VidS, Author at Gp Lah!

‘Terrorists are nothing more than criminals’. Discuss.

Detractors of terrorism criticise it by labelling terrorists as nothing more than criminals as they resort to atrocious acts of violence and bloodshed to achieve their aims. Although this view undoubtedly holds a whit of fidelity, it would be too reductionist and simplistic to believe entirely in it. From a religious and even moral point of view, it must be remembered that all are equal, and even terrorists are ultimately part of the human race. Who are we to judge them and degrade them to nothing more than sinners if we do not understand the complicated situations and environments that they grow up in? Should we not practise what we preach and forgive them for their heinous crimes? It is more than valid to say that the atrocities of terrorists are so frightening that it breeds pure hatred towards them, but it would be myopic to jump the gun and label them as nothing more than criminals.

One of the arguments levelled against terrorists is that their outrageous acts of violence show an absence of compassion and humanity, rendering them as mere sinners who do not deserve to belong to the human race. However, those who argue so fail to realise that terrorists are only doing what they do because of their circumstances. It would be almost impossible for someone living in a well-developed and peaceful country to imagine the environment those growing up in the war-torn Middle-East have to face. The classic example of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one that tells of severe oppression. The teenagers and young men, sometimes even women, of the Middle-East, only become terrorists after they have experienced the

The devastating loss of loved ones, witnessing them being blown up by those of another religion or ideology. Living in a society where you fear for your life every single day, with helicopter attacks and suicide bombings becoming just another feature of daily life, it would be difficult not to be influenced by the extremist beliefs of religious martyrs that resort to violence. Hence, we cannot hastily come to the conclusion that terrorists are any less human than us as it is their extreme circumstances that give them no other alternative but to resort to bloodshed.

Those who strongly oppose terrorism put forth the argument that the very actions of terrorists show a complete lack of love for humanity. This might hold true to a certain extent, but it would take a bigot to not realise why these terrorists are employing the use of violence. As an oppressed minority, it would not be feasible to wage a conventional war with the majority. If the Catholics in Northern Ireland did not fight for their causes with terrorist measures, they would have stood absolutely no chance against the Protestant government. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka exist today because they would never succeed fighting a direct

war against the Singhalese rulers. We should not condone or even come close to accepting terrorism, but we do have to recognise that what terrorists do is not for the mere sake of killing. It is more than a shout for attention so that the world sees what they are fighting for; it is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to secure their basic freedom and rights.

Many who feel strongly against terrorists dismiss them as nothing more than criminals, as their actions portray them as cold, heartless beings, but to do so would be to lack compassion themselves. It is important to remember the very basis that mankind sets out on; everyone is equal. Whether one adopts a religious view or a moral view, it is clear that all members of the human race, some going as far as including the animal kingdom, are born the same, and should be afforded the same love and respect. Just as we do not discriminate against the minorities, those of a different race, colour or religion, we should not be blinded by our anger against these terrorists, and we have to try to understand that despite their actions of violence and slaughter, they are as human as any one of us.

As the world continues to wage its war against terrorism, we have to face the reality that we will never obliterate it entirely from the face of the earth. There will always be majorities or those in power who impose a tyrannical rule on the minority, and this creates the perfect environment that is conducive for the breeding of terrorism. As voices of the oppressed are drowned out by all-powerful governments, the only war that they can wage is that of terrorism. With fear and insecurity as their weapon, they will continue to march behind their shields of extremist beliefs. We cannot simply judge terrorists to be nothing more than criminals as they are only driven by the extremity of their circumstances. Perhaps one day the world will move towards an integrated global society that respects the rights of the minorities, but until then, terrorism will still flourish, as those who do not receive their basic rights and respect will do that they deem necessary to secure them.

Essay Questions from Past Years

Essay Questions from past years. Have a look at these General Paper Essay Questions from past years.

