Social Issues – Page 12

Preference for male babies makes a society weak. Discuss.

• Female infanticide has existed for thousands of years
• in Greece (200 BC) authorities did not oppose the killing of handicapped, female and unwanted children
• preference for male babies still persists in areas of South Asia, Middle East and Africa.
• is it justified in a modern, globalised world?
• parents in rural China have a preference for male babies as they are seen as a ‘pension’ for their old age. Similar ideas are found in parts of India and Pakistan where labouring in the fields ensures some income for families
• huge sums (dowries) have to be found to ‘get rid of daughters’ by marriage
• preference for male babies has led to sex-selection; abortion which targets female foetuses almost exclusively and general neglect of girl children
• all this has led to a distorted gender imbalance, e.g. a recent report claimed that some 110 million Chinese males will not be able to find a wife

A sample intro. Add your own scope and thesis.

The gender preference for children has been largely based on two theoretical frameworks that have little to do with each other. One is gender discrimination, and the other is parental investment. Gender discrimination approach focuses on the preference of boys over girls. This is primarily studied in Asian countries. Where parental investment is concerned, no clear factor emerges on why some parents prefer girls over boys, sociologists have opined that care in old-age could be a driving factor for some parents.

Sample paragraph.

Son preference remains common in countries from East Asia to South Asia, extending even to the Middle East and Africa. But what is largely forgotten is that increased levels of crime, anti-social behaviour and violence are statistically proven to come mostly from males. One may be tempted to say that while parents want a male child, they are unable to raise a male child that is worthy of worship.

Are the poor an inevitable feature of any society?

The rich-poor divide has existed in society for centuries and till today, philosophers and sociologists are still pondering about whether the poor are an unavoidable characteristic of society. Some say that it is a problem that can only be eradicated when the right measures and government policies are in place at both domestic and international levels. Others argue that it is a natural phenomenon in a society that would exist regardless of how societies are run. In my opinion, I feel that the number of people who are poor can be reduced but the poor would definitely remain as an indelible part of society as the world today presents several new problems, in addition to the existing ones, that exacerbate the situation brought forward from the past.

A prime reason why the poor are present and prevalent in some societies is due to existing debts in the form of international or individual debt. This problem can be solved through international debt relief or through micro-financing that may ease or eradicate the number of poor people. Third World countries such as Haiti and Cameroon are such examples; they are saddled with large amounts of debt, which saps resources meant for economic growth, causing these countries to be under-developed. As a result, poverty becoming a major issue as the majority of the people living there is unable to find jobs and cannot afford basic commodities. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank launched the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative to provide debt relief for the world’s poorest countries, and a large portion of the international debt has been bought over by such organizations, to free up resources for economic growth in such countries. Poorer countries have benefited as a result as more money is spent on improving the living conditions of the people and poverty is minimised in these countries. Together with micro-financing through banks, it allows a wider scope of people to be debt-free, hence reducing the number of people in debt.

Another reason would be due to unstable governance in society that comes in forms such as corruption and organised crime. An upright and respected government has to be installed in order to ensure that the basic needs of the people are met. However, in societies ran by kleptocratic governments, funds in the form of education, farming and other subsidies meant for the public are embezzled, depriving the locals of opportunities to break out from the poverty cycle. Other societies that are dominated by criminal syndicates are also in the same situation. Protection rackets, drug-trafficking and loan-sharking are some activities that are prevalent in such societies, and with governments unwilling to crack down on such illegal activities, it leaves a negative impression on foreign countries and investors. As such, jobs are not created to provide employment for the people, and the poor continue to exist in society. Thus, ensuring that a government which is honest and unafraid to crack down on crime is in place may allow the number of poor people in societies to fall.

One other contributing factor to the existence of the poor would be discrimination in gender, cultural and racial aspects. Discrimination disadvantages certain groups of people into being unable to have the same rights as others, and as a result, they constitute the majority of the poor in many societies. Racial bias, for example, was a major issue in the US, such that before the African-American civil rights movement took place in the 1960s, African-Americans did not enjoy the same rights as white Americans. As such, they made up the bulk of the poor in the US in the past. However, with the help of pro-black groups such as the Black Panther Party, African-Americans are better off than before and poverty in America is no longer concentrated amongst African-Americans. Such rights groups still exist today, and they are still campaigning to stop discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities for all. They play an important role in eradicating biasedness in any form, such that people can get jobs regardless of their colour or religion. This also breaks down most social barriers, and it would pave the way to reducing the number of poor people disadvantaged because of discrimination.

