VidS, Author at Gp Lah! — Page 27 of 43

GP Essay Questions 1/100

GP essay questions collection past year. Here are all the GP Essay Questions from past year prelims.

To what extent do young people in your society show an interest in their culture and traditions?
‘The key to eliminating poverty is education rather than aid.’ Do you agree?
How important is play in your society?
Should every country have the right to use nuclear technology?
Is a world without conflict a realistic aim?
Should countries solve global problems when their own problems are not dealt with?
Consider the view that artists should be given absolute freedom.
To what extent should our personal lives be the concern of the government?
Is it justifiable for countries to rewrite history to suit their needs?
‘Businesses value profit more than the planet today.’ Comment
How far should the progress of science be guided by ethics?
Should the elderly in your country be fearful of the future?

Higher education is no longer necessary for success. Discuss.

For a majority of people, higher education undoubtedly remains key to achieving success. Not only are degrees badges of acquired skill, they are sometimes even status symbols. In addition, the experience of going through higher education often proves to be greatly important if one seeks a successful career. Higher education still plays a vital role in the pathway to success.

It is easy to see why there has been increasing optimism of attaining success through means other than higher education. First, the rapid growth of online courses offered by Coursera and Phoenix University have led to the argument that the advent of the Internet has made it such that individuals no longer need higher education to obtain the skills they require for their jobs. Second, people often lament that despite obtaining degrees, they are unable to find work, and cannot pay off college debts they have accumulated. Third, mass media platforms have recently painted pictures of how individuals like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg reached the very peak of what it means to be “successful”, without ever needing the support of higher education. This leads to the claim that higher education has lost its ability to deliver some measures of success. These three arguments present the case that higher education is no longer necessary for success.

However, it is overly assertive to claim that the skills that people learn from university education are irrelevant, even with the aid of the Internet. Instead, it is more reasonable to believe that higher education provides greater opportunities for learning. Though it may be possible to obtain the same access to information, it is only at universities that individuals of similar interests are able to gather in a classroom, exchange thoughts and ideas with each other, and learn under the tutelage of professors at the forefronts of their fields. Comparatively, those who do not attend higher education do not have that same opportunity to ask peers or professors for help when they run into problems understanding the content taught. Especially for specialised fields like biotechnology and law, the skills and knowledge necessary for the future remain largely accessible only to those who have undergone higher education. From this, it is clear that university graduates have greater propensity to gain skills and knowledge than non-graduates.

In addition, the university degree itself is a badge of acquired skill, reassuring employers that these employees have learnt the content, and are able to handle the work assigned to them. This means that graduates are more likely to be hired than non-graduates, which often translates into higher salaries. Furthermore, the trust that employers have in graduates’ ability to perform better often translates into greater financial remuneration. Today, bachelor’s degree holders can expect median lifetime earnings of about US$2.3 million, as compared to US$1.3 million for workers with just a high school diploma. Ultimately, higher education does in fact bring about greater financial success for graduates.

It is also fallacious to argue that higher education has stopped being a necessary part to being successful just because there have been exceptions to it. Not only were Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates intellectual geniuses and visionaries who had foreseen and grasped business opportunities, they were born into circumstances which ultimately facilitated their success. Courses offered at universities could not offer advice to these entrepreneurs embarking as pioneers of a new field. On the other hand, an overwhelming proportion of individuals do not enjoy the same kind of privilege, be it financial or intellectual. Hence, for most, the likely route to success is higher education, which sets them apart from other job applicants.

In fact, for most occupations excluding degree-blind jobs such as entrepreneurship and advertising, higher education plays an integral role in assimilating graduates into their future workplaces. Upon entering the workplace, university graduates depend upon the ties they had developed to help them along, and this often stems from their higher education experience. For example, specialists often depend on the referrals of other doctors to obtain a base of patients. In such a situation, getting to know others who are in the field is incredibly important for one’s career advancement prospects. Thus, higher education is not just about the content and skills involved, but also the relationships graduates develop with each other. The social advantage that higher education offers hence allows graduates to get a leg up over non-graduate.

In essence, higher education remains necessary for success. This is not to say that all graduates are necessarily more successful than all non-graduates, because of the multitude of factors involved. However, university graduates do indeed benefit greatly from higher education, a crucial factor contributing to being successful.

Is regulation of the press desirable?

In the last two decades or so, the growing reach of the Internet and exponential growth in related mobile communications technology has brought seismic changes to the way in which information is disseminated and views exchanged. News generation has become decentralised – once newspapers, TV and radio stations fed the news to their consumers, but now anyone can be a journalist by writing or posting videos on his blog or social media account. Thus, in the current context, it is my view that the only meaningful definition of “the press” would be all forms of media old and new seen as a collective whole. Today social media often has greater influence over the public than traditional media, and so any discussion of the regulation of information cannot exclude social media. For this essay, desirability shall be defined in terms of both positive practical outcomes and ethical considerations. I hold the position that the regulation of the press by means of rules or restrictions is desirable only insofar as it provides a reasonable balance between conflicting human rights and aspects of the public interest, and only if regulation is carried out by truly independent entities.