‘History records male acts, written by males and holds little interest for females as a result.’ Is this a fair comment?
Would it matter if all the performing arts venues in your society, such as concert halls and theatres were closed down?
‘The book has no place in modern society.’ Discuss.
How far can an individual be held responsible for crimes against humanity?
Can mathematics be seen as anything more than a useful tool in everyday life?
‘The person who dies rich dies disgraced.’ Discuss.
How important is it for people in your society to retain a sense of tradition?
‘Taking risks is an essential part of life and should be encouraged.’ Discuss.
Is there any value in preserving minority languages in the world?
Is violence ever justified?
The most influential individuals in history are those who have caused the most harm.’ How far would you accept this view?
To what extent are the rights of animals protected in your society?

How far do you agree that having children is just another lifestyle choice?

The world today is facing an appreciable drop in global population due to declining birth rates. This growing phenomenon is here to stay as long as mankind continues to exist and remain indifferent towards having children. Increasingly, not having children has become a lifestyle choice for those in the first world.

Decades ago, traditional couples believed that having children is necessary so as to continue the family line. Others also saw the need to have children as they believed that they would be well taken care of in their old age. This mentality has led many families, especially those in rural areas or developing countries, to ensure that they have many children. The situation is different now. With financial independence, many couples believe that they can achieve their bucket-list faster if they remained a pair and avoided a 20-year commitment to raise children, or the prospect of doctor visits or paying for an education loan. Many see being childless as a worry-free life.

Women who do not have kids, tend to understand motherhood as all-encompassing and overwhelming responsibility—one that might interfere with their next promotion. The choice to be childfree gave women the freedom to work and men freedom from work. Research has shown that childless women end up just as satisfied with their lives in the end. The challenges of today’s world is far different from the past. As such, many prospective parents feel that they may not have the skills and ability to raise children. There is a general fear of not being mentally or emotionally equipped for parenthood.

People who have grown up in a confused or very liberal environment are also choosing not to have children. These groups opine that the best thing about being childfree is not having to think about anyone else in terms of choices that are made. Ultimately, the freedom to choose, one way or the other, is something we should celebrate. But just how free that choice actually is, when much of society still expects women to choose to be mothers, is something worth considering.

A growing contingent of young people are refusing to have kids — or are considering having fewer kids — because of climate change. The growing antinatalist movement is another factor that correlates with lifestyle choice. This philosophical movement based around the tenet that it is cruel to bring sentient lives, doomed to suffer into the world that is already suffering. They feel that people who have children by celebrating childbearing without acknowledging the consequences for themselves and the planet are doing injustice towards their progeny.

In conclusion, while some couples embrace having children, others view it as part of enhancing their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Reasons for having children have undoubtedly changed over the years, as people now do not only have children for the sake of completing their family portrait.

That loneliness is a major problem in city life? How far do you agree?

The city – full of zest, glitz and glamour and all that jazz. It is said to be the pulse of a country and where economic progress is centred at. Amidst all that are its people who create the city as it is, living in six degrees of separation. As life becomes profoundly more mercurial and intricately complex with tectonic shifts, the labyrinth we live in today has robbed most of us, to say the least, of something we yearn for, desire, need, want – creating an empty space that is loneliness. Though loneliness is a major problem in city, it is not necessarily the only problem given the myriad of troubles that plague the world today.

The advent of the internet has enhanced the connectivity between two people regardless of geographical boundaries. It has created various matchmaking and online chatting services that allow people to fall in love without meeting each other prior. A burgeoning number of couples who are dating first got to know each other via online dating services. For instance, Taiwanese author Gladden met his girlfriend of four years via her blog. Matchmaking companies use the internet to find a potential bride for someone. Family members have been able to stay in touch via skype. Thanks to technology, communication has been enhanced that diminish prospect for loneliness to be dominant in one’s life and create a major problem, especially in city life.