The existence of the poor may now seem to be a relatively simple problem that can be solved in these changing times as certain trends are changing, but some solutions are more theoretical rather than practical and do not help in removing the ‘poor’ tag in societies as believed.

Gender, racial and cultural bias is one perennial problem that appears solvable but is impossible to resolve. This is because such discrimination stems from people’s mentality that has been shaped by negative influences as they grow up. As such, it is present in many forms in society, for example, in job interviews, discriminative employers may only offer jobs to certain groups of people and this creates a disadvantage for such people, which may be the reason why people who are discriminated against form the bulk of the poor. Also, in today’s society, the problem of discrimination is partly due to the older generations carrying historical baggage, such that the negative impressions they have of other groups of people are brought forward from the past and their actions could be discriminative. The problem also creates a vicious cycle when parents from these generations, out of stereotypical fears, inadvertently inculcate a sense of discrimination in their children. As such the people who are discriminated against might continue to feel resigned to be part of the poor and the problem carries on for generations. The population of the poor who are being discriminated against thus either grows or remains the same.

Another issue that contributes to the existence of the poor would be the different innate abilities in everyone. Some people are brighter than the others, while others can be more charismatic than others and the list goes on. Such traits distinguish each and every individual and it depends on which traits are more in demand that determines who might be rich and who might be poor. Generally, people who are intellectually superior to others would be in higher demand, and this could translate to them being better paid as well. This naturally creates a rich-poor divide in every society. Furthermore, a portion of the poor is also made up of people who are less skilled or unwilling to work. Comparatively, a person who is skilled would be more likely to secure a job than one who is not; a person who is willing to find a job would stand a chance of finding one compared to one who is not searching. As such, the poor basically constitutes of people who do not have the right skills or the right work attitude which dampens their chances of securing a job and breaking out of the ‘poor’ category.

Furthermore, studies have shown that the literacy rate in countries is a key determinant to the country’s economic prosperity, which can, in turn, increase the average local’s income. As such, most countries focus on making education available to every child in the country. Yet, for some countries, education may not be freely accessible due to political, geographical, social and other reasons. This is evident in populous rural areas which are highly inaccessible to the rest of the world, where the standard of education is not on par with education systems elsewhere. The level of education in such rural regions is limited in terms of choice, due to less resource made available for teaching. As a result, the people are deprived of accessible education services and end up forming the bulk of the country’s poor. However, this does not solely apply to rural societies. In developed countries such as the US and Canada, places in top-notch education institutions are reserved largely for the wealthy. This is due to the vast amount of resources concentrated on the varsities that provide the best form of education. As such, when such schools are compared to schools that are widely available to the public, there is a disparity in terms of quality of service provided, and this puts the poor at a disadvantage. In the end, it does not solve the situation of the poor in such countries.

In addition, in many developed and developing societies today, social mobility has become increasingly disparate between the rich and the poor. This is largely due to the tendency of the rich to cluster together to share resources and capital, such that the rich are becoming richer while the poor are becoming worse off. Income gaps in countries are widening as a result and this segregates the rich and the poor. As seen from today’s trends, the rich naturally have the capability to use resources unavailable to the poor, for example, they can afford to send their children for tuition to give them every possible advantage in terms of academic tests. Statistics show that students from the top income quartile have increased their share of places in elite American universities from 39% in 1976 to 50% in 1995, which shows us how the rich could possibly be gaining an edge over others in certain areas. As such, the poor have become the underdogs in areas where the rich seem to be dominating, and in the long run, this trend may have adverse effects on the chances of poor in improving their social status.

Finally, relativity also suggests that there will always be both the rich and the poor. A person who is better off than others would naturally be considered to be part of the rich, while the poor applies to the rest of the people. It tells us how people are grouped into either the ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ group. Take, for example, a person who earns a salary slightly higher than another is considered to be richer, while the other person is considered to be poorer. A poor person may not be identified as one who is not capable of affording basic necessities, but one whose financial worth is less than that of others. This is because an individual who may be considered to be poor in a developed country may not be so in a developing country. This serves to tell us that regardless of whether a society has a portion of its people who are poor, there might be others who are even worse off than them, and the problem of the poor existing in societies would thus persist no matter what happens.

Is there still a place for charity in today’s world?

With globalization on the rise, societies may be increasingly preoccupied with bringing in the dollar bills and squandering it to raise their living and comfort levels. As such, would it be possible that the poor, homeless, and the destitute would be left displaced in society without any source of help? Personally, I do believe so. Despite the presence of charitable organizations and programmes to help raise funds for the less fortunate, it is even more evident that charity is given less priority in today’s world. As modernization and rising affluence begin to assume control in this world, many people in the Third World and those marginalized in developed societies would be at a greater disadvantage, as charity seems to be displaced from society.