At times journalists and media outlets, in their zeal to obtain information and gain an edge over their competitors, carry out actions that are illegal, unethical or both. This can lead to the violation of the rights of individuals and lower the moral character of a society. A prominent example is a phone-hacking scandal that brought down British tabloid The News of the World in 2011. Reporters from the paper were found to have hacked the phones of celebrities, politicians and members of the British royal family. What shocked the country and world, even more, was the revelation that the newspaper had even intruded into the phones of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and victims of the 7 July 2005 terror attacks on the London Underground train network. The freedom of the press cannot be allowed to extend so far that it eviscerates the fundamental right of individuals to privacy, which is also integral to a person’s dignity. For a society to enjoy dignity and happiness, a reasonable balance needs to be struck between rights and freedoms that conflict with one another. Furthermore, the total lack of respect shown by the journalists for the deceased was also appalling and, if left unchecked, would cause the moral degradation of society. Thus regulations to bar the press from carrying out such aggressive and unethical information-gathering activities are not only necessary but desirable as well.

Another human right that can be encroached upon by excessive press freedom would be the right to safety. Media outlets that choose to incite violence can bring about large-scale violence and harm to life and limb. For this reason, many countries have restrictions on such content. For instance, the United States prohibits speech that is designed to incite immediate violence or unlawful activity. In a court decision, an American judge likened such speech to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, creating a clear and present danger. In another case, the Court ruled that such speech has no social value and can thus be curtailed. I concur with the reasoning of the American courts and argue that the right of the press to express itself cannot override the right of the individual to safety, and therefore regulation of the media in this regard is to be welcomed. Having said that, one should note that just as no right is absolute, the circumscription of any right may also not hold water under some circumstances. For instance, if a newspaper incites violence to overthrow an egregiously unjust, tyrannical and murderous regime, it may be justifiable for the greater good of the country and of humanity. In prosecuting such a case, it is hoped that an impartial court would take the context and unique moral and legal calculus into due consideration.

Constraints on press freedom can also be warranted by national security considerations, an important facet of the public interest. It is reasonable to sacrifice a limited amount of press freedom in order to ensure national security, which is vital to the very survival of the state – without which no human rights or happiness is even possible. While the First Amendment of the US Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, the Supreme Court has also recognised that in certain situations, the government is allowed to limit the liberty of the press. One of these is when a confidential source violates federal law in leaking information to the press. In such a case, the reporter can be subpoenaed and be required to name her source. In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller served 85 days in jail for contempt of court when she refused to disclose the source who leaked the identity of undercover Central Intelligence Agency agent Valerie Plame. Except in the most extraordinary of circumstances, for instance, if it was crucial to violate federal secrecy laws to protect the survival of the state or to correct a gross injustice against the people, journalists cannot be allowed to undermine national security in the name of press freedom. In recent times, a particularly notable example of the media undermining (or being used to undermine) national security is the alleged Russian manipulation of the US presidential election in 2016 by spreading fake news on Facebook using highly sophisticated programs such as “bots” or autonomous programs designed to behave like humans online. Such disinformation campaigns, if not regulated, can undermine not only national security but even the sovereignty of a state itself.

Certainly however, legitimate concerns are raised by opponents of press regulation that it can be misused by governments to stifle criticism, dissent and even political opposition. Differing views exist as to what the role of the media should be. In western nations, the media is widely recognised as the fourth estate or fourth power, the latter term referring to an unofficial fourth branch of government in addition to the executive, legislative and judiciary. In this paradigm the media act as a public check on the official branches of government. In other countries, however, the role of the media is defined very differently. For instance in Singapore, the founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew delineated the media’s function as providing “nation-building journalism”: assisting the government in implementing policies and the general governance of the country. In this school of thought, the press should faithfully inform the masses about the work of the government. I subscribe to the former conception of the media as the fourth power, as it is crucial to have alternative sources of information, in particular by professional journalists or truth-seekers, in order for the people to make wise choices in the exercise of their political choices. For this reason, I am sympathetic to the view that press regulation can be used as a tool of oppression or partisan political interests by governments. It is conceivable, for instance, that a government-controlled regulator could fabricate charges and allegations against a newspaper or blog that is critical of it, just to silence it. However, the need for press regulation as outlined earlier is so compelling that it overrides concerns of governmental abuse, the problem of which can be resolved or at least mitigated by having strongly independent regulatory bodies which are not allied to the government or any political party.

