December 2022 — Gp Lah!

Is complete self-sufficiency in countries ever possible?

The notion of complete self-sufficiency was often seen as a myth within the modern world as the contemporary developments of globalisation reveal the hyper-connected world we live in today, where countries are succumbed to the interdependent nature of the global economy. It is not surprising to see that countries across the world are increasingly dependent on one another for their resources and this is also regarded as the norm and trait of today’s world. However, issues such as growing demand and potential import disruptions have surfaced recently, with the notable COVID-19 pandemic threatening many global supply chains and affecting the sufficiency and sustainability of resources within nations. This raises the question if countries should be pursuing complete self-sufficiency to minimise the threats from the external environment and to be able to maintain itself without outside aid or intervention. Even though some nations have pursued self-sufficiency to some degree and have adopted incremental progress over the past decade to provide for their own needs, in practice, self-sufficiency is arguably still viewed to be a relative concept along a continuum that is highly dependent on the global climate. This question raises the debate if complete self-sufficiency is even possible given the interdependent nature of our global economy today. Is there any interests or benefits to aim for complete self-dependency in countries? What are the factors that may influence, shape or limit such possibilities?

Can beliefs affect our ability to reason?

Philosophers throughout history have attempted to explain concepts and divine processes. In achieving this they have always applied reason and logical explanation. Any explanation that seemed illogical or unreal was questioned. However, there has been a constant struggle between belief and reason. Beliefs are ideas that are based on religious, moral and political faiths. Beliefs affect the ability to reason because beliefs cannot be easily changed, they are facts for people and they create boundaries that hinder reasoning.

Belief can hinder reasoning because once they are accepted, they imperceptibly become facts. Belief immediately gets accepted as reality and further questioning or inquiry becomes difficult. For example, Galileo Galilei faced backlash and imprisonment because his theory was against the belief of the church that the earth is the centre of the universe. The idea can also be seen in how many religious groups are against stem cell research because these groups consider stem cell manipulation equivalent to playing god. Therefore, beliefs once ingrained are treated as confirmed facts and become resistant to suggestions and challenge. Hence, belief and reason are not compatible as belief becomes grounds for unproven facts.

Beliefs define an individual’s personal sense of reality and knowledge. Human beings have a belief system and through this mechanism, they individually, “make sense” of the world around them Humans need belief systems in varying degrees to cope with events in their lives. For example, religion may fill the human need for finding meaning and not thinking about the existential angst while supporting social movements. Everyone has opinions, biases, and feelings that shape their own beliefs. Based on these factors, people form their opinions which may lead to improper reasoning. However, reason and beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Atheists use reasoning to believe that God does not exist. Some religious faiths believe that their way is the only way to salvation. Therefore, beliefs shape our opinions and we stick to our beliefs which eventually affects our reasoning.

Political beliefs are also hard to change because they can be hard-wired into our brain. Political beliefs might affect the ability to think logically because people do not wish to see things from another perspective. People with strong political beliefs use arguments that support their personal viewpoint. For example, a debate in the United States ensued about spending a significant portion of the budget on national defence but in a subsequent survey when participants were asked if military funding should be reduced, the respondents disagreed according to their political beliefs. It is evident that people immediately reject ideas that even slightly threaten their beliefs as it is considered as a direct attack on their identities. Therefore, beliefs do diminish our ability to reason because strong beliefs act as facts for people.

There are religious beliefs that place little to no boundaries on reasoning. Taoism and Paganism place few constraints over rational thinking. These religious belief systems, allow individuals to explore and develop your own path and ability to reason. Therefore, we can say that belief does not always hinder our ability to reason. However, the majority of religious beliefs create boundaries that hinder reasoning. These beliefs that have no basis in fact or proof cause the greatest distortion of perception. For example, religious beliefs rooted in Abrahamic religions or religions of Semitic origin like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have many restrictions and boundaries. Strong religious beliefs reject facts and ideas that conflict with their boundaries. For example, Sharia laws demand the death penalty for issues like the abandonment of religious beliefs and blasphemy. Therefore, not all religions are created equally and many religious beliefs do hamper our ability to reason.

In conclusion, it can be said that belief does have the ability to affect reason. Beliefs cannot be easily changed and some beliefs also need reasoning. In most cases, though we stick to our rational or irrational beliefs whether religious, ideological or political which eventually affects our reasoning. Science has the potential to change beliefs, but its ultimate impact is contingent upon how literate, liberal and lucid people are.

Governments should be responsible for funding a nation’s performing arts. Discuss.

