Some things to remember

Paper 1:

1. First 5 mins - Qn selection. Pick a question based on awareness of content, assumptions (arguments), challenges to those assumptions (counter - arguments).
2. Next 10 mins - Break down question and Brainstorming. After planning a balanced essay ask yourself what is the best structure) format to use. Two chunks (yes,BUT) or the rebuttal style (yes,BUT) (yes,BUT) (yes, BUT) or a hybrid? This depends on the availability of direct rebuttals. Your view is always presented last.
3. After first 15 mins - Writing Intro. OS, Thesis/Stand/Balance (incorporating CKT), Scope (optional). Remember to write the question and question number down. This REALLY helps ensure you don't get lost.
4. After intro - Paras. SHARP Topic sentences (TS) should attempt to prove thesis right. Ensure there are no examples in TS.
5. Develop para through elaboration and then supply example/evidence
6. At the end of para you may wish to link back to TS.
7. At the end of essay - Concluding Para. Either reiterate/summarise (basic approach) or use conclusion to explore additional arguments that you deemed unsuitable for body of essay. This could include postulations into the future or arguments that radically challenge assumptions that you may have been reluctant to use in body of essay for fear of digression. These evaluative arguments are acceptable as a sort of afterword (an A essay).
8. Manage your time with discipline. If you are unable to, you simply don't get the grade you deserve. There are, unfortunately, no two ways about it.

Paper 2:

1. Ensure you have a plan for time allocation and follow with discipline depending on how well you feel you can do the AQ.
2. Read AQ and Summary qns first.
3. Annotate. Use bright colours. Make linkages and comments. Write para summaries.
4. Be aware of AQ and Summary qn as annotating. Keep an eye out for useful info.
5. Analyse question. Analyse Marks, Question type and be aware of UYOWAFAP. Write down this analysis on answer booklet to guide you.
6. If in doubt, give a bit more, with strongest answers first. But don't copy down whole para please.
7. Apply Summary skills with diligence. Be precise when isolating key ideas and paraphrasing. The exact meaning, context, connotation and nuance must be reflected.
8. Don't forget Word Count.
9. Spend about three minutes planning the AQ answer. Break down question requirements and how your paras will flow. Remember to use common sense to decide how to answer the question and how to sequence paras. Your view is ALWAYS presented last.

Be calm. This is the most important ability of any student who succeeds in exams. Good luck to you all for the Prelims. Some of you have worked really hard and I sincerely hope you will show good progress in these Prelims so you can attack the A Levels with full confidence.

RA

Alyn Magenta A01: 'Women will never enjoy the same rights as men.' Do you agree?

Since ancient times, gender inequality has existed. Men tended to have more basic rights and freedoms entitled to humans as women were treated as a lower class as compared to men. There have been feminist movements to overturn gender inequality since the late 1880s when the word “feminism” was first used and even though such feminist movements are not as prominent as they were then, many are still fighting for equal rights for women. Indeed, women have progressed in their status quo but to a larger extent, it is true that women will never enjoy the same rights as men as in many societies, women have yet to achieve gender equality as men are still generally dominant. Some womens' civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education have been achieved but not all, especially not when compared to men.

Undoubtedly, women nowadays are given basic human rights in the developed nations but it is certainly not the same for women living in developing countries. There have been laws issued by many governments across the globe to ensure the rights of women. One example is the United Nations Millennium Project. The project claims, "Every single Goal is directly related to women's rights, and societies where women are not afforded equal rights as men can never achieve development in a sustainable manner.” There are surely better living conditions for women and more resources allocated to take care of women than before. However, this is only true in countries that can afford to defy the traditional society’s point of view to give the females better treatment. In developing countries like India, the mens' opinion is too strong to be suppressed that women are still being treated as people of lower status. Women are traded like merchandise in India and in China many female babies are abandoned or female fetuses are aborted because of the one child policy. People have chose to give up these lives of women in exchange for a possibility of getting a male baby. Figures have proven that women’s rights are not equivalent to men. Of 150 million children aged six to eleven who do not attend school, over 90 million are girls and of the world’s 876 million illiterate people over 15 years of age, two thirds are women. Women also make up 70 percent of the 1.3 billion people worldwide who live in poverty. They are not only not given proper living conditions or the opportunity to progress from their poor living conditions, they are subjected to violent abuse by men. They have become the source of satisfaction to men’s lust and women being victims are even at times blamed for the lecherous acts of men. There are honour killings committed by Iraqi men against their own sisters, wives, daughters and mothers whom have been raped by other men or have been suspected of straying from traditional rules of chastity and fidelity. Thus, even though the human rights entitled to a woman has advanced; women still do not enjoy the same human rights men do.