Some may argue that with globalization and modernization, the charity has evolved into what is known as ‘modern philanthropy’, taking action rather than supporting charitable organizations with one-off donations. Previously, while acts of charity were usually associated with monetary donations and supporting donation drives, the charity has now evolved into action, with people travelling across countries and helping those in need. Locally, schools have made overseas Community Involvement Programme (CIP) an integral part of the school curriculum, especially at the secondary and tertiary levels of education. Not only do these programmes allow for well-rounded education, but they also provided opportunities for students and teachers alike to understand the plight of the less fortunate and to take action in building wells, schools and other facilities to help them meet some basic needs. On the global stage, the creation of The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) could be seen as one of the leaders of modern philanthropy. From Africa to Asia, the foundation has impacted countries positively in line with their belief that ‘all lives have equal value’. They are concerned with educating the poor, eliminate poverty and have given out grants and donations in order to try to nip these problems in the bud. Henceforth, philanthropy in today’s context may not merely be about monetary donations. Rather, charity is still relevant today because of how man uses it as a tool to help better the lives of others.

Furthermore, charity is still existent today as it allows people to understand what compassion is truly all about. In a world where globalization seems to numb people, inhibiting their ability to feel for the destitute, charity still has a place to help them regain consciousness of the plight of fellow men in other parts of the world. For instance in Singapore, local celebrities Priscilla Chan and Alan Tern had been giving recognition for their charitable works overseas by Channelnews Asia. On the international level, an entirely new industry centred on giving has been created. Philanthropy workshops and coaches have emerged, helping people to narrow in on what they genuinely are concerned about, guiding them in managing their finances and taking the right action in contributing to charity. Philanthropic coaches go an extra mile in helping their clients create mission statements based on the type of change they envision and help them to plan their giving, both in mode and magnitude. As such, proponents of the claim that charity still has a place in the world today may be valid as charity takes on a different and more meaningful nature when people get their hands dirty and create change in the world.

On hindsight, however, rather than allowing the charity to gain some control over the world today, greed seems to be the new “virtue” that many subscribe to. With rising affluence in many parts of the world today, one cannot help but start to practice material hegemony, igniting a desire for material pleasure. Even with a greater amount of wealth, it would be surprising that man would donate a portion of it to charity purely out of goodwill rather than desiring to be recognized for such a major contribution. The recent Wall Street meltdown is an apt example of how a rich and developed country led to its own downfall and adversely affected the global economy. In the USA, citizens took mortgages from the banks without being able to pay them off due to their desire for their dream house without being fully informed of the risks involved, in a bid to increase their pool of wealth. Locally, there are also instances in which people bought Minibonds that were repackaged and sold through local banks, losing thousands of dollars overnight, showing how greed is perhaps innate and universal. Therefore, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to claim that in today’s world, charity is becoming more displaced and greed has taken its toll on society?

Aside from Greed, the power that Pride yields seem to be usurping the throne that Charity once held, in the 21st Century. As people become more prideful about their wealth and status, the charity may have become more obsolete in their lives. America is a good example, again, of how a nation slowly and painfully learns the truth behind being humble. For the past few years, the USA has prided itself for being brilliant, her greatness in moral convictions, the superiority of its intelligence and the seemingly blameless nature of her actions and decisions. Involvement in war-torn countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan have pulled American into uncomfortable realizations of how far its pride has led it to squander global goodwill and cooperation and in the process, make a number of enemies worldwide. A poll conducted after the Wall Street meltdown was even more telling of how pride blinds people, causing them to be even more self-centred than before. The poll saw a half of Wall Street workers dissatisfied with their 2008 bonuses while the rest of the world suffered from the repercussions of the financial turmoil, with retrenchments and bills that could not be paid off. As people become increasingly preoccupied with meeting their level of happiness and comfort, the charity would seem to disappear from the list of ‘must-dos’, leaving the less fortunate with little hope for the future.

Lastly, laziness seems to be getting the better of the world when it comes to charity. It is ironic how the world is in a constant buzz and yet Sloth stealthily kicks in to help people settle for what is most convenient. Be it struggling to complete one’s PhD, keeping the family together at the dinner table and loving one’s difficult relationship entails costs and sacrifice. Sloth, or rather, laziness propels individuals to choose the easy way out, thereby neglecting what is more pressing. It is no wonder that the larger affairs of the world such as poverty continue to remain unresolved despite the many years of international cooperation. Even with money flowing through the banks of charity, the hands of the people are not yet dirtied as they seem to believe that mere dollar bills would indeed make the world go round in happiness and hope. These people share the common belief that one-off donations would indeed make a difference, but they may not be clearly aware that their laziness in taking action to create changes in the world would ultimately, prevent the less fortunate from envisioning a better life in the coming years ahead. As such, I do believe that charity is becoming increasingly displaced as the world today would rather choose to settle for the most convenient things in life.

