Is it possible for your society to be fair and inclusive?

Singapore is known as a multi-cultural society. It is believed society is fair when people are judged on their abilities and efforts rather than factors like race and religion. Inclusiveness in a society means that all members of society benefit from progress and development. It also means that all people have opportunities to do well and raise their status. Diversity is celebrated and respected in an inclusive society. In these terms then, Singapore is a pretty fair and inclusive society.

The Singapore government adopts policies that benefit all. The government understands that all people regardless of race, religion, gender and age have something to contribute to the nation. The annual budget plan of the Singapore government generally focuses on creating neighbourhoods and transport systems which are elder-friendly. Apart from that, the government also has adopted GST vouchers that help in uplifting people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Similarly, healthcare has integrated and streamlined to make it more affordable. Singaporeans also come together to celebrate various festivities. The Chinese host open houses during Chinese New Year, as do Indians for Deepavali. On the political front, chief-of-army, ministerial positions as well as heads of state have been graced by minorities. Thus, Singapore tries to be fair and inclusive by introducing policies that benefit all and appoint leaders based on meritocracy.

Singapore also ensures inclusivity and fairness in its educational system. The government has ensured that the education system is affordable for all. Educational policies ensure that everyone in society progresses and tries its best to prevent social exclusion. The education system also ensures that it better integrates the learning needs of the students. The government tries its best to ensure that no child is excluded from basic education that provides them with literacy and numeracy skills. Even prisoners have access to education and can complete Cambridge exams while serving time. Increasingly, disabled children are also integrated with peers from regular school systems. Thus, there is inclusiveness and fairness in education systems in Singaporean society.

However, despite the educational policies of the government, educational systems continue to create a divide within society. Educational systems tend to be unfair when rich parents are able to afford tuition and extra classes for their children. This educational disparity creates a rift between the rich and the poor. Nevertheless, self-help groups do exist to provide extra classes outside of school hours to those that need it.  It is also easily observable that only a small proportion of people with disabilities are employed and many face discrimination in the workplace. Those above 45 also have trouble finding jobs in Singapore as foreign workers are often favoured over locals. No society is perfect, but Singapore tries its best to ensure no one is left behind.

The Singapore pledge reminds people about the idea of equality. Thus, it can be said that Singapore in many ways is a society which welcomes and accepts people from all walks of life regardless of their differences. Thus, it possible to have a fair and inclusive society in Singapore when people actively practice it in their daily lives. It is surely possible to have a fair and inclusive society in Singapore, by the implementation of government policies, education, and awareness on an individual level.

Television is detrimental to our ability to think critically. Discuss.

There is no denying that television has entertained us and educated us. Many consider it essential to the development of mass media. However, there are others who believe that television affects our critical thinking. Critical thinking is the ability to look at things from various perspectives to reach a balanced conclusion.  When people watch television, they passively absorb the information without questioning its reliability. Thus, in this sense, it can be contended that television is detrimental to our ability to think critically.

Television is responsible for showing information that is biased in nature. Television is responsible for portraying reality from only one perspective. This is particularly true in today’s society where people are surrounded by fake news or half-truths. For example, in the United States, the Fox News Channel has been taken to task for practising biased reporting by favouring Republican Party and portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. The biased reporting of can be detrimental to the integrity of news and can also affect the thinking ability of the people. Another case in point is China. China’s state-sponsored channel, CGTN, has been under investigation by the United Kingdom for only representing the point of view of the Communist Party of China. Biased news on TV has the ability to inhibit our critical thinking, especially when everything is accepted without question. Thus, television affects our ability to think critically as it shows a biased perspective.

[The paragraph does not answer how critical thinking is impacted. Rather than focusing on giving two examples, it would be better to show how the ability to make good choices is impacted.]

People are influenced by celebrities who they see on TV channels. Many people are obsessed with celebrities and try to follow whatever their idols do. When celebrities give their opinion on a matter or promote products or causes, their fans are bound to follow their advice. For example, Pierce Bronson received a lot of flak for promoting a mouth freshener which was deemed carcinogenic in nature. This was due to the fact that celebrities’ influences consumer choices as they believe everything that they say. The popularity of shows like Dr.Phil, Dr.Oz and The Oprah Show is a testament to the fact that celebrities on TV have the power to influence people. Therefore, television is detrimental to thinking critically by both inviting an erosion of critical thinking and promoting what is popular rather than what is true.

[Still not answering the question. The paragraph does not show the key terms in the last sentence].

