Twelve Eleven Report

THE
TWELVE
ELEVEN
REPORT
A SELECTION OF ESSAYS FROM CJC CLASSES 2T01 2T02 & 2T11 OF 2010
12
11
CONTENTS
4 The evils of the media have been grossly exaggerated. Do you agree?
Isabelle Leong
6 To what extent has the media taken away our privacy?
Norhayati Bte Munir
8 Todays media is the politicians ally. Do you agree?
Rebekah Jiashan Broughton
10 Todays media is the politicians ally. Do you agree?
Joan Theng
12 To what extent is a global homogenous culture desirable?
Tan Li-wun Kathleen
14 How far would you agree that formal education teaches one to be less curious about the
world?
Kevin Martens Wong Zhi Qiang
17 The sole purpose of education today is to help our young make a living. Discuss.
Oh Pei Yun Isabella
19 Women's chains have been forged by society, not by anatomy. Do you agree?
Vera Li Shiying
21 History records male acts, written by males, and holds little interest for females as a
result. Is this a fair comment?
24 Change is good. Is this necessarily true?
Chan Li Ting
26 Consider the value of idleness.
Jordan Neill Skadiang
28 Should pragmatism always be prioritised in Singapore?
2
31 Todays youth are losing the ability to think. Discuss.
Tan Li-wun Kathleen
32 Only educated people should have the right to vote in elections. Do you agree?
Tan Li-wun Kathleen
34 The best government is the least government. Discuss.
Joan Lim Yun Hui
36 Those who allow themselves to be governed like sheep will eventually be ruled by
wolves. In light of this statement, what is the value of political dissent?
Devadevan
38 Will the Internet bring freedom to oppressed people?
40 The written word is always more powerful than the spoken word. What is your view?
Johanna Woon Shi Ying
42 Art should not offend. Do you agree?
Jordan Neill Skadiang
44 What use is comedy?
Isabelle Leong
3
The evils of the media have been grossly exaggerated. Do you agree?
That the media has been constantly condemned for its ostensible brainwashing of the public is
hardly obscure; both its content and the manner in which this content has been portrayed to the
public are widely regarded as questionable and sometimes even evil. The media has imposed its
ideals of beauty and sexuality on vulnerable young women and violence has been glorified in its
hands. Although the negative persuasive force of the media has sometimes been blown out of
proportion, it is impossible to discount the extent of its evils.
Much of the public and critics of the media have proclaimed the media to be a continual perpetuator
of evil ideas and concepts due to its violence and sex-saturated content, and have exaggerated its
impact on the public while failing to consider the innate negative judgements already bound to these
sensitive topics. The war film Saving Private Ryan has been criticised for its gratuitously - some say
intentionally - violent, gory content that might lead children to, in a bout of inspiration, start fighting
on the streets or something to that ludicrous effect. The blame is put solely on the media, in this
case, the film. However, have we once stopped to consider that this ultimately being a war film,
violence will always be violence no matter how much it is self-censored? Many have denounced the
media without realising that as much control as the media has on what it releases to the public,
certain sensitive topics, when broached, already bear intrinsic negative connotations and will
translate negatively across borders no matter how innocuously they are portrayed. This is a manner
in which we might have taken the evils of the media very much out of proportion.
Still it is indubitable that the media deliberately alters the image of a particular topic such as
sexuality and beauty by affixing their conceived ideals to the subject, redefining its meaning entirely.
This sometimes ends in self-harm, especially in women - when apparently common, normal
people like you and I desperately attempt to emulate these new benchmarks of beauty by starving
ourselves, exercising excessively and embarking on weight-loss programmes. We take far too
seriously what the media classifies as beautiful; the consummation of beauty and sexuality is
equated to the image of a tall, thin woman, hair coiffed to perfection, and we struggle to match this
image. The interminable broadcasting of these images in order to alter self-perception, culminating
in the jeopardisation of something as crucial as ones health, is exactly what the media can be
faulted for. How can we claim that the medias evils have been exaggerated if they push us
commoners to such extremes? By revamping the whole notion of beauty, the media has indirectly
shaped perspectives on these topics and in the case of some, been injurious to their health. We are
consumed by the media and the expectations it has set for us; this reinforces the idea that the evils
of the media are indeed as horrific as they have been made out to be.
One could say that the media is not entirely demonic or detrimental to the public; most television
programmes are considerably harmless, not to mention the presence of occasional impartial and
mostly ambivalent news reports. We glean useful information and light entertainment from these
sources and while some news sources can be outwardly biased towards certain ideologies or
concepts, it is highly unlikely that a particular source would not slightly favour one side of an issue.
The media will always be the media; it thrives on readership, viewership and popularity amongst the
general public, and would fall out of favour if it were to do away with glamourising certain aspects of
life and current issues. It is a natural human instinct to want to read about sordid, violent or
compelling occurrences; they draw us in simply because they are so engrossing and we as humans
are thrilled by the fantastic. One cannot fault the media for spicing up what it releases to the public,
be it the idealisation of beauty or increasing sex-driven content in movies and TV shows.
There will, however, always be a limit, and that is when the media is used as a means to perpetuate
ill will and glorify subjects like violence. There has been many a time when news sources have sown
discord amongst readers due to blatant favouritism or discrimination, and this causes underlying
4
tensions amongst the different denominations of the human race. By outwardly supporting a
particular ideology or concept and further imposing these opinions on the readers, a schism
eventually materialises and enmity starts growing between the supporters and the opposers of this
ideology. The media, being so accessible and so handy, can perhaps even start dictating their
thoughts and actions, albeit indirectly; we sometimes relinquish control over ourselves and fall prey
to the medias wiles, trusting it wholeheartedly and without deliberation.
Although the media has been subjected countless times to the criticism that it perpetuates negative
ideals and beliefs in the public, one cannot deny that there has been valid reason to do so. It is no
exaggeration that the media is the root of the harm that young girls inflict on themselves to achieve
the standard ideal of beauty, or at times one of the fundamental causes of political schisms. While it
can be said that many of these touchy topics already have negative connotations to their names
and will always be perceived in a negative light despite the medias manner of depicting them, it is
incontrovertible that the media has gone out of its way to impose its ideals on the public, negatively
affecting the way people live their lives and conduct themselves.
Isabelle Leong | 1T11
5
To what extent has the media taken away our privacy?
The media is a platform for info-sharing especially in this modern era as the accessibility of media
grows in relation to the globalization of communication. The media includes various medium such
as the television, radio, the internet and camera phones. Due to its accessible nature and its
fundamental function to broadcast news and information to the masses, the media is commonly
misinterpreted as robbing us of our privacy. This accusation, although holding its own merits, is
more inclined to be a misunderstanding as it is essentially the people themselves that hold the
power to use the media in whichever way they want. This warrants the practice of moral conduct
and a sense of responsibility. Thus, it is far more apt to say that the people have essentially robbed
themselves of their privacy due to the misuse of the media.
The media is perceived to have stolen peoples privacy as visual media such as the television
covers news reports of politicians and celebrities, acting as their watchmen, every move that these
high-profile people make will be under the close watch of millions of viewers as the television and
even the internet will be broadcasting their actions to the public. The medias essential function to
bring news to the masses is thus achieved but at the price of the peoples privacy. It can be said
that the media has to cover the scandals and bad behaviour of these people for the sake of the
masses as they need to know more details about their leaders and entertainers. However, there are
cases whereby the media covers stories of people less known and invade their privacy such as
suicide cases and insisting on filming and getting an interview with grieving family members. This
invasion of privacy supports the claim that the media has in fact, stolen the peoples privacy.
However, we also have to acknowledge that politicians and celebrities and even the ordinary
people have their own responsibilities in society. For politicians and celebrities, it is indeed a fact
that they are key figures in our society thus many people from all over the world will be dogging
their actions. Thus, the moves that they make are important as it will make or break their image.
This brings us to the issue of personal responsibility. The politicians and celebrities should be aware
that their private lives are not all private thus they should take responsibility to act accordingly so as
not to tarnish their image. The scandals such as the recent one of Malaysias Anwar Ibrahim and his
sodomy act and even Bill Clintons infidelity are covered by the as it is essential that the public
know what their leaders are doing as they are supposed to reflect good conduct and be role
models of the society. Their personal choice to act in an unappealing manner is fundamentally of
their own doing as it is their responsibility to choose to act wisely. Therefore, they too are partly to
blame for the robbing of privacy as they choose to act in that manner while the media covers their
moves. Also, high-profile and ordinary people have the choice of whether or not to expose their
personal lives and the extent of the exposure when it comes to the Internet. Websites such as
Facebook and Friendster are created for users to share their lives within the community and what
they share is of the users personal responsibility to choose. Although every human possess the
right to his or her own privacy, it is ultimately their responsibility to cherish their own privacy and
make of it however they want. Thus, it is fair to say that the people did play a part in the medias
stealing of their privacy for they chose to act in that manner and be careless enough to enable the
media access to it.
It is essentially the people who stole their own privacy due to their misuse of the media. We have to
keep in mind that the media is but a medium for info-sharing and there are people who control the
media and what information to share with the public. Due to the media being increasingly global
and accessible, competition arises between the various medium of media. This encourages people
and administrators to misuse their power over the media and abuse the right of being in charge of
the news that they share with the masses. The people may forgo morality and ethical behaviour for
the sake of higher ratings for their shows and websites, using the invasion of privacy for
entertainments sake and also to reap profits for their own personal gain, with the television and
6
internet having an advantage over the radio as they come with visual aspects, the people controlling
these various forms of medium are more prone to indulge in exposing epic scandals and stories to
make headline news for the sake of increasing their viewership. Furthermore, with camera phones
being a common product in todays society, videos and news of scandals can be transmitted easily
as people are able to share the news via Short Message Service (SMS) or Multimedia Messaging
Service (MMS). The people that take videos of themselves with their camera phones and then
losing the phones only for the phones to be found by others are also victims of their own
responsibility. The people that found the phone are able to use the information to their own liking
and the owner of the phone is essentially to be held responsible as well due to his or her own
responsibility of his or her own privacy. Such a case was the Tammy incident in Singapore which
occurred some years ago whereby a teenage girl recorded a video of her and her boyfriend
engaging in intimate behaviour in her camera phone, then losing the phone. The person that found
her phone then mass-sent the video which got shared throughout the nation and possibly, the
world. This reflects a misuse of medium as the people abuse it for the sake of entertainment at the
cost of another persons privacy.
Our privacy has been exposed by the media in which the media acts as the medium to share
information with the masses. However, it is important to note that the info-sharing is only possible
with people being in charge of the various medium of media. This implies that the people are
essentially in charge of their own privacy as well as others, having a responsibility to not abuse the
right of being the one in the position of power over others. Thus, any so-called mentions of the
media stealing the peoples privacy actually refers to the people behind the media who had
forsaken their morality and ethical conduct to invade in the privacy of others ad essentially rob
them of their privacy. However, it still does not rule out the fact that the victims themselves are
responsible for their own privacy and the way they behave in their personal lives are of their own
choice, reiterating that the people themselves should take ownership of their own privacy. In
conclusion, it is the people that have fundamentally stolen their own privacy due to their misuse of
the media and abusing their right of being in the position of power over their own privacy as well as
the privacy of others.
Norhayati Bte Munir | 1T11
7
Todays media is the politicians ally. Do you agree?
Politics today is such a tricky business in which a single picture or quotation can trigger off
responses within and among countries that can be either advantageous or detrimental to a
politicians career. The media today, because of globalisation, has an impact that knows no
geographical boundaries. Moreover, with the advent of electronic and virtual forms of
communication such as the internet, todays politician is aware that every move they make can and
will be judged globally in a matter of seconds. Hence, with the media today acting as a watchdog
over public figure, it can not only be the politicians ally, but also the politicians greatest enemy.
Increasingly so, it is not uncommon to see news reports about esteemed politicians revealed to
have affairs of flings with women outside of their marriages; and such reports undoubtedly cause
insidious harm to a politicians career. The public condemns such betrayal and I most cases,
popularity ratings for these politicians take a drastic fall. The media often sensationalises these
scandals such that all the accomplishments and achievements these politicians have made fade
into the background and their career in politics is overshadowed by their indiscretions. However,
one should question if there is even a link between a politicians personal life and their work. Should
such a link even be made? Politicians in the past have had their fair share of affairs as well, but why
were these indiscretions less rampantly reported? This is simply due to the fact that if reporters in
the past felt that a politicians work was not affected by their personal lives, they would use
discretion and not expose such scandals. Thus, the sensational affairs of the former American
President Bill Clinton, and recently, Senator Robert Kennedy, are prime examples of how the media
today is in fact not the politicians ally, but instead a snitch ever ready to report any wrong doings
or misdemeanours.