To sum up, charity, I believe begins with the heart. With people whose hearts are filled with greed, pride and laziness, how can the world be rid of the current problems that have to be tackled? Poverty would continue to exist in the future if people are unable to realize the increasing importance of charity in the world today. Without charity, there probably would not be any glimmer of hope for the poor and destitute. As the “virtues” of greed, pride and laziness pounce forward and assume control of the world, charity seems to be marked out of the list of priorities in the world today.

“It is better to be a woman than a man” To what extent is this true in today’s world?

There is a common perception that women are incapable, weak and powerless. However, this is invalid in First World liberal democracies as women are highly educated and independent. The quote suggests that men have been taken over by women in many aspects of life and females are in a better position in the modern world. There is an evident increase of advantages in being a woman today than before yet it does not hold true in every part of the World. Women in third world nations and countries governed by Islamic law are seen to be ill-treated and fit the characteristic of the common perception. It is certainly more favourable in being a man than a woman in such parts of the world.

Women in patriarchal societies do not have the power to defend themselves. The high incidence of honour killings, rapes and bride burning suggests that women do not have the voice in these societies. In Pakistan, honour killing cases occur 1000 times annually, of which the majority accounts for women. With these continuous events growing women are still seen as helpless in such situations and the failure to address this issue is due to bad governance. There are no policies in favour of women and they live in fear. Any dishonour brought to the family has no right to resolve the issue through killing as there is no law to support such actions. Yet these uneducated women who have no control of their lives are unable to fight for their rights and to stop such outrageous practices.

Men are also more favoured in Eastern countries as they are able to produce male progeny. In terms of food, health and education men are always receiving the best and parents are biased towards boys. In a country that does not practice gender equality, men will continue to dominate and women will be at a disadvantage. The tradition to carry on one’s ancestral line is pivotal to a family in Eastern countries as compared to the western cultures. The desire for a male child is so strong to the point where extreme measures such as sex-selective abortion are practised although it is against law. Giving birth to a female is often said to be a waste as girls can no longer contribute to the family after marrying off to their husband’s families as they have the responsibility of taking care of their in-laws. Thus, men still have the upper hand in Eastern countries.

Seen in another light being a woman in a Scandinavian country is more advantageous as there is egalitarianism. The ‘Equal Opportunity Act’ in the United Kingdom serves as a law to protect women from any discrimination they face. Women are accorded the free rein to discover their full potential and men are sometimes marginalised. Stores, goods and services are often designed to suit women’s taste. Female politicians are also given the chance to be elected as the President such as Hillary Clinton who is currently competing to become the next President of the United States. Even in societies, women are able to hold higher positions in the corporate world such as Marissa Mayer, the recently appointed CEO of Yahoo. These examples really show how it is better to be a woman than a man. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is too absolute to assert that women are absolutely better than men.

In conclusion, different countries have different cultures and law. There is still a large proportion of women suffering due to gender inequality. For women to be in power in future, more measures have to be put in place. If voices of women are not heard, there will be more social unrest in the future as more women right activists seek justice for these women. Hence in today’s world women are yet to be better than men.

To what extent should society embrace and encourage the widespread use of automation?

A new technological revolution is upon us, with ever-expanding research bringing us closer to the day where humans will be rendered obsolete in numerous workplaces that are currently run by humans, and in some sense has already accomplished that in certain areas. This new technology will bring forth what has been dubbed the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, where much like the textile industry in the nineteenth century, our manufacturing capabilities will skyrocket to unprecedented heights. This change is within the foreseeable future and has led many to question whether we as a species can handle such dramatic changes, or if the implications of such a revolution are worth the increase in productivity that we might have, thus approaching the situation with caution or outright baulking at the thought. While this revolution that is automation will not leave everyone happy, I believe that we as a society should embrace the use of automation with open arms and spread it as far and wide as possible, for we as a species have gotten to where we are now through advancing our technologies, and we too shall see a net benefit from pushing our efficiency beyond the capacity of what we have now.

