To what extent should scientific research be free from political and commercial involvement?

Possible arguments for and against scientific research being free from political and commercial involvement

  • Freedom to make informed academic choices
  • Free from conflict of interest
  • Make research papers accessible to all – complete transparency
  • Freedom to choose research projects
  • Funding has to come from somewhere
  • Research councils (government bodies) regulate and ensure projects are in the country’s interest
  • Research often takes place in universities (as an academic environment)
  • What about charitable organisations which fund research?
  • Most private sponsors have their own research facilities (pharmaceutical)
  • What about testing on animals, weapons research, regulating clinical trials of new drugs?
  • Accountability to the government.

Entertainment, not truth, is the priority of the media today. Discuss.

In the middle of the 20th century, media houses believed that providing news was a public service. The news was not expected to prioritise entertainment but bring true narratives to the audiences. In today’s time, however, the majority of the people believe that the media is biased and just caters to the entertainment needs of the society. However, it can be contended that media today comes in diverse forms and it depends on which media is being consumed. Mainstream media, para-journalism and introduction of new media all prioritise truth or entertainment based on what is preferred and serves the desires of the target audience.

Mainstream media at times does obscure the facts but it cannot be said that the media does it just for entertainment value. At times mainstream media does give more time to telecast or publish entertainment news rather than news that deals with issues that affect the public. For example, many newspapers today publish news related to lifestyle or the relationship status of celebrities whilst ignoring social issues.  Newspapers like The Independent publish news of squirrels storing walnuts in cars or the Straits Times publishing news of TV celebrities getting engaged and married shows that the media today only tries to entertain people. Often, the media also uses sensationalism to sell its stories but that does not mean that entertainment is prioritised and truth completely ignored. In fact, there have been instances where media professionals have tried to bring truth to the forefront. For example, newspapers like the New York Times and The Washington Post have always tried to report honestly and present news as it is. It can be said however that the media tries to fulfil their own agendas and mainstream media prioritizes entertainment and truth based on the agendas they want to fulfil. 

Parajournalism, however, does try to present their own opinions on the matter instead of preventing the truth. It can thus be said that this form of news does prioritise entertainment over truth. For example, tabloids like the Sun and the Mirror UK always present news that is pointless but piques the interest of the public. The Sun, for example, gives intense coverage to the royal family from what they wore to what they ate. Similar is the case with NY Post which showcases news about celebrities’ lifestyles and what they wore at the red carpet. This evidently shows that parajournalism in the form of tabloids show little effort in publishing news that is relevant to social issues and of importance. Rather they are obsessed with featuring news which is trivial and frivolous. Unlike mainstream media which tries to fulfil their own political agendas, parajournalists completely obscure the truth to gain readership by publishing baseless gossip. Thus, it can be said that such forms of media prioritise entertainment over truth.

With the advent of technology people, today have access to new media.  New media through interaction and debate leads to debunking of myths and prioritizes truth over entertainment. An example of this can be Wikileaks and new whistle-blower website Distributed Denial of Secrets. These websites have insisted on transparency and present truth that would otherwise remain hidden. However, social media which is included under the term can be held responsible for prioritising entertainment over the truth. For example, many websites like Facebook and Instagram based on algorithms showcase posts and news based on the preferences of the individual. A Pew research study also proved that websites like Facebook only show posts that align with the user’s view on the issue. However, new media is a broad term and which platform prioritises truth over entertainment depends on the type of new media being used.

In conclusion, it can be said that not all forms of media prioritise entertainment over truth because it serves the bottom line of the company. Entertainment value is prioritised by some types of media but there are other forms that believe in promoting the truth. In the end, it is totally dependent on the readers what type of media they like to consume. Truth has to be analysed and accepted. It cannot be blindly accepted or for that matter, expect it to come without cost.

How far do you agree that music is an important aspect of a film?

Keywords: ‘How far’ and ‘agree’ and ‘music’ and ‘important’ and ‘film’.