Without the media today however, no politician can hope to advance his or her career. The key to
being successful politician is, as Obama has shown, to use the media to his or her advantage. In
his campaign for presidency, Obama strategically utilised various forms of the media, from
television to the all-encompassing internet, to promote himself. This greatly benefitted him in
garnering the support of the American public who heeded his all for Change. It is thus evident that
the media today can greatly assist and support a politicians cause if successfully utilised. Yet,
despite Obamas adept handling of the media, even he cannot completely control it. Pictures of him
bowing to the Japanese Prime Minister caused huge uproar back in America because public felt
that his ninety-degree-bow, which Obama later defended was to show respect, implied that Obama
did not uphold his countrys pride as he should have. Evidently, the media today can work both
against and for the politician, depending on the manner in which the politician chooses to manage
it.
In Singapore, there is a trend towards Ministers of Parliament turning to various forms of new media
to reach out to Singaporeans. Minister George Yeo was the first to use the social networking site,
Facebook, as well as his personal blog to communicate with the population, especially the younger
generation of Singapore. Since then, many other ministers have since caught on upon the
realisation that this is a way to stay relevant and establish greater communication with the general
public. Hence, in the Singaporean context, politicians patently see the media as an advantageous
tool that will be beneficial in the long run, and thus have chosen to invest time and effort into utilizing
it to their benefit.
Throughout history, politicians have clearly recognized the importance of the media in determining
the success of their government. Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were famous dictators who used
extreme censorship and manipulation of the media to advance their ideologies and exert their
control over the masses. However, in todays largely democratic world which places importance of
freedom of speech and press, manipulating the media in such an extreme manner is drastically less
8
possible. North Korea and China still have harsh censorship rules in place, but with globalisation,
and exposure to democratic countries, citizens in these countries are made more aware and hence
less easily manipulated by the censorship. Hence, from this perspective, the media is much less the
politicians ally in todays society as compared to the pat, and this actually proves favourable to the
general public.
An extremely powerful way of disseminating information, the media has an amalgamation of
positive and negative impacts on politicians and their careers. It is not always an ally; thus
politicians have understood the need to manage relations with the media. The ideal would be to
keep the media at a cordial distance whilst maintaining privacy of ones personal life, yet nowadays;
it is increasingly more difficult for politicians to do so. Hence the media serves as a double-edged
sword for politicians today and the onus is on them to skilfully manage the media in order to be
successful.
Rebekah Jiashan Broughton | 2T11
9
Todays media is the politicians ally. Do you agree?
In a world where democracy seems to be spreading in tandem with the effects of globalization, the
advent of technology has also seen the emergence of an increasing populist underbelly of world
politics in the from of the new media, that has empowered the individual more than it has allied with
politicians.
While the voice of the masses had often been relegated to the short shrift provided by the vox
populi in television journalism, or in the form of physically organized protests against the
establishment, the rise of the new media has seen a shift of power from the politicians to the
individuals. In the local context, for example, the Singapore governments tight grip on traditional
media, evidenced by the government-owned Singapore Press Holdings publication of the majority
of the countrys newspapers, had always been it ally. However, the internets creating of
opportunities for the voicing of the dissent, has resulted in an about face in the political scene. For
example, blogs such as Singabloodypore, The Online Citizen and mrbrown, have become an
alternative voice to the one propounded by the traditional media, and have consequently become,
Singapore for the government, at least, the politicians chewy rather than an ally.
Yet, while this is the case for the politicians in power, especially in less liberal countries, the
opposite is true for politicians in oppositional politics in such countries. In the local scene again.
Martyn Sees video, Singapore Rebel has garnered a large number of hits on YouTube, which has
served to present an different side of the politician, Dr Chee Soon Juan, who has been vilified by
traditional media for his political dissent. Similarly, the French based non-government organization,
Reporters Without Borders, maintains a website which functions as a human rights watchdog by
revealing corruption and other forms of human rights violations through inconsistent reportage. The
generation of awareness that this curtails, has garnered much international dissent which has to
potential to pressure politicians guilty of the aforementioned, to revert their actions, The new media
have thus, in this case, served to dislodge the politicians from his position of indisputability.
The rise of the new media has also resulted in the rise of popular entertainment which has allowed
politicians to be exposed to public ridicule. Ex US presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, for example,
has been subject to the acerbic satire of the actress, Tina Fey. While apparently innocent under the
banner of popular entertainment, the poor public image that such projects on the politicians has
undeniably resulted in damage to the latters credibility in the eyes of the masses, proving the
media to be more of an enemy than an ally. Similarly, the USAs Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton
was reported to have rejected an opportunity to be on the cover of the Vogue Magazine out of a
fear of being too feminine. The intangible power that the media has on the public perception,
therefore, reveals its detrimental effects when taken in the context of a politicians public image.
However, the media, both the traditional and the new, have also functioned as allies to the
politicians in some cases. For example, the USAs President Obama had garnered much of his
support from the youth demographic as a result of his capitalization on the power of the internet. Ex
US Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, had likewise, garnered most of his support from internet users
as a result of his massive online campaign. Even the traditional media has redoubled to the benefit
of politicians from liberal countries. Time magazine, for example, had been regarded as pro-Obama
in the 2008 US Presidential Elections, with its subtle leanings towards him effectively
swaying undecided votes. However, this is not always the case in liberal country like the USA, where
the pluralism of its traditional media, since many of its newspaper or television news broadcasting
organizations have made political allegiances to different politicians have served as a paradoxical
force to them.
10
While the traditional media have largely been allied with politicians, the new media have done the
opposite. In Cuba, for example, its newspaper, Granma, had consistently functioned as the
mouthpiece of ex leader, Fidel Castro. In this case, where the new media is clamped down by the
ruling government of a less liberal country, the traditional media have functioned as the allies of
politicians in power.
Thus, the question of the medias relationships with the politicians must be taken both in the
context of a countrys political climate, and the nature of the media while the traditional media have
largely served as the empowering tool for more authoritarian governments, it has also acted as a
disempowering force to politicians in more liberal countries. However, with the emergence of the
new media, the world has seen a shift in power from the previously empowered politicians to the
disenfranchised populations.
Joan Theng | 2T01
11
To what extent is a global homogenous culture desirable?
Economists and sociologists alike would probably agree that globalization is what drives our world
today, whether economically, and perhaps of greater relevance to the question, culturally. This
notion of a homogenous global culture is indeed a debatable one, and the issue of its desirability
even more polemical. However, one must remember that inherent in this perennial debate is the
assumption that the world today is close to becoming entirely homogenous culturally. I would thus
like to challenge the assumption put forth in the question, that is, the attainability of a truly
homogenous global culture in the first place. The globalization of ideas and culture, so long as it
avoids a perceived state of homogeneity, is desirable and as this writer believes, worth embracing.
At most, I would concede that the world today is becoming more integrated, with economies
becoming increasingly interdependent. Perhaps this is what has caused many to take on the
misguided viewpoint that we have now adopted a homogenous culture, the McCulture or, in other
words, the culture of the United States. However, it should and must be noted that globalization
does not equate homogenization of culture, and this is made evident in the fact that despite
globalization, there still remains countless of nations who have successfully retained distinctive
aspects of their cultures, allowing them to remain unique in this globalised world. Would one say,
for example, that the culture of Bhutan is completely identical to that of America, or even
Singapore, for that matter, simply because she has become more receptive to the fast-food
culture in recent years?
Human nature is such that there will always be a divergence of viewpoints, ideologies, and
therefore, cultures in our world. As such, one can only go so far as to say that cultures around the
world are beginning to assimilate to each other and thus share greater resemblance to each other
now as compared to the pre-globalisation era, but it would be fallacious and even narrow-minded to
argue that globalization has led to, and I dare say, will ever lead to cultures becoming entirely
identical. However, if this premise is accepted, to what extent, then, is this increasing resemblance
of cultures to each other, desirable?
One salient negative repercussion of this spread of a global, but I maintain, not entirely homogenous
culture would be the possibility of a loss of traditions and cultural practices. With globalization, for
instance, there had been the adoption of the English language as the de facto universal language,
and hence, native languages have lost their importance, with some even on the brink of
obsolescence in certain societies. The conservative viewpoint, therefore, would be that the spread
of a global culture might lead to the undermining of the cultural diversity of our world.
However, I would also like to contend that perhaps the spread of a so-called global culture might
not necessarily be as undesirable as some put it. With reference to the example of the English
language, it should also be noted that this adoption of a universal language has actually given rise
to New Englishes through a process linguistic descriptivists would call language contact. These
New Englishes include the familiar creole Singlish, Manglish, which has its origins in Malaysia as
well as the varieties of English spoken in Africa. As such, while globalization may have eroded
certain aspects of culture, paradoxically, in the supposed uniformity it brings about, herein lies its
ability to create diversity, adding colour to our global cultural landscape.
Moreover, the spread of a global culture may foster harmony as it can allow for greater
understanding between cultures. Mahatma Gandhi once accurately identified cultural differences as
the root of war and conflict, therefore, perhaps if these disparities in culture can be bridged by the
proliferation of a global culture, global conflicts can also be avoided. In this sense, while I admit that
wars cannot be completely eradicated, perhaps the spread of a global culture and the increasing
12
similarities between world cultures can aid in achieving greater understanding among nations and
serve as a mitigating factor that allows us to better identify and get along with each other.
Overall, I believe that the spread of a global culture, despite its negative connotations, is in fact, not
as undesirable as it appears. Far from bringing about homogenization of cultures, as long as nations
ensure that they are able to discern which elements of tradition should be retained, globalization can
in fact, be advantageous to our world culturally.
Tan Li-wun Kathleen | 2T11
13
How far would you agree that formal education teaches one to be less curious about the
world?
It is interesting to note that the leaders of three of the worlds largest and most successful for
information and technology (IT) companies all dropped out of college before completing their
graduate studies: Bill Gates, the founder of the firm that has defined and shaped the digital age,
Microsoft; Steve Jobs, the inventor of the quirky, revolutionary Apple Incorporated; and Mark
Zuckerberg, the brains behind the most successful social networking website in digital history. With
their ingenuity and curiosity that provided them a fierce passion and will to succeed, they changed
the course of human history in their own significant ways all without ever completing their formal
education. Does this, therefore, prove that the limits of our schooling systems destroy ones
creativity? All three have consistently and cogently argued that our current means of educating our
young disrupt their passion for learning and their natural, instinctive curiosity about the world they
live in. Hence, I would agree that to a limited extent, formal education does teach one to be less
curious about their world; for while others have noticed this trend and sought to alter its course,
triggering the rise of new, self-styled innovative methods of teaching that have developed the
active, engaged learning that in theory, formal education should promote, the continued survival,
even flourish, of traditional formal teaching methods that harm curiositys growth, notably in the
United States, the United Kingdom and China, supposed leaders of the modern world, shows that
for many, curiosity will instinctively be learnt as something less than necessary.
It was not until the late twentieth century that superintendents and education ministers fully realized
the ironic, destructive power education, more often than not, was working in young minds across
the globe. For much of mankinds history, education has been characterized by rote-learning and
memorization, which have seen fit to destroy the curiosity of students by making the way they learn
mechanical, killing their inquisitive nature by forcing them to memorize the things they need to
know, rather than, as should be the case, teaching them to become self-directed, self-disciplined
learners. Rote-learning does two things: it teaches the student that curiosity is irrelevant and
unnecessary as what he needs to know about his world has already been found for him, and it
slowly kills his curiosity and desire to learn anyway, for who would find any interest in something
that must be incessantly read, committed to memory and internalized? Not only does the emphasis
traditional, formal education yields to rote-learning and memorization give students the impression
that there is no need for curiosity, it also slowly kills their inquisitive nature by forcing them to
remember and regurgitate the same facts, the same theories, the same knowledge over and over
again.