• explore why a governments should be responsible to fund its nation’s performing arts
• explore the reasons why other sources should fund a nation’s performing arts
• make a judgement, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward that governments should be responsible for funding.
• providing well-equipped venues for performances that would otherwise be unavailable
• ensuring that appropriate funds are allocated to different ventures
• funding would enable performances to go on tour to other areas
• such measures being a source of national pride, encouraging the continuance of national culture
• the high cost of some performances might deflect funding from other important areas
• government funding might make attendance within reach of the less
wealthy
• niche performances can still go ahead even if audience numbers are lower
• a prestigious project could attract other investment and visitors to the country.

To what extent are timed examinations a fair means of assessment?

• consider the extent to which timed examinations are fair
• evaluate the effectiveness of other methods of assessment
• make a judgement, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward.
• timed examinations only assess a portion of the taught content of a course
• how time restrictions limit students’ thinking and ability to develop ideas, adding unnecessary pressure
• revising and cramming means material is stored in the short-term memory
• the added value of work-based and continuous assessment showing what people can really do
• there being evidence that the focus and time pressure in examinations often yield a high standard of work
• the examination being a level playing field where everybody is in the same position and therefore it is fair
• the nature of formal examinations minimising the potential for copying or cheating
• examinations often being marked externally which is fairer than internal assessment.

The only divide worth addressing is the rich-poor divide. Do you agree?

In contemporary times, detractors of globalisation have fervently criticized the phenomenon of widening the rich and poor gap between individuals and even countries and demand for government intervention. It is undeniable that this disparity can lead to many social problems, however, to focus on this divide only and neglect others would not be a wise choice. History has shown us the dire consequences of racial and religious segregation, the negative impact of the divide between science and religion on mankind progress and well as ideology difference. To not address them would hinder the progress of not only one country but the world as a whole.

It has been frequently argued by critics of globalisation that it has brought about the widening income gap between the haves and the have nots which can lead to contention and social unrest. While the rich can continue to expand their wealth as they can have easy access to resources and technology advancement, the poor and the unskilled seem to lose out. As they do not have the skills required in the newly emerging industries, it is highly likely that these people would be retrenched and replaced by technology. This would lead to an increase in unemployment rate of the country. Being unemployed, people have high probability to lose their self-esteem and suffer from stress as well, which would lead to dissatisfaction and worsening health. According to research as well as confirmed by renown figures like Seneca, Karl Marx through the theory of relative deprivation posits that it harms people psychologically to see that other people have more than them. This would cause a decline in health which would place a huge burden on the country on healthcare cost. Linking unemployment to decline in healthcare? The discussion is rushed. Besides, as lower-income earners are not satisfied with their lives, dissension and protests are likely to occur. We ~~would~~ cannot forget the images of burning cars and broken window in Paris when retrenched workers went on strike to demand for change in policies which can bring them jobs. Taking a more extreme case into account, poor people having no means to earn a living would desperately join terrorist groups where they are at least guaranteed a life with food and shelter. Thus, it is possible to this gap between rich and poor lead to many social problems, just like Robert Wade has stated that income divergence helps to explain other kind of polarization taking place in the world system, between a zone of peace and a zone of turmoil. To prevent such turmoil to occur, the government should definitely address this rich and poor gap to ensure social stability.

However, it is not to say that governments all over the world should spend all the money and resources to tackle this divide alone. In the end, we have to question ourselves whether this rich and poor gap only brings about negative impacts that requires our full attention. Studies have shown by many psychologists that inequality can help serve to motivate people to work harder. A 1990-2010 study of golfers found that they performed best in tournaments where the spread in size and prize money is widest. This is explained as inequality may act on human psyche to elicit hard work and high achievement, which will lead to progress. Since this problem is not always harmful and there are other divides that need our concern as well, it is evident that rich and poor gap is not the only one issue that worth addressing. Quite a far fetched example.

One of the separations that have been plaguing world peace and security is racial segregation. As each race has different cultures and practices that are long-engraved throughout many generations, it is hard for cultures to mix well with one another and accept differences. The wall between different races if not handled well would possibly lead to conflicts whose outcomes are beyond our imagination. In many of our memories nowadays remain the tragic images of million of Jews perishing in the holocaust or dying in pain due to the cruelty of the Nazis who believed in the superiority of Aryan race over others. The death of 800 thousand people in the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda is not a small number that should be neglected. In our very own multicultural Singapore society, the racial riots and the Maria Hertogh incident are evidence that racial segregation is present and prevalent in our life. The loss of lives, national insecurity and social instability is so dear a cost of such divide when it is neglected and not taken into consideration. It may be argued that this divide is declining in the globalised world, where there is an increase in integration and influx of information and cultures from different countries. However, it may not be the case. There has developed a sense of xenophobia and discomfort of the locals towards immigrants. This has led to mistreatment towards immigrants as well as impede economic growth as it hinders the flows of talent. Such mentality exists in many corners of the world, from Singapore to Germany where recently German Chancellor Angela Merkel has declared that multiculturalism has failed, and the country would tighten its immigration policies. We can see racial segregation is more subtle in today’s world, however, its impact is still considerable. As Samuel Huntington has claims in his theory of clash of civilizations that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great division among mankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. As the cultural divide is so significant, to choose to ignore them and focus only on rich and poor gap would be too myopic and thus, impede the progress of the country.