Television is also responsible for presenting reality in an oversimplified way and promoting violence. Many people view television and accept that as reality, television has the power to influence the world view of people. For example, shows like Criminal Minds, Grey’s Anatomy and Station 19 do not depict accurately portray the life of a policeman, FBI agent, doctor or a firefighter. Watching these shows does not enable critical thinking as they cause disillusionment and unrealistic expectations. Shows like are aired in a time span of 30-60 minutes but in the process, people form opinions without allowing the information to first be filtered through their minds. Furthermore, violent tv shows impact rational thinking in young people. For example, Dexter, a tv show about a serial killer inspired Mark Twitchell to commit first-degree murder. Similarly, a teenager obsessed with TV killer Dexter stabbed and dismembered his girlfriend. These examples illustrate that watching crime shows can lead to irrational thoughts and also lead to violent behaviour. Therefore, television is detrimental to thinking critically because it portrays reality in a less accurate way and also encourages people to act irrationally on impulse.

[Still not answering the question. The paragraph does not show the key terms in the last sentence. Mark Twitchell is an isolated example].

Despite its flaws, it cannot be denied that television, if used in a proper manner, can enable critical thinking. Documentaries on channels like National Geographic and Discovery enable critical thinking in people. Moreover, unbiased news channels like Channel News Asia and PBS present facts that showcase reality from various perspectives. Moreover, topical debate shows like Question Time on BBC enables audiences to listen to various opinions and form one of their own. Such shows enable people to form their opinions through critical thinking and not being influenced by reporters or celebrities. Therefore, watching correct forms of media can help people thinking critically.

In conclusion, television to a large extent is detrimental to critical thinking. However, to enable critical thinking people to need to be more careful about what they want to consume on television. If they choose to watch some violent show instead of an informative documentary, we cannot blame the television but the choice of the audience. Therefore, the audience is responsible for enabling critical thinking by discerning what to watch and what not to watch.

[Unfortunately, this essay is largely NAQ. Grammar fluctuates between third person, and first-person plural.]

Consider the view that cities of the future will need to be designed very differently from the ones we know today.

Cities of today are constructed in a way that makes people wonder how much progress we have made as a society. In fact, it is expected that people living in cities will multiply ten-fold in the next 4o years. The cities of the future will need to build using a holistic and sustainable approach. The cities of the future will need to be designed ensuring that it can accommodate a larger number of people and the quality of life is not compromised.


Many environmentalists predict that cities of the future will have to incorporate urban farming technologies. The urban farming technologies like vertical farming and hydroponics will be the future of the cities in the next few years. This will not only enable people to solve issues of food but also nourish the local economies. Another advantage of these vertical farms would be that they will add greenery to the concrete jungles of the future. It will also help people in eating food which is homegrown and will lead to healthier lifestyles. Initiatives in Shanghai, China and in Gotham, New York have sprung up to grow fruits and vegetables on roop tops and cleverly planned vertical farms. Thus, cities of the future need to be designed differently keeping in mind the agricultural practices and issues like water shortages.


The cities will have to be better designed in terms of transportation as well. Some of these technologies have already emerged in the present times. These include transportation in the form of electric cars and autonomous vehicles. The cities of the future will need to implement radical changes to other aspects of transportation like electric roads akin to the ones already seen in Frankfurt and Mannheim. The cities of the future may also need to change the mass transit system, to be faster and efficient. Elon Musk’s hyperloop concept, for example, could very much turn into a reality in the future. This is especially true in the case of India and Estonia where Virgin Hyperloop One is already planning routes for the transport. It could also be common to see drones delivering pizzas and robots cleaning homes in the future. Thus, current innovative ideas will have to be incorporated in the future cities to make them more fast, comfortable and efficient.
Future cities would also need to be more inclusive of the ageing population.

The buildings of the future would need to incorporate minor changes like ramps and lifts to allow wheelchair-bound elderly to move around the house. Cities of the future may also need to keep in mind the needs of the disabled. This can be done by creating doors that are slightly translucent for the deaf or street signs that are in braille. It might also need to include advancements in current designs like lift doors that remain open for longer, handrails for people, wider gates and barrier-free roads. There can be the incorporation of elderly care with childcare which can prove beneficial in improving the mental health of the senior citizens. Thus, city developers of the future must keep in mind the needs of the elderly by creating diverse designs.