Even worse than this is the fact that sometimes the subject matter the student is memorizing does
not even appeal to him. Educators around the world claim their system offers ease and flexibility of
choice in subject combination; yet the hard truth is that very few schools have the resources,
human or otherwise, to cater to every students ideal choice. Many end up pursuing subjects they
never wanted to pursue in the first place, thereby killing their curiosity by forcing them to memorize
things they do not want to memorize and possible will never use in their future occupation. This
restrictive nature of formal education thus creates boundaries and barriers for students, over which
their curiosity is unable to leap.
Furthermore, increasingly there has been as shift away from what is perceived as the leisure of
education curiosity and learning about what one has a passion for to academic excellence and
the pursuit of qualifications, drastically lowering the importance of loving and having a natural
interest in what one is learning about. The paper chase, as it is sometimes termed, forces many
students to select subjects which are useful in later stages of education and eventually, when
seeking a lucrative, well-paying job, rather than subject disciplines which interest them and pique
the curiosity. This is especially commonplace in the filial households of Asia, where expectant
14
parents who want their sometimes only son or daughter to be a high-achieving, success story for
the family name. Thus curiosity is relegated, as memorization, subject content and results take
precedence.
However, can it be proven that formal education really does brainwash one to be less curious? A
select group of individuals who continue to pioneer developments in entirely new fields suggests
otherwise. The term pioneer itself suggests the need for creativity and curiosity and without a
doubt the contributions that these scientists and thinkers have made to our society show the
presence of both ideals. It was curiosity that led Steve Jobs to tamper with Serif fonts he learnt
through Calligraphy courses at his college; it was curiosity that motivated and continues to
motivate Stephen Hawking in his exploration of the firth dimension and superstring theory; and it
was undeniably curiosity that motivated Richard Branson to create the worlds first commercial
space airline, Virgin Galactic. None of these achievements could have been made possible without
even some formal education, yet these individuals made it successfully through the education
system with their passion and zest for the world around them very much intact. So does curiosity
really die as a result of education?
The sad answer, in many cases, is still yes. A vast majority of the six billion people today work in the
same, dull monotony of daily working life, learning no new skills other than those required to
perform their jobs to the best of their abilities. For many, learning is perceived to be a requirement,
not something that should come naturally. They learn the things they have to and leave it at that.
Curiosity and thinking out of the box are, naturally, out of the box they think in.
Yet there is still hope for the active, engaged learning that to the despair of many critics for our
educational systems seems a far-fetched, unearthly ideal. Many countries have taken measures to
promote curiosity-grounded learning, such as the development of hands-on practical sessions,
notably in the Scandinavian countries and Pacific states such as Singapore, Australia and New
Zealand. In Denmark, for example, children do not sit for examinations until they are eleven,
engaged instead in outdoor learning and practical hands-on experiences specially tailored to each
classs needs. In Singapore, where until the last decade of the twentieth century focus was still
strongly placed on academic success, the government has made learning more interesting and
engaging for students by providing them greater flexibility in subject options, allowing science
students to select a contrasting subject in the arts and vice versa, for example, and promoting life-
long learning, not jut among students, but among everyone, young and old alike. This slow
movement away from traditional, obsolete means of teaching gives curiosity and chance to flourish
by providing new opportunities for all to learn what interests them.
The globalised, wireless world of the twenty-first century also offers a diverse, virtually infinite range
of teaching resources and tools teachers can draw on to invigorate students minds and pique their
interest. Where in the first seventy years of the twentieth century it was uncommon to find a student
who had been on an exchange program to another country, this year alone the Singaporean
Ministry of Education recorded 7136 students as having participated in some form of exchange.
The advent of wireless communication and information networks allow students from opposite
corners of the globe to communicate, make friends, exchange photographs and even share
lessons together, all without ever having to leave their respective classrooms. Teachers use digital
aids such as videos, music and even blogs and websites in their lectures and classroom
discussions. Naturally, the vibrancy of todays modern learning ignites and invigorates curiosity,
once more granting it the precedence and respect it has a right to.
The traditional problems of formal education, namely, the endless note-taking, the inflexibility of
timetables and the emphasis on academic excellence are still very much alive and problematic for
educators in the twenty-first century, yet the rise of new, active learning-based teaching methods,
15
supported by a digital age pioneered by men like Gates, Jobs and Zuckerberg, who themselves
embody the spirit of curiosity, suggest that, in time to come, the spirit of curiosity will take its place
at the helm of education.
Kevin Martens Wong Zhi Qiang | 1T11
16
The sole purpose of education today is to help our young make a living. Discuss.
In Singapore, the tuition industry is becoming increasingly lucrative due to the ever heavy emphasis
on attaining good grades. This phenomenon is also evident in other countries like Hong Kong,
where some tutors even receive media attention because of their original teaching methods or
effectiveness with students. In light of such developments, it does seem valid to assert that the sole
purpose of education today is to help our young make a living. However, situated within a pragmatic
and meritocratic society like Singapore, such a purpose is not necessarily regrettable. Furthermore,
the knowledge that education offers is not exclusively limited to the young and when received with
the right attitude may help people of all ages make a living in more than one sense of the word.
Education is often perceived to be a means up both the social and corporate ladder, particularly for
those from less wealthy and middle income and lower income families. This is largely because of
the personal and external benefits of education which are commonly defined in terms of the job
opportunities presented and money earned as a result of ones academic qualifications. Since
money is essential for ones material well-being and survival, education very naturally becomes a
good coveted for its ability to help people, especially to the young, make a living in the world. This
view of education is not a new one and has existed since class barriers were brought down and
education became more widely accessible to the masses.
Over the years, many have expressed dismay or even regret towards the commodification of
education, with some reminiscing about a time when the sole purpose of education was the
satisfaction of ones love of learning and desire of knowledge. The apparently increasing stress
levels of students and the decreasing age of which this stress is experienced are indicators that
something is possibly going wrong in the paper chase that all our young are embarking on. These
sentiments may have been shared by the primary school curriculum committee set up in 2009 in
Singapore, who abolished written examinations for students at primary one level and implemented
a range of hands-on examinations like speech and drama, with the aim of cultivating a love for
learning early on in a childs education. This does seem like an attempt by the Ministry of Education
(MOE) in Singapore to reverse societys perception that the sole purpose of education is to help our
young make a living.
However on a more practical level, the purpose of helping out young make a living is actually less
of a regret and perhaps even a noble pursuit. This is because the notion of making a living does
not necessarily run contrary to the ideal of a love for learning and knowledge, as the statement
seems to imply. Rather than positioning these two purposes of education in opposition to each
other, it could prove more worthwhile and realistic to view and promote them as complements in a
students journey of education. In order to sustain and satisfy ones love for learning at a deeper
level, one first needs to make a living and survive in this world. However to improve oneself and
make a better living, one must endure that his or her love for learning is always fuelled and never
dies. Therefore, it is not at all a regret that a key purpose of education is to help out young make a
living as this purpose is critical to the ensuring that they are able to continue learning and loving it.
In fact, it would be more accurate to assert that the sole purpose of education today is to help the
young and old as well as everyone in between make a living. This idea of lifelong learning has been
extensively promoted in Singapore in recent years, likely due to the aging population, through a
variety of re-training workshops and schemes. Evidently, the sole purpose of helping a person
make a living not only not regrettable but also crucial in maintaining a countys economic well-
being. This can be attributed to the generally positive relation between education and the quality of
a countrys workforce.
Therefore, in order to ensure that the sole purpose of helping young people make a living does not
become a regret, each participant of education must approach it with the right attitude. After all,
17
any purpose of education can only be realised through the combined efforts of the educator and the
educated. While measures like the MOEs amendment of the primary school curriculum is
commendable, it is but a start to instilling in people the right attitude to education. Teachers,
parents and society as a whole, all have a part to play in the reception, comprehension and
application of education so that it satisfies our material needs in the form of a job and also assures
us of our existence as we gain greater understanding of the world.
Oh Pei Yun Isabella | 2T11
18
Women's chains have been forged by society, not by anatomy. Do you agree?
Compared to the past, women today seem to have it better be it in terms of the rights to education,
universal suffrage, and also taking on the roles which used to be reserved only for men, for
example, political office. The modern women today has successfully broken out of their
conventional domesticated roles and the years of fighting done by feminist movements has
successfully liberated women. I agree with this statement to the extent that womens chains have
been forged my society but is also convinced that it is women who chains themselves at times.
However, anatomy, in my opinion, does play a part in chaining women too, albeit to a small extent.
My first point is that the world at large is guilty for harbouring stereotypes of women, where women
are seen to be inferior to men in terms of intellect, the ability to lead and sports. History so far has
only acknowledged intellectual contributions made by men. Also,in the past, women were denied
education because societal expectations of them were to stay home to raise children and do
housework. Women since, have been chained down by these conventions and forced to conform
to them or else be rejected by society. This is proved through a study where 3 out of 5 women
preferred to leave the job of breadwinning to their spouses. It can be inferred here that the women
have silently accepted societys stereotypes of them as domesticated creatures. Even though
society condemns and society stereotypes, women have proven themselves not inferior to men,be
it in sports and intellect.(insert example here). Also, according to a research done, most of the top
scorers for university examinations are in fact female. An example of societys condemnation of
women is illustrated by the case of US presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. The public sphere has
always been known to be male-dominated where women are often not taken seriously. The press
made endless comments on her preference for power suits and during a press conference when
she accidentally flashed some cleavage, it caused an uproar. The significance here is that her
preference for power suits seems to hint us of her awareness of the public preference for male
candidates. It is almost ridiculous where she has to stand in the mens shadows to even run for
elections and the uproar caused by her accidental flashing of the cleavage seem to be targeted at
her femininity instead of its offensive content. Did anyone listen to what she had to say then? This
negative attitude towards her is further reiterated by the medias labelling of her as The female
candidate. Therefore,womens chains are forged by society because society has been unable to
break free from these stereotypes even when women have proven otherwise. This, I agree with the
statement that womens chains have been forged by society.
My second point here is that women in developing countries have been chained down by
traditional thinking because up till today, the societies in developing countries remain patriarchal. In
Somaliland, there exists a tradition for females to undergo female genitalia mutilation. When ask
about the reason behind this practice, the women could not answer,nor come up with a logical
explanation for it. Besides this, the developing countries can barely afford to educate men, what
more women? The significance here is that even with educational opportunities, men would be the
priority in such a patriarchal society. Here, women are mere adjuncts to the lives of their fathers and
husbands, almost deprived of any individuality and rightful choices to make. Another example
would be the case of India, where practices such as bride-burning still pervades. In all these
practices, women do not have a choice to decide whether they want to succumb to these or not. It
can be argued that they actually do, but do most of them not submit to their fates? They do not
have real choices to make. According to feminist theory, it is that women should have the right to
choose. Yet in these instances, women are not given a choice at all and therefore I agree with the
statement that womens choices have been forged by society because of traditional thinking.
Despite the case of Hillary Clinton, we have seen women taking on political roles too. In the past,
women were expected to know their place in society.Today, however, women are in places like
political office instead of the kitchen. The year 2008 was labelled the Year of the woman by Time
19
Magazine. A significant event in 2009 was the emergence of the worlds first parliament with a
majority of female ministers in Rwanda,Africa.It seems like society has loosened the chains on
women here. However,it can be said the perhaps,society has never chained women after all. What,
then, could be the reason for the suffering the women have went through all these years?
According to the latter, we say that society has never chained women after all.We can thus
conclude that there lies a possibility women chain themselves at times, albeit subconsciously. This
idea is best illustrated through an idea by Rupert Birkin, a character in Women in Love by D.H.
Lawrence. "No man," said Birkin, "cuts another man's throat unless he wants to cut it, and unless
the other man wants it cut. This is a complete truth. It takes two people to make a murder: a
murderer and a murderee. And a murderer is a man who is murderable. And a man who is
murderable is a man who in a profound in hidden lust desires to be murdered. This relationship
between a murderer and a murderee is similar to that of society and women. Even though society
has imposed its judgments and stereotypes on women,why,for so many years,there has been
nothing done to change the situation till today? It is suggested here that it is women who lack
courage and the determination to stand up to the oppresion that they face. Yet, it should be
considered that their definition of happiness and equality in the past differs from that of today,where
they are content with being oppressed.