With that being said, I understand that not everyone will see automation in a positive light, for there are tradeoffs to efficiency. Take for example the argument that an increase in automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are automation would lead to the loss of jobs, as machines that are able to manufacture products more efficiently and at a lower price are sure to displace their human counterparts. Companies care greatly about their bottom line and are willing to trim down the number of employees that they have in favour of machines that can do the same menial tasks, machines which never need rest, never have the need for a salary, and machines which do not have labour unions to fight for better working conditions for them at the expense of the company. Workers may then be retrenched and unable to find new occupations fitting their previous wages, especially when they do not have the qualifications that higher-paying jobs require, nor would they have the means to attain these qualifications easily. Take the coal industry in the United States of America, where despite the President’s claim that there is a war on coal with climate change regulations clamping down on jobs, coal production remained relatively stable in the past decade albeit decreasing slightly, even as the number of employees in the industry dwindles at a steep rate. This seemingly odd contradiction is due to automation allowing for coal to be extracted more easily by machine, and thus have been needed to retrieve the same amount of coal. These coal workers having a little qualification in other fields can then only sit around unemployed as they live on meagre welfare benefits, leaving them disgruntled and more open to making questionable choices in electing people to power. Hence, as automation can lead to a loss of jobs and in turn a lowering in quality of life for some, I cannot say that automation can come without fault.

Proponents of obstructing automation will also argue that expanding the use of automation can have harmful effects on those who cannot afford such machines. While automation is able to make manufacturing more efficient and cost-effective, such machines may carry with them hefty price tags, costs which a manufacturer can only recover their investment from if they produce massive quantities of goods with said machines. Small and medium enterprises which do not produce goods on a large scale would thus be unable to afford such automation, leaving only large corporations with the revenue to afford such machinery given their larger scale, thus giving them the competitive edge in manufacturing goods. By owning these machines, large corporations can produce and sell their goods at a price which small and medium enterprises cannot sustain, and may, in turn, use this power to force smaller companies out of the market by selling their goods at a far lower price, a term called ‘predatory pricing’, as smaller companies will lose out greatly on sales, eventually giving the large corporations a monopoly over their market and will give them the ability to exploit this as they please. As embracing automation may give an unfair advantage to certain corporations that can ultimately give them great power and leverage over their market, one would be justified in their scepticism of accepting automation.

Despite all the negatives that may be associated with automation, I believe that automation can bring about many positives that outweigh these, with one upside being that efficiency will be dramatically increased. Where it would have taken twenty people to man twenty counters at a grocery such as Fairprice in Singapore, you now only need five employees to man the same number of counters, which is all thanks to automation. This applies to many other industries as well, where manufacturing and assembly lines filled with people would now have machines and robots instead, inserting each piece of a good with extreme precision and clockwork timing. To implement automation would cut down costs drastically as goods and products can be made with the purpose of doing one role, much like a human would usually do, but with more consistency, as they never grow weary as they work. Such efficiency can lead to higher quality goods for consumers and at a lower cost, allowing us as a society to enjoy a better quality of life. As such, given that we have the chance to allow more people to have access to higher quality goods as they become cheaper and are more likely within the means of lower-income groups, we should embrace automation to give us such a future.

Moreover, with automation, no humans are involved in the work, or if they are, they are able to work on the sidelines. This can allow a workplace to be far safer, as it would be machines that are put at the front lines rather than the worker. Workers enjoy better safety as, in an automated environment, their interaction with the products is minimal and most people would play a role more in line of supervising the automation line, reducing the need to move heavy objects or move products to machinery which can seriously harm someone if they are not careful, and prevent exposure to dangerous substances. Workplace accidents are virtually nonexistent at Amazon warehouses, despite them being a shipping and cargo delivery company that would naturally involve moving heavy containers. Such a feat is achieved by their use of automated robots which can zip across the warehouse floor, moving crates exactly where they need to go, and operating like a well-oiled machine with other units to ensure that not a single collision will occur. Should an unexpected situation arise whereby a heavy object falls, only the poor robot will be crushed by the crate, as no human would directly work with the cargo. Such an environment for a workplace would be excellent, as no person should be exposed to the potential danger when it is avoidable, especially when their livelihoods depend on their health. Hence, I believe that society should push for the widespread use of automation in various workplaces, so as to make the working environment a safer place for all.