  • Highlight emotion
  • Excitement/suspense
  • Entertainment (e.g. musicals)
  • Indicate period (e.g. the Sixties)
  • Draws audience in – pitch/tempo/melody (especially opening/closing credits)
  • Shapes character
  • Intensifies action scenes
  • Big role in silent movies (e.g. The Artist)
  • Accompanies visual comedy
  • Helps with continuity
  • Can distract and be overbearing
  • Dialogue/drama without music is more naturalistic
  • Too much manipulation
  • Needs to be discrete/sensitive/balanced

Contemporary music has no artistic value. Comment.

While the wholesome songs of John Denver, Kenny Rogers, or Stevie Wonder do not attract young audiences, they have John Legend, Kanye West and Selena Gomez to keep them entertained and grounded to modern day dilemmas.

Traditionalists hold the view that contemporary music spreads violent messages, citing Watain and other black heavy metal bands besides gangta rappers like Easy-E, Tupac and Ice Cube. Contemporary music, though rambunctious and eclactic, does not lack artistic value because it connects with people in today’s society. It would be superflous to say that it lacks originality and creativity. It is incorrect to accuse contemporary music for not having any artistic value.

Today’s music does not lack creativity.  Many musicians create music which has a lot of artistic value.  Singers like Adele,  Nick Jonas and less known Rachel Yamagata and Angie Mattson are musicians who create music which is original and artistically of high-quality. The music created by them is touching and can connect with people on an emotional level.  Today’s music does have artistic value in many ways.

Today’s music also has lyrics which are highly poetic, crafted in a unique style. An example of this can be Nerina Pallot’s Idaho which is beautifully crafted and has a melodious rhyme. The song is often considered as a representation of life.  Contemporary musicians have also used their music to touch the souls of many individuals. For example, Taylor Swift’s song ‘You need to calm down’ raised awareness about social media trolling and the LGBTQ community.  Therefore, if the artistic value is equated with meaning, then-contemporary songs are equally artistic to folk music.

Even mainstream commercial artists create music that is meaningful and incredible. Contemporary music also provides a unique spiritual and emotional experience.  An example of this can be Lady Gaga, who uses the word ugly in multiple ways in her music. Similarly, contemporary K-pop music like the music by Korean boy-band, BTS, have songs with social messages. It is considered that their music emphasises on sound songcraft rather than experimentation for the sake of it. Thus, it proves that contemporary music is meaningful in an artistic way.

Contemporary music is also driver of social change. In the majority of the cases, the success rate might be very slow but we cannot deny their artistic value in moving masses with their songs and music into action. For example, Beyoncé has one of the largest platforms in the world and frequently uses it to champion the polarising Black Lives Matter movement. Similarly, pop stars like Lil Dicky and Grimes are using their music and their huge followings to gain vital coverage of climate change.  Contemporary music is a medium through which people expresses their feelings, aspirations and fears. As music can very broadly be defined as a means to convey an artist’s message to the audience. Under this definition, contemporary music has artistic value.

There is no denying that there is music that is meaningless and distasteful. Some artists are purposeful in their choice of song, so that media can create the buzz for them to stay relevant. For example, various songs by Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus can come under this category. Avril Lavigne’s song “Dark Blonde” is a failed attempt at a girl-power anthem and proof of artistic snobbery. All these issues may result in the belief that there is a lack of artistic merit in contemporary music. However, not all songs can be judged on the basis of a few bad songs. Therefore, though there are songs that lack in artistic value, not all contemporary songs are similar. Modern people also want to be entertained by music. They are not different from the people of the past; they too crave for music that feeds their soul and connects with them on an emotional level based on present world challenges.  The good part about contemporary music is that it has songs that cater to varying tastes and moods of people. Contemporary music has artistic value.

Music is about evolution of social issues and dreams of people. While the wholesome songs of John Denver, Kenny Rogers,  or Stevie Wonder do not attract young audiences, they have John Legend, Kanye West and Selena Gomez to keep them entertained and grounded to modern day dilemmas. Contemporary music has artistic value.

Have multi-national businesses had a positive or negative impact on your society?