While these concepts could be easily implemented in developed countries, developing countries could have a problem in designing for the future. Expertise, finance and most importantly having an infrastructure that suits the economic climate could be a crucial factor determining the progress of Nairobi, Johannesburg or Lagos. The future does not need to be technologically advanced. It can be adaptive to nature and sustainable. The changes can be drastic in some areas but in other areas, there are only minor adjustments to be made to the existent designs. The cities of the future need to be different in terms of environment, transportation systems and will require to be more inclusive. In the future, the cities will not just be cities but smart cities.

Women will never enjoy the same rights as men. Do you agree?

The issue of gender equality has been discussed and debated for centuries. While optimists believe that gender equality is attainable. There are others who have offered cynical views on the issue stating that it is a difficult and unachievable goal. It can be said that women’s rights can be improved in the future but women will never enjoy the same rights as men due to social, political and religious beliefs.

Women and men enjoy equal rights only in progressive societies. Women in countries like the US, UK and Canada have proved that women can contribute to the economy significantly. Women of today are empowered; this is evident from protests and parades where they fight for their rights. Women today even are given the same suffrage rights and the authority to make decisions about their lives. Thus, women do have a chance at attaining equal rights as men, but for now, the most impact is in progressive societies. While feminist movements have empowered women, these movements have not been enough in bringing equal rights for women than men already enjoy. It is evident from the fact that women still do not get paid equal wages and are still under-represented in political fields. In Middle Eastern countries women are still oppressed and do not even enjoy basic rights such as education. This clearly shows that demonstrations and protests are not enough to bring equal rights to women if the governments and businesses are not ready to listen. Therefore, women will never enjoy the same rights due to various factors like society and politics being at play. 

In countries with religious influence women still remain as second-class citizens. Religion continues to be a driving force in many people’s lives. Religious texts have often portrayed women in submissive roles. In Christianity, the bible not only prescribes women to be submissive to husbands but even to the church and the community. Similarly, in the Jewish religious texts, hierarchies of gender are deeply entrenched. This is evident in several verses like Exodus 21:10 where god ordains men taking several wives. Though many liberals may find it in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which emphasise on equality, life and personal security. However, in many countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt, women’s rights are negligible and women do not enjoy equal rights in the name of traditions. Therefore, religious ideas deeply influence mindsets which can be a hindrance to the dream of attaining equal rights for men and women. 

Women do not enjoy equal rights in terms of wages. Despite various campaigns and efforts to close the gap between wages, the gap still exists. The issue of equal pay is even prevalent in developed countries. While Nordic countries have attained equal rights for women and men, the other countries are still lagging. In fact, a report published by The World Economic Forum states that for equal pay to come into picture women will have to wait until the year 2277. In developed countries like Singapore, women still earn less than women. A study by the Ministry of Manpower in Singapore found that women earned 6 per cent less than their male peers in 2018. Though the gender gap exists today, in the future women might receive close to equal if not equal pay. Therefore, equal rights between men and women would be difficult to achieve. 

Though inequality is not beneficial to society in any way, equal rights for women is a difficult goal to achieve due to various religious and social factors. In sectors like education and work women still have a long way to go. If one needs to attain equal rights for men and women there is a need to tackle inequality in all forms. Political, religious and cultural leaders have to make a concerted push to ensure equal rights. Without a large impetus, equal rights for women will remain a dream.

Selflessness is a desirable quality. Do you agree?

Selflessness is the concern for needs and wishes of others than with one’s own. People generally believe that being selfless is a quality that is desirable. Altruistic qualities are often associated with being selfless, while negative qualities are often associated with selfishness. Many people distinguish selfish people as those who take and selfless people as those who give. However, it is a generalisation and there is a need to view selflessness from multiple perspectives. It cannot be denied that selflessness is a desirable quality to a large extent.

Selflessness is often promoted as a positive quality in religious texts. Many religions are linked to people becoming more altruistic. Globally all religions promote altruism, by helping others, individuals feel good about themselves. In religions like Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam people are encouraged to be selfless and keep the needs and wants of others at the forefront. In Hinduism for instance, Bhagavad Gita describes selflessness as the essence of karma yoga and the basis of all existence. Similarly, in Christianity, people are encouraged to be selfless. This is evident from the two commandments “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God” is first, and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. Selflessness in a religious sense is a desirable quality because it encourages people to help others. Therefore, selflessness is a desirable quality as it encourages a humanistic nature in people.