In conclusion, it is my conviction that it is sensible and wise to have a rules-based system to govern the press, but only to the extent that a judicious balance is struck between competing rights and conflicting aspects of the public interest, and only if the regulation is carried out by a body that is nonpartisan and independent of the government. As with most other issues of society, a delicate balance needs to be struck through a thorough engagement between all stakeholders – taking into account the constant changes in the landscape of media, technology, politics, culture and society. While a vibrant, robust press is vital to a healthy democracy and good governance, we must also hold the fourth estate to account and ensure that it remains a responsible and constructive actor in society.

In an age of rapid technological advancement, is a single career for life realistic?

In many countries, people are facing the issue of unemployment. Governments of various countries have blamed immigrants or other factors for this issue. However, technological advancements like Artificial Intelligence and Robots are responsible for replacing humans. Many traditional jobs like packing, sorting and administrative work today is being replaced by technology. Rapid technological advancements make it necessary that humans upgrade and learn new skills throughout their lives. A single career, however, is realistic even in today’s society if the professionals learn to adapt and learn new skills with the advancement in technology.

It is believed that technological innovations will replace humans in most professions either fully or partially. Many studies and researchers conducted say that AI will replace most jobs by 2040. This can already be seen in blue-collar jobs like machine operation and food delivery. However, it is also estimated that more than 500 million jobs will be replaced by AI. While it seems that humans will be replaced completely in the job sector, which is not the case. This is because, while AI and robots will replace traditional job functions, it will also create new jobs. The creation of new jobs makes it important that individuals today learn new skills and perform different job tasks. For example, people might need to build upon their computer knowledge and technical skills. With AI and robotics coming to the forefront people might need to learn skills like problem-solving, creativity and communication. Therefore, if a person wants to remain in a single career for life it is necessary to work within these fields otherwise their jobs might be destroyed by technology.

Though AI might automate most of the jobs, there are jobs that will remain in demand and cannot be replaced by AI and robotics. Though AI and robotics might work well in many fields there are fields where AI still needs humans to succeed. An example of this can be Google Translate, which translates simple phrases extremely well but if creative phrases or idioms are fed into google translate it results in inaccurate results. Another example can be of customer service, while virtual assistants are trained to greet and understand questions, the dataset is extremely limited which results in repetitive responses and options. If the customer has a complex question it is almost never understood by the chatbot and may lead to frustrating and negative customer experience. Thus, it can be seen that AI cannot replace human skills like empathy or deal with conflict resolution and negotiations. Hence, single career options are possible especially in job sectors like psychology, education, health care and communication where the focus is on complex cognitive skills.

Though it is to be understood that professionals even in these job sectors might have to upgrade their skills and adapt to new changes. For instance, teachers may need to learn new apps to grade papers, teachers who think out of the box, are creative and with the help of AI can better plan, personalise and facilitate the learning process. People with knowledge of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) will be an important part of the workforce in the AI-driven industry. Therefore, people choosing to stay within a single career and progress in their profession are in luck, if they choose to learn the above-mentioned skills.

There is also a growing trend of outsourcing jobs which makes it difficult to keep a single career. The outsourcing has also given rise to new kind of jobs where people are combining two or more skills. People who constantly change and upgrade skills will remain in the job market and maintain their jobs. For example, management consultants can continue in a single job and provide people with insights into organising their companies. In a society where change is the norm, a single career is possible for those who continuously change.

Thus, it may seem that technological advances may not allow people to have a single career. A single career choice is possible even in a technologically changing society. This is especially true for professionals working in the field of education, technology, education and communication. Technology still needs to compete with the complexity of the human mind and its varied responses. It can be said that technology has a long way to go in replacing humans completely in certain fields because of their multi-faceted skills.

The only way to save journalism is to make readers direct participants in making, and paying for, the media.

Growing rates of global internet access have made countless sources of information readily available but with few checks and balances and widely varying levels of credibility. Unprecedented access to all kinds of media has not only increased competition among news providers, but it has also led to the extreme proliferation of low-quality yet plausible-looking sources of information—making it easier for political players to manipulate public opinion and to do so while denigrating established news brands. Social media can bring local communities back into journalism, boosting transparency, accountability, accuracy, and quality.

The world’s new, digital, and highly competitive media environment has created fundamental problems in the business models that journalism relies on. Print products are in terminal decline; television audiences are plummeting. Advertising around the news is no longer attractive when internet giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon offer far more effective ways to target consumers. These new financial realities have led many news organizations to adopt problematic techniques for survival: prioritizing quantity over quality and running so-called clickbait headlines. Each of these developments, combined with a lack of transparency within news organizations and the increased use of unfiltered social media platforms as news sources, contributes to a further drop in trust in the media.