In the present era, ubiquitous globalisation has bestowed the greater mobility of human, capital, as well as technology. It has allowed businesses to run not only in the domestic market but also in the global market. Therein lies the contentious issue that whether Singapore has experienced a positive impact from the cooperation in businesses between Singapore and other countries. Multi-national businesses have certainly had benefits such as economic growth, better standard of living and a competitive workforce to Singapore. Nevertheless, it would be a myopic view and turning a blind eye to reality because such businesses may cause negative impacts too if it is left uncontrolled. But, despite the above-mentioned problems, measures have been put in place to mitigate the ill effects of multi-national businesses and to ensure that Singapore continues to accentuate the positive impacts derived from having multi-national businesses.

Firstly, multi-national businesses such as having Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) in Singapore have promoted wealth and success in Singapore. In the past, especially before the 1970s, Singapore was considered a developing country and even a Third world country due to the poor states with the high unemployment rate. The pervasiveness of globalisation has granted greater mobility of capital where MNCs such as Microsoft, Adidas from the west invested in Singapore to open up their businesses in the Asia region. Statistics have shown that the presence of such MNCs in Singapore has contributed significantly to the wealth and success of the Singapore economy. The presences of thousands of MNCs have boomed the Singapore Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by more than tenfold since after Singapore was granted independence decades ago. On the national level, Singapore’s society has had indeed benefited from such multi-national businesses.

Moreover, on the individual level, the MNCs create employment for the locals such that Singaporeans enjoy better material standard of living. MNCs require the locals to help them to operate their machineries and to do work so as to produce goods and services for them. This has brought down the high unemployment rate in the 1970s and 1980s – where MNCs were uncommon – to the current low and healthy unemployment rate of 3%. In addition, GDP per capita that measures the average income of a household has increased remarkably over the past decades. On average, this implies that every household are earning more than the past and able to afford more goods and services to satisfy their needs. With the absence of humongous number MNCs, the improved employment rate and better standard of living would not have been possible.

Secondly, multi-national businesses have created greater social diversity and tolerance in Singapore. The increasing interaction among countries has allowed greater levels of cultural exchange and diversity. This leads to a greater understanding and tolerance of other cultures, thereby promoting social cohesion in the country and more importantly, better cooperation at the international levels. Multi-national businesses have allowed Singaporeans to communicate and socialise with other ethnic or racial groups. This has narrowed the misunderstanding or the misconceptions among the groups, leading to a greater mutual understanding and respect towards each other. Take, for instance, the well-known racial tension in the 1970s, among different ethics and religious groups in Singapore. This riot consequently caused great social instability as they were lack of understanding and sensitivity towards one another. Today, coupled with the government’s capability in leading the country by promoting appropriate policies such as to celebrate racial harmony, the MNCs has also attributed Singaporeans to be more tolerant about other races as interactions with other countries increases, thereby bringing in a positive impact on Singapore’s society.

On the other hand, environmental and health issues are the ill effects of multi-national businesses. The multi-national businesses, especially in the 1980s, set up manufacturing industries in Singapore to produce textiles and many other electronic products. Such productions of goods are evidently burning fossil fuels that are contributing to the rise in air pollution level. It has caused severe health problems to the locals such as the increased risk of having breathing difficulty and even cancer. ‘Sick’ workforce may adversely impact the economy as people tend to be less productive.

Moreover, multi-national businesses can diffuse the national identity of Singapore and disrupt social cohesion as well. The increasing interactions between countries have inevitably made the locals be vulnerable to foreign values and lifestyle as globalisation continues to take place. The world has become borderless. Singaporeans comprising of the young professional and entrepreneurs no longer limit their capacity within Singapore only. The world has become what they think they belong to. Moreover, the indispensable new media such as the internet has been effective in influencing people to seek opportunities or better lives in other countries. This loss of national identity may cause these young talents in Singapore to move overseas to venture for a better life and thus causing a brain drain in Singapore society.

Nevertheless, the government of Singapore has unremittingly implemented appropriate policies to tackle such ill effects of multi-national businesses. Structural changes to the economy to the knowledge-based economy are evident to reduce pollution. The building of Biopolis and Fusionpolis to conduct Research and Development has enhanced the searching ‘cleaner’ fuel to replace fossil fuel. Furthermore, a national event such as the National day parade has reinforced what is meant to be a Singaporean which simultaneously reinforcing national identity. All these efforts made by the government are to mitigate the problems that outsiders may bring into Singapore.