As people today adopt a more active lifestyle and are interested to acquire new skills, more are dining out, joining classes and spend a relaxed day somewhere out. This has widened the breadth of interactions between people. Through social interactions, we are able to make new friends that do away with loneliness. Social support systems available such as religious institutions too provide the opportunity for city dwellers to interact with each other. In Singapore, more locals are actively joining marathon (Nike Race – within six days all spots were taken) and taking up speed dating services. One reason for lower loneliness too is that companies these days emphasize corporate social responsibility (CSR) that create a compulsory requirement for employees to do community service. It is refreshing for a city dweller to temporarily take leave from the fast pace, hectic working life that causes one to be caught up with it and lose social interaction that is vital for anyone being.

If one stays connected to world issues, the comprehensive problems that engulf us today, makes loneliness take a back seat. The passionate debate about environmental issues, child trafficking and slow economic growth have wider and grave consequences. Solutions to these problems have not been absolute and abided to as promised which poses a more serious problem than loneliness which has available avenues for one to channel and suppress. In fact, it is these problems that actually proliferated one’s communications with each other. Demonstrators from all over the globe usually come together to protests against something they agree such as protests against the IMF and the negative impact of the capitalist economy. As these people come together for a common course, the similar interest they share, allow one to forget loneliness and feel content to fight for something they believe in with like-minded people. City dwellers, they no longer are, but unrecognized soldiers.

However, though on a majority scale, loneliness may not be a problem, for some it is a significant problem that would pose a major problem to their loved ones. In a city, besides workers, students who live in one have access to various electronic goods that can strip away communication from the world. Point in case – video games. Consumers can become so absorbed in it that at times they forget they are actually living, forgetting their daily routines as they become preoccupied with the games. In Japan, video gamers are known to have died from being obsessed with playing that they forget to blink. It could be because they could be lonely and play such games to negate loneliness, self-immersed in it and worry parents.

Globalisation has sewn the world closer and has seen a greater influx of migrants to cities in hope of a better life by earning higher wages that are used to support their families. The “city-dwellers” would feel loneliness as they are separated from loved ones and do not really know anyone in the place they have migrated to. Moreover, they also do not have the financial means usually to afford electronic goods that allow them to remain in touch with the loved ones. For instance, many Bangladesh, Thai and Chinese workers stay in Singapore in dormitories – evident of their low income to have a comfortable place of their own. While their roommates may transiently erase loneliness, these migrants who live in the city are lonely but do not pose a major problem for a government to interfere.

Loneliness – the feeling of being cut off, alienated and disconnected from the others in an urban environment that thrives on a high standard of living seems to have or inverse relationship between city and loneliness. In view of the majority, it does not pose a major problem in city life but for the minor few whose character may not be appreciated by others or for those who do not speak the same language, do experience loneliness in large volumes, but it is more on a personal level than a national one to be seen as a major problem.

‘Music is meant primarily for the individual’s private enjoyment.’ Discuss.

Music, though evolved with the aid of technology, still significantly retains its trait of bringing people together as people groove to the music, not alone but together. Music is a public expression of one’s feelings and emotions that are made so that others can feel what that one person feeling. Thus, It is not true that music is meant for private enjoyment. Music is mainly for group enjoyment.

Music, an expression of one or a few emotions and thoughts. It is therefore not created solely for the enjoyment of one in their own private time but created that the masses can be in sync with the people that produce or post the music. Music also has religious purposes. Such music gives the congregation a special feeling and fellowship. Buddhism uses music to further emphasize their values to their followers. Values of patience and compassion are being inculcated into various songs so that Buddhists can be constantly reminded of the need to practice such virtues.

Similarly, Christians and Catholics have hymns and songs of praises to praise the Lord and to remind them of the goodness and kindness of the Lord in their everyday life. Although Christian music has evolved from hymn to rock or any other modern genres, the purpose of their music is still the same, to bring people together and live the values espoused in the music collectively. Thus it would be silly to say that music is meant only for an individual’s own enjoyment when there is such a significant purpose of music that spreads across every major religion around the world.