It can be seen that women have achieved certain rights that men used to enjoy which women did not in the past in the workplace, but it must also be recognized that there is still a long way to go before real equality is achieved. In this era, women are now able to enter the workforce and hold an occupation. This was never possible before as women’s role was stereotyped as the one taking care of the family and staying at home to perform house chores. It can be seen that women’s rights in the economic realm has improved; they are now able to earn a living for themselves and not depend on men as the sole breadwinners of the family. Women are even given the privilege of maternity leave during their pregnancy. However, there is still this social stigma against women. Many employers are reluctant to hire married women or give them a higher position in the company as they are aware of the possibility of women going on maternity leave, that women have the tendency to place family above their career and that women are more emotional as compared to men. It is certainly still gender inequality existing even though it is not blatant. Globally, female directors of companies are few and far between. Statistics have also proven so. Worldwide, women work two thirds of the world’s working hours and produce half of the world’s food yet women only earn 10 percent of the world’s income and own less than 1 percent of the world’s property. Moreover, in Forbes 2009 top richest people in the world, the only female that came close to the top ten was Alice Walton whose wealth was not even earned by herself but an inheritance from her family. It is clearly illustrated that although women have been given economic rights, the playing field in the workplace is still not level. People still think that a woman’s role is ultimately as the housewife and not the one with a successful career or the one who is able to help the company advance. Therefore, women have enjoyed more rights than before but women will never enjoy the same rights as men as society has been structured such that women are tasked as caregivers of the family.

In addition, in the political arena, it appears that women can now take part in governing the country but the truth is, women are still under-represented. Indeed, more and more females are now entering politics and given the opportunity to voice the female point of view instead of the same old patriarchal voices. However, women in fact do not enjoy the same rights as men in politics. Their political rights are still less than that of men. Women make up more than half the population in the world but only 12.7 percent of the world’s parliamentarians are female. Also, it has been said that women who break political barriers despite being a female do so because of their family connections. Benazir Bhutto and Indira Ghandi, both ex-Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India respectively were of privileged political lineage. In many other countries that have elected more women than others, it is also because of lineage that they were able to slash through gender barriers. Another example would be Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of Aung San, a war time hero that led Burma out of colonial rule. It is not only the rulers that deny women of their equal rights but also the members of the society. In a poll done in the US recently, 14 percent admitted they would never vote for a female. Hence, this shows how women are not given the exact same rights that men enjoy even though they get do get a sniff of it.

In conclusion, women do not enjoy the same rights as men even though the situation has been somewhat ameliorated. Women will indeed never enjoy the same rights as men because of the characteristics a woman have and the social stereotypes that have become innate to mankind since time immemorial.

Michelle Yang S16: Is it possible to protect the environment when many countries require increasing amounts of energy to progress?

In recent years, developing countries such as China, India and Vietnam have been growing their economies at phenomenal rates. This clearly implies that there are increasing demands for resources that are essential for production. The main resources required would undoubtedly be oil or coal as they would generate energy. The process of energy consumption would emit pollutants such as carbon monoxide which would adversely affect our health and also our surroundings. The rising trends of global warming and severe depletion of natural resources such as crude oil are one of the many concerns of environmentalist. It is indeed true that it is very difficult to have a balance between production and environmentalists. However, it is actually possible to implement effectual measures to curb the worsening of environmental degradation, depending on the willingness of the country.