Similar to racial segregation, we also have to take into consideration the divide between religions which may lead to riots and conflicts as well. Different sets of values and regulations of each religion can cause great anger among devout followers of such religions if they find their religions are insulted or oppressed. The conflict between the Catholics and Protestants arising from the disparity in Biblical explanations of these two denominations or the fundamentalism which results in terrorist acts due to extremist beliefs can be easily observed in our world. These are cases that have lucidly shown us the divide between religions can lead to negative impacts as well, and should be address along with rich poor gap and racial segregation rather than being left out.

When it comes to religion, there is another divide that worth our attention. Science and religions have long been known for their conflicts on many matters, from the origin of life, who created the Earth and human beings to how religion regards issues at different perspectives and angles from science like the case of homosexuality and euthanasia. Although it is undeniable that religions have their own rights to believe in their ways, religious beliefs have often impeded the progress of science. We would not forget the horrendous Dark Age in Europe or how religions strongly rejected the theory of heliocentricism which was gradually proven to be true. As many plausible theories proposed by scientists are rejected by religions, intellectual advancement of mankind is hindered. Even nowadays, religions also strongly disapprove the research of cloning and genetic engineering. It is not to say that such research does not have negative implications like what religions claim, however, such research if successful can help save many lives by producing organs for transplantation or to cure hereditary diseases by genetic studies. I am not saying that these religions are wrong, but we need to find a consensus between science and religions in order for science to progress, and thus allow mankind to progress. Hence, as the divide between science and religions can slow down our development, it would be fallacious to say such divide is not worth addressing.

In conclusion, it is inevitable that rich and poor gap can do harm to the society and thus requires our attention. Nevertheless, there are other segregations in our society that needs consideration as well. It should not be necessarily crucial for us to decide on which one should be our priority, all divides should be addressed and taken care of carefully in order to ensure social stability and the progress of mankind.

Good work on this essay! Its quite challenging and you attempted it very well. I believe some of my VJC students would be dumbstruck reading this.

Content 22/30

Language 16/20

Consider the view that more scientists than artists are needed in the world today.

This essay explores the comparative usefulness of scientists and artists in the modern world. Knowing that the world today depends heavily on the use of technology for survival, it is not surprising that scientists are seen to be more useful. Artists are considered to be inconsequential to the overall survival of societies as their usefulness is often to abstract to be understood by the laypeople.

It is important to compare and contrast between the functions and purposes of scientists versus artists based on the modern world contexts. The comparisons must be based on recognised criteria. Ensure that the comparison is within characteristics of the modern world.

Seek simplicity. Is this sound advice?

Simplicity may very well be sound advice for some but it is often so otherwise. Due to Globalisation and the redevelopment of our country, we have undergone significant changes in our lives. The environment complicates life as it forces us to adapt to changes. Thus it no longer allows us to seek simplicity but instead, it demands creativity and deep analysis. Such advice would get us nowhere because economies have evolved into a knowledge-based, technological economy. We can no longer seek to be simple in our lifestyle and thinking. Thus in this essay, I would discuss whether it is sound advice in terms of seeking a simple lifestyle, be it in education, attaining in east-west perspective, agrarian-industrial-technological edge or in media.[P1]

Globalisation, the interconnectedness of countries and the complication of networks have led to a more demanding and stressful lives. As countries progresses with the world, it has resulted in more work, less of a social life and time for family and friends, putting a strain on modern lives. Due to more competition, the working life increasingly pushes for more brainstorming of creative ideas and innovation. Hence I would say, seeking simplicity is not achievable. In such an economy, being simple and carefree would put one to disadvantage as the people out there are putting in extra effort to go all out as they climb up the ladder in their careers. As such, the economy looks for career minded-driven people to prosper the economy and would never make room those who are always just satisfied with life. The simple-minded who have less innovative ideas and drive would then lose their competitiveness in the workforce. Economics and business in particular, requires creative and critical thinking to maintain a competitive edge and more importantly to survive in an ever-changing economy. Since our environment has changed our lives and the mindset of individuals, it is no longer sound advice to settle for an easy way out of things.