We must also acknowledge the fact that women have always been biologically
disadvantaged.Women are born of a smaller frame as compared tomen and thus seen as the
weaker sex of the two. This is evident through the implementation of National Service in Singapore
which is compulsory for men whereas voluntary in the case of women. We can look at it in another
way that women are given a choice here. Besides,even when holding the same corporate
positions,men are always paid more because they have been through National Service. Also,
because of the fact that women take on the mission of childbirth and that only women can do it,
this makes them less attractive to employers during job interviews because of all the healthcare
costs that the women could claim from the company or even the paid maternity leave. Therefore,I
do not agree that womens chains have been forged by society, rather by nature because of the
biological differences between men and women.
In conclusion, I agree that womens chains have been forged by society but I am also convinced
that it is women who chain themselves at times. Since the past years, it has been women vis-a-vis
men, and women has almost always lost the war. The war between the male chauvinists and the
feminist militants has not come to and end yet. Therefore, there lies a possibility that womens
chains have been forged by men too. Male dominance in society is thus almost inevitable because
of all the prejudices towards women. The chains are thus the metaphorical representation of this
male dominance in society. Therefore, I agree that womens chains have been forged by society but
acknowledge that nature plays a part too. This is because from the past till now and even in future,
women has and will always remain biologically disadvantaged in comparison to men. Yet, this
disadvantage is still not a reason to deprive women from equal opportunities. The female militants
still have a long way to go.
Vera Li Shiying | 1T11
20
History records male acts, written by males, and holds little interest for females as a result.
Is this a fair comment?
Throughout human history, while the existence of unmatched societies cannot be denied,
masculine and male-oriented culture has generally dominated much of the modern world even to
the present day, well into the twenty-first century as we already are. Much of the historical account
that define human civilizations greatest acts is made up of the acts of men, and written by men;
some may perceive the contributions and actions of women to our great drama of life are relatively
small in comparison, thus lending support to the idea that mere is little to be gained by women in
history itself. However, this writer argues that far from holding little interest for females, much of our
history has been made possible by the acts and achievements of women and it thus holds
significant interest and insight for them, even as they seek even more empowerment and gender
equality in the present day.
It can be argued that men have committed the events with the longest lasting repercussions; the
acts with the greatest impact in our history were precipitated out and came out by males. History
attributes virtually all geographic and naturalist discoveries to men such as Christopher Columbus,
Charles Darwin and James Cook; most scientific progress and invention can be traced to male
pioneers such as Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton and even today Stephen Hawking
and of course every famous military commander or general has been male, from Attila the Hun to
Napoleon Bonaparte to the infamous Adolf Hitler. In most concise timelines of the world, such as
those included with the Encyclopedia Britannica or the pocket-sized editions produced by Darling-
Kingsleley. Men are named in almost every important historical event between Ptolemy and Barack
Obama, yet women only appear in a fraction of that number and often in instances relative to men
like 29 BC Mark Antony begins wooing Cleopatra of Egypt. It seems that men hold a much more
vital place in history as compared to women.
Moreover, even when women do attempt to contribute to society, their accomplishments and aid
are often left out by male writers either convinced of the supremacy of male actions or completely
ignorant of female contributions. A prime illustration of the former would be the discovery of the
double helix structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, by a team headed by Dr. James D. Watson
in 1966. Publishing their findings in a semi-autobiographical account in 1968 under the title The
Double Helix: A Personal Account of the structure of the DNA, Watson noted and celebrated his
achievements and those of two others, Francis Crick and Maurice Williams, but downplayed and
left out those of his teams fourth member, Rosalind Franklin. The result: when the book went to
press and was used by the Nobel Prize committee to determine the prize for biology, James
Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Williams all became Nobel Price recipients in 1970 but not
Rosalind Franklin, whose accomplishments were not recognized. In a history written by males, it
seems, females are often the losers. How much interest, therefore, does a history filled with male
acts hold for the average woman today?
The answer is a large amount, for women have played instrumental roles in a history that has begun
to change in our modern time of empowerment and equality. Only one person has ever won two
Nobel prizes for Chemistry before and that person is the French scientist Marie Curie, who achieved
the distinction in 1905 and 1915, whose pioneering (and highly dangerous) work in molecular
radiation, the study of radioactive elements and material laid the foundation for future developments
in nuclear power and weaponry by the likes of her husband Pierre Curie, Robert J. Oppenhelmer
and others. Rulers such as Catherine the Great in Russia and the half-sisters Mary Queen of Scots
and Elizabeth I in England are remembered as some of the best leaders of their countries, guiding
their states through successive invasions by the Polish and Scandinavian armies in the case of the
former and through religious reformation in the case of the latter two. In the twentieth century,
women such as Anne Frank, for her brave experiences under the Nazi regime and Margaret
21
Thatcher for her historic victory as the first female Prime Minister of Britain and one of its most
celebrated are remembered for their acts of change and dissent that gave women a voice and
empowered them. Even a male-dominated history has been supplemented by the writings of
women, such as the blind, deaf and mute Helen Keller, who overcame severe physical oppressions
and is now commemorated for her valiant courage, in the face of lifelong adversity; she added her
experiences to history by writing about them. While in the past history may have held little value for
women (in our society today) it has begun to hold much more interest for men because previously
silenced and unheard female voices are rising to the fore, through empowerment calls for equality
and the development of instantaneous communication technology and the internet. Thus, using
history holds substantial interests for female because it records not only male acts but female acts
as well.
Yet is history written by females? From a figurative point of view, one can easily argue that history
was written solely by and for men, for in our patriarchal society women often finds that roles written
for themselves by rules and even social codes that place them in positions far inferior to men, this
rendering them incapable of accomplishing acts that would find them a place in history. Margaret
Thatcher became Britains first female prime minister in the thirty-one years that have followed. In
ancient Greece, it was unheard of and forbidden for women to hold elected positions in the
governing assembly; in todays western equivalent, the United States. Forty-three presidents have
now led the Beautiful Land and not a single one of them has been female. Australia has only just
received (not even elected) its first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, while over in Africa, countries
like the Islamic Republic of Mauritiana and Sudan do not even allow women to vote. Even in
religion, where God supposedly provides equal rights for all, women are not allowed to join the
priesthood, which despite having seen its numbers dwindle over the last century continues to
mandate this stand. Perhaps most tellingly, the most favoured woman by God in the biblical New
Testament is Mary Magdalene, who prostrates herself before Jesus Christ and adorns his feet with
oils. Unable to make a difference in religion and only recently given voices in politics, to say nothing
of the highly masculine word of science and technology, (where females sometimes even have their
names left out) it can definitely be argued that the drama of history was written by males, for
women have gotten the vast majority of minor characters and non-speaking parts.
Yet, rather than causing history to have little interest for females as a result, such an argument, on
the contrary, should generate exactly the reverse for it. Women have been shown to be
marginalized and wronged by masculine, chauvinistic history, is not now the time to change that
reality for future generations of women? Yes, history records male acts and is dictated by males,
but that self-same inequality has also held special interest for women who have claimed their rights
and spoken out in the face of such overwhelming gender bids with movements that began in the
1930s, a history of male dominance has prompted women to start winning history their own way,
defying gender-confirming standards and establishing themselves firmly in the collective memory. It
took England four hundred years to send a Queen to the throne; by contrast, it took just two years
after the first manned space fight for a woman to fly into space too. In 1961 Yuri Gagarin orbited
the Earth in Vostok I; two years later, Valentina Tereshkova defied all odds as the only woman in the
Soviet cosmonaut space program to fly Vostok 6 around the globe in space in 1963. In politics,
womens voices have overcome the heavily-biased history of Africa- in January 2006, Ellen
Johnson Sirleaf became the continents first ever female president in Liberia. Even in the
traditionally guarded cloistered of religion, women pushed the allowance of female Bishops in the
Anglican Church through the Archbishop of Canterbury in the same year. Rather than creating a
lack of interest, realization that history has been dominated by men has instead propelled and
ignited interests in women, leading to the radical success of women across all fields and their
collective acquisition of increased rights, giving them a real chance to remake history in a more
equal way.
22
Granted, it will be some time before the female can ever truly reach the level of power the male has
held throughout human history. Yet the increased awareness of the state of history has inspired
women to seek equally and empowerment in politics, religion, science and other affairs which
continue to develop our human glory. Women have held a place in it since it begun and while it may
be honest to concede that much of it has been dictated by males, it would be extremely unfair to
say that it has created little interest in females as a result.
23
Change is good. Is this necessarily true?
Change is a key element in the world today. Everything is subject to change, from the ageing of
humans to the weathering of architecture. Of course, change has both positive and negative
effects. Change represents both the hero and the villain. It can be beneficial to humanity, or it can
be potentially destructive. The statement, Change is good only paints one side of the picture of
change. It does not show the dual nature of change.
On an individual level, constant change shows a lack of stability. Frequent change, mentally or
physically, is a sign of fickle-mindedness and a lack of self-confidence. For example, those who
cannot decide on what they want to do with their lives. They are hesitant and eventually waste their
lives away dithering on which option is the best. On a physically level, people who constantly
change their looks through plastic surgery also show a lack of self-confidence. This illustrates that
change is not good, as it shows that shallow materialistic mindset of an individual, highly prizing
looks above all else to the extent that they would go for surgery and pay thousands for changing
something so superficial.
However, change on an individual level can be for the better. By improving on past character faults
and changing certain bad habits, an individual can live his life more fully and contentedly. The Yellow
Ribbon Project encourages changes like these and gives former criminals a chance to reintegrate
back into society, giving them a new lease of life.
Societal change can represent the disintegration of good moral values. As people world-wide are
exposed to globalization, society becomes more westernized, and there is an influx of western
values that take over the good moral values of the past. Societies becomes more open-minded and
accepting of various negative beliefs, such as pre-marital sex, skimpy clothing worn by those in
music videos, and promoting materialism, desiring branded goods. The good virtues such as thrift,
loyalty and faithfulness have been discarded. This shows the negative effect of change.
Contrary to the above, societal change does have its positive points as well. It breaks down age-old
traditions and customs that are a source of prejudice and discrimination. As the world increasingly
globalizes, certain mindsets are heavily criticized and considerable effort has been made to remedy
the past prejudices and discriminations. Women have become more equitably treated over the
years and organizations such as AWARE and Womens Rights Association have been set up to
ensure and promote the fair treatment of women in work ,education and politics. Compared to the
past, both females and males are now receiving equal treatment in the field of education. They are
given equal opportunities for education in Singapore, since its mandatory for both to have at least a
secondary school education.
Governmental change is another area that has both its negative and positive effects. For example,
within a corrupted government, the changes made would be to suit their own benefits and not for
the good of the people. It means that there will be political instability due to the uprising of the
people and internal conflicts will arise within a nation. This can be illustrated by the change of
government in Northern Ireland. This country eventually fell to the Protestants and policies were
made to favour the Protestants and severely disadvantaging the Catholics. This resulted in years of
conflict between the government and the IRA, a terrorist group, and a lot of bloodshed amongst its
people. Good governmental change can be shown by the new and better policies that are made so
the country can prosper as a whole. Change in the government also shows flexibility and
adaptability to current situations, for example, payouts during recession to help the people tide over
their financial difficulties and boost the economy. Furthermore, by holding elections, political parties
will do their best to garner as many votes as they can by promising change in various areas. This
24
spirit of competitiveness will serve to benefit the people a new ideas and policies will be thought up
of and implemented by the winning political party.
Finally, one must examine change on the international level. The negative aspect would be the long-
term erosion of unique cultures and traditions due to globalization. This erosion of cultures would
result in the world becoming more and more uniform and new ideas and innovations will be stifled
and creativity will come to progress at a very slow pace. Cultures all over the world are affected by
the western culture; popular music in various countries includes English words resulting in the loss
of the essence of their own culture.
A positive aspect of international change would be the sharing of new technology and, eventually,
benefiting the poverty-stricken countries, by enabling aid to be transported to them more easily. The
Green and Blue Revolution effectively show the benefits of agricultural technology being improved
upon and a larger amount of produce. High-yielding crops also provide more food for the poor.
Change is the only constant and the only thing constant is change. This paradox fully illustrates the
ever-changing world today. Change is good, yet, bad. It cannot be limited to one. We can only
comment on it, as change is a natural progression of the world and it is ever-present and constantly
occurring, whether we like it or not.
Chan Li Ting | 1T11
25
Consider the value of idleness.