Additionally, music is used to integrate people on so many levels; to throw music to the other end of the spectrum would be a gross generalisation. Music brings the world together. Karaoke is best enjoyed in a group. Music concerts become more entertaining when the group participates. Song contests and reality shows like American Idol, The Voice and Eurovision are all testament that music is a form of energy best heard loud and in a group.

Pop-punk listeners are generally a vibrant bunch. Country and Indie music listeners usually have a more emotional and kinder side to them. Music allows a peek into the listener’s personality. But the reality is that people find other music enthusiasts to connect and be friends. Thus even on an individual level, music is not primarily used for one’s private enjoyment only. Sure, headphones and in-ear devices have been made for private enjoyment, but primarily, it is the collective synchronicity that makes music worthwhile.

Some people use music to distress or relax. Classical music can soothe the mind. One can argue that such music is adhered to individual needs and provides the outlet through which one can address and satisfy one’s needs. Gym enthusiasts have their own playlists to help enhance their workout, and heartbroken lovers can seek a special song to soothe their soul. Music in all its capabilities and connotations does provide for the avenue to address one’s emotions and even change them, but the truth is that music is constructed for the masses and not an individual.

While opportunities exist for music to be privately enjoyed, the reason for its existence is a collective one. Music is a glue that binds generations and even religious groups. While we individually may hear a bird chirp, it in reality chirps for the whole world. The same is with music. Music is meant for collective enjoyment, not private.

“The individual today is powerless in protecting his right to privacy.” How far would you agree with this statement?

The general belief today is that our right to privacy is an illusion – something seemingly sacred, but in reality, non-existent. Individuals living in today’s world are powerless in protecting their right to privacy. It is widely known and possibly accepted, that in order to coexist in a safe and efficient society, we have to give up information about ourselves and our lives for reasons such as convenience. Sometimes, people even share their private lives willingly for the pleasure or benefit of others. However, it may be argued that by becoming more aware of how systems operate in society around them, individuals can indeed try to protect their right to privacy, albeit to a small extent.

One of the most commonly cited reasons for an invasion of privacy is that it is a sacrifice made in the pursuit of a larger goal, that is, national security. In the name of national security, government agents or other parties involved justify their acts of digging into our most private lives – telephone conversations and emails. In certain institutions, security cameras watch our every move and breathe. More commonly around the world, security officials in airports are permitted to rummage through passengers’ bags and personal belongings. Since such acts of invasion of privacy are

often state-warranted and hence legal, it can be argued that the individual is powerless to protect himself against them. From another point of view, these security measures may not be seen as a threat to an individual’s right to privacy since the information that governments aim to gather – political inclinations, terrorist connections, plans for acts of violence or rebellion – is not the typical information an average individual would be seeking to keep private. From this perspective, there would be no clash of interests between the government and citizens where privacy is concerned.

Often times in today’s world, an individual gives up his right to privacy without even being aware of doing so. For example, filling out a form asking for our personal particulars inadvertently leads to information about ourselves that can be used or abused. When this happens, it can be said that the individual is powerless in protecting his right to privacy because if he does not know something is happening, how can he fight it? In the fast-paced world where information can be transferred in the blink of an eye, corporations are cashing in on opportunities to trade information for money or even for more information. For example, it is common for banks to exchange credit card client information. This results in the barrage of targeted advertising that may even seem impressive. The solution is simple: people should educate themselves about how information that they give up about themselves can and will be used by organizations. Then, they can think twice before signing-up for freebies or participating in a contest. The reality is that private information has become a bargaining chip, a negotiation tool that is exchanged for the worldly conveniences that we so desire such as access to games, news and even movies.

While examining how powerless an individual is in protecting his right to privacy, it would be prudent to also examine how much an individual today wants that power. Does the majority of the world today really seek to protect their privacy? The general consensus is, no. If an individual is not seeking to protect his privacy in the first place, it is no wonder that he finds himself powerless and justifiably so.