However, it is still possible for some to seek simplicity even in such a competitive world. Certain people are more fun-orientated, they prefer to travel and enjoy life rather then working their hearts out for the job they are holding. They live a simplistic life, realizing their dreams and being easy satisfied with rewards or the happiness of one. Hence it would be sound advice not only for people who do not have to experience the stress in office-politics but also those who are currently too overly stressed up due to the demands of work. The stressful lifestyle we lead today should be accompanied with enjoyment and entertainment, therefore at certain breakdowns in our life we should learn to let go and just be simple where our mentality is concerned.[P2]

Seeking simplicity is never encouraged in the teaching of our young, because it is strongly believed that great minds exercises critical thinking and possess qualities such as creativity, innovation, breaking barriers and the most commonly heard, asking questions. This is so, as questioning is a result of deep thinking and evaluating. Often so, the young are encouraged to be pro-active to challenge the norm instead of keeping mum about things that they are unsure of. Being too accepting would otherwise mean that we do not engage in thinking, evaluating whether the idea is effective, successful, accurate or even to consider in depth the consequences that may arise. In fact, research [P3] has proven that an average student who is pro-active, talkative would fair academically better than any other average student who is a passive learner. Hence an individual who takes on a simplistic mindset would be less capable in life as they are not showing their full potential. This is the worse situation we could be in, if our younger generations are all passive learners, it would be a matter of time when foreign talents would replace our workforce who is no longer productive and efficient. Our country would be at the brink of collapse because we would be vulnerable to external attacks as the leaders are not able to lead and bring our country to greater heights. Being too satisfied with a simple life would result in decisions made simply without much considerations and unintended consequence would certainly be harmful and disastrous to the masses.

Apart from that, it is important to note that seeking simplicity may be sound advice for certain particular countries such as the East but may not be applicable for the West. This is because in the east, people follow closely to the rules [P4] . Thus, being able to follow rules and tradition is their main concern in life. In this case they are just leading a simple life without much worries, as they are easily satisfied. With the happiness, they live life to the fullest and I would not object to that [P5] as seeking simplicity is exactly what they do to achieve their success in life. However, for the westerner who treasures freedom, liberty, promotes creativity, innovation and believe in risk-taking as one make their own decisions in life, they therefore seek not simplicity but the best in life [P6] . They believe that one should enjoy quality life, as life is short and ought to be well spent. This is especially so when you see the difference in their attitude towards even having a dinner. While the Chinese just want to be comfortable in the place they eat and of cause eating their favorite traditional food, the Westerners are more particular in the food that goes into their stomach. That is why they are willing to even travel all around the world to look for delicacies in different countries. Hence, whether it is a sound advice would depend on the different people’s demands and needs and the quality of life they seek to have

As we progressed from Agricultural to Industrialisation to post-industrial age, which we are in today, it is increasingly getting tougher and tougher to live life simply. In the Agricultural age, farming and harvesting would be for the sake of the income in which farmers and their family rely greatly on for survival. The simple goal and purpose in life seldom give much trouble. Then came industrialization, where people put themselves up to the jobs in factories that manufacture clothes and products. Life for this group of people have become less simple as skills are required and necessary for a working employee. As the competition got tougher through the introduction of technology such as the computers and other machineries, there is a greater demand for skills. And this is when the economy starts to complicate things and people’s life, thus forcing us out of our comfort zone and therefore it does not allow us to seek simplicity as much as we could in those days of the past.

In short, the accuracy of the statement is greatly dependent on the people and environment we are living in today. I have shown that the statement is largely not a sound advice but seriously, the word “simplicity” is sometimes unclear as there is till now no proper definition of the word and there are different perspectives of people which determines whether they ought to follow the advice or not. Hence, there is nothing such as a absolutely no answer but I would tend towards the side that says- seeking simplicity is not a sound advice because although being simple would reduce troubles and allow for happiness, this is not the way to go about because people would lack certain drive that is critical in life.[P7]

Not a bad attempt. Examples are sorely lacking, but you did bring up some contextual aspects towards the end.

Language 12/20

Content 15/30

27/50

[P1]Your thesis statement is not properly formed. The use of east-west, AIT and media is not proper. You could say: I will discuss how seeking simplicity in this modern world which is highly influenced by the west and media is unachievable.

[P2]Good counter argument, but you should have listed an example here. You could have talked about GP Tutors J

[P3]By whom? If you just say ‘research has proven…’ it will be taken against you. If you don’t know of an authorative figure or organization, then don’t use the word research.

[P4]What rules. Are countries in the east playing games? Please be specific.

[P5]Why will you not object? What has your acceptance got to do with ‘them’?

[P6]You are making a sweeping statement here. You have anything to back-up your statement?

[P7]Don’t be ambigious in your conclusion. Be FORCEFUL! Say what you need to say without being a ‘diplomat’. The examiner wants to see the critical side of you.