The decline of news organizations may seem unstoppable. But while the internet has permanently disrupted traditional media, it also presents several ways to fix it. Social media can bring local communities back into journalism, boosting transparency, accountability, accuracy, and quality. Harnessing the reach of the internet can help neutralize bias in the news industry and fix problems relating to a lack of representation and diversity. Information providers can achieve these advances in a financially viable way—by making readers direct participants and stakeholders. To do all this, however, journalism must adapt to the era of connectivity and information.

Social media users can today access information with a few taps on a smartphone, but in many cases, they either lack the skills or the time to properly assess the reliability of that information.

Emerging platforms have enabled mere news enthusiasts—and propagandists—to compete with professional journalists on an equal footing. On these platforms, what makes a news report successful is its level of virality: The articles and videos that are most popular are the ones that attract the most immediate and radical emotional reactions, even if they contain factual errors. Current advertising-only business models rely on this fact for survival, prioritizing content that is addictive and shareable rather than reliable and important.

For all their flaws, however, social media platforms contain important solutions to declining levels of trust in the news industry. Emerging media have dramatically expanded the global audience of news consumers, and information providers should see that reach not as a problem but as an opportunity. The global online community, if properly harnessed, can increase accountability in news organizations by identifying biases and improving neutrality in reporting: Having the oversight of countless diverse online users can be beneficial.

Transparency is the bedrock of restoring public trust in the media; eliciting greater involvement among consumers will naturally lead to an increased demand for media transparency in sources of funding, the involvement of advertisers, and political pressure.

Beyond a supervisory role, an important step would be to regard the online community as an active participant in the process of producing news. Given the chance, internet users can carve out a crucial role in assembling and curating accurate information. The key is to view social media users as a huge community of fact-checkers and news producers, instead of passive recipients of unreliable news.

The theory of turning readers into active resources is not merely hypothetical—it is a concept found in WikiTribune as a news platform supported by professional journalists but controlled by an online community. Devoid of any traditional hierarchy, the organization encourages the highest levels of neutrality and transparency. WikiTribune’s volunteers and professional journalists will share the same editing rights: Each one of them can initiate or edit any article on the platform. Moderators emerge naturally from within the community. Making readers active participants in the production of news can also help organizations save money. Fact-checking and editing, for example, can be delegated to communities of volunteers using the vast database of the internet. Traditional news editors may find this notion difficult to accept, but the concept comes naturally to people who have grown up using the internet. Passive consumption is no longer the dominant feature in news; we are all creators of content, and we should all get a chance to participate in how information is disseminated.

The wiki model—defined as any website that allows collaborative editing—also provides an effective solution to bias in reporting. If everyone has equal power, no one can control a narrative. Bias often comes from hierarchical news models in which senior editors can mould the news to fit their views—or those of their publishers or financial backers. Collaborative editing platforms allow and encourage an open discussion on every article by a variety of participants from different backgrounds. Any disputes over opposing narratives are constructively resolved by the community, avoiding the problems in traditional journalism.

A community-driven news product does not have to be restricted to English. Most new internet users read Hindi, Bengali, Arabic, or Chinese; Wikipedia, for example, allows users of any language to document their news and events on its online encyclopedia, and it does so despite local government restrictions on journalism, leading a global battle against censorship.

Of course, collaborative models are not without their problems. It can be a struggle to create a thoughtful and varied community dedicated to the goal of producing high-quality news. Bad actors such as online trolls and politically motivated participants are threats requiring clear systems of identification, moderation, and removal. Constant efforts must be made to include as much variety of culture, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, geography, and political inclination to prevent biases. Creating standards and practices can take time, but the success of the worldwide Wikipedia community, which has faced similar challenges, proves that community models can provide an effective public good—with a high level of trust and engagement.

The first priority of any news outlet must be the quality and credibility of its journalistic work. Those that depend on advertising-only business models may find it hard to sustain this priority: Eventually, a push for more traffic, and therefore revenue, will conflict with the mission for high-quality and reliable journalism.

News organisations interested to provide credible news can consider with a business model driven by voluntary subscriptions to avoid the need for advertising revenue and steer clear of shady corporate interests. Users who find its content meaningful and important are welcome to support the project with a one-time contribution or a monthly subscription. Such fundraising campaigns can reveal the public thirst for new models of journalism. Business models based on the direct financial support of the public represent the most sustainable strategy for global media.

Wikipedia, again, is fully supported by millions of users who appreciate the added value that the online encyclopedia brings to their lives every day. Public support comes in the form of not just money but also the time spent by volunteers contributing content and fixing errors.

