Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Passage 1
1. What three different reasons does the writer give in the last three sentences of Paragraph 1
to support his case that children need to be given legal rights? Use your own words as far as
possible.
(2)
Lift
eradicate
exploitation
Paraphrase
unconscionable Legal rights for children will help eliminate/end
grossly unacceptable / heartless, unfair treatment
by adults
particularly vulnerable group
Children are most specifically easily hurt /harmed
abuse can be effectively deterred.
Only legal rights can successfully prevent further
mistreatment of children
(All three reasons given and paraphrased - 2m
Only two reasons are paraphrased well 1 m
Only one reason is paraphrased well no marks)
such
2. In building this mythic walled garden around childhood (line 19). Comment on the
appropriateness of the image in italics. Use your own words as far as possible.
(2)
Lift
Answer to be inferred
Paraphrase
A walled garden conjures the image of a mini
paradise that is hidden and protected from
human trampling/destruction. (1 m)
It is an apt/suitable image of childhood which is
similarly seen as a vulnerable /innocent period
that needs to be shielded from the problems of
the adult world. (1 m)
3. In paragraph 5, the writer gives four objections that different groups have made to the idea of
giving children legal rights. Explain the possible reasoning behind any two of these objections
using your own words as far as possible.
[2]
Lift
Paraphrase
Religious groups condemn the notion as Religious organizations might consider the idea
blasphemous/wrong as it goes against received
heretical
doctrines/dogmas/prescriptions where children
are depicted as completely subject to parental
authority/told to never to defy/disobey their
parents (instead of challenging them).
employers complain that it would be Employers fear the possibility of having to bear
with higher costs of operations / hiring only adults
economically injurious
(and hence losing profit) if children are forbidden
by law from working for lower wages
parents perceive the proposal as downright Parents are concerned that their authority over
their children will be diminished/ they could be
intimidating
bullied/harassed/harangued by their children
who might hold the threat of legal prosecution
Paraphrase
over them/they will not be able to discipline their
children and their authority will be challenged.
Summary:
4. Why do some people believe that it is not necessary to give children legal rights and why
does the writer disagree with them? Use material from paragraphs 2-4 only. Write your
summary in no more than 130 words, not counting the opening words provided below. Use
your own words as far as possible.
[8]
Some people argue that it is not necessary to give children rights because.
Lift
Paraphrase
Why some people believe that it is not necessary to give children legal rights
would
subvert
the
inherent According children rights would undermine
fundamental/intrinsic/basic parental duties.
responsibilities of parenthood.
adults
already
instinctively
and Because parents naturally/automatically
spontaneously provide the love and
care children need, so that the case for protect/nurture/show affection for
children's rights becomes superfluous.
their young,
apply/are
only
Paraphrase
false/misguided/misinformed perception of
the reality children experience.
afford
because those who lack rights are like Rights
slaves, means to the ends of others, independence/autonomy
and never sovereigns of their own
instead of subservience.
selves
10
children
are
financially
Even if one concedes that children are in As
some way different from adults because vulnerable/financially reliant/unable to earn a
livelihood,
they are economically dependent,
11
12
13
14
children
In
affluent
nations,
youth
today
develop/mature much more rapidly/quickly
Becoming worldly-wise /acquiring
experience/knowledge/lifeskills.
15
16
And
ethically/in
values/standards
terms
of
more
their
Paraphrase
Making them less dependent
19
Rights create/establish
Sample Answer:
Some people argue that it is not necessary to give children rights because
childhood is viewed as an idyllic period unburdened by adult duties, hence legal rights only
apply to older persons. According children rights would undermine fundamental parental duties.
Because parents naturally nurture their young, rights are unnecessary. However, people
romanticise and misrepresent the reality children experience. To blindly believe that adults have
total authority over their submissive charges condones corporal punishment. Rights make
children independent instead of subservient. As children are financially vulnerable, it is even
more important to safeguard their well-being. Rights give children the authority to control their
lives. In affluent nations, young people mature more rapidly, becoming more worldly-wise both
intellectually and ethically, making them less dependent and more self-controlled. Rights
establish egalitarian relationships between children and parents.