It is argued that sustainable economic growth will eventually precipitate eco-friendly economic growth. When countries increase their demand of energy, enormous amount of pollutants would be emitted into the air, water and our land. Statistics have shown that while average emission of carbon dioxide in developed countries have stabilized in recent years, yet in developing countries they have been increased by 4% a year. Some economist may say that when countries have more demand for energy, they are actually developing their economies and when they eventually gain sustainable economic growth, they would also gain wealth which can be used for research and development of clean energy or on infrastructures to solve environmental problems they have caused.

However, this is only an assumption made by the economists. Since most economies in the world are profit-motivated, countries can be reluctant to engage in protecting the environment. Taking America as an example, although the Americans just made up 4% of the world population, they produce 25% of carbon dioxide pollutions, more than China, India and Japan combined. This clearly indicates that America should take the leadership role in solving the problem, but why is she not doing it? The American government even refused to rectify the Kyoto Protocol- an international treaty with the goal of achieving "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In addition, developing countries would prioritize their nation’s interest before environment because they have too much infrastructure to be developed to improve standard of living of her people. With countries averse to solve the problem, it seemed more difficult to save Earth.

Some may say that measures are already implemented such as carbon tax and tradable emission permits to curb environmental problems. Hence, even though countries have increasing demand, the amount of pollutants emitted would be limited. However, it is difficult to apportion blames and to fairly distribute the emission permit. Richer developed countries such as Japan can actually buy the permit from another country which does not require the pollution permits. This would not solve the problem; instead, it gives countries the legal rights to pollute. Moreover, these measures have existed for a long period since 1990s and there is no evident effect on the current situations, instead, it has worsened. This is an implication of countries engaging in economic developments instead of mitigating environmental problems.

It is indeed true that some countries have successfully switched to non-carbon based energy sources. Norway has the world largest solar production plant and for Sweden, majority of the country’s power is generated by hydroelectricity or nuclear, which are better alternatives than fuels or coals. Using of solar power to generate electricity would not emit pollutants. Countries can actually make use of their geographical advantages to protect the environment. Taking New Zealand as an example, she has been actively engaging in development of geothermal energy which is a renewable resource that would help to generate power without emitting pollutants.

However, only a handful of countries are engaging in these eco-friendly developments. Most countries are still not making use of their geographical advantages. Singapore is a good example. She has an equatorial climate which is an advantage of using solar power; however, she is still not engaging in such clean energy development. Despite having a small population, Singapore’s energy consumption is one of the highest in the world. In addition, even though environmental friendly vehicles such as CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) cars have been invented in recent years, many people are still not driving them. One of the studies conducted on road users in Singapore have shown that the main reason of them not driving those environmental friendly vehicles is due to the insufficient refuel stations available. If the Singapore government had spent money on building more of such stations, many people would choose to drive these vehicles which would in turn reduce pollutions. It goes to show again that a country can actually protect the environment; however it all depends on her willingness.

In conclusion, when countries have high energy consumption, it is impossible to prevent pollutants from being emitted. However, they can engage in developing effective solutions to solve the problems they have caused. It depends very much on the foresight and political will of the government of the day.

Clara Cho A01: Is there still a place for charity in today’s world?

With globalization on the rise, societies may be increasingly preoccupied with bringing in the dollar bills and squandering it to raise their living and comfort levels. As such, would it be possible that the poor, homeless, and the destitute would be left displaced in society without any source of help? Personally, I do believe so. Despite the presence of charitable organizations and programmes to help raise funds for the less fortunate, it is even more evident that charity is given less priority in today’s world. As modernization and rising affluence begin to assume control in this world, many people in the Third World and those marginalized in developed societies would be at a greater disadvantage, as charity seems to be displaced from society.