Selflessness is not considered a desirable trait because people falsely believe that their needs are not valid. Opponents of selflessness believe that selflessness is a way of morally bullying an individual. They often argue that even religion promotes selfishness and not selflessness. For example, in Christianity, it is believed that if people help others and keep others needs at fore, they will get a place in heaven. They, therefore, believe that even acts of selflessness require selfishness. Therefore, selflessness is not a desirable quality.

Despite this, it cannot be denied that selflessness is desirable because it makes life better for an individual and also others. Selfless actions are helpful to people who live around us and fosters a sense of self-identity.  Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi are notable examples of people who have truly been selfless and helped society in a myriad of ways. Gandhi’s selflessness awakened the national consciousness of people. Similarly, Mother Teresa accepted the rejects of the society and transformed them trough her selfless acts. She always believed that “the most horrible disease is not leprosy or tuberculosis. It is the feeling to be undesirable, rejected, abandoned by all.” Selflessness is morally desirable as it helps people to make the lives of people around them better.

Selflessness within societies as it encourages people to progress and prosper together. In every society, it is desired that individuals cultivate selflessness because it helps people. Many societies go to the extent of fostering selflessness through various activities and programmes.  For example, in Singapore, there is a Kindness Movement, that provides people with volunteering opportunities to help those in need. Selflessness allows people to open their hearts and understand the problem of others. Some might argue that Singapore as a competitive country is selfish especially in terms of education and economics. However, it can not be overlooked that movements like these encourage people to grow and prosper together and show that selflessness is valued and desired in many societies. Thus, selflessness is a desirable quality.  

Though selflessness is the desired quality, people often fail to work selflessly in certain circumstances. Many times people do not act selflessly, for example, many rehabilitated criminals are not accepted back into society. Recent pandemic has also shown that though selflessness is desired not many people practice it. For example, there have been instances across the world where sellers are hoarding hand sanitizers and masks and selling them at a higher price. These examples clearly show that ideally, people would like to work selflessly, in reality, it is not possible. Thus, even though selflessness is a desired quality many do not act selflessly.

Selflessness is a moral principle that is highly desirable. Selflessness allows people to widen their perspective and understand people better. Religion and society also prove that selflessness is the desired quality because they promote acts of helping and volunteering for the benefit of others. Even today many people act in a selfless manner. This is evident from the fact that many doctors, policemen, cleaners are working tirelessly during the recent pandemic and helping people. Selflessness has the power to change the world and is, therefore, a desirable quality.

In conclusion, selflessness is to a large extent a desirable quality as it helps people and society. Though being selfless is desired, people need to realise that it cannot always be practised. In our materialistic world where people thrive in selfishness acts of selflessness are truly desired because they keep us in touch with our humanity.

“Statistics measure everything but prove nothing”. Discuss.

We use statistics every day, knowingly or unknowingly. Statistics is an important tool as it is often used to analyse the ever-changing situations around us. Every few seconds, a life is lost to disease; every day, several thousand people die in car accidents; every year, millions of babies are born. Many believe that statistics prove nothing. However, there is no doubt that statistics is an oracle that gives us much insight.

Statistics are important because we never stop going back to statistics to ‘prove’ our points in arguments. It plays an integral role in that particular area as we consider facts as truths that cannot be argued against and we consider statistics as facts. For example, if we compare the results of two different schools in a national exam, obviously we have proven that the school with a higher average score does have a higher average score than the other school. What statistics do, in this case, is to prove a fact is, in fact, a fact and that is all. What it does not, or cannot do is to prove that school A will always do better than school B in national examinations for example. If school B does better than school A in the following year, the statistics only prove that school A beat school B in the first year and the opposite in the second year.

The statistics reassure us. Statistics show that most people in Singapore live past the age of 70 years at least. This fact assures people that they still have time to do what they want to do, time to find a relationship perhaps, start a business or maybe travel the world. Critics might suggest that statistics prove that we will be one of those people who live past 70. But that argument is flawed in itself. If we take precautions and lead reasonable lifestyles, it is possible for us to be part of the statistics. Actuarial science provides much statistical data to insurers to ensure that they run a profitable business. That proves itself that statistics measures and proves general lifespans.