In order to conform and to exist as a good citizen in a civilized society, an individual has to surrender some of his right to privacy to the government. Assuming the government is benevolent, information gathered would be justly used for the greater good. Any further divulgence of information to other sources is done at the choice of an informed individual. Therefore, while one can concede that the individual today is powerless in protecting his right to privacy, it is also prudent also acknowledge that he is not entirely powerless in making the decision to give up some of that power.

GP Essay Outlines

GP Essay Outlines for Media, Ageis

GP Essay Outline 1: The media have exaggerated the importance of sport. Do you agree?

Sport in today’s increasingly commercialized world has gone wayward. Athletes no longer train immeasurable hours for pure adrenaline but for cold hard cash. Media coverage on sport has become a 24×7 party that highlights what sells and casts aside sportsmanship and other ideals arising from the sport. The media has indeed exaggerated the importance of sport today.

T.S 1 Commercialism has made sport a lucrative multi-billion dollar business.

T.S 2 Sporting victories have become an outlet for nationalism thanks to media coverage.

T.S 3 Sport still performs its noble function in school and amateur sports.

GP Essay Outline 2:Science encourages doubt; religion quells it. How far do you agree?

Religion is based on the intangible substance of faith and belief. Some quarters opine that religion has a numbing narcotic effect on scientific progress. But this is a narrow-minded and myopic claim. Religion does not stifle inquiry, in fact, science and religion work hand-in-hand to encourage probing of possibilities.

T.S 1 Critics will often cite the restrictions placed on Copernicus and Galileo and how the church tried to stop their research. However, this argument is old and inapplicable to the huge leaps science has made since the early 1600s.

T.S 2 Morals and ethics have guided science even in modern times.

T.S.3. Science can cure religion of error and superstition; religion can cure science of idolatry and false absolutes.

GP Essay Outline 3: Science, unlike religion, promises more than it delivers. Do you agree?

The history of mankind and its progress has been marked by both spiritual and material progress. Two radically different philosophical worldviews have emerged as catalysts and products of such progress: the empirical method of science and the more spiritual one of religion. But the truth of the matter is that science has not delivered as much as it has promised.

T.S.1. Religious pundits will assert that science has failed as it is unable to explain many phenomena’s.

T.S.2. We have received material progress from science.

T.S.3. Religion promises salvation and has developed society along moral lines.

GP Essay Outline 4: We worship the young and scorn the old. What is your view?

In a world where media constantly promotes the young while allowing the old to be largely relegated to the background, it would seem as though our culture is one that worships the young and scorns the old. But the reality in our ageing world is that old is gold. It is the old that actually commands attention today.

T.S.1. The obsession with the pursuits of the young are fuelled by media.

T.S.2. The old are worshipped as they hold tremendous financial power.

T.S.3. Older folk have much experience that is useful in industry and at home.

GP Essay Outline 5: A profit-driven mass media is more vibrant than a government-regulated one. Discuss.

When money or politics serve as the sole impetus for the production of mass media, then it eventuates in the ending of all variety, choice and vibrancy. The real solution for sustaining life in mass media lies in the use of media to disseminate a wide variety of information and knowledge.

T.S.1. The modus operandi of commercial media is governed by corporate sponsors.

T.S.2. Government-regulated mass media is also dangerously focused on funding the growth of particular political motives. t.s.3. Government driven media cannot avoid censorship

T.S.3. Government driven media cannot avoid censorship.

GP Essay Outline 6: Do moral standards impede the progress of science?

Science has to adhere to rules to ensure that it can progress. Progress in science should not be contingent upon immorality and depravity. It would be superfluous to say that the progress of science has been impeded by morals.

T.S.1. The use of animals in clinical trials have been the bane of scientific progress.

T.S.2. Scientific progress, the driving force for the majority of the changes witnessed in the 21st century, requires a critical mind, free of prejudice and open to new ways of thinking.

T.S.3. The debate surrounding embryonic stem cells is not the only example of an ethical controversy born out of scientific research. Genetically modified (GM) plants have also stirred a growing public controversy.

Rivalry brings out the best in one. Discuss.