Finally, automation should be expanded in its use as it allows society to plan ahead for the future potential of technological developments or other needs rather than to stagnate with the same inefficient jobs where technology could do the same work in a better way. As manufacturing jobs are phased out and replaced by machines, demand for workers in such a sector would fall, indicating to the children of today and the workers of tomorrow that this industry is no longer viable and that they should look elsewhere and attain the qualifications for those jobs which have potential in the future. Much like how the electronic fridge rendered ice carvers obsolete, automation will more effectively produce our goods and render manufacturing line jobs obsolete. This can encourage people to look towards other industries with less attention that cannot be replaced by automation and develop them, such as computer sciences and healthcare services which require a human touch. By displacing future job openings in sectors which depend on mindless menial work, our youth may instead look to other opportunities and thus increase the number of people working in other sectors, so that we as a society can be more efficient in developing other aspects of discovery, so that we may expand at an even greater rate than before. Hence, with automation forcing youth to disperse to other industries to allow these industries to have more manpower and more minds at work, I believe that these industries may also grow as a result, even if they are not directly affected by automation. Therefore, we as a society should accept with open arms the future that automation may bring us, and do our best to spread its influence.

Humans do not simply stagnate, for it is in our nature to expand on what we already have. From the coal engine to the internet, to automation, it is only right that we advance ourselves further so that we may all live better lives. Hence, society should embrace automation to maximize its capabilities.

‘If people become ill it is largely their own fault.’ How far do you agree?

In this era, personal responsibility is very important in helping oneself stay healthy and not fall sick. It is often being said that you are what you eat. This is certainly true when one’s lifestyle can be responsible for his or her health. However, blaming an individual solely or to a great extent for becoming ill is deluding because the responsibility in keeping an individual healthy is split among the individual, government, society and private sector. The government is responsible for intervening to encourage people to lead a healthy lifestyle whereas society needs to be socially responsible in preventing the spread of contagious disease. The private sector, on the other hand, should always put consumers’ health first before profit. However, in a totally different scenario where illnesses are passed on from one generation to another, no one is to be blamed if an individual inherits the disease. So the statement, If people become ill it is largely their own fault, is not true.

Firstly, we must acknowledge that getting ill can be an individuals’ fault because today, more than ever, personal health responsibility or taking charge of one’s own health is a vital phase in disease prevention as well as protocols for recovery and healing from disease. Personal health responsibility encompasses active participation in one’s own health, keeping fit with regular exercises and watching a healthy diet. Therefore, a person who does not lead a healthy lifestyle can be at fault if he or she falls sick. Moreover, lifestyle plays a huge part in most of the illnesses in developed countries. Six of the ten major factors responsible for the global burden of illnesses are linked to lifestyles. These lifestyles include smoking and high consumption of tobacco-related products, consumption of alcohol, indulging in unsafe copulation and having a high intake of cholesterol. Thus, if individuals lead these lifestyles and then fall sick, they can be at fault.

Nonetheless, individuals do not hold full responsibility for their health because the government plays a crucial role and holds the responsibility in preventing their people from getting sick. In countries like the United States of America where huge commercialisation of fast-food has caused a great problem of obesity among its citizens, the state has a responsibility to step in and enforce a healthier diet and restrict excessive marketing campaigns by fast-food companies. Methods such as educating can be utilised by the government to educate people about the negative impacts of consuming too much unhealthy food. Although having a healthy diet lies in the hands of an individual, the state plays an important role in this because the government is the one who sets laws and determines prices for the food products. It is in the power of the state to regulate the prices of various healthy food products. The government can provide incentives or subsidies to farmers and other food producers to lower the prices of healthy food products so that it is very affordable and comes to the reach of every individual. Thus, this shows that the government can prevent its citizens and its people from getting ill by leading a healthy lifestyle. So, if the government does not play its role, then if people become ill it can be partly the governments’ fault.

Apart from the government, society is also responsible for preventing people from becoming ill. In this period of a global H1N1 flu pandemic, employers have the responsibility in providing a clean working environment for its employees. Employers always have to be ready and prepared with the necessary solutions for cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation. For example, a diluted household can be used for disinfecting and cleaning common areas like counter surfaces, telephones, computer keyboards and doorknobs on a regular basis. Moreover, when people are infected with the contagious diseases like the H1N1 flu or develop its symptoms, they should call the non-emergency ambulance and not take public transport or get close to anyone to prevent the spread of the disease. Infected people should also control their mobility and stay home from work. These are part of social responsibility which if neglected can be responsible if people become ill.

Often overlooked, the private sector also holds responsibility in preventing people from falling sick. Private sectors involve in producing food products should not sacrifice consumers’ health in profit-making. This is seen in the recent Chinese milk scandal where a chemical appeared to have been added to milk in order to cause it to appear to have higher protein content. As a result, it has caused deaths of six infants and hospitalising another eight hundred and sixty babies. Thus, for this reason, the private sector is at fault when consumers become ill.