Some may argue that with globalization and modernization, charity has evolved into what is known as ‘modern philanthropy’, taking action rather than supporting charitable organizations with one-off donations. Previously, while acts of charity were usually associated with money donations and supporting donation drives, charity has now evolved into action, with people traveling across countries and helping those in need. Locally, schools have made overseas Community Involvement Programme (CIP) an integral part of school curriculum, especially at the secondary and tertiary levels of education. Not only do these programmes allow for well-rounded education, they also provided opportunities for students and teachers alike to understand the plight of the less fortunate and to take action in building wells, schools and other facilities to help them meet some basic needs. On the global stage, the creation of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) could be seen as one of the leaders of modern philanthropy. From Africa to Asia, the foundation has impacted countries positively in line with their belief that ‘all lives have equal value’. They are concerned with educating the poor, eliminate poverty and have given out grants and donations in order to try to nip these problems in the butt. Henceforth, philanthropy in today’s context may not merely be about money donations. Rather, charity is still relevant today because of how man uses it as a tool to help better the lives of others.

Furthermore, charity is still existent today as it allows people to understand what compassion is truly all about. In a world where globalization seems to numb people, inhibiting their ability to feel for the destitute, charity still has a place to help them regain consciousness of the plight of fellow men in other parts of the world. For instance in Singapore, local celebrities Priscilla Chan and Alan Tern had been giving recognition for their charitable works overseas by Channelnews Asia. On the international level, an entirely new industry centered on giving has been created. Philanthropy workshops and coaches have emerged, helping people to narrow in on what they genuinely are concerned about, guiding them in managing their finances and taking the right action in contributing to charity. Philanthropic coaches go an extra mile in helping their clients create mission statements based on the type of change they envision, and help them to plan their giving, both in mode and magnitude. As such, proponents of the claim that charity still has a place in the world today may be valid as charity takes on a different and more meaningful nature when people get their hands dirty and create change in the world.

On hindsight, however, rather than allowing charity to gain some control over the world today, greed seems to be the new “virtue” that many subscribe to. With rising affluence in many parts of the world today, one cannot help but start to practice material hegemony, igniting a desire for material pleasure. Even with greater amount of wealth, it would be surprising that man would donate a portion of it to charity purely out of goodwill rather than desiring to be recognized for such a major contribution. The recent Wall Street meltdown is an apt example of how a rich and developed country led to its own downfall and adversely affected the global economy. In the USA, citizens took mortgages from the banks without being able to pay them off due to their desire for their dream house without being fully informed of the risks involved, in a bid to increase their pool of wealth. Locally, there are also instances in which people bought Minibonds that were repackaged and sold through local banks, losing thousands of dollars overnight, showing how greed is perhaps innate and universal. Therefore, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to claim that in today’s world, charity is becoming more displaced and greed has taken its toll on society?

Aside from Greed, the power that Pride yields seem to be usurping the throne that Charity once held, in the 21st Century. As people become more prideful about their wealth and status, charity may have become more obsolete in their lives. America is a good example, again, of how a nation slowly and painfully learns the truth behind being humble. For the past few years, the USA has prided itself for being brilliant, her greatness in moral convictions, the superiority of its intelligence and the seemingly blameless nature of her actions and decisions. Involvement in war-torn countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan have pulled American into uncomfortable realizations of how far its pride has led it to squander global goodwill and cooperation and in the process, make a number of enemies worldwide. A poll conducted after the Wall Street meltdown was even more telling of how pride blinds people, causing them to be even more self-centered than before. The poll saw half of Wall Street workers dissatisfied with their 2008 bonuses while the rest of the world suffered from the repercussions of the financial turmoil, with retrenchments and bills that could not be paid off. As people become increasingly preoccupied with meeting their level of happiness and comfort, charity would seem to disappear from the list of ‘must-dos’, leaving the less fortunate with little hope for the future.

Lastly, laziness seems to be getting the better of the world when it comes to charity. It is ironic how the world is in a constant buzz and yet Sloth stealthily kicks in to help people settle for what is most convenient. Be it struggling to complete one’s PhD, keeping the family together at the dinner table and loving one’s difficult relationship entails costs and sacrifice. Sloth, or rather, laziness propels individuals to choose the easy way out, thereby neglecting what is more pressing. It is no wonder that the larger affairs of the world such as poverty continue to remain unresolved despite the many years of international cooperation. Even with money flowing through the banks of charity, the hands of the people are not yet dirtied as they seem to believe that mere dollar bills would indeed make the world go round in happiness and hope. These people share the common belief that one-off donations would indeed make a difference, but they may not be clearly aware that their laziness in taking action to create changes in the world would ultimately, prevent the less fortunate from envisioning a better life in the coming years ahead. As such, I do believe that charity is becoming increasingly displaced as the world today would rather choose to settle for the most convenient things in life.