Rivalry is a part of life which everyone experiences at one point or the other. Rivalry has the potential to bring out the best and worst in people. Rivalry leads people to compete and encourages them to be better than their rivals. On the other hand, rivalry can lead to tunnel vision and can also lead to unethical behaviour. Therefore, rivalry brings out the best in people in terms of competition and development but it also has the potential to bring out the worst in them through traits like selfishness and violence.

Rivalry with peers leads to increased competition and the determination to improve. Rivalry brings out the best in people as they strive to improve. For example, the competitive structure of education keeps students motivated to indulge in healthy competition with peers to score better and strive for better grades. Similarly, rivalry can also lead people to be motivated and try to be better at school. Healthy rivalry keeps a sense of enthusiasm among people to prove their skills against the best talent. Therefore, the rivalry has the potential to bring out the best in people as it motivates them to improve.

However, rivalry also has a flip side. Rivalry pressures people to do best and can be a cause of stress. Rivalry, when taken too seriously, can take a toll on people’s health. For example, unhealthy competition creates stress and affects job performance and motivation of employees. Rivalry can also bring out negative emotions like jealousy that can lead people to take extreme steps. For example, in 2018, An Indian bank executive was killed by his colleague over professional rivalry because he received more promotions. It can be seen that in some cases rivalry makes life more difficult and lead to issues like anxiety, worry, and self-doubt. Therefore, rivalry brings out the worst in people by impacting them psychologically.

Rivalries can also bring out the worst in people as they develop a tunnel vision. When two individuals or groups are in constant rivalry with each other they might ignore other threats that can hinder their progress. For example, beverage giants Coke and Pepsi were so much in competition with each other that they missed the emergence of increasingly popular energy and health drink brands like Dr Pepper and Red Bull. Both these brands measured their success based on how they stacked up against each other. This also led to a preoccupation that they ignored other competitive threats. Therefore, rivalry can bring out the worst in people as it leads to unnecessary tussle and tunnel vision.

Rivalry brings out the worst in people because it can lead to unethical behaviour. Sometimes rivalry can blind a person completely. This may lead to people to go to the extent of using dirty tactics to reach our goal. For instance, Luis Suarez a footballer has been known to use dirty tactics like diving, biting, stamping to distract his opponents and win at any cost. Apart from that, there have been multiple incidents where athletes have chosen dirty tactics to win against opponents. For example, in boxing or even tennis, players are known to weaken the opponent’s concentration by insulting or verbally intimidating them This extreme rivalry can bring out the worst in people where they forget ethical behaviour because they want to win at any cost.

In conclusion, rivalry can bring out the best in people by being an effective motivator for achievement, effort and performance. However, extreme rivalries can only be detrimental to the well-being of an individual as it can lead to unethical behaviour. Therefore, rivalry should be encouraged only to a certain extent. Rivalry if unchecked can lead to negative behaviour which could lead to the destruction of the human race.

A-Level Essay Questions

A-Level Essay Questions. Have a look at these A-Level Essay Questions from Past Year General Paper Prelims.

‘A picture is always more powerful than mere words.’ What is your view?
To what extent do the newspapers and magazines that you read deal with what is trivial, rather than with what is important?
‘The world would be a better place if everyone spoke the same language.’ Discuss
Should crimes that were committed many years ago simply be forgotten?
‘Advertisements are often entertaining, but they rarely affect consumer choice.’ Is this your experience?
‘The view of the majority is always right.’ Do you agree?
‘The pen is mightier than the sword.’ Can written language really be so powerful?
Can the view of the supernatural be sustained in our modern world?
Discuss the view that too much faith is placed in statistics.
How important are dreams?
To what extent is design important in your society?
Are certain types of writing superior to others?
‘Fashion is as much a good thing as a bad thing’. To what extent do you agree?
As long as people in the public eye do their job well, does it matter what they do in private?
Assess the impact of foreign films or foreign TV programmes on culture of your society.

Author: VidS