It is undeniable that many figures are responsible for a person’s health. However, in a few cases where people become ill, nobody is to be blamed. If people are infected with hereditary diseases, nobody is at fault because this is linked to the fate which cannot be controlled. Most hereditary diseases such as diabetes, cancer and hypertension are passed on within families from one generation to the next generation. Thus, just as children can inherit facial features like thick eyebrows or blue eyes from their parents, they can also acquire certain disorders and hereditary diseases. So, are they to be blamed for having these hereditary illnesses when they cannot prevent themselves from inheriting it?

In conclusion, to say that it is largely an individual’s fault when he or she becomes ill is fallacious. This is because health responsibility not only lies on the shoulders of the individual but the responsibility is also split among the state, society and private sector. Moreover in cases like a hereditary disease, as discussed earlier, we can only blame fate.

‘Kites rise highest against the wind – not with it.’ To what extent is adversity a good teacher?

Winston Churchill once said, in the midst of World War II when British sentiment and morale was at its lowest, “success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts.” Often, when difficult situations arise, and times are tough, the true character and calibre of a person are revealed and it is also through this period of struggling that many of life’s lessons are imparted. Adversity, difficulty and setbacks, on the surface, hinder growth and cut down dreams prematurely, but in the long run, it allows for the cultivation of adaptability and flexibility, strengthens one’s character and brings about community spirit, teaching people how to work together. As such, adversity is a good teacher to a vast majority of people, due to the merits it reaps, and the many valuable lessons it leaves behind.

People who view and believe adversity and trials to be situations which do not give rise to positive impacts posit that these difficult times, at the forefront, hinder any prospect of growth in terms of character. Adversity breeds pessimism and only serves to discourage those who face it, and are in tough situations. When faced with difficulties and challenges which sometimes prove too much to handle, people are stressed out, and they might begin to feel as though their problems would prevail and that they are worthless. By reducing self-worth and pressurising people who are going through a time of brutal confrontation and are struggling, adversity contributes to the build-up of negativity and as a result, a loss of self-worth and degradation of one’s well-being. For example, there are many cases of Singaporean students committing suicide due to a drop in their results and the crushingly negative feelings that come with failure, resulting in unhealthy emotional and mental states. A sobering example would be that of an 11-year-old boy committing suicide due to his subpar mid-year examination results. This acutely reflects how failures and setbacks serve their purpose of literally preventing people from achieving growth as a person, and from accomplishing future endeavours as they drive home the point to them that they are worthless and will always succumb to their weaknesses. Therefore, adversity is not a good teacher, far from one, according to people who believe so, since it does not grant those going through difficult situations any merits. It apparently only provides room for the breeding of negativity and the hindrance of growth, due to reduced self-worth which it inculcates.

Similarly, people who firmly believe that adversity is not a good teacher argue that it inhibits innovation and creativity. They believe that adversity and difficult situations serve as a deterrent against attempts to try out new things and pursue one’s dream. Challenges prove themselves to be stumbling blocks in the lives of many and are thus not situations which give rise to many positive outcomes. For example, many young millennials, Generation Z, are afraid to chase their dreams, out of fear that they would be met with the same rejection their predecessors have. By posing challenges and difficult roadblocks, adversity, unfortunately, prevents potential individuals from pursuing their hopes and aspirations out of fear that the same rejection and hardships would befall them. Adversity therefore hampers and deters passionate and inspired people from doing things they truly enjoy and from daring to take that leap of faith, due to the harsh realities of the difficulties those who went before them had faced being so severe. For example, there is a trend of School of the Arts (SOTA) students and other art students who give up on their dreams and forsake their talents out of fear that they would face the same fate as their predecessors, who have tried and ultimately failed to make a name of themselves due to the lukewarm responses, or lack of appreciation for their work locally. They eventually turn back to conventional desk jobs and ordinary lives. Theatre veteran Ong Keng Sen once remarked in an interview that ‘there is one person, one minister, one civil servant who says something – but in the long run, the other structures in society will actually ensure that these statements, “follow your passion”, really don’t work.’, and this distinctly drives the point that Singaporean society does not make space for artistic talent. Therefore, the fact that these art students are not following their dreams is due to the fact that they have seen the ill-fated nature of the careers their predecessors have faced, and the difficulties they have struggled with in the pursuit of their aspirations. Therefore, adversity and difficulties are not good teachers, as they serve as a blockade and a barrier between individuals and their dreams after they assess the hardships predecessors have faced.