To sum up, charity, I believe begins with the heart. With people whose hearts are filled with greed, pride and laziness, how can the world be rid of the current problems that have to be tackled? Poverty would continue to exist in the future if people are unable to realize the increasing importance of charity in the world today. Without charity, there probably would not be any glimmer of hope for the poor and destitute. As the “virtues” of greed, pride and laziness pounce forward and assume control of the world, charity seems to be marked out of the list of priorities in the world today.

Genevieve Wong S16: In what ways does a country both benefit and suffer from where it is situated?

A country's geographical site is something that is of great significance, however, it can never be changed. A country has no way of deciding where she is located. Depending on beliefs, location is decided by a supreme being or sheer luck. Location can be an asset or liability to a country depending on the exact nature of the location. Some countries have been submerged in water , others have been mired in war for years and some are located strategically along trade travel hub. However, given the level of technology today, coupled with factors such as good governance, it is possible to mitigate the effects of poor location in certain situations.

A country with a good location would be a country that is not land locked, is accessible to good trade routes and natural resources.

A country can gain from her location if she is in close proximity with other countries and they cooperate. This being the case helps to encourage trade and security cooperation which are two important factors that helps to build and safeguard a country. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) and the European Union(EU) are international organizations that carry out the gains mentioned earlier. To illustrate, to bolster security measures, member countries of ASEAN signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, which spelled out the basic principles for their relations with one another and the conduct of the association’s programme for cooperation. In a similar manner, to maximise their influence on the international scene, on trade matters, EU members speak with one voice. In addition, EU members have removed all tariffs on trade when trading with fellow members, in order to boost trade. These examples demonstrate how countries can benefit from their location if they work hand in hand with the countries that are in close proximity.

However, just as close proximity can help a country, it can also bring about harm such as increased tensions and even conflict. Such is the case of the boundary disputes between India and China. India and China have yet to resolve their dispute over large land areas such as Aksai Chin, a territory that China seized during the Sino-Indian War in 1962. In addition, close proximity due to the location of countries can bring about conflict over natural resources that are shared. A more recent example, is the building of as many as 55 dams along the course of the Mekong river flowing through Indochina. This is especially damaging as the river meanders from China through Myanmar, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia. Thus, the lives of millions of people, not only those in Indochina, depend on it. This problem which will not be corrected in the near future has led to an increase in social and political tension between the lower Mekong countries and those in Indochina. This is an apt example of how close proximity arising from countries' location can result in the sharing of natural resources and the subsequent increase in problems that the countries have to face.

Moving on, a country's location determines the climate that the country experiences and the magnitude and frequency of natural disasters. Such factors are vital in determining if a country gains or loses. An example of a country that has prospered due to its good climate is Brazil. Climate suitable for agriculture has enabled Brazil's agriculture sector to grow steadily over the past decade, positioning itself among the most dynamic sectors of the economy. Certainly, the growth is also fueled by the increase in the use of high technologies such as softwares to maximise the use of fertilizers and pesticides. However, climate still plays an irreplaceable role in the agriculture sector. This is because, without the suitable climate, crops cannot prosper or survive even if large amounts of fertilizers are used. Hence this case shows how a country can gain from her good climate due to her good location.

In contrast, a country can suffer due to the geography and climate of the country. Problems include natural disasters or islands becoming submerged underwater and these problems can arise due the location of the country. As climate continues to warm, entire islands are sinking below rising waters due to melting glaciers. At least 18 islands have been submerged underwater. This problem is a result of the location of these islands. It is because these islands are located in low lying areas which is why the change in climate has resulted in them being submerged. This has brought about harm as whole communities have to be relocated, bringing about the advent of climate refugees. In addition, this has also caused much land to be no longer suitable for agriculture. This example shows the magnitude and how a location of a country can bring harm and loss.

