is also better able to choose food items
that are healthier simply by looking out for the 'Healthier Choice' symbol on food packaging
that indicates which food products are better for one’s diet and overall health. With the
government supporting consumers and helping them to pick out foods healthier and beneficial
to their body, one can be assured that the food they are presented with today is still safe for
their own consumption.
Lastly, the rise of a digital era in modern society has also allowed people to have a
heightened awareness regarding the food that they are consuming. Through social media
platforms such as Instagram and Twitter, health gurus and professionals can share their
knowledge of food that is being served on our plates to many people across the globe, who
can easily access such information due to the prevalence of smartphones today. Websites such
as ‘MyFitnessPal’ also allow one to track their intake throughout the day, as well as the
nutritional values of the food items that they are consuming. Many websites also list the
ingredients of food items that are being sold in popular eateries and restaurants. As such, one
can feel more assured consuming the food that they have been served, without having to live
with uncertainty and even fear of what is entering their body.
To sum up, the food that we eat today is not becoming increasingly unsafe, mainly due
to how science and technology has allowed us to create healthier and more nutritious varieties
of food, the reassurance and guarantee from authorities, as well as the new digital era which
has increased our awareness of the food we consume. While there are those who remain
uncertain about food processing, I feel that as long as food producers stay true to their values
and do not turn corrupt, while governmental authorities continue to be on high alert and strict
in their rules and permits surrounding food, the food that we consume will serve to benefit us
greatly rather than harm us in the long run.
Comments:
Wide range of points, shows a reasonable amount of knowledge. Good rebuttal that showed critical
thought. Shows knowledge of the qualifiers increasingly, laudable attempts to discuss current
developments/ changes in society that affect food safety. Generally fluent use of language. Some
language errors, point on government regulations can be further elaborated by giving examples of
laws/regulations and the effectiveness.
152
Is the food we eat becoming increasingly unsafe?
Lim Wan Xuan (19S51)
The rapid development of technology in the world has not only affected the way we
travel or the methods of communication, but also impacted food science and technology, which
makes a difference to what type of food we eat and how food is produced. Some people argue
that as a result, the food we eat is becoming increasingly unsafe due to the increase in
consumption and sales of genetically modified food, and due to the rapid rise in consumption
of unhealthy food because of changing lifestyles. However, I think that with the help of
authorities and improved technology, the food we eat is not becoming increasingly unsafe, but
may instead even be safer for consumption.
Some people argue that the food we eat is becoming increasingly unsafe due to more
genetically modified food being produced and sold today. With the development in
biomolecular technology, the food science industry is exploring more methods of producing
genetically modified organisms (GMO). Some reasons as to why they do so are because they
want to increase the rate at which crops or animals grow, and to increase nutrition or to better
the appearance of crops. Many people, especially those with traditional mindsets, label the act
of modifying the genes of these crops and animals as ‘playing with nature’, and cast doubts on
how safe it is to consume these crops and meat. For instance, when a type of genetically
modified salmon called Frankenfish (produced by a company called AquaBounty Technologies)
was released into the market in America, many people were against the sale of this fish and
firmly opposed bringing them into the market when asked in an interview. People were
doubtful about the genetically modified fish, and were worried that it might have harmful
effects on their health. However, we cannot just assume that food is unsafe just because it is
genetically modified. Such genetically modified food usually goes through decades of research
and trial testing. An example of such a crop is the BT corn which was grown in the Philippines.
The genes of this crop are carefully engineered such that it contains properties that are deadly
to pests, which has misled people to think that it is also harmful to humans. What most people
miss out is that the properties in the crops that kill pests can only be activated in the insects,
as we do not have the necessary enzymes in our body to experience its effects. GMOs go
through stringent checks by authorities such as Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and
World Health Organisation (WHO), which are credible and reliable in doing safety checks on
food, ensuring that the new GMOs produced will not bring adverse impacts to our health. In
addition, many who oppose GMOs are also not aware that even though there is a rise in GMOs
being produced today, some of the food we have been consuming have also been genetically
modified, such as the strawberries and rice we eat today. Strawberries and rice were genetically
modified a century ago. Therefore, it is unfair to say that the rise of genetically modified food
has resulted in a greater possibility that what we eat today is unsafe.
Secondly, I agree that the food we eat is becoming increasingly safe because of better
technology being developed, which can allow the growing of crops or rearing of animals to be
done in a more suitable and ideal environment. As compared to the past, more advanced tools
and equipment available today allow for precision farming, enabling farmers to better monitor
153
and control every aspect of the environment, even to the extent of monitoring the acidity of
water or nutrients level in the soil. This can better help to prevent the crops or animals from
getting viruses or diseases, which assures us that the food we eat is becoming safer. For
example, a vertical fish farm in Singapore called Apollo Aquaculture Group utilises high-tech
tools that help clean the water in the fish tank and monitor the condition in the fish tank more
accurately. They have stated that this technology has increased the yield of fish, and has
prevented the fish from falling sick. This proves that with the increase in usage of technology,
the crops and animals can grow in a healthier environment. In addition, there were instances
in the past where humans consumed meat which contains diseases, causing harm to our health,
such as mad cow disease. Therefore, with the increase in even more sophisticated monitoring
tools today and in the near future, such incidents can be better prevented, and the safety of
our food will undoubtedly increase. Hence, it is undeniable that the food we eat today is
becoming safer.
In addition, some people argue that the food we eat is becoming unsafe due to changing
lifestyles where more people are consuming unhealthy food, which can be detrimental to our
body. Due to the growth in the world's economy, many people, in general, have more financial
ability now than they had in the past, allowing them to spend more on food. As a result, it also
increases people's consumption of unhealthy food such as sugary drinks and fried food, since
they have a greater ability to consume food other than staple food which provides basic
nutritional needs. Growing food trends such as drinking bubble tea have also influenced and
urged people to consume more sugary drinks. These foods are high in sugar and fats but low
in nutrition, which results in detrimental problems such as obesity and diabetes in the long run
when consumed frequently. Therefore, due to a shift in taste and preferences and a shift in
people's diets, some argue that the food we eat is becoming increasingly unsafe.
However, it is too simplistic to simply conclude that the food we eat is unsafe due to
the minority of people who are increasingly consuming unhealthy food. Many people are still
health-conscious and will be careful about the amount of unhealthy food they eat. Even when
people follow trends such as the bubble tea trend, it does not necessarily mean that they over-
consume these foods. With these food trends, it may even lead to people putting in even more
effort to take care of their diets in order to ensure that they stay healthy. In addition, authorities
in recent years have also put in effort to raise awareness about the adverse effects of eating
too much sugary and fried food, and also the importance of having a healthy diet. For example,
in my society Singapore, the Health Promotion Board has put up posters pertaining to healthy
diets, and has also regulated the sales of unhealthy food in schools. This regulation has
significantly decreased the consumption of fried food among students, as those who have a
habit of consuming them during meals are unable to do so now. Therefore, with more self-
control and effort put in by authorities to raise awareness on the adverse effects of unhealthy
food and to regulate their sales, the food that we eat will not be increasingly unhealthy. and
hence will not be unsafe for us.
In conclusion, due to the increase in usage of science and technology, as well as