Some traditional media are actively moving away from strategies dependent on online traffic and advertising. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Guardian has made a successful transition to a business model based on financial contributions from readers. In 2016, after suffering tens of millions of dollars in losses, the Guardian appealed directly to its readers for support: Instead of calling for transactional subscriptions, it asked for patronage and participation. This humble, transparent strategy encouraged readers to support the Guardian for the greater cause of sustaining high-quality journalism, rather than merely treating their monthly contributions as a detached move to purchase content. By May 2019, the Guardian reported an annual operating profit of more than $1 million. And its success will likely be sustainable since it now has more than 655,000 regular monthly supporters. The transition from a membership-driven business to one based on voluntary support echoes the Wikipedia model, where users choose to support a project not necessarily for the content that they personally use but for its greater benefit to the world.

The Dutch publication De Correspondent presents another successful example of journalism funded by readers. Launched in Amsterdam in 2013 after its founders raised $1.7 million from 19,000 supporters, De Correspondent sought to provide ethical journalism without relying on advertising, which appealed to people who wished to support a more transparent business model of news. Today, De Correspondent enjoys the support of more than 60,000 members—yet more evidence that there is, in fact, a public appetite to fund high-quality sources of information.

New funding models are critical in order to keep journalism strong, independent, and sustainable. Not all news organizations may be able or willing to adopt a patronage model. However, the more models that successfully coexist, the higher the chances that journalism will remain independent. Subscription models—as opposed to voluntary contributions—tend to be better suited to financial or other niche publications, such as the Wall Street Journal or the Information, because they offer a more transactional service with access to time-sensitive business news. Those somewhat customized services are made available only to those who are willing to pay premium fees for business advantage. General news services, however, are more widely available and as such do not lend themselves as clearly to transactional revenue models (unless they achieve the scale of a marquee newspaper like the New York Times).

Strong and independent journalism is at the heart of any healthy, functioning democracy. It is the gatekeeper against corruption and plays a vital role in communicating the facts that allow people to make informed decisions about their lives. Statements by politicians delegitimizing the media resonate with the public only if they are already in doubt of its validity. Quality journalism that involves the news community in the process of producing it creates a transparent operation that can gain the public’s trust. This kind of collaborative, responsive media has a greater likelihood of attracting the direct support of people who believe in the importance of sustaining it. To save itself, journalism now needs to go back to the people.

‘Practical ability is just as important as intellectual skills.’ How far is this true in your society?

Today’s competitive world places a lot of emphasis on academics. While intellectual skills are important, one should also place importance on a practical ability like teamwork, fixing and repairing things around the house. Practical ability can thus be described as essential life skills needed to survive in the world. It can be said that in today’s world practical ability is as important as intellectual skills.

Supporters of intellectual abilities state that good grades in school open doors to reputed universities. Getting good grades in these highly reputed universities boosts the resume of individuals and leads them to get jobs in good companies. For example, many parents emphasize that their children attend top universities like Oxford and Cambridge so that it raises their social status. It is also seen that many companies prefer hiring people who have studied at a reputed college rather than a local college. The preference for intellectual abilities is also seen in the job description of these companies where candidates from top-tier schools and universities are preferred. Scholarships around the world are granted to people who score good marks in their academics which furthers backs their claim that intellectual abilities are more important than any other thing. Thus, it can be said that bright job opportunities and improvement in one’s social status lead people to place more emphasis on intellectual skills rather than practical skills.

However, not all people who have sterling intellectual abilities good at performing jobs that require practical skills. In fact, more and more jobs today require the candidate to have practical skills rather than formal college degree or diploma. Notable examples of this include companies like Apple, IBM and Google who offer freshers jobs based on skills rather than academic credentials. Service-based industries like Starbucks and Amazon also do not place an emphasis on a college degree as practical skills are more important in these jobs. If an individual has the practical ability, they can even outshine people who just have intellectual abilities. A notable example of this can be the work of Doctor Hamilton Naki, a self-taught surgeon who made numerous contributions to the science of transplantation and also got a chance to assist Christiaan Barnard in a successful heart transplant surgery. This shows that practical skills are an important factor in success rather than just intellectual abilities. Therefore, practical competence is as important as intellectual skills.

With changing times people are placing importance on practical abilities as well. This is evident from the fact that people today celebrate people with practical skills as much as they celebrate people with intellectual skills. For example, there are many self-taught chefs that have received accolades worldwide without any proven intellectual abilities or prestigious academic records. In Singapore, this is evident through the success of chef Chan Hon Meng and chef Lee Meng Li who have gained Michelin stars for their dishes based on their culinary skills. Similarly, sportsperson like swimmers, cricketers and footballers do not need academic skills but practical skills and techniques of the sport they play. It can be said that these people receive more appreciation than people with intellectual skills and no practical skills. Therefore, it can be said that practical skills are more important than intellectual skills.

The importance of practical skills can be seen in modern society. Even though people are today securing degrees and formal education they do lack employable skills. Even though people are graduates and even post-graduates they have failed to acquire jobs. This is evident from the high unemployment rates of graduates and even post-graduates. In today’s world if people have to succeed then they need to be more or equally good at practical skills. Thus, it is important that one must possess the aptitude to navigate an increasingly complex globalised world.