On separate note, it is important to note that while location is significant, in this day and age, it is possible for good governance coupled with technology to mitigate the effects of a bad location. Land locked countries such as Switzerland and San Marino are among the most stable and prosperous countries in the world. This shows that the most unfavorable geographical locations can be made prosperous by good policy. Apart from this, technology can also make geography irrelevant. Technology has enhanced communication and thus shrunk distances. Bangalore has become the software capital of India, with Hyderabad a close second. Both are land-locked, but satellite communications enable them to link up with cities anywhere in the world at low cost.

Location remains an important determinant of whether a country gains or loses. However, it has been shown that technology with good governance can conquer location. Hence while location is vital, perhaps the gains and losses a country experiences also depends on the resolve of the people to use things available to their advantage and make their country prosperous.

Kelly Wu A01: Should the police have unlimited powers when dealing with crime?

In the new movie “Public Enemies”, Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger, the 1930s bank robber and killer who gets hunted down and shot by the newly formed FBI. This seemingly suggests that the governmental department that was established to maintain order as well as to enforce the law is given a very large amount of authority in the process of law enforcement. However, this is true only to a certain extent because in reality, the police force does not have such a large amount of power to wield as they wish, and for good reason. Although some argue that the police do not have sufficient authority and that the police force should be given more liberty when faced with powerful criminals like the criminal syndicates, it is inevitable that if given too much of a free rein, the individual members in the police force might be tempted to abuse this power, or even become licensed assassins as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime.

Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.

Some also argue that the police ought to be given more liberty when pursuing petty lawbreakers as they believe that the police do not have enough power to uphold the law. Police power is highly circumscribed by law and departmental policies and they have very little power or control over the situations they are in or the people they encounter. They also cannot use force the vast majority of the time, and when they do, they are subjected to an enormous amount of scrutiny. In the Gallup Poll, an institution that is seen to have too little power is the local police “in your community” (31%). In addition, the poll results show that the oft-cited fear of the power of the police-type units of the federal state, state, and local governments is not as widespread as might be supposed. In fact, at the state and local levels, the prevailing sentiment is clearly that police forces either have the right amount of power or should have even more.

However, the above claim should be refuted since if given too much of a free rein, some members of the police force might be tempted to abuse it to help the criminals get away scot-free in order to reap some rewards. In fact, there have been many cases of police officers abusing their power and accepting bribes from criminals. One case in point is where a number of Colombian police officers were arrested for accepting bribes and returning seized drug to a trafficking group. Furthermore, in Tel Aviv, the second largest city in Israel, details emerged in April this year of an elaborate criminal scheme to turn police officers into informants on behalf of lawbreakers. The officers were accused of accepting cash bribes to tip off a "serious criminal" who runs brothels, and passing on intelligence in ways which are reminiscent of double agents depicted in the Hollywood film The Departed. In a situation where the police were given the right to apprehend law-breakers in order to prevent crime, they abused this right for their own personal gain. In a separate incident, Chicago Police have been accused of using pepper spray without provocation on black people celebrating Obama’s victory on election night and also of kicking in doors and running into people’s houses. They never explained what was going on and simply left when they were done with whatever they were doing. This suggests that the policemen involved in this unfortunate and seemingly racist incident simply rode on the fact that they were in the uniform and took advantage of the authority that the uniform gives them in order to carry out unexplained acts of harassment on the target citizens. Since power can be so easily made use of, it is then unwise to entrust unlimited powers to the police.