All in all, multi-national businesses have had both positive and negative impacts on Singapore’s society. However, upon closer scrutiny, the negative impacts have been tackled effectively by the government so as to highlight the positive impacts with having minimal problems to the society. In addition, the Singapore government and the citizens should ceaselessly be prepared and be alerted upon the unprecedented challenges ahead in the future to reap the maximum benefits and negligible harms that multi-national businesses may bring about.

‘Although tourism may have damaging effects, it should still be encouraged.’ How far do you agree with this statement?

  • Tourism is vital for economic growth throughout the world (eg Cuba, China)
  • It can promote social and cultural understanding (eg, Ireland, India)
  • It is much-needed income for parts of the world under various forms of environmental threat (eg, Maldives, Mauritius)
  • The tourist industry could provide a cleaner alternative than highly polluting industries (eg, leather, firecrackers)
  • Travel philanthropy could bring about greater volunteerism (eg Cambodia, Laos)
  • Eco-tourism could be a potential (eg Peru, Ecuador)
  • People can make responsible travel choices
  • The purchase of voluntary carbon offsets
  • Tourism is not just foreign travel and can bring local benefits

A picture is more powerful than words. Discuss.

Though many might believe that pictures hold a greater power, the claim is not completely justified. This is because words tend to be more influential as it has the power to influence people mentally and emotionally.

Technological advancements in the modern age have allowed people to have access to media more than ever before. Through apps like Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and Tumblr, people can share and view images which are mundane to the mind-boggling. A picture is more powerful than words.

Critics of words suggest that images have more power than words because they capture the imagination of society in an impactful manner. There is little doubt that images are considered more creative than words and have contributed largely to the society in positive ways. For example, the artist Banksy is known to highlight powerful messages through his art. Similarly, in the earlier times many artists like Goya, Picasso and Jacques Louis David had tried to revolutionize the world through their art. Photographs like A Man on the Moon or Steve McCurry’s Afghan Girl are considered important images that has changed the course of history. Photographs have also captured the horrors of war which has led to huge emotional response. Notable photographs include the Napalm Girl, which showed the impact of American war in Vietnam. Thus, it can be said that images have exposed the horrors that exist in the world. As such, a picture is more powerful than words.

Critics  of pictures valiantly promote the view that despite the allure of pictures and videos, words still hold a significant place. They explify their stand by citing the ever increasing sales of novels, books and magazines. For example, J.K Rowling’s Harry Potter is still popular; books like 1984 by George Orwell and Killing a Mockingbird by Harper Lee continue to leave a lasting impact on new audiences. Words are a powerful medium is also evident from the fact that, people continue to buy self-help books. For example books like “You can heal your Life” by Louise Hay and “The Alchemist” by Paulo Coelho have sold millions of copies and continue to inspire people and guide them to live a successful and happy life. Words are an elixer that soothes the mind and soul. Hence, pictures are not always more powerful.

However, pictures do not always convey the intended meaning and sometimes the people fail to connect with pictures on an emotional level. Words have a more lasting impact and can stand the test of time. For example, Shakespeare’s plays like Hamlet, The Last Lear and As you Like, use words that evoke a series of emotions that people can still relate to in present times. The mastery of his words continues to inspire and impress people around the world even today. In fact, many phrases used by people in daily life are actually from Shakespeare’s plays. His dialogues like “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players” are repeated and considered a metaphor for life even today.

Images of Mahatma Gandhi exemplify peaceful resistance. The famed head portrait of Che Guevera subliminally depict the fight against oppression. When Malala Yousufzai’s or Greta Thunberg’s stand to deliver the views, it is images that we first connect to, not words. Historically, the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima is still etched in all our minds. In more contemporary times, the incessant media coverage on Trump has painted in our minds a certain view of him. It is pictures that move and mould our thinking. Not words. A picture is more powerful than words.

No single word has changed the world, but a single picture has.