individual and governmental efforts, the food we eat is becoming increasingly safe.
154
Comments:
There is an attempt to address the question and to address the keyword; good! However, you should
not be focusing too much on how people choose to eat ‘unsafe’ food.
155
Do you agree that the future of Singapore is a bright one?
Lee Young Kai (19S38)
In the 2020 Singapore Perspectives Forum, Minister for Trade and Industry Chan Chun
Sing highlighted his concerns for Singapore’s future. Citing global warming, terrorism and global
insurgency as potential threats to our small state’s existence, the Minster provided a stern
reminder that the future of Singapore is an unknown. Today, while Singapore is thriving in
many areas, some pessimists hold the view that the future of Singapore is grim due to the
existential threat of war and foreign aggression. Nonetheless, I hold the view that Singapore
will continue to enjoy social harmony, political stability and a thriving economy due to our
adaptable government and long-term economic strategies.
Prima facie, some argue that we cannot view Singapore’s future with hope and
optimism due to the existential threat that Singapore faces on an international stage by
militaristic nations. Small states, including Singapore, often face a challenge in their attempts
to equal the military prowess of larger countries like the United States and China. Today, many
nations have cast aside the rule of law and morality that has governed international peace in
their pursuit of self-interest. Singapore might eventually find herself at the mercy of larger
nations’ wishes and demand. For example, the confiscation of the Terrex military vehicles by
China in 2017 highlighted that China was not afraid to show their displeasure towards
Singapore’s close relations with Taiwan and Singapore’s stance on the South China Sea dispute.
Although this does not directly threaten Singapore’s sovereignty, the incident has highlighted
that larger nations are willing to circumvent international rules and exert their dominance over
small states. In 2018, under the Pakatan Harapan government, Malaysian vessels entered
Singapore’s waters, in spite of the warnings from Singapore’s officials. In today’s perilous world,
Singapore is at the losing end as other nations have showed acts of aggression. Actual military
confrontation is now a strong possibility given how other nations have been seen to act. In
such cases, our small state is extremely vulnerable to aggression by other nations. Hence, it
can be argued that Singapore’s future is bleak due to the existential threat posed by other
nations.
However, upon closer examination, I would argue that Singapore is in a good position
to deal with any current and future foreign aggression. Singapore’s twin pillars of defence –
diplomacy and deterrence - have a synergistic effect in safeguarding her interests and
sovereignty. Given her neutral stance, Singapore has maintained strong bilateral relations with
many other nations. For example, the Singapore Armed Forces hold annual training exercises
in Australia, Brunei and New Zealand. This has allowed Singapore’s army to leverage on the
skills and expertise of other nations, strengthening her military prowess. While this does not
mean that Singapore is now able to deal with foreign threats, it is worth noting that Singapore’s
diplomacy has built her many alliances and friends with other nations, such that few would
threaten her sovereignty, as they have vested interests in Singapore. Recognising that
cybersecurity is also a potential threat to Singapore, the Armed Forces has also launched a
cybersecurity scheme for full-time National Servicemen, allowing Singapore to have a team of
coders and white-hat hackers. It is evident that Singapore has taken necessary measures to
156
safeguard her interests, even in the cyber domain, and is prepared to handle any threats.
Hence, given Singapore’s defence policy, I argue that our defence is strong and adept to the
challenges of today and the future. Hence, I believe that the future of Singapore is bright.
As Singapore also has a government that has proven itself to be efficient and adaptable,
I argue that the future of Singapore is a bright one. In today’s everchanging and volatile world,
there are new threats that have never been seen before popping up, and an adept government
is crucial in dealing with such threats. The Singapore government has been able to react swiftly
and respond promptly to new threats to Singapore, making apt decisions even in times of crisis.
I am thus confident that any future threat can be effectively quelled by the government. One
example would be the COVID-19 outbreak, which has led to hysteria and panic in many other
countries like South Korea and Italy. The government’s response to the coronavirus outbreak
has shown that it is able to react swiftly and provide reassurance to the public. Despite being
a global hub, Singapore’s Coronavirus cases are under control, and there has been no death as