On the other hand, however, difficult situations and setbacks pave the way for people to become more flexible and adaptable, being more open to different ways and routes to doing things. When met with hurdles and walls which seemingly cannot be broken down, it is natural for people to find new ways to overcome them, giving rise to the cultivation of very important skills in the 21st century- flexibility and adaptability. A famous example of someone who did not give up in the face of challenges and instead sought out different ways to work around them, and prevent them from being a stumbling block and getting in his way, is Apple’s co-founder, Steve Jobs. It is remembered that Jobs was a college dropout, but this did not prevent him from becoming one of the world’s most renowned business magnates and from co-founding the Apple, arguably the world’s most influential technology company. By re-assessing his life as a person after dropping out, through a journey in India, and constantly raring to meet his challenges head-on, such as his eventual resignation from Apple in 1985, Jobs exemplified the tenacity and ability to bounce back and try different pathways and alternatives, and he eventually succeeded. His success came in the form of the current prestige and influence that Apple Inc. holds. Therefore, through Jobs’ example, it is clearly reflected how adversity and difficulty provide opportunities for one to be flexible and open to change and become willing to try out different approaches should one fail miserably, or repeatedly. Thus, adversity is a good teacher, in that it is a teacher who inculcates crucial characteristics, as it allows for people to build up adaptability and flexibility, allowing them to become people who can think on their feet, and gain spontaneity.

Furthermore, adversity is hailed as a good and very significant teacher that individuals should not have to go without as it strengthens one’s character and fills them with the strength to overcome any future challenges. It is also through a person’s life and overcoming of adversities when even more people around them are inspired to do the same and find the strength to be optimistic. Rather than purely viewing difficulties as challenges and hindrances, or stumbling blocks, people can instead treat them as learning experiences or hurdles to overcome in order to lead lives happier lives. For example, Jessica Cox and Nick Vujicic are real-life inspirations and are motivational speakers who have overcome their adversities, in the form of physical disabilities as a result of their birth defects. They both do not let their lack of limbs become a lack of fervour and tenacity, instead of pushing themselves to reach greater heights by overcoming their physical disabilities. For instance, Cox is a certified pilot, Taekwondo black belt holder, and Vujicic has done many things even the able-bodied dare not- he has gone shark-diving and embarked on many adrenaline-inducing adventures and activities. Furthermore, Singapore’s Jason Chee recently overcame the tragic loss of his limbs in a Navy accident and the recent loss of his right eye to cancer, to win the gold medal in table tennis at the ASEAN Paralympic Games. These individuals are living testimonies of adversity breeding strength which truly inspires millions of people around the world. As such, adversity is definitely a good teacher, as it inspires change in one’s character and a bounteous increase in tenacity and strength, which goes on to inspire and spur others on.

Similarly, adversity and tough times bring about community spirit and a sense of togetherness, as people begin to learn to put aside their differences and come together, in order to overcome these very challenges. It is through tough times and difficulties that countries have the opportunity to be exposed to standing together in solidarity and unity, which drives and improves cohesion as they teach people to love and care for their neighbours. Adversity and hardships therefore in an unconventional and somewhat ironic way, strengthens the bonds between countrymen and makes way for the overall improvement and building up of community spirit and national identity. For example, after the Manchester Attacks, the bombing which occurred this year, the entire nation and all the people of Britain came together to show their support for each other. They did so through crowdfunding to raise funds for victims and their families who were adversely affected by the attacks and were in need of serious financial aid to tide over following receiving medical help. Furthermore, there was even a concert held following the attack, the We Are Manchester, a charity concert to raise funds for a permanent memorial for the victims of the attack, to gather strength and comfort the entire nation still reeling from the attack. It is therefore through such adversity and difficult situations that community spirit is fostered and tight bonds are formed between communities that exist throughout an entire country. Therefore, adversity plays its part as a good and much-needed teacher, an advocate of community spirit and unity, given that it gives rise to the building up of strong ties and a sense of togetherness which bind people together.

As a whole, adversity and challenges shape multiple things- the emotional landscapes of individuals, and the subsequent hindrance of their growth, and their future aversion to innovation and creativity. However, adversity more significantly allows for flexibility and adaptability to be developed, strengthens one’s character by inculcating tenacity and strength and ultimately teaches people how to overcome their differences and work together for a brighter future. Therefore, adversity is a good teacher for most people, at least more so than it being a bad occurrence and one which does not bring about any positives with its presence. It reaps more benefits than the tiny seeds of negativity it may sow, undeniably. After all, as Churchill said, the “courage to continue” is something adversity gives rise to and provides opportunities for, in contributing to character development and fostering community spirit and cannot exist without hardships which one will definitely face in life.