(120 words)
Passage 2
5. What do the two metaphors in the last sentence of Paragraph 1 have in common? [1]
Lift
Paraphrase
rend our social fabric
The two metaphors employ the same image
rot the moral fibre of our youth.
that of a piece of cloth which is being damaged
in some way (one being torn/ripped, the other
subject to decay/deterioration). OR
Comment
on
the
parallelism/parallel
structure/parallel construction employing the
same syntax and verbal patterns in both
phrases
(1 mark for either of the above points, though the first answer is the stronger, more appropriate
one.)
6. make reasoned and reasonable decisions (line 13). Explain the distinction between the
two words in italics. Use your own words as far as possible.
(2)
Lift
Reasoned
Reasonable
Paraphrase
reasoned means that decisions have been
made on the basis of sound, rational, logical
thinking/judgement (1)
reasonable refers to the consideration of
what is sensible/equitable/just/fair-minded (1)
Paraphrase
This is because the typical child is selfish/ only
concerned about his own needs /interests (1/2
m) which the child rashly wants to indulge in /
fulfil (1/2 m). In addition, the bad-tempered /
spoilt behavior (1/2 m) of most children often
blind them to other issues/concerns/ peoples
situations/feelings (1/2 m)
8. Heaven forbid that young people should do what they are told! (lines 42-43). What is the
tone of the writer here and why does he adopt it?
(1)
Lift
Paraphrase
The writer is being facetious/sarcastic/ironic,
expressing mock horror / feigned shock/
incredulity (allow either) (1/2 m)
to signal her dismay/how appalled she is by
the fact that things have come to such a
pass/we have lost our moral bearings and the
world has gone mad! Obviously and
unquestionably, young people should be
automatically expected to obey authority
figures like parents, teachers and the
government, not the opposite. (1/2 m)
9. What reasons does the writer give in Paragraph 5 to support his claim that giving children
legal rights would do more harm than good? Use your own words as far as possible. [2]
Lift
undermine what constitutes the family as
the
distinctive
form
of
human
association it is
Paraphrase
More harm will be inflicted as asserting
childrens rights will only subvert the
foundation of the family unit, which is a
unique/special social unit.
1 mark
rampant;
widespread;
prevalent
compliant;
obedient;
submissive
uncouth and aggressive;
thuggish;
ill-mannered;
rough and vulgar; boorish
absurd;
ludicrous;
ridiculous; outrageous
Insistent/vehement
and
loud/noisy
demand/outcry/protest
mark
frequently occurring
Incredible;
unbelievable
0 mark
plentiful, abundant
tame; soft-spoken;
gentle; meek
impolite
rude
request
There is low awareness of this debate in Singapore society, perhaps primarily because instances of child abuse and
exploitation are few, and our laws (primarily the Children and Young Persons Act) are robust in protecting children, more so
after we acceded to the Convention.
According to the Second and Third Periodic Report, in Singapore, government policies relating to children are based on the
key principles of child-centricity, integration, early intervention, specialised help for vulnerable groups and a shared sense of
responsibility amongst Government, community and individuals in realising the needs of children. Thus, it can be argued that
Singapore takes a moderate and balanced approach towards protecting children and recognising the primary role of parents
in securing their childrens welfare.
Evaluation
children were confirmed victims of abuse or neglect. The national rate of child fatalities rose
steadily from 1999 to 2006, from 1.62/100,000 to 2.04/100,000.
The Guardian (10 Aug) reports that in 2008, almost 500 children were abducted from Britain
and taken abroad, with Pakistan as a hotspot destination.
New Zealands 2007 anti-smacking law was promulgated to curb its high rate of child
abuse (AP). According to a 2003 UNICEF report, she has the fifth-highest rate of child
deaths among the OECD countries.
Relevance to Singapore:
Even though cases of child abuse in Singapore are few, there is still cause of concern
because of the increasing trend of child-related violence. The same MCYS report notes that
sexual abuse figures have increased gradually over the years, making up 29% of the total
number of cases. Cases of emotional abuse also showed an increase from 1 in 2000 to 11
in 2004, accounting for 5% of the total number of cases.
It is common to read in The Straits Times that Singaporean children suffer from stress due
to their parents unreasonable expectations. This is arguably a form of abuse which
legally prescribed rights may be able to address.
Disagree:
Relevance to Singapore:
The lives of the majority of Singaporean children are arguably care-free and harrowing
incidences of poverty, disease and abuse are absent. Children only have to worry about
excelling in their studies and fulfilling (sometimes unrealistic) parental expectations.