of writing. The fourth-generation leadership was also able to make the tough decision to
distribute four surgical masks to each Singapore household, alleviating the fear of
Singaporeans. Our government has also successfully integrated foreigners into our society, as
well as ensured that the views of Singaporeans remain heard through platforms like the
Singapore Conversation launched by the Deputy Prime Minister. Our government has proven
to be able to balance diverse needs, and effectively handle threats that are never heard of. This
is crucial to Singapore’s continued success, as in today’s uncertain world, today’s success does
not guarantee tomorrow’s existence. An adept and efficient government allows our nation to
mitigate any domestic threat, safeguarding Singapore’s continued success. Thus, I agree that
the future of Singapore is a bright one.
Furthermore, Singapore has also proven to have the economic prowess to thrive in
today’s competitive and fast-paced world, allowing me to believe that her future is bright.
Globalisation, along with the rise of China, has displaced major economies, including the United
States. Many nations have begun to pursue self-defeating strategies of isolation and
protectionism. Despite this ever-changing economic landscape, Singapore is likely to thrive due
to her successful economic strategies. On a micro level, the SkillsfutureSG initiative has been
crucial in providing workers with skills upgrading and retraining, allowing them to remain
relevant to employers and continue to stay employed. This is paramount as labour is
Singapore’s only resource, and the advent of technology has displaced many blue-collar and
white-collar jobs. Such programmes are hence crucial in allowing Singaporeans to continue to
earn a wage and sustain themselves, as well as allowing for a productive economy. On a macro
level, Singapore has diverse trade links and economic agreements such that no single country
has control over our economy. Being part of the ASEAN Economic Community since 2015,
Singapore has recognised the potential economic value of the emerging South East Asian
region and has leveraged on the increased economic activity and investment in the area. Thus,
she has strategically positioned herself such that many multi-national corporations have placed
their regional headquarters in Singapore, benefitting our economy tremendously. As Singapore
is able to turn economic challenges into opportunities and has adopted a multi-pronged
approach to remain relevant in the economic landscape, I am confident in Singapore’s future
and our continued economic success. Hence, I agree that the future of Singapore is a bright
one.
157
Ultimately, I hold the view that the future of Singapore is one where our economy will
continue to thrive, our social fabric will remain resilient, and our political leaders will continue
to serve in the best interests of Singapore. However, I believe that Singaporeans cannot be
overly optimistic in Singapore’s success. This might breed complacency, which will be
disastrous for Singapore. “Success breeds complacency, complacency breeds failure.” As the
people and leaders become overwhelmed by our nation’s success, we could become less
competitive in ensuring our continued success. The fall of Rome in history should provide a
grim possibility of what might happen to Singapore is we become lulled by her success. I hope
that Singapore will be able to beat the odds of history, where small states have perished, and
continue to thrive as a cosmopolitan city and a united society.
Comments:
Young Kai, this is a well-written piece of work. Relevant examples raised that clearly supported
arguments raised. Good that you examined both internal and external threats SG faces and you have
demonstrated a clear understanding of what some future trends of the world are. You could have
also looked at the social aspect (e.g. demographics of the nation) and how global issues might affect
SG. Clear personal voice and effective introduction and conclusion.
158
‘There is no room for creativity in a society that prizes efficiency.’
Discuss this with reference to your society.
Amelia Tay Li Jia (18S46)
The Singaporean Dream of obtaining the 5Cs – cash, condominium, car, credit cards
and country club memberships – is an effective summary of why the majority of Singaporeans
prioritise efficiency and capability over creativity. Detractors will argue that creativity serves
no purpose in our competitive and pragmatic society, with the shallow understanding that
creativity reaps no monetary nor tangible benefits. However, such a viewpoint is dangerous,
given the abundant fruits of creativity that could potentially be harvested should it be given a
chance to flourish. Hence, it is the thesis of this essay that creativity is in actuality paramount
in Singapore, and could very well even complement our hard and fast chase for efficiency.