As the proverbial saying goes, an idle mind is the devils workshop. Well, I beg to differ. There is
much more to idleness than crafting Lucifers plans. Such a generalisation of the intentions of those
more passive than others is no less than an attack on ones identity. The greatest inventions in the
world were not conjured by a man working a 9 to 5 job. They stemmed from great ideas resulting
from a man - or woman - sitting down and thinking hard. To say that idleness only breeds mischief
is to say that doing anything short of being active 24/7 is waywardness. Sure, mischief is borne out
of boredom resulting from idleness, but that only happens to the most malicious of people, those
whose instinct would be to create trouble either way. That is not to say laziness is a virtue though.
Just because one does not constantly see the need to be physically active does not mean ones
brain isnt constantly working as well.
Being idle helps people to focus their thoughts on matters and think them through, without the
superfluous distractions of physical movement. Taking a long walk may help to take ones mind off
things but it does nothing to actually solve those issues. It would be infinitely more productive for
one to instead sit down, analyse the issue, and think of a good solution, rather than foolishly try to
escape the situation by pre-occupying the body and mind with activity. Not only is this attempt at
escape fruitless every single time, but it also serves to tire out the body, rendering further activity
even less effective. Simply taking a step back, lying still and putting the mind to work will often
present a solution to ones problems. Of course, simply thinking about the solution will do nothing
to actually solve the problem, and hence idleness cannot be a standalone activity. Instead, it will
help one take swift, decisive actions to solve these matters, preventing the spontaneous rashness
usually displayed by the constantly active.
Idleness allows the mind to wander, setting off a flow of creative juices, and is the key to
breakthroughs scientific or artistic. Necessity may be the mother of invention but that would make
idleness the father. Put simply, a need for something cannot by itself present a solution. A
combination of this void and the drive to think up something that would fill this void is required to
give rise to a breakthrough, and what better way to come up with an idea than to recline and give it
some good, hard thought? The telephone would never have been invented if Alexander Graham Bell
had mindlessly tinkered with his tools without first dreaming up the idea and concept of long-
distance communication. Nor would the Internet have been created, or almost any other major
invention for that matter. I concede that some form of action must be taken to spin these ideas into
reality but thought through idleness sets the foundation for these pillars of ingenuinty and creativity.
It is said that an artist has a mental picture of his completed masterpiece before even starting work
on it and these masterpieces: the Mona Lisa, the statue of David and Starry Night all stand
testament to the value of idleness.
Idleness provokes reflection, a key to self-improvement and a better life experience. There is no
better way to mature than to learn from ones mistakes. The saying once bitten, twice shy
perfectly explains the value of reflection. Looking back on ones past reveals many things about a
person while allowing him or her to relive experiences. Reflection cannot be done in the midst of
the hustle and bustle of work and play, hence the need for relaxation and idleness. Meditation,
aromatherapy and massage are all in some way, forms of idleness. They encourage one to stay still
and do absolutely nothing physical except breathe. The relaxation and calm that comes about as a
result of this absence of reflection means living from day to day, a surefire way of making costly
mistakes from a lack of foresight and an utter misapplication of knowledge. One may think that
idleness is simply a way to kill time between activities, but this is simply not the case. Without this
valuable thinking time, our level of satisfaction from life will steadily deteriorate. Idleness is a way
to stop and smell the roses, and shunning ones surroundings effectively shuts one out of the world,
and who could encourage that?
26
There is however, a fine line between idleness and sheer laziness. Just how idle can one be before
one falls into decadence and withers away? This pitfall of idleness can be solved with one word
though: thought. What separates idleness from idiocy is the usage of the mind in this absence of
physical activity. There is a stark difference between watching paint dry and looking for flaws in a
paintjob. Idleness not only stimulates the mind, but increases one s level of awareness of one s
surroundings, both physically and figuratively. Not actually doing anything allows a person to simply
take it all in, and is that not what life is all about?
A balance, however, must be struck between idleness and activity. As valuable as it is, one who
stays idle for a lifetime will not go far, if he or she progresses at all. Idleness and activity go hand-in-
hand in ones life process. You think it, and then you do it. Just as there is night and day, the
relaxation and awareness from idleness have to be in equilibrium with the physical toils of activity. If
this equilibrium is achieved, a person will then truly be productive. The devils true workshop lies
with either extreme of this activity spectrum, where nothing of value can be done. The numerous
significant benefits of idleness are not to be discounted. After all, what would life be if we didnt sit
back and enjoy it every once in a while?
Jordan Neill Skadiang | 2T02
27
Should pragmatism always be prioritised in Singapore?
For most of its forty-five year history, Singapore has been guided and influenced by a staunch and
unerring spirit of pragmatism - an almost singular focus on the countrys prosperity and progress as
a young, dynamic nation full of opportunity and possibility. Indeed, this prioritisation of practicality
and pragmatism made our nation what it is today - a vibrant, thriving and economically viable city-
state, the financial and commercial hub of Southeast Asia and the envy of many other nations.
However, this pragmatism has likely led to the same issues that continue to affect the countrys
prospects for continued success in the global village. As such, this writer must argue that
pragmatism, while an essential and powerful tool unused in many countries and governments,
should be prioritised in Singapore only when there is a justified need for it; however, this is not, as it
may often seem, always the case.
As the government takes great pride in pointing out, Singapores success must be attributed
heavily to the pragmatism that guided it through its crucial early years of independence. Indeed,
this cannot be understated, for by the governments understanding of the concept, pragmatism
ensures the nations continued economic stability and hence should be prioritised. Practical
measures equate to efficiency and prosperity and should be highly valued. Initiatives proposed by
the late Dr Goh Keng Swee in the 1960s towards regulated housing in flats and apartments was
adopted, for example, not because the government found the idea of bungalows and terraces
undesirable, but simply because Singapore lacked the land and space. Therefore, the most
pragmatic solution to the housing problem was to designate apartment blocks as the common
form of residence in Singapore, which gave the government more land to work with for other
sectors of the economy, like industrial development, water catchment and recreational facilities.
Present-day Singapore sees its commercial district at the core of the islands urban areas, with
residential districts radiating out around it and industrial areas interspersed between them. Again,
this represents a practical solution to alleviate overcrowding and congestion, allowing free flow of
industry and freight at outlying industrial areas like Jurong and Senoko and business and
commerce in the city centre. This pragmatic infrastructure undoubtedly boosts productivity and
cuts down travel time and congestion. Clearly, the focus on pragmatism has done a world of good
for Singapore. Its necessity in her formative years consequently cannot be doubted, even if the
apparent philosophy is open to scrutiny.
Politically as well, Singapore has controversially maintained a pragmatic approach to governance,
choosing to tolerate little opposition in exchange for an extremely stable and secure society. Again,
the emphasis on practicality seems to have largely benefitted the country, as we haeve maintained
a forty-six year track record of internal stability since the race riots of 1964. Pragmatism should
thus be prioritised because it contributes to a stable and well-ordered democracy. Former Prime
Minister Lee Kuan Yew has maintained power over the countrys government even in his present
advisorial role as Minister Mentor, which has led to villanisation by The Economist in its Unit Index
of Democracy as the leader of a hybrid regime, with accusations of nepotism following close
behind. Yet, Singapore has emerged all the more successful, having been described as the best
place to do business in Time magazine. Lee and his Peoples Action Party (PAP) may dominate the
countrys government, but they have also promoted stability, racial harmony and meritocracy which
have allowed Singapore to develop its business-friendly environment and virtually unchallenged
competitiveness where so many other democracies have fallen by the wayside. Indias haphazard
organisation of the Commonwealth Games in October 2010 revealed the flaws of a parliamentary
democracy in full swing: bribery of minor officials, construction halted by deadlocked parliament
debates on funding, rampant corruption and just plain ineptitude and laziness. By contrast,
Singapores hosting of the 1st Youth Olympic Games just two months ago showed our
governments checked efficiency, practicality and transparency all made possible by a single-
mindedness on achieving its goals through only the most pragmatic of approaches. Given the
28
supposed inerrancy of Singapores political pragmatism, there is little reason for Singapore to
change its priorities and take risks in a period of global economic instability.
Yet, this is exactly the cause of Singapores present problem: its citizens lack of creativity and
spontaneity. Pragmatism is undoubtedly an important and essential part of Singapores success,
but it should not be mindlessly prioritised above other equally if not more rewarding qualities,
especially ingenuity and diversity. In education, for example, we have seen the government put far
greater focus on Physics and Chemistry in its drive to improve the economys workforce for more
than two decades. While this did indeed improve the workforce, it also shifted emphasis away from
creativity and entrepreneurship, resulting in a generation of Singaporeans unable to contribute
effectively to the new knowledge-based economy. Similarly, Singapores dismal arts industry and
failure to cultivate a holistic national identity shows the after-effects of a pervasive emphasis on
pragmatism. In the case of Singapores Youth Olympic Games, its mascots and theme song were
widely panned as unoriginal and uninspiring. Singapore has overall been seen to be largely
unsupportive of the arts in the pragmatic but misguided idea that such liberal allowance will nourish
opposition and criticism of the government. Most tellingly, the government has continued to adopt
the pragmatic, no-nonsense approach in dealing with its political opposition, suing them into
submission or providing scant information about their parties through the state-controlled media.
The reason for pragmatisms present limited success is because it was a necessary policy in the
past, providing the impetus for Singapores independence and the means by which it was to
survive that impetus. Now, as Singapore takes its place on the global stage, pragmatism may be
useful in maintaining our economic success but in all other areas, it should take decreasing, rather
than increasing, precedence.
All in all, pragmatism should continue to take a certain degree of priority in our country, but it should
not always be the priority above all that must depend entirely on situation and circumstance. The
one-size-fits-all, didactic approach of yesteryear adopted by the state should steadily give way in
areas where we need freedom and creativity to flourish. As the National University of Singapore
partnering with Yale College to set up a liberal arts college here suggests, one can make idealistic
choices without losing sight of pragmatism.
29
Todays youth are losing the ability to think. Discuss.
Our global landscape is radically different from what one would expect to find half a century ago.
Today, Facebook and Twitter have come to replace conventional social interactions, while online
media from Youtube to Wikipedia, dominate our everyday lives, in particular, that of youths. In the
same way, the thrust of education has shifted, with emphasis placed on education as a means to
secure lucrative employment opportunities rather than as a learning process. In light of this
remodeling of our global landscape, some believe that youths today are losing the ability to think
critically and in comparison to their predecessors, have simply become sponges that absorb
information without analysing or formulating their own viewpoints and arguments. Such a stand,
however, is in my opinion, fundamentally flawed, as it is spawned out of an attitude of resistance
towards change; just as our global climate has evolved, so has the thinking patterns of todays
youth changes, but this should not be mistaken as a deficiency in youths ability to think.
Central to the above statement would be the comparison between youths of the past and those of
today, the assumption being that changing global patterns have somehow resulted in a
deterioration of our young minds ability to analyse, to evaluate, to think. A key difference in todays
world from that of the past is no doubt that of technology. Digital gadgets today are equipped with
autocorrection functions, while social networking sites have usurped a large proportion of youths
leisure tie. The Internet has also granted youth access to a wealth of information, and some would
argue that this avalanche of information has sapped youths ability to think as it allows them to
simply take on anothers viewpoint without the need to formulate their own, since such information
is so readily available on the World Wide Web. From online study guides like SparkNotes to search
engines like Google, technology has resulted in youth not needing to process information, the
analysis of which can, after all, be obtained with just a click of the mouse. Certainly, it would seem
that todays youth have lost their ability to think to modern technological advancements.
However, I would like to challenge this viewpoint as I believe it is rather limited. Youth today have
not necessarily lost their ability to think, but rather their ability to think critically may have even been
enhanced by their use of the World Wide Web. The onslaught of information they face, rather than
limiting their viewpoints, have in fact broadened them through exposing them to a greater number
of perspectives, before forcing them to balance these viewpoints and finally take a stand. It is
precisely the wealth of viewpoints they encounter today that have compelled youth to think even
more so critically. On top of thinking skills of evaluation, youths today have to develop the skill of
critically examining a vast multitude of perspectives, and thus it would be fallacious to claim that
todays youth re any less able to think critically than their predecessors. In fact, I dare say they are
even more able to do so.