In conclusion, it can be said that practical skills are as important as intellectual and academic achievements. Though intellectual abilities may be required in some jobs, most jobs require people to have practical skills rather than theoretical knowledge.

Social media divides more than it unites. Do you agree?

Social media has enabled people to make friends from all over the world. Social media can take various form, from photo-sharing apps like Instagram and Tumblr to user-generated content platforms like Twitter and YouTube. Social media has become widespread and has a lot of influence on people today. Some quarters opine that social media divides. But it is more of a uniting force because it can go beyond boundaries, share different opinions that can lead to a healthy debate and has the power to highlight issues which have not come to light due to various reason. In these aspects, social media is more of a uniting force.

Detractors to the view suggest that social media enables people to make friends from various social classes and cultural backgrounds. People can connect with each other from across the world and also maintain a relationship with friends and families who have moved abroad. For example, through websites like Facebook, people can send a friend request to people with similar likes and interests. Furthermore, sites like Tumblr enable a person living in Singapore to become friends with a person living in Paris. When people form friendships with people from other cultures than they can become sensitive and understanding of other cultures. Additionally, video calling and live streaming services on apps like Instagram, Facebook and Skype can allow people to connect with people through video calls. This can allow them to witness events like New Years Eve fireworks, Weddings and Graduation ceremonies if one cannot be present physically. Thus, social media has indeed made the world a small place and has also reduced the gap between people.

Another positive view is that social media also allows healthy debates by ensuring that people can express their varying opinions. Many people have access to social media apps today. People can use these apps to offer their different views. Social media empowers people to put forth their opinions and views and comment on various social and political issues. For example, many governments understanding the rising use of social media have started putting polls and asking for feedback on various issues. Singaporean government created a website called eGov2015 in a bid to ensure that feedback from Singaporeans from all walks of life can be heard and to facilitate greater co-creation and collaboration between the government and the people. Thus, it can be said that social media acts as a unifying force in bringing people together by means of differing opinions.

Social media has helped in shedding light on issues that otherwise would not have come to the front. As social media is used globally, it can spread the news on a global level and make people aware of the situation around the world. For example, The Ice Bucket Challenge brought forth to the issue of ALS and successfully raised $100 million for the ALS association. Another example can be the Me-Too movement, which became a worldwide phenomenon. Started by actress Alyssa Milano, it became a simple yet powerful way to express solidarity with victims of sexual harassment and shed light on the power imbalance that exists between men and women within societies across the world. The more recent Trashtag challenge also brought to the front the issue of plastic pollution. People from across the world have participated in the challenge from children in Congo to adults and teenagers cleaning beaches in Mumbai. Thus, social media unites people and brings them together by striking a chord between them to work for the greater good of society.

Despite all the benefits, social media has created a bubble for the youth of today. Social media significantly influences their impressionable minds and help them find information that supports their political or social views. It also makes them blind to look at the issue objectively and make decisions based on facts and reasoning. Third-party cookies and algorithms of apps like Instagram and Facebook present only that information to people that they are interested in seeing. For example, people are more likely to follow and like pages which align with their views and ideologies rather than pages that show facts. This trend of streamlining and showing information based on online behaviour may have a negative impact in the long run. This is because it may give rise to confirmation bias and may give people the false beliefs that their views are correct while the opposing views are wrong or skewed. Moreover, if they do come across counter-views they might become defensive of their own views and would not accept the truth. In this respect, social media divides.

In conclusion, social media is more of a uniting force rather than a dividing force. Though it might create rifts between the young and the old, the older generations are catching up to using social media. The social media also helps people to connect with friends and family and form new friendships with people from different cultural backgrounds. Moreover, social media holds great power in influencing people to take action on various issues and in this sense becomes a uniting force than a dividing force.

Do you agree that good parenting is increasingly challenging in your society today?

People always try to do what is best for their children. Good children are a result of good parenting, is what people often say. However, people have always struggled to raise children and have also tried hard to understand what makes a good parent. In Singapore, it is true that raising children has become increasingly difficult because of technology and also because more parents are working longer hours.

People who believe that raising children today is easier, often argue that parents today have a lot of assistance. It is especially true in Singapore, where the government has come up with various policies that help people in their journey of parenthood. Earlier, parents were supposed to take care of their children’s need by working extra hours or working on weekends. They did not get assistance for raising good children. However today, government policies assist parents the moment a child is born. These policies include cash bonuses¸ medical benefits in case the child or the mother gets sick and even benefits on library and basic transportation benefits. The Singapore Government offers all these grants and policies to ensure that parents raise good and healthy children. Being assisted financially for children’s education or healthcare has helped parents significantly. Based on this factor, one can agree that parenting today is easier than earlier times, at least in terms of needs like education and healthcare.