However, detractors of the argument that there is no room for creativity will posit that
creativity is simply not relevant and acts as a mere distraction in Singapore. From young,
Singaporeans are taught to succeed, to excel and stand out from the crowd in every aspect of
life where possible. Hence, in order to exhibit academic excellence, students have to be
efficient in solving academic problems. In the non-academic realm, only those who showcase
the ability to complete their respective activities with efficacy are recognised. It is
consequently natural for parents, with high expectations of their children, and even teachers
to consistently enforce a mind-set that efficiency is paramount in their offspring. Such
behaviours are further galvanised by Singapore’s Ministry of Education’s initiative to reward
these efficient students with monetary benefits including, but not limited to, the Good Progress
Edusave Award and the Colours Award. These messages that prioritise and recognise the
abilities of efficacious students are further propagated by elaborate award ceremonies held at
neighbourhood void decks and schools under the watchful eyes of onlookers, sometimes even
reaching out to thousands more via social media. All these propensities to breed and recognise
talented and intelligent young generations are a testament to Singapore’s stance that creativity
takes no precedence over efficiency given the vast contrast in recognition for creativity.
Therefore, there is no room for creativity in a country with a population that believes creativity
is a mere hindrance in the broader scope of things, especially in their pursuit of the 5Cs.
Yet, room should be created for creativity due to the plethora of economic gains
Singapore can derive from it. Given that the main justification behind Singapore’s obsession
with efficiency is to stand out - not just among Singaporeans, but also among nations - in order
to draw in the most revenue in our economically-driven and globalised world, creative mediums
should be given an opportunity to flourish. Singapore’s annual Biennale celebration engages
artists from over 60 different countries to flock to Singapore in order to share their creative
ideas and discuss potential projects. On a local level, creative exhibitions displayed by
Singapore’s very own ArtScience Museum, such as the recent ArtScience Late and ArtScience
on Screen, are one of the many ways in which the manifestation of creativity can create
employment opportunities and tourism revenue. Although it was discussed in the previous
paragraph that the Singapore government seems to have a hardline stance against creativity,
as only efficiency can reap monetary gains, that is not the case. The argument stands only
159
because of the population being more cognisant of the government’s efforts towards breeding
an efficient new generation. The government has, in fact, pumped in $23.25 million into the
Renaissance City Plan. This is a testament to their awareness of how creative mediums, such
as the Arts and Innovation, can drive the economy and society. Hence, with greater awareness
of the government’s efforts to foster increased creativity in Singapore, more pragmatic
Singaporeans could potentially be enlightened and get behind the cause for creativity. While it
appears that the majority prize efficiency, leaving no room for creativity, this is not the case as
exhibited by government efforts. Therefore, it is not true that creativity serves no purpose in
our society.
Moreover, creativity may, in fact, be a good complement for efficiency in today’s ever-
changing world. While Singapore may indeed prize efficiency, it is not to say that creativity has
no place here. Creativity inculcates and nurtures crucial skills, such as critical thinking, that will
always be relevant in our turbulent economy. To be efficient in our globalised world, where
change is the only constant, individuals are required to think on their feet and adapt to the
needs of the fluctuating economic situation at a moment’s notice. If anything, allowing
creativity to be intertwined into the education of our Singaporeans will boost their efficiency
and productivity. This is evident in schools where modules such as design-thinking have been
implemented. Even Singapore Management University (SMU), which is at the forefront of
nurturing efficient and employable students, values developing adaptability through creativity
and entrepreneurship. An increasing number of buskers and street performers are also
observed along busy roads such as Orchard, which is evidence of Singapore’s National Arts
Council’s awareness that developing more skills, such as confidence in presentation, through
such creative mediums will be beneficial to Singapore in the long run. Hence, this debunks the
myth that there cannot be creativity in a nation that prioritises efficiency when in actual fact,
they go hand in hand.
Furthermore, there is room for creativity in Singapore, as it provides coping platforms