Despite this, many may still claim that our youths ability to think has been crippled by the fact that
education today has become not just a means to employment but also a race by individual
educational institutions to outdo their opponents. In Singapore, for instance, some believe that as
a result of the increasingly result-oriented nature of the education system, students are spoon-fed
with information to propel them to achieve necessary results, to attain necessary targets. Education
is no longer measured in terms of the learning and thinking process, but by a grade, a digit. As a
result, in a bid to achieve results, teachers lack the luxury of time to engage students in critical
discussions of worldly affairs and it is conceivable to believe that youth today now lack the ability to
think, having instead evolved into experts in the art of committing endless chunks of information
to memory.
However, I believe that this viewpoint is yet again, narrow in scope. Rather than simply becoming
mechanical in its approach, in my opinion, it is precisely through modelling out education system
after the working world that it has become even more so demanding in terms of developing critical
30
thinking skills in youth. Just as in the real world, students today not only have to critically assess
pieces of information per se, but they have to do so in relation to real-world situations, such as
current political and financial climates. Due to its purpose of preparing students for the working
world, and the knowledge-based slant economies like that of Singapore are taking, education today
no just encompasses rote learning but also develops in students skills of creative thinking, of
originality in thought. Therefore, I would say that it is excessively one-sided to believe that the highly
competitive nature of our education system today has resulted in youth losing their ability to think.
Instead, it is this very competitiveness, this result-oriented approach that has made education one
that is skills-based rather than information-driven.
Overall, youth today, it may seem, are losing their ability to think due to recent shifts in our global
landscape, the growing use of technology and changing education systems. However, I believe that
this view is mistaken, as it wrongly interprets a shift in thinking patterns of our youth as a lack of
these thinking skills. Rather than promoting an inability to think, the growing use of new media has
lent a voice to youth to express their opinions and thereby develop them further. Rather than
eroding thinking skills, technology has engaged youth in a deeper level of critical thinking than ever
before. Rather than discouraging youth from thinking creatively, our revamped education systems
have forced students to engage in high-order thinking sometimes well beyond their years. To say,
therefore, that youth today are not encouraged to think, that they fail to think, and ultimately that
they cannot do so, is most certainly a fallacy.
31
Only educated people should have the right to vote in elections. Do you agree?
The right to vote has been contested throughout history, with the marginalized often left out of the
voting process. Feminists for instance, have argued for universal suffrage, and for women to be
included in the electoral process. In the twenty-first century however, parameters have shifted, and
traditional gender and roots of division like class are arguably less pivotal in debates on the right to
vote. Rather, ones level of education, which most conventionally see to be a good gauge of
intellectual maturity and good judgment has taken centre stage with its rising importance in a
supposed knowledge-based global economy. Unlike class and gender, the divide between the
educated and the supposedly uneducated as not as distinct, and herein lies and inherent flaw in
the question, that is the assumption that it is possible to define what is an educated person in the
first place and thus, classify a population on this basis.
Central to the argument that only educated people should have a right to vote in elections would be
our stereotypes and presuppositions of the qualities which education has the ability to bestow upon
an individual. A large majority would believe that education entails the development of critical
thinking, sound judgments and thus a sharper mind that would allow one to exercise foresight and
make informed decisions at elections. As such, should we exclude the uneducated from the voting
process, more competent individuals would be able to take their rightful places as leaders of the
world. However, I would like to challenge the above argument as it is clearly assumption-laden. A
voting process does not simply involve the choice of good leaders, but rather, it is also in a way an
examination of the morals of society, and whether individuals have the moral capacity to make
these choices. From the Philippines to the Indonesia, voting processes are marred by bribery and
corruption. However, does education necessarily equip to fend of those evils? Does education
equate to more ethical behavior? Human greed, as is the right to vote, is universal. It plagues all
individuals, and as such, disallowing the uneducated to vote, I dare say, is most certainly not the
answer to weeding out unfairness and corruption within any political system. Therefore, the right to
vote should not be taken away on the basis of education or lack therefore. Moreover, with most
government largely comprising high-calibre, educated elite, the fact that corruption already bears
testimony to the reality that education does not guarantee honesty in elections or good governance
for that matter and should not be a yardstick in deciding who has earned their right to vote.
This leads me on to say my next argument, which is also the fundamental flaw of the question itself,
that is, the ambiguity in defining an educated person. Most would say that an education is
defined in terms of academic qualifications. However, considering the nature of elections, which
also puts ones morals to the test, would it not be necessary to take into account moral education
of individuals as well and not just empty certificates and degrees? Billionaire Bill Gates and Apple
co-founder Steve Jobs were both school drop-outs, yet it would be most certainly be a fallacy to
say they lack steady business acumen and foresight. Assuming the traditional definition of
education is accepted, does this mean such perfectly competent individuals are to be excluded
from the voting process? At the same time, if we allow morals and sound decision-making to enter
our definition of what constitutes being educated, how can we objectively decide who is
sufficiently educated in terms of their ability to make wise decisions to vote? Therefore, the
proposition is untenable and ultimately pointless.
Finally, on the pragmatic side of things, we must bear in mind that the point of any election process
is to choose a government that is most able to deal with citizens concerns that arise from all strata
of society, whether educated or uneducated. For these concerns to be aired in the first place, one
must have a platform through which to voice them, or in other words, a right to vote. The educated
and uneducated have varying concerns, and this is particularly pronounced in nations like India
where the level of education differs significantly, from the privileged aristocrats to the outcaste-
untouchables. Depriving the uneducated of their rights to vote, therefore, is tantamount to
32
dismissing the problems and struggles that may be unique to their strata of society. Consequently,
inefficiencies in the government would result and this defeats the purpose of democracy, of having
an electoral process in the first place.
In conclusion, the right to vote, as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cannot be
taken away from any individual. As stated, voting is a right, and therefore to claim that we need to
decide who should vote based on education is in itself contradictory. Apart from being essential to
the efficiency of a government and hence progress of a country, voting, above all, is a right, not a
privilege. Thus, to question if only the educated should have the right to vote is an oxymoron, which
suggests that voting rights has to be earned, when it is essentially, something every person already
has by virtue of being human.
33
The best government is the least government. Discuss.
Democracy is the worst form of government except those that take other forms. Winston
Churchill acknowledged the inherent flaws of democracies, yet suggests that states cannot do
without it. Since the Cold War era of Communism versus Capitalism, the breakthrough of the latter
over the former has it crowned the best governance, most evident in the economic prosperity
experienced during the Golden Age of Capitalism till the 1970s. It is not hard to see why: with
people moving from monarchic rule to democracies, the government exhibiting the least tendencies
to control and manipulate ones mindsets and actions would naturally be the best choice. Yet, the
least government may not always be the best, since the government is still required for law and
order to be upheld. Hence, while the least government might allow for the growth of people and the
state, the crux lies in the definition of least, preferably still having and abiding by certain forms of
restrictions in this globalised world.
Liberty! Equality! Fraternity! the cries of liberal activists most commonly propagated by the US in
establishing governments that uphold and value individual freedom. The US, subscribing to a
democratic government, has proven that least control is the best control. Having one of the least
restrictions on the actions of people, and allowing a free trade system, the US has seen substantial
growth economically since people are more motivated to work. Least governments, in the form of
least controls, thus propose meritocracies, where one earns his keep, paying taxes to the
government who upholds this system for the people. In other words, this form of government is by
the people, for the people, a notion that has found favour among citizens of democratic countries.
Also, it is expected of least government to take on the role of the mediator, facilitating discussions
domestically and abroad when requested by the citizens, except in dire situations, thus providing
more room for political involvement. In modern countries where the middle class makes up the bulk
of society, the power of the masses cannot be ignored, and governments would do best to account
for their opinions in order for the country to prosper. In relaxing restrictions on freedom of speech,
and possibly, assembly, governments allow the heartlanders to come together, pool their advice
and feedback to the authorities, who can then take necessary action. Notably, a government body
is still required to govern the state, hence the term least government and not no government.
Recognition must still be awarded to the state in implementing policies, but citizens gain since
these suggestions were put forth by them in light of their needs and interests, improving the
standard of living of citizens in the country. The benefits of a least government thus propel it
further to the position of the best government.
Yet, a loosening of control by governments may not always work in their favour, creating civil unrest
and massive uprising since people are now able to voice their varying opinions. The social,
economic and especially political upheaval in Thailand by the Red-Shirts is a salient example of
an excess of freedom of speech, triggered by social resentment. When governments unable to
satisfy the needs of the majority allow for freedom of speech, the future portends chaos and
deaths, a situation Thailand is currently undergoing. The Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD)
were far from being democratic the massive protests against the present Abhisit government are
belligerent actions that threaten the very stability of the monarchic country, one of the few left in
Asia. Where the government had played on the freedom to elections in order to gain votes, it has
unfortunately backfires on them as people took the opportunity to express their displeasure
towards the Thai government. A least government, without establishing the basis for the countrys
growth, is likened to one building a house on sand, an illusion that will crumble under attacks,
taking down with it the lives of innocent people.
Therefore, the crux lies in laying the foundation for growth before embarking on idealistic notions of
freedom. Singapore is able to maintain its relatively strong hold onto its governance, yet accede to
34
the requests for freedom and rights, only because the basic needs of the people have been looked
after. With the peoples Action Part (PAP) taking care of such needs like education, employment and
healthcare, then going further to provide extra capital and wealth to citizens, it would be difficult to
find people who are adamantly opposed to the PAP, even if they do frequently complain about the
autocratic nature of this one-party state. The least government thus only comes after an
established government like the nurturing of a child, one never ceases to worry even when the
child grows up, but it is irrefutable that control over the child does slacken, since he is deemed
wiser at making decisions. Hence, the least government, while arguably being the best
government, would require the precedence of an established government in order to take effect.
Perhaps in comparing autocracies to democracies, the advantages (and disadvantages) of the
least government can be underscored. Despite having stringent conditions to trade and especially
peoples mindsets through censorship, China is experiencing immense economic growth, and this
can be attributed to its politically conservative, yet economically liberal government. In comparison
to the past, China has seemingly learnt that force would only stifle its growth, and have opened its
doors to foreign traders, gradually progressing to a least government. The US, conversely, is
facing an outstanding foreign trade deficit, where inflows are greater than outflows, due to its
openness in economy, concluding Free Trade Agreements that have ultimately worked against
them to the advantage of developing nations. This prominent example of an overly-liberal
government highlights how moderation is vital in ensuring that the benefits of a free governments
and state can be passed on to its people. Simply put, the least government has to practice
moderation to avoid polarities, and this would usually tend to be liberal economies with democratic
governments.
It is insufficient for governments to merely fulfill the bare minimum a foundation has to be laid, and
peoples opinions have to be considered in order to work towards a socially desirable best
government. As leaders of the state, the best governments are not those who flaunt their riches or
oppress its citizens, but those who work behind the scenes to ensure the welfare of citizens, usually
termed the (omniscient) least government.
Joan Lim Yun Hui | 2T11
35
Those who allow themselves to be governed like sheep will eventually be ruled by wolves.
In light of this statement, what is the value of political dissent?
Political dissent refers to an agitation of the masses or a specific group of people against a
governing authority. The question suggests that without political dissent, the government may
assume a predatory and dictatorial nature. This is largely true because without the people's
willingness to keep the ruling figures in check, these leaders will soon then see a perfect
opportunity to assume more power and control at the expense of the people"s welfare. While this
shows the importance of political dissent, its value and ability should not be over exaggerated as
oppressive dictators have shown abilities to suppress such dissent through violence and repressive
laws. Nevertheless political dissent should still be highly valued as it is a marker of good
governance as well as a barometer for the pep|e's political awareness.
The importance of political dissent can be strongly seen by its occurrence across times and its
usefulness for allowing people to express their discontent and to campaign for a change. No one in
the right mind would rebel simply for the sake of rebellion. People usually agitate against the
governing authorities only if they are badly affected by the policies or expect further improvements
in their lives which the government can provide, As the government's Grist and foremost
responsibility is to provide for the people, political dissent can then function as a platform for the
people to point out that the government did not perform its first and foremost duty. The dissent
expressed by the people can range from a simple strike to a mass rebellion but the point by the
people is simple, they want better conditions. This can be seen across time and all political
structures, from the peasant rebellions in Ancient China where despotic emperors were overthrown
to the series of democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s. These two
examples which are historically and geographically apart, point out a similar situation of the masses
rallying to effect a change because they were discontented with the current status quo. This shows
the importance of political dissent.
However the ability of political discontent to effect change is largely dependent on the scope of the
dissent. There may be cases where political dissent might only come from a small segment of
societies and their ability to effect change is then very limited because of its inability to garner
support from the larger majority or the nature of the dissent is targeted specifically at the
overbearing policies of the majority which alienates or forcefully attempts to assimilate the minority.