With the advent of technology parents, today get enough guidance through various websites, blogs and columns on multiple aspects of parenting. Parents today can discuss whatever bothers them with other parents on parental forums and Facebook pages. Parents often follow these websites to seek answers about their children’s well-being. In Singapore, these websites do not disappoint, either. For example, websites like smartparents.sg guides parents on aspects like the health of the child, their education, suggestions about schools and activities, and also on aspects like their diet and nutrition. Similarly, the Kiasu Parents website is like a social media platform for parents. On this website, parents can interact with other parents and get parental advice on educational and enrichment programmes. These websites include tips from experts in the field of child psychology and early childhood care. Parents can follow advice on these websites, blogs and forums to become a good enough parent for their child. Thus, technologically, people are more equipped to become a good parent than in the past, where parents relied on advice from their parents or friends.

Despite all these advantages, parents today increasingly face difficulties in raising their children. With economic development and growth, Singaporeans are working more than 45 hours a week. Working long hours in Singapore has been a time-honoured tradition and the work obligation does not allow parents to spend enough time with their children. Even on weekends, parents are occupied with household chores and office work. So, while they may be physically present, they are mentally absent and technology can be blamed for this disconnect between parents and children. Parents also have a tendency to reply to work emails and go through work-related documents while at the dinner table. It is thus evident that the availability of smartphones and tablets have disrupted the work-life balance and have made life harder for parents and children. Thus, good parenting in Singapore is more challenging today than ever before parents are struggling with work and home.

Mass media is another reason, why parents are struggling to raise good children. The media today has penetrated every corner of our lives. Media today comes in forms of mobiles, laptops, television or newspapers. Parents today are using media to parent their children; this is evident from the fact that children from a very young age are given phones. By giving children access to phones and tablets at a very young age parents make an attempt to distract them and keep them busy. However, unbeknownst to them it has a severe impact on the parent-child relationship. Parents who allow children to use video streaming channels like Youtube, do not realise that the autoplay function may play related or unrelated videos which may have a negative effect on the children. For older kids, inappropriate content, violence and substance abuse are promoted repetitively in the mass media. Though these ideas might not be what the parents believe in they come at blame for allowing children to use these technologies. Therefore, good parenting today is more difficult due to media which threatens the well-being of children and exposes them to wrong ideas.

With changing times, the definition of good parents has changed significantly. While parents in the past had the liberty to take a more relaxed approach towards parenting. Parents today do not have that liberty. Today being a good parent means not only to be involved in academics but also take care of the activities they take up at school, hobbies they pursue and also their playtime. While parents today have access to various websites and blogs, which have assisted them. These same websites and blogs have also led to severe confusion in parents who get different views on various websites. In Singapore, this has led parents to become more competitive and has led them to enrol their children in various enrichment classes. Thus, with the bar set so high, parents are expected to wear multiple hats and raise their kids. Hence, it is evident that raising children is very difficult today in present times.

In conclusion, the concept of good parenting has completely been redefined in present times. With access to Mass media in various forms and Long working hours, parents today have lesser time to spend with their children. Though the government has assisted parents by providing them grants and bonuses for raising children. It cannot be denied that good parenting is still very difficult in Singapore.

‘Diversity brought about by globalisation should be celebrated, not feared.’ Discuss.

Increasing globalisation has made the world more diverse and more connected. People today learn about different languages, cultures and traditions transcending geographical boundaries. While diversity has led to positive effects on the world by fostering strong relationships among countries. There are those who believe that globalisation has led to the neglect of local populations. Despite this, it cannot be denied that the diversity globalisation brings along should be celebrated and not feared because it brings economic and social benefits.

Communication technologies around the world have connected people transcending geographical boundaries. The increased communications have helped people gaining a sense of various cultures and traditions. Moreover, increased connectivity among people has also led to greater cooperation among international communities. People today can connect to various political leaders and communicate with them in a smooth manner. This is evident from the fact that English is being spoken across the world today and is being learnt even in non-English speaking countries like China and India. Easier communication through the medium of English has helped in developing business as well as political relationships. The acceptance of linguistic diversity has allowed various languages to spread across the world, and even for movies and music to accepted by people in other countries. Therefore, diversity should not be feared as it allows people to share better relationships with people from across the world and enriches them as individuals.