In addition, the police might become licensed assassins if they are given too much power as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime. In the UK TV program “Worst Police Shootouts”, viewers were shocked rigid by the gratuitous legalised murder fest that ensued. Five or six cases were shown, each of which ended in the ‘perpetrator’ being shot, usually to death. In one video, a middle aged lady ran out of her house on a suburban street, obviously in some kind of distress, waving a short kitchen knife. The two attending cops panicked and shot her when she ran towards one of them, panicked and shot her, thinking that she was about to attack them. All the other cases featured followed much the same pattern. Should these cases be considered as ‘legalised murders’ then? Maybe, if the killings were entirely accidental, but if the police use their given authority to behave as they wish while patrolling or chasing criminals, then many more innocent people will be injured or killed in their reckless line of duty. Therefore, since many police force members have already harmed so many people with the current level of authority that they have, it is definitely imprudent assign even greater powers for the police to wield.

To conclude, as Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt once said, “If it were possible to make an accurate calculation of the evils which police regulations occasion, and of those which they prevent, the number of the former would, in all cases, exceed that of the latter.” It thus can be said that with the current level of power that the police possess, it is already being abused or used in the wrong way. Therefore, the notion that the police should be given more power should not be encouraged as it may result in disastrous results.

Tse Siong S04: Are the poor an inevitable feature of any society?

The rich-poor divide has existed in society for centuries and till today, philosophers and sociologists are still pondering about whether the poor are an unavoidable characteristic of society. Some say that it is a problem that can only be eradicated when the right measures and government policies are in place at both domestic and international levels. Others argue that it is a natural phenomenon in society that would exist regardless of how societies are run. In my opinion, I feel that the number of people who are poor can be reduced but the poor would definitely remain as an indelible part of society as the world today presents several new problems, in addition to the existing ones, that exacerbate the situation brought forward from the past.

A prime reason why the poor are present and prevalent in some societies is due to existing debts in the form of international or individual debt. This problem can be solved through international debt relief or through micro-financing that may ease or eradicate the number of poor people. Third World countries such as Haiti and Cameroon are such examples; they are saddled with large amounts of debt, which saps resources meant for economic growth, causing these countries to be under-developed. As a result, poverty becoming a major issue as the majority of the people living there is unable to find jobs and cannot afford basic commodities. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank launched the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative to provide debt relief for the world’s poorest countries, and a large portion of international debt have been bought over by such organizations, to free up resources for economic growth in such countries. Poorer countries have benefited as a result as more money is spent on improving the living conditions of the people and poverty is minimised in these countries. Together with micro-financing through banks, it allows a wider scope of people be debt-free, hence reducing the number of people in debt.

Another reason would be due to unstable governance in society that comes in forms such as corruption and organised crime. An upright and respected government has to be installed in order to ensure that the basic needs of the people are met. However, in societies ran by kleptocratic governments, funds in the form of education, farming and other subsidies meant for the public are embezzled, depriving the locals of opportunities to break out from the poverty cycle. Other societies that are dominated by criminal syndicates are also in the same situation. Protection rackets, drug-trafficking and loan-sharking are some activities that are prevalent in such societies, and with governments unwilling to crack down on such illegal activities, it leaves a negative impression on foreign countries and investors. As such, jobs are not created to provide employment for the people, and the poor continues to exist in society. Thus, ensuring that a government which is honest and unafraid to crack down on crime is in place may allow the number of poor people in societies to fall.

One other contributing factor to the existence of the poor would be discrimination in gender, cultural and racial aspects. Discrimination disadvantages certain groups of people into being unable to have the same rights as others, and as a result, they constitute the majority of the poor in many societies. Racial bias, for example, was a major issue in the US, such that before the African-American civil rights movement took place in the 1960s, African-Americans did not enjoy the same rights as white Americans. As such, they made up the bulk of the poor in the US in the past. However, with the help of pro-black groups such as the Black Panther Party, African-Americans are better off than before and poverty in America is no longer concentrated amongst African-Americans. Such rights groups still exist today, and they are still campaigning to stop discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities for all. They play an important role in eradicating biased ness in any form, such that people can get jobs regardless of their colour or religion. This also breaks down most social barriers, and it would pave the way to reducing the number of poor people disadvantaged because of discrimination.

The existence of the poor may now seem to be a relatively simple problem that can be solved in these changing times as certain trends are changing, but some solutions are more theoretical rather than practical and do not help in removing the ‘poor’ tag in societies as believed.