A clear case to illustrate this condition is Myanmar where the ruling military junta had practiced
discriminatory policies against the minor ethnic groups and had attempted to assimilate them into
the Burmese majority by forcing them to lose their language and traditions. The end result is a full
scale ethnic insurgency. But this insurgency is limited because of the lack of unity among the
insurgents as the situation there is every race for itself thus painting a picture of the Myanmar
military fighting small groups of rebels simultaneously. This shows the limitations of political
discontent as an agent of change and its value being useful only as a channel of discontent.
The value of political dissent can be seen where it is a useful tooI to measure good governance of
any society. The formula is simple as "no dissent means good governance". This refer to countries
where there is no outpouring of discontent by the people, no threats of violent rebellions or
secessionist movements because the people are very happy with their government which provides
for them all the basic necessities they need and shields them from problems the country might face.
Examples of such countries are Switzerland, Norway and Finland. In these countries, we hear no
political turmoil and strong sense of stability and unity is prevalent. But it is important to note that
these countries mentioned above are only applicable to the formula of "no dissent means good
governance". This is because the absence of dissent can also refer to countries with oppressive
regimes that have tight censors and brutal means to keep the people from agitating. Countries
belonging to this type are North Korea and Myanmar where they share the same modus operandi.
36
Both countries isolate their populations and strung political powers are granted to their military and
police organisations thus being able to ruthlessly suppress any form of dissent that might occur.
This shows that while the absence of dissent may reveal a benevolent government, it may also
necessary show a totalitarian and isolationist regime. This shows the value cf political dissent in
measuring the type of governance in every society.
On the whole, there is a high value for political dissent as it shows that it can function as an
instrument for the people at express their discontent while its ability to effect changes is subjective
and dependence can the nature and the scope of the dissent. Also political dissent is valuable in
identifying oppressive as well as good governance.
Devadevan | 2T02
37
Will the Internet bring freedom to oppressed people?
Since the beginning of civilisation, certain groups of individuals have been marginalized and
oppressed for a plethora of reasons, ranging from race and religion to even skin colour and gender.
Be it the people of the Mediterranean, subjugated and conquered by the Roman Empire, the Jews
of Europe, massacred by Adolf Hitler during the Second World War, or the countless other victims
of their fellow human beings prejudice and violence, the oppressed rarely, if ever, have a chance to
speak or fight for themselves and when they do, it is often too late. However, in our modern world,
rapid advances in technology have begun to change the conditions and rules of the one-sided
game of oppression and victimization and integral to this is the use of the Internet, whose growth
and near-omnipotent presence have broken down geopolitical barriers, and for the first time in
human history given a real face and voice to the struggles of the oppressed. While the road to
freedom remains long and treacherous, this writer argues that through the Internet, the oppressed
will eventually find freedom for themselves and for their future, as technology continues to
empower every individual with freedom of expression and speech.

The development of the Internet from Tim Berners-Lees ARPANET in the early 1990s was one of
the key driving forces of globalisation, potentially allowing every man, woman and child access to
the worlds largest library, as mathematician John Alan Paulos noted. It is this self-same
accessibility to the Internet and information, therefore, that has given both the oppressed a brave
new voice and the rest of the world a listening ear. In regimes like Iran, where any attempt at protest
were silently quashed twice in the past, the attempted revolution in 2009 was broadcast on
websites like Twitter and Facebook and the online portals of news networks like CNN and NBC.
Previously unable to make their voices heard, Iranian students, exiles and pro-democracy leaders
were now able to use the Internet to present their views as well as the endemic corruption that has
taken root in Irans government. On the receiving end, the Internet enabled dozens of news
operators and networks, as well as millions of casual Internet users, to hear the voices of the
oppressed in Iran, where there had been a total news blackout previously in 1988. Hence, the
Internet is freeing people from the terrible yoke of oppression and giving them, through an online
voice, freedom of speech and the ability to present ones own marginalised views before a
globalised world that for once can actually reply and even help.
However, the terrible, present-day reality is that revolts like the one in Iran continue to be
mercilessly crushed, even as the world watched helplessly. While the Internet has brought a high
measure of freedom of speech to a large number of oppressed individuals, it cannot bring about
total, complete freedom for all as of yet, because it is simply limited by its accessibility. Many of the
worlds oppressed people live in poor, economically ravaged areas like El Salvador, Sudan and
Myanmar and have little, if any access to a computer, let alone the Internet itself, making it largely
impossible for them to gain access to the freedom of speech the latter provides. While much of
Myanmar was engaged in revolt in 2009, for example, very little information regarding the actual
situation reached the Internet itself, even from the old capital Yangon and the state capital
Naypidaw, precisely because very few Burmese have access to the Internet. Indeed, had video
footage or even written reports of the atrocities and genocide rumoured to have taken place in
Myanmar emerged through the Internet, the United Nations may have had actual evidence with
which to take a firmer stand in Myanmar much as it did Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War. Unfortunately,
the inaccessibility of the Internet made it impossible for any of those documents to reach the
outside world, if they existed at all. Hence, the Internet presently cannot bring freedom to the
oppressed, because it simply cannot be reached by the oppressed.
Moreover, even if individuals are indeed able to gain access to the Internet, authoritarian regimes
can easily make parts of the Internet, especially file-sharing websites inaccessible temporarily or
permanently, thereby depriving the Internet to bring freedom, or at least freedom of speech, to the
38
oppressed. In 2008, for example, the Chinese government cracked down on Internet Cafes and file-
sharing websites across the nation after it was deemed that too much information was reaching the
outside world. It chose to block YouTube, Google and even Facebook, though after a time the last
was reinstated, albeit with limited controls (and no video-sharing!). Similarly, Malaysia, though
hardly as oppressive as China or other countries, has also been detaining Malaysian bloggers who
were deemed to be posting radical agendas and writings when in reality they were calling for
more minority rights. Hence, governments easily make the Internet inaccessible when the victims of
oppression are too vocal, preventing them from attaining any sort of freedom.
Nonetheless, the anonymity the Internet grants to the oppressed is gradually enabling to attain the
freedom they so deserve and require. Although Malaysia was able to use Internet Protocol (IP)
codes traced to computers to determine the identity of its rogue bloggers in 2008, the
introduction of the Web 2.0 servers has since heavily encrypted such IP codes, making it near
impossible for hackers and cyber-thieves to trace credit card numbers and passwords, but also
rendering aforementioned government efforts tiresome and tedious. Hence, it is entirely possible for
oppressed political exiles like Salman Rushdie to continue presenting their views online, because
there is no need for Salman Rushdie to identify himself as Salman Rushdie; he could simply hide
behind a pleasant, innocuous-sounding name like splendidson and continue to enjoy freedom of
speech. The anonymity presented by the Internet, therefore, ironically continues to empower the
oppressed with a face and a voice.
Slowly, the Internet is making headway with real, concrete freedom, by connecting people with
similar issues and situations and enabling them to start online communities where they can rally
others to their cause. Perhaps the most important formerly-oppressed group that has begun to gain
real freedom from oppression and prejudice are members of the Gay Rights movement, begun
online in the mid-1990s by supporters of prominent gay rights activists like Harvey Milk. Long
prejudiced against and oppressed, even into the late twentieth century, homosexuals were able to
rally together through the use of the Internet, forming online gay networks and communities and
presenting their views and rights to basic human courtesy and treatment. The result was a gradual
liberalization of the gay agenda across not just the United States, but even in Europe and Asia, in
historically-conservative countries like Japan and South Korea. The gay community online is now
one of the largest networks on the Internet and continues to fight for homosexual empowerment in
countries such as Ukraine, Romania and Kenya, and even hardline Islamic states such as Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Where once sodomy was punishable by death in many
countries, it is now a more accepted part of society in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Germany and other countries, though a heavy stigma remains imprinted upon it. Hence, the
Internet was allowed members of oppressed social groups to come together and obtain real
freedom for themselves.
It is true that for many oppressed groups throughout the world, there is still a long way to go before
they can ever achieve true freedom. Long oppressed by their government and majority groups in
their countries, the people of Iran, Myanmar, Sudan, North Korea and others may be forced to wait
even longer. But as the world moves toward a cyber, technological future, where assets become
digital and lives move increasingly online, there will come a day when the Internet does bring
complete freedom to all. Already it has brought freedom of speech to many and even totally
empowered many of the socially oppressed; not now, but in the very near future, it will indeed bring
freedom to all oppressed.
39
The written word is always more powerful than the spoken word. What is your view?
Words are perhaps one of the most powerful tools of communication, basically because it provides
one with chance to express himself. The power of words lies in its ability to influence- we can speak
things to injure or encourage others; we can incite riots and lead peaceful demonstrations, all with
words. If we recognize that words, whether they are in the written form or spoken form, possess a
certain amount of power, then it is perhaps too presumptuous to say that the written word is always
more powerful than the spoken word.
If we were to acknowledge that words are employed as a means of expression, then the spoken
word is often the more powerful form. In speaking, the audience is able to see for himself the facial
expressions and hand gestures of the speaker, thus aiding him in understanding the true intentions
behind the words spoken. Furthermore, it is often difficult to change the impact that spoken words
have on the audience because the first impression left would remain, no matter how one tries to
alter his statements. On the other hand, written words are often easily edited, and the true intention
of what one wants to convey is conveniently masked. Take for example a text message sent to a
friend- the message can be easily changed which directly alters what the sender initially intended to
express. A blunt message of anger which would allow the receiver to understand the frustration can
be softened through pressing a few buttons, rendering the impact less forceful. Thus, the spoken
word would seem to be more powerful here because the true essence of emotion felt are
expressed more candidly through spoken words rather than written ones. Consider why there is a
saying think before you speak instead of think before you act- it supports the very idea that
words spoken often leave an impact that cannot be reversed, whereas written words can often be
change in its meanings and intentions, rendering it less powerful.
However, though it might be true that the spoken word is more powerful than the written one, it is
important to consider the character of the speaker behind the words. Only words that are spoken
by the right person leave a deep impact, because the speaker breathes life into his words. Imagine
what would happen if Martin Luther Kings highly moving and emotional speech was said by Eddie
Murphy? I think our dream then would just be to get out of the awkward and farcical situation. If
spoken words were not articulated by the right people. The essence of these words will be lost, and
turned into a mere joke. However, if a person of the right character speaks it, the impact would be
far greater than just writing it down. Imagine if Adolf Hitler merely wrote his ideas down instead of
speaking them, surely those thoughts will just be ideology instead of creating deep impacts in
peoples life. Imagine the feeling of the boys of Harrow if they were to only read Winston Churchills
words Never, never, never, never give in instead of hearing those words for themselves. The
impact would indefinitely be far greater when they hear those words. The power of these spoken
words lies in the depth and life given to it, influencing audiences much more than if they to just read
it as were texts.
Recognizing that spoken words sometimes do possess more power than the written one, it also
imperative to consider that there may be situations where the written form is more powerful than the
spoken. The uniqueness of a written text is that it can be read and re-read as many times as one
would like, and often time then a new round of reading would give rise to a new interpretation. The
magic of the written text then, would be its ability to speak differently to our souls at different stages
of our lives. A book read in our youths may seem fascinating, but when read again in our older days,
we may find that we are able to relate to it. In considering our personal growth, written words may
be more powerful than just spoken ones through writing a journal; it reinforced what we learn and
allows us to re-visit those experiences once more. If they were only spoken, we may soon forget
those thoughts. In writing, we open up our mind to various issues in a more organized manner, and
often allows us to ponder deeper into what we write, possibly giving rise to fresher insights. Thus,
the written word would be more powerful when we realize its ability to open up our minds.
40
While considering whether a written word is more powerful than spoken words, we should also ask
ourselves the purpose behind the need for words. If our purpose was to bind someone, then
perhaps the written word would serve a more powerful role. Words spoken often go with the wind,
and especially in this era, spoken words would seem less trustworthy than written ones. Legal
agreements are always done through signing od papers, even in a marriage, the mere saying of
vows do not hold much value, as it seems by how couples still have to sign a marriage certificate.
Without a written word, the initial agreement can be easily altered with a mere twist of words. This, it
cannot be said that the written word is never more powerful than spoken ones.