for the string of adverse effects pursuing efficiency brings about. Singapore’s constant pursuit
for efficiency has led to stress levels peaking in recent years, with Singapore’s suicide rates
making a ten percent jump in 2018 according to Channel News Asia. In such a cut-throat
society, creativity has the potential to step in through manifestations such as art therapy in
order to alleviate the mental health issues faced by throngs of Singaporeans every day. Art
therapy utilises the multitudes of abstract and creative methods to render psychological aid to
those in need. For instance, Community Cultural Development (Singapore) implemented an
initiative known as ‘Theatre for Seniors’, which brought together elderly who were neglected
by their families to alleviate their loneliness. By embracing creative forms of therapy,
Singaporeans could, in fact, experience higher levels of efficiency in their chase for success by
making full use of such coping methods.
In the final analysis, the notion that there is no room for creativity in Singapore is
flawed. Given more media coverage and direct recognition of the potential benefits
Singaporeans could reap from creativity, efficiency may very well be improved. Hence, I posit
that creativity does have a place in society, and it goes hand in hand with efficiency.
160
Comments:
A beautifully written essay with a number of insightful points. Strong topic sentences make all the
difference. Good work!
161
162
163

Kaleidoscope 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Kaleidoscope 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kaleidoscope 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Have a joyful time reading.