Gender, racial and cultural bias is one perennial problem that appears solvable, but is impossible to resolve. This is because such discrimination stems from people’s mentality that has been shaped by negative influences as they grow up. As such, it is present in many forms in society, for example, in job interviews, discriminative employers may only offer jobs to certain groups of people and this creates a disadvantage for such people, which may be the reason why people who are discriminated against form the bulk of the poor. Also, in today’s society, the problem of discrimination is partly due to the older generations carrying historical baggage, such that the negative impressions they have of other groups of people are brought forward from the past and their actions could be discriminative. The problem also creates a vicious cycle when parents from these generations, out of stereotypical fears, inadvertently inculcate a sense of discrimination in their children. As such the people who are discriminated against might continue to feel resigned to be part of the poor and the problem carries on for generations. The population of the poor who are being discriminated against thus either grows or remains the same.

Another issue that contributes to the existence of the poor would be the different innate abilities in everyone. Some people are brighter than the others, while others can be more charismatic than others and the list goes on. Such traits distinguish each and every individual and it depends on which traits are more in demand that determines who might be rich and who might be poor. Generally, people who are intellectually superior than others would be in higher demand, and this could translate to them being better paid as well. This naturally creates a rich-poor divide in every society. Furthermore, a portion of the poor is also made up of people who are less skilled or unwilling to work. Comparatively, a person who is skilled would be more likely to secure a job than one who is not; a person who is willing to find a job would stand a chance of finding one compared to one who is not searching. As such, the poor basically constitutes of people who do not have the right skills or the right work attitude which dampens their chances of securing a job and breaking out of the ‘poor’ category.

Furthermore, studies have shown that the literacy rate in countries is a key determinant to the country’s economic prosperity, which can in turn increase the average local’s income. As such, most countries focus on making education available to every child in the country. Yet, for some countries, education may not be freely accessible due to political, geographical, social and other reasons. This is evident in populous rural areas which are highly inaccessible to the rest of the world, where the standard of education is not on par with education systems elsewhere. The level of education at such rural regions is limited in terms of choice, due to less resource made available for teaching. As a result, the people are deprived of accessible education services and end up forming the bulk of the country’s poor. However, this does not solely apply to rural societies. In developed countries such as the US and Canada, places in top-notch education institutions are reserved largely for the wealthy. This is due to the vast amount of resources concentrated on the varsities that provides the best form of education. As such, when such schools are compared to schools that are widely available to the public, there is a disparity in terms of quality of service provided, and this puts the poor at a disadvantage. In the end, it does not solve the situation of the poor in such countries.

In addition, in many developed and developing societies today, social mobility has become increasingly disparate between the rich and the poor. This is largely due to the tendency of the rich to cluster together to share resources and capital, such that the rich is becoming richer while the poor are becoming worse off. Income gaps in countries are widening as a result and this segregates the rich and the poor. As seen from today’s trends, the rich naturally have the capability to use resources unavailable to the poor, for example, they can afford to send their children for tuition to give them every possible advantage in terms of academic tests. Statistics show that students from the top income quartile have increased their share of places in elite American universities from 39% in 1976 to 50% in 1995, which shows us how the rich could possibly be gaining an edge over others in certain areas. As such, the poor have become the underdogs in areas where the rich seems to be dominating, and in the long run, this trend may have adverse effects on the chances of poor in improving their social status.

Finally, relativity also suggests that there will always be both the rich and the poor. A person who is better off than others would naturally be considered to be part of the rich, while the poor applies to the rest of the people. It tells us how people are grouped into either the ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ group. Take for example, a person who earns a salary slightly higher than another is considered to be richer, while the other person is considered to be poorer. A poor person may not be identified as one who is not capable of affording basic necessities, but one whose financial worth is less than that of others. This is because an individual who may be considered to be poor in a developed country may not be so in a developing country. This serves to tell us that regardless of whether a society has a portion of its people who are poor, there might be others who are even worse off than them, and the problem of the poor existing in societies would thus persist no matter what happens.

Ng Tse Siong 2S04 13.08.09