Relevance to Singapore:
According to the October 2005 MCYS Report Protecting Children in Singapore, actual
cases of child abuse (with evidence of abuse/neglect) increased from 61 in 2000 to 90 in
2004, averaging about 79 cases yearly, showing that child abuse cases in Singapore
remain relatively low.
unquestioning acceptance of the Agree:
traditional family roles of adult We acknowledge the Judeo-Christian and Confucianist beliefs that children must obey their
custodianship
(and
child parents.
Evaluation
Relevance to Singapore:
According to the Oct 2005 MCYS Report Protecting Children in Singapore, 54% of
perpetrators in child abuse cases were biological parents.
One wonders whether, despite economic progress, our conservative Asian society has yet
to fully recognise childrens freedoms to express themselves, their desires and choices etc.
is a false stereotype that serves to Agree:
legitimise social attitudes that New Zealands anti-smacking law suggests that she, too, is aware of the need to protect
tolerate the use of force in children from abuse resulting from misguided attempts to discipline.
disciplining children for their own
good.
Relevance to Singapore:
In Singapore, we have embraced the progressive idea of discipline with care; Restorative
Practices and counseling are preferred to the rod.
Disagree:
Relevance to Singapore:
In Singapore schools, caning is still on the books for serious offences, which implies that
there is still a need for authority figures to be able to turn to stringent punishments to ensure
order and a conducive learning environment.
those who lack rights are like Agree:
slaves
We cannot deny the historical veracity of infantalising our inferiors such as women and
children.
Disagree:
Scaremongering: choosing the most extreme example of slaves to make his point.
it is precisely because of this Agree:
difference that [children] deserve If the focus in on protecting children who are exploited and abused, then this argument is
indeed require to be accorded justified.
rights, so that their welfare can be
duly protected.
Disagree:
Children who do not have to contend with exploitation and abuse are already being
protected by their parents natural affections and attitudes. (quoting Archard). We can
agree with Archard that codifying childrens rights runs the risk of undermining the reliance
on the benevolent dispositions that family members bound together instinctively and
spontaneously towards one another.
10
Evaluation
Agree:
Relevance to Singapore:
Since becoming a signatory to the Convention, the views of children are being increasingly
sought for decisions that concern them; eg:
student feedback taken into account in any major national educational policy
reform/review; (eg. JC/Upper Sec Review)
In school, there are suggestion schemes, feedback forms/surveys, dialogue sessions
and forums, journal writing lessons, elected student leadership, opportunities to assume
leadership roles in and outside the classroom. Students have been involved in setting
some school rules and designing school uniforms;
The annual Pre-University Seminar has been held since 1970. In 2001, the Deputy PM
hosted a discussion with a group of youths on matters close to their hearts. This
discussion was broadcast over the media. (MCYS, 2004)
A list of legislative provisions ensuring that the views of children and young persons are
heard is seen in.
(i) The right to participation in court proceedings Children and Young Persons Act and
Probation of Offenders Act;
(ii) The right to participation in custody proceedings Womens Charter
(iii) The right to expression of views in relation to abortion - Termination of Pregnancy Act;
(iv) The right to expression of views in relation to sexual sterilisation Voluntary Sterilisation
Act
that give them the capacity to be Disagree:
less reliant and more self-disciplined Freeman fails to recognise that the Convention acknowledges that young children may not
than some adults.
have the maturity to make many decisions by themselves and would require parents and
adults who have their interests at heart, to help them to make decisions, or if they are too
young, to make decisions on their behalf.
11
Evaluation
Disagree:
Freeman also fails to recognise that the Convention (Article 12) also acknowledges that
when children exercise their rights, they are expected to do so within the confines of the
law, and without infringing on the rights of others, including the authority of parents and
other custodians. Childrens rights include responsibility - agree with Archard.
Freeman is misguided to believe that the parent-child relationship can ever be an equitable
one children are after all dependents and parents their custodians.
Relevance to Singapore:
In Singapore, childrens right to have their views taken seriously can be seen in our judicial
procedures. When children testify in court, their testimony is given due weight and they do
so without fear or intimidation, as provided in the Vulnerable Witness Programme. In
adoption and custody disputes, the Family Court takes childrens opinions into
consideration. (MCYS)
Arguments
against
legally
prescribing a specified set of
childrens rights [cannot] be ethically
sustained[and]would be merely
a cosmetic exercise.