Whether words in written form or spoken form hold more power is definitely debatable, depending
on the situation and purpose. However, it cannot be said that the spoken word is never more
powerful than the written one. Spoken words creates the need for audiences to engage in the
emotions of the speaker, while written words forces us to use our imagination to understand what
message the author is trying to convey. Words in itself hold great power to change situations, no
matter written or spoken and we cannot conveniently presume that the written word is always more
powerful than the spoken one.
Johanna Woon Shi Ying | 2T11
41
Art should not offend. Do you agree?
When Thomas Hardy#s now-classic novel Tess of the D'UrberviIIes was first completed, the vast
majority of publishers refused to print it, on the grounds that it was intrinsically in conflict with
societal values. Yet students now analyse every word of it in schools in present day, a novel
regarded as one of the quintessential literary works in history. Who then can say that what offends
is not art, or hat an should be subjected to stringent moral and societal guidelines? By definition, art
is a tree expression of thoughts, emotions and ideology To censor it would be counter productive, in
that it is tumid into a mere reflection of existing opinions and values, the ultimate result of which
would be the death of creativity. The aforementioned novel by Hardy stands testament to this, that
originality and the transcendence of societal boundaries breeds new viewpoints and ideas, mere the
novel, in this case, questioned the patriarchal, prejudiced society of that time, and can be regarded
as a hallmark of the long fight for gender equality. However, in reality the notion that an should know
no limits is pure wishful thinking. In a world fraught with religious and racial disputes, a small step
'out of line" could have disastrous consequences. A line than must be drawn, between an and the
ideals of freedom which it entails, and the fragile reality to political correctness. This line would thus
lie within the purpose of a work of art. While controversy is acceptable as a consequence of a
greater objective or idealistic notion, a work of art should not set cut with the primary aim of
shocking or offending the public, If this were to be accompanied by controversy and the potential to
offend, then for the greater good, so be lt. Concurred efforts to please everyone would result in
nothing but an absolute lack of progress. This compromise would allow for near-complete freedom
of expression while mitigating the risk of starting a riot.
On hindsight, art that was regarded as offensive in its period of origin has on many an occasion
provided valuable insight Into the societies of history thus supporting the argument that art should
be uninhibited. When Michelangelo sculpted the magnificent statue of David, or when Da Vinci drew
the Vitruvian Man, in the period of the Renaissance, the graphic display of the male genitalia was
deemed unacceptable and crude by many, to the point that a plaster fig leaf had to be adorned by
David so as to not offend the Queen. It is thus evident, from the reverence that the two paintings
now receive In the artistic domain, that what offends may not in latter years. Much of this can be
attributed to the perennial she in societal values as we constantly progress. Much like the ostensible
death of embarrassment (as propagated by writer Christine Rosen), the societal concept of what is
and is not acceptable has and will continue to change drastically. What was once taboo in society
Las now fair-game when it comes to art. Of course, there are varying standards of morality,
particularly notable in the discrepancies between more liberal countries such as the United States
and Denmark, and more conservative states such as Iran and Indonesia. but the idea of artistic
value is a universal one. While temporal differences play a significant role in me evaluation and
possible assimilation of this artistic view into society significant works of art eventually do reveal
notable value to most. It is thus paramount that art should not be strangled in its cradle due to its
challenge of societal values, as it may potentially be of great worth in the future,
While art that has antiestablishment ideals for the sake of it should not be tolerated, the ability to
offend may add value to its significance in society. This is particularly evident in the sphere of
music, with the prime examples being rock bands such as Rage Against The Machine and U2. Both
bands have often used their music as a tool to rally support for political causes, such as U2's song
Sunday Bloody Sunday to protest against the conflict in Ireland between the Protestants and
Catholics. Whilst touching on sensitive topics. their mass support in leading protests, particularly in
the case of Rage Against The Machine has led to numerous concessions with regards to
discrimination against minority groups. As mentioned earlier, art with a driving purpose, despite the
risk of offending some, should not be restricted, and coffins should be permissible given the overall
aim of the work. It would be gravely myopic to dismiss works as qualifying for art solely due to its
tendency towards offence.
42
However, many societies do subscribe to the idea that art should not offend, and conflict has often
arisen out of this disagreement. An example in recent memory Is that of the Danish cartoonist and
his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, which sparked massive
outrage within the Islamic world. It may seem straightforward to condemn art like this, but doing so
on the grounds that it is offensive to some may be an over-simplification of the matter. Like most
things, art is subject to interpretation, and an interplay of factors such as religious and racial
backgrounds, traditional values, and personal ideology help to shape this interpretation. Put simply,
what is offensive to some may be entirely acceptable to others. The defence of the cartoonist by the
Danish movement is clear evidence that universal offence is often a non-issue. That is not to say
that the actions of the cartoonist ought to be condoned or justified, but rather art that is potentially
controversial should not be dismissed, as that would defeat the purpose of art. The true value of an
lies in its ability to express complex ideas and emotions into works easily digestible by the human
senses, conveying messages effectively through the medium with relative ease. To suppress such
potential due to the risk of stepping on toes is to be short-sighted, and controversy should be
regarded as a side-effect of art rather than its point.
In this regard, a compromise between art and controversy or offence has to be struck. To impose no
limitations on an would be rash, as human nature would exploit this and breed hatred and malice. A
fair compromise would be to take an analytical, rather than purely critical, approach to artistry. That
is to say that, rather than focusing solely on the message of the piece and whether it is offensive, we
should take into consideration the context of the place, the origins and perspective of the artist, and
its intent. An should never be used solely as an attack on others, but rather to make a well thought
out point. Whether this point gives rise to outcries or anger is secondary to the value which the
argument brings. It is in controversy that new ideas are often born, and a radical notion often
provokes though far more than one adhering to existing moral standards. Limiting this influx of ideas
would create a stasis where there is no true progress in society, resulting in a cycle of regurgitated
ideas, which would ultimately lead to a complete lack of originality and creativity. It is true that art
need not be offensive to be of worth, yet it is also true that an being offensive does not detract from
its worth. If society were so future-conscious as to recognise the value in each an piece,
controversy in art would be of little significance in the greater sphere of things.
Jordan Neill Skadiang | 2T02
43
What use is comedy?
In 2006, Sacha Baron Cohen rocked the world with his portrayal of Borat, a politically incorrect,
crudely humorous Kazakh with little regard for the political sensitivities of America - or anywhere,
really. Comedy is often an amalgamation of the frivolous, the absurd and very possibly, the
unrealistic, so much so that it comes off as a more animated representation of real life than real life
itself. This comic layering over and skewing of what is considered real or realistic provides not
only laughter but a means of laughing at oneself and therefore comedy is not only an escape, a
reprieve from real life but also a reprieve from the soul.
It would be impossible not to dismiss comedy as a form of escapism and its inherent healing
qualities. From childrens TV shows like SpongeBob Squarepants to the more sophisticated adult-
directed range of comedy shorts, skits and films, they all present in varying magnitudes, an
alternate reality and dimension to the world we currently inhabit. No one lives in a pineapple under
the sea; very few get their car smashed and their teeth knocked out on a pre-wedding bachelors
vacation to Las Vegas like in 2009s The Hangover. We laugh not only because of the absurdity of
comedy but because we are unfamiliar with such lofty, impeccably cohesive premises that have
people deadpanning with perfect comic timing or falling down at exactly the right moment. This
remodelling of life in all its normality and usual seriousness brings pleasure and an opportunity to
take a step back and be completely a relaxed spectator (instead of weary participant) of lifes
routines; our job-related woes are externalised in TVs The Office, a show wherein the characters
muddle along in their dull, eventless office lives - and all we do is sit and watch, a systematic and
easy purging of pent-up tension. We identify with and emotionally invest ourselves in characters
who may just be like us, but have a heightened penchant for sparkling wit or a proclivity for
bumbling important decisions at the most inopportune moments and this creates a double meaning
for our lives, and therefore an escape to this alternate reality where we can temporarily locate
ourselves in someone elses skin.
If comedy is an escape from the mundanity or stress of real life, it is concurrently a channel through
which our lives are broadcast to us, softened, mitigated and put into perspective. Comedy has
become extremely accessible nowadays due to the omnipresence of major industries like
Hollywood and their unfaltering hold on global comedic exports; while more often than not
predictable and formulaic, they can entice even the most discerning and picky of film connoisseurs
simply because of their immediate relatibility. The Bucket List had all predictability of a standard
cheeseburger from McDonalds, yet it was well-received because of its genuine intent to arrive at a
conclusion to the meaning of life. Viewers claimed it helped them rethink their purpose in life, their
goals, and their relevance in a world that could claim them back anytime - yet the movie never
came across as didactic or condescending because of the comedic flourishes. Through locating
ourselves in comedy, we soon realise what we are laughing at is merely an extension of the human
condition - ourselves - and that, most importantly, we actually become comfortable with lifes harsh
realities.
Comedy is one of the major forms of artistic expression today and must be recognised for its
inherent ability to shock, to subvert and to appall, seemingly contradictory functions - and therein
lies the importance of its multifaceted links with the colder, harsher real world. The fairly discreet
but still popular Keeping Mum, a British film laden with dark humour, depicts a family who kills a
man and leaves his body at the bottom of the pond. What is jarring is the blatant comedy situated
within and around such an unnerving premise, similar to the likes of Nick Frost and Simon Peggs
Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz; we settle real possibility of death and murder are infused with an
incongruous humour, which perhaps changes our preconceived notions of death itself and its
connotations. Because comedy is not discrete from the events and occurrences of the real world
but rather, a restructuring of it, it gains value from its positioning in the context of such events and
44
oftentimes the contrast between modern sensibilities and such frivolous touches is startling and
thought-provoking. Political caricatures, like the ubiquitous ones of former US President Bush
stylised as a well-groomed version of a monkey, are eye-catching and are able to underscore
certain aspects of a politicians character simply through artistic exaggeration, usually quite
appalling and rude. Comedy is an enhancement of real life itself, helped along by its intrinsic shock
quality and manner of hyperbole and through it we are subconsciously drawn towards the more
real aspect of what comedy is attempting to replicate.
Yet, comedy has often been the target of much disdain, in that its educational element is seen to
pale greatly in comparison to its entertainment value. When Shakespeare in Love won the Oscar for
Best Picture over the favourite that year, Saving Private Ryan, many critics labelled it an outright
snub and claimed the former a poor choice for the title. After all, what could be a fun frolic through
the life and times of a famous playwright offer, in comparison to a gritty wartime portrayal of pain
and suffering amidst guns and bombs? Comedy is often viewed as unrealistic and overly idealistic,
pandering to the souls fancies rather than effectively tackling the concrete problems plaguing the
world (like the war on global warming) and therefore is usually relegated to the lowest rung of the
entertainment ladder. Shakespeare in Love was seen as unworthy by many for it contributed to the
world neither a pronounced opinion on war and its effects nor a true-to-life representation of the
suffering of soldiers and their families. It was merely a romantic romp showcasing the indulgences
of Shakespeare and his lover, showing everything but proving nothing.
However, who is anyone to say that comedy should not be given credit simply because it does not
often undertake the responsibility of outright teaching and education? Comedy is relatable on an
entirely different level to textbooks or documentaries; its appeal lies in the very human need for
release and it is therefore perhaps one of the most accessible and effective forms of emotional
learning. Comedian Jim Carreys life has always been riddled with depression, and he has often
stated that comedy is an escape for him, an alternate life in which he utilises his emotional and
psychological faculties in a more liberating, rewarding way, externalising grievances and purging
himself of pent-up moodiness. Stephen Frys popular panel show QI (Quite Interesting) would not
have climbed ratings if not for its hosts seamless interweaving of humour and hard facts about
nature, art, politics and all manner of intellectual discourse; by lending a decidedly more huma face
to the various anecdotes he presents on the workings of the right brain or animal psychology Fry
not only elicits laughter but also facilitates the comprehension of such topics, picking at the
inconsistencies of his guests and co-hosts in between spewing names of obscure Renaissance
painters. Comedy is more of a bridge to an outcome, a means to an end, more than anything, be it
facilitator of our process of discovering ourselves or intellectual discovery. It makes us laugh but
what we do not often realise is that we are simultaneously internalising this cognisance of an
alternate depiction of reality and this is, in essence, a learning of this reality itself.
Isabelle Leong | 2T11
45

Twelve Eleven Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Twelve Eleven Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE

You might also like