Arts & Culture 10

Politics, Economics & History 50

March 2019: Christchurch Terror Attacks

April 2019: Lori Lightfoot Becomes Mayor of Chicago

April 2019: First Image of Black Hole Captured

April 2019: Notre Dame Fire

May 2019: Huawei Ban

May 2019: San Francisco Bans Facial Recognition

June 2019: Australia Bushfires

August 2019: Amazon Rainforest Fires

2019: The Year of Protests

February: Kazakhstan and Algeria

Case Study: Indian CAA Protests in December 2019

Aung Miri Yin-Toe (19S33)

Ng Xuen Yi, Alexe (19A12)

However, the success of such initiatives is restricted due to the subjectivity of an

Brigette Teo (19S34)

On a more economic-centric note, there is a common misconception that science is

Kee Chong Wei (19S61)

Julianne Faye Ong (19S33)

In the same vein, as the amount of information grows at an unprecedented pace, it is

Ang Peng Xuan (19S43)

Proponents of the counterargument suggest that censorship can be truly effective in

Joey Tan Jia Yi (19S61)

Lastly, I believe that differences in value judgement pose a sizable challenge to

Samuel Oh Wen Yong (19A14)

Ang Peng Xuan (19S43)

Chia Wee Boon John (19S47)

Nicole Chew Shi Min (19S43)

Kieron Seven Lee Jun Wei (18S46)

Wang Zi-Ming, Sean (18S33)

In our technologically-driven and fast-paced lives, it is difficult to view ancient myths

Thian Jiawen (18S45)

Wong Boon Jhee (18S62)

Jin Enyu (19S55)

While I do concede that promises lead to expectations and promises entail

In conclusion, even though political leaders have a responsibility to realise their

Felicia Hoe Ling Xuan (19A11)

Additionally, governments should be more concerned with international affairs than

In conclusion, our increasingly globalised world has pushed for governments to

Heather Tan Yung Yu (19A11)

In conclusion, I believe that while international affairs should be of greater concern,

Tan Lip Guo (19S37)

In Singapore, where we face the problems of an ageing population as well as fast-paced

In conclusion, based on the numerous campaigns and initiatives by the government to

Zhao Junyao (19S38)

Moreover, the myriad of healthcare services provided by different medical

In conclusion, the healthcare management in Singapore is effective because it ensures

Neo Yi Ting, Beryl (19S311)

Vedantam Sarada Priyaraman (19S38)

Ethan Yam Xianze (19S43)

Firstly, democracy’s appeal has diminished in a modern society characterised by

Tan Dyllan (18S52)

Nigel Tan Wei Xuan (18S63)

Grace Wang Shi Jia (18A11)

Each day, we encounter billboards on the way to our workplaces, advertisements on

Consumerist societies run on a capitalist economy, essentially fuelled by a cycle of