Disagree:
Freeman does not address and thus dismisses/disregards the practical concerns of his
opponents, insisting instead that ethical concerns take precedence, which may not be true.
For example, Freeman could have pointed out that even if we codify childrens rights, we
still face practical problems of enforcement.
Freeman confuses arguments against legally prescribing childrens rights with arguments
against acknowledging that children have rights. While it is unethical to deny that children
have rights and accordingly withhold protection of their interests, it is perfectly reasonable
and acceptable to object to a set of legally prescribed rights.
Disagree:
Freeman again narrowly claims that protection is possible only under the law. It may be
possible to demonstrate equal concern and respect for children without couching our
obligations in legal terms.
12
Evaluation
Agree:
In some American schools (eg Philadelphia) where corporal punishment is banned, some
teachers whose hands are tied feel it is almost impossible for learning to take place as there
are no meaningful sanctions to deter hardened trouble-makers.
Relevance to Singapore:
The fact that parents have recourse to apply for Beyond Parental Control Orders (BPCOs)
under the Children and Young Persons Act is testament to the valid concerns raised by
Archard regarding the bad behavjour of young people today.
Disagree:
Archard exaggerates the situation that would occur if we codify childrens rights in law,
perhaps demonstrating an irrational fear of a state of chaos with no way to control it and the
moral degradation that may ensue.
His assumption that codifying rights in law will automatically lead to their abuse is
erroneous.
Relevance to Singapore:
According to Singapores 2nd and 3rd Periodic Report on the implementation of CRC dated
January 2009, the number of juveniles arrested for Overall Crime showed continual
decreases between 2004 and 2006. From 2003 to 2007, admissions to the MCYS Juvenile
Homes have seen a downward trend.
It is specious to say that children are Disagree:
no different from adults.
Children are of course different from adults in some ways. However, Archard simplistically
assumes that all children are of similar mental age, which disregards the reality that growing
the vast majorityare unable to up is a developmental process. Older children say between 16 to 18 do have some life
form consistent beliefsimmaturity experiences to make mature, sound and responsible judgments regarding their life goals.
and lack of life experiences do not
equip them with the capacity to
make sound judgments.
Regardless of their flawed character, criminals are entitled to legal rights and can exercise
them. In the same way, children need to be protected from abuse and exploitation even if
13
Evaluation
they are selfish brats. Archard disregards this crucial distinction.
Disagree:
Archard makes a false analogy: mentally impaired adults can never develop the capacity to
make sound judgements, whereas children can do so as they mature and grow and learn
from their experiences.
He compares rights with guns, an analogy which is unfair and negatively connotes that legal
rights are as dangerous as firearms and will automatically be employed antagonistically
against parents.
Agree:
Already tense family relations (eg. as a result of divorce proceedings) can potentially
become more fractious if we now have to quibble over the minutiae of childrens rights.
Disagree:
Archard does not really provide evidence of how itemising and codifying childrens rights will
traumatise children. He also gives no examples of misguided litigation.
Agree:
It is reasonable that we have to give due consideration to adult caregivers interests.
The best interest approach may be a questionable approach to adopt since we cannot
strictly define what best interest entail. The phrase is mentioned 7 times in the Convention
but never elaborated upon.
14
of
Evaluation
child deliberate scaremongering. Note his use of emotive language and contemptuous view of
child protection expensive luxury.
Agree:
Relevance to Singapore:
In Singapore, there is a indeed a more pressing need for greater parental engagement in
moral education, given that more children are willing to challenge parental authority and
demanding that their needs and concerns be addressed.
Disagree:
Archard sidesteps the issue of why there is a necessity to codify childrens rights; he does
not really consider the very real cases of abused and exploited children who need
protection; he assumes that every child is a spoilt brat that could use a greater dose of
moral suasion or parental guidance.
The [Convention] underminesthe Agree:
family as the distinctive form of Instead of upholding the anti-smacking law to address child abuse in families, many in NZ
(88%) have advocated revoking the law for fear of wrongful prosecution when discharging
human association it is
their parental responsibilities.
[externally imposed justice] will only
erode the natural affections and Laws cannot realise/improve morals, and may actually strain natural familial relations.
attitudes that render the need for
rights unnecessary in the first place. According to the Childrens Ombudsman (2006), although Sweden bans corporal
punishment, many children are still being beaten.
laws will not miraculously reform
neglectful or abusive parents
15