Diversity has also had positive effects on the wellness and healthcare industry. Globalisation has led to diversity in the way diseases are treated and how people take care of themselves. From Ayurveda, Acupuncture and Chinese medicine alternative treatments are increasing across the world due to globalisation. Doctors today are discovering new forms of diseases which were previously limited to specific countries. Examples of this can be diseases like Ebola, Monkey Fever and the latest Coronavirus, where doctors learn about these viruses and try to come up with treatments that can benefit people globally. Furthermore, people today are more likely to follow diets and consume organic food products that are eaten globally. For example the current popularity of exotic superfoods, from chia seeds, acai berry to quinoa. Globalisation has also led to greater awareness of health issues like obesity which in turn has helped people to alter their diets and live a healthy lifestyle. Thus, globalisation and the resulting diversity should not be feared as it has led to unprecedented advancement in healthcare systems and healthy practices that have improved the lifestyle of people.

Despite its benefit to the global economy, greater diversity can undermine the wellbeing of individuals within countries. Due to excessive globalisation, the local population suffer as countries continue to hire foreign talent. This can be seen in countries like Singapore where foreign talent is preferred more than local talent this is especially true in the food, construction and retail industries. This trend might cause panic among the local populations as they need to be more competitive to get these jobs. Another peril of globalisation is that with diverse alternative medicines it has also brought a diverse range of ailments and infections. For example, globalisation increased the risk of a pandemic outbreak like SARS and ongoing Coronavirus which has infected several hundred-thousand people. The other dark side of globalisation is how western fast foods have caused severe health issues in the developing world. Thus, the benefits associated with a more diverse workforce or alternative medicines should not be taken at face value because with greater diversity comes greater problems like social instability and the threat of fatal diseases.

In conclusion, diversity brought about by globalisation has both positive and negative effects on the world as a whole. However, it is undeniable that with diversity, more people have jobs, friends, opinions, fashion and food. Greater connectivity through trade has increased living standards and given us more choices.

Does global aid really improve the lives of those who need it the most?

It is believed that generosity is a virtue that needs to be enriched. However, when it comes to global aid developed countries do not provide aid just for altruistic reasons. Aid provided by donor countries is not driven by generosity but by strategic economic and political motives. As a result, global aid does not help in improving the lives of the needy but makes the situation worse for them.

Global aid provided by nations is often viewed as being done on humanitarian ground. But global aid provided by one country might be guised as assistance but it only assists the donor country economically and politically. For example, in 2018, the UK prime minister Theresa May provided aid to Nairobi in the form of aid packages but the real intention was expanding to the African markets and securing investment opportunities for UK companies. Similarly, Donald Trump also in one of his speeches mentioned that countries that receive foreign aid from the US will be examined for having “our interests at heart”. All these instances prove that global aid is not provided due to selfless reasons but is tied to economic and political benefits for the donor country.

The idea of providing global aid might be selfish but aid can be effective and beneficial for people. In 2017, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation issued a call to the world’s largest economy to redouble its financial commitment to needy countries. In 2019, the foundation mentioned that if the US wanted to help itself it should provide foreign aid and improve global health. Examining the recent coronavirus outbreak, we see countries providing aid on humanitarian grounds in an attempt to strengthen global healthcare systems. Moreover, countries today are trying to reduce the migrant crisis by providing aid to improve educational systems in developing and underdeveloped countries. It can be said that gradually there is a shift in how aid is provided which addresses the issues at the root instead of being superficial. Therefore, by changing the way in which aid is provided people’s life can be improved and changed for the better.

However, the path to provide aid is filled with hurdles in the form of governments who receive this aid. Many times, the governments who receive the aid are corrupt and never let the aid reach the people who really need it. There have been cases where foreign aid has been used by corrupt officials like in the case of South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma. Such corruption has also bee seen in countries like Nepal and Liberia. Foreign aid thus fails in improving lives of people in the countries where corruption is widespread. In fact, in corrupt countries, foreign strengthen corruption in these countries which and adds to the woes of the people.

Moreover, providing foreign aid can lead to dependence and make countries unstable. While short term foreign aid can help countries to solve their problems like in the case of South Korea and Taiwan. However, on the other hand, providing too much aid can lead countries to become dependent and develop a crutch mentality. The foreign aid if provided continuously can prove counter-productive and lead to social and political instability. This can be seen in the case of Liberia, where, foreign aid gave people the sense of stability but when foreign aid was pulled away the country was pushed into economic doldrums and instability which led to protests and demonstrations. Similarly, Afghanistan is heavily reliant on foreign aid and has led to corruption in the country. International economists have warned about providing excessive aid to countries as it leads to the deterioration of the country. In cases, like these, it is important that foreign aid should not be excessive and should be only to an extent where the country can wean itself off from foreign aid. As the Chinese proverb says, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” Thus, excessive foreign aid does not improve lives but only gives false hopes to people and negatively affect the country politically and economically.

In conclusion, global aid does not do much to improve the lives of people who need it the most. However, with a shift in the way aid is provided it can result in better outcomes. In some cases, foreign aid can definitely help to alleviate the issues plaguing people, however, there is a need for foreign aid to be truly selfless.