Statistics measure everything that can be measured – the number of people in a country, each person’s height, the number of accidents that occur in a period of time, the number of times our heartbeats per minute and so on. But critics opine that statistics cannot measure feelings and emotions, selflessness or selfishness. One could say that the critics have a weak understanding of statistics. With statistics, we can determine patterns of behaviour in society and we can study them. Statistics alone really prove nothing but statistics with some level of inference can give us insights into the world around us. If we were to use statistics blindly, we would be running into some very serious problems as a society. Just because certain prisons in the US have a greater number of ‘blacks’ or ‘Latinos’ in their prisons does not prove that these races have a higher tendency of becoming criminals. Unchecked, such ideas could worsen into even more severe racial discrimination. Many nowadays, troublemakers especially, use statistics as a means to distort the truth. There is much value statistics can bring, and if used correctly, statistics can prove regression, deviation, reliability and validity of the information.

Everything that can be quantified is quantified or at least being quantified. We turn to statistics to prove our theories of the world around us in an attempt to have a better understanding of our surroundings. We use statistics to justify the impact on surveys, business operations and even obscure issues like best ice-cream flavour. Statistics are a useful measuring tool and has provided significant evidence for issues that we seek insights and opportunities for remediation.

‘The world is shrinking fast but not necessarily coming together.’ Discuss.

The world has been shrinking fast in part due to globalization. Other factors that may have made the world smaller is telecommunication, transport and cheap budget travel. However, there are still international disputes and arguments that continue to plague the globe. Some might argue that there have been instances where countries have established some forms of cooperative ties with each other, but the reality is that there are massive divisions in the world of today. Therefore, the world is not coming together.

Technological advancement in transportation and communication has led to increased international trade between countries. This has allowed countries to be more integrated economically which has contributed to more trade. Countries have established free trade agreements with each other and have also formed supra-national bodies to serve their economic interest leading to more economic integration. One such international organization would be the Organisation of Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD). The OECD improves trade and cooperation not just among its own members but with several dozen countries who are not members.

Announced in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI, also known as One Belt, One Road) by China aims to strengthen trade connectivity in the world. It combines new and old projects, covers an expansive geographic scope, and includes efforts to strengthen hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, and cultural ties.  While this initiative is primarily designed to help China’s economy, the plan impacts 138 countries with a combined Gross Domestic Product of $29 trillion and some 4.6 billion people. It would be myopic to say that the world is not coming together for mutual prosperity and benefit.

But surprisingly, there are many political leaders that embrace a noxious brew of nationalism and authoritarianism. The mix varies from place to place but typically entails the rejection of international institutions and rules. There is little new in the critique of an unjust global order. But if once that critique tended to be rooted in international solidarity, today it stems chiefly from an inward-looking populism that celebrates narrow social and political identity, vilifies minorities and migrants, assails the rule of law and independence of the press, and elevates national sovereignty above all else. Myanmar’s mass expulsion of 700,000 Rohingya, the Syrian regime’s brutal suppression of a popular uprising, the Cameroonian government’s apparent determination to crush an Anglophone insurgency rather than tackle the grievances fueling it, the Venezuelan government’s economic warfare against its own people, and the silencing of dissent in Turkey, Egypt, and elsewhere are but a few examples. It would be difficult to accept the view that the world is coming together.

If the above view is to be dismissed as idiosyncratic geopolitics, let us not forget the annexation of Crimea by Russia and how China obstructs the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and arbitrarily detains Canadian citizens—including the international crisis workers. Saudi Arabia has pushed the envelope with the war in Yemen, the kidnapping of a Lebanese prime minister, and the gruesome murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul. Iran plots attacks against dissidents on European soil. Israel feels emboldened to undermine ever more systematically the foundations of a possible two-state solution.

The world may have come together to defeat a common enemy like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but let us not forget who supplied them with weapons in the first place. The world may have come together to solve the environment problem, but let us not forget that little has been done to set large polluters like USA and China straight. To boot, Japan is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels in the world and the fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.  While the world has come together to solve the Covid19 problem, there is a lot of finger-pointing. The world is shrinking as communication and transport systems bridge the chasm, but the truth is that geopolitics has prevented real lasting close relationships.

Has the increased interaction between countries amplified world problems?

It is almost a characteristic of modern society that when progress takes place, a myriad of issues with regard to the purpose, the means as well as the implications of that progress would emerge. One such means in which progress has taken place is that of increased interaction between countries. The tendency for such activity is merely due to the fact that countries have realised the importance of interdependence; such interconnectedness between countries is a consequence of globalisation. However, alongside the successes of the interconnectedness between countries, we have undoubtedly experienced downturns; the adverse effects of globalisation are simply ubiquitous. International challenges and difficulties faced in the past have grown into hardships that haunt leaders and many people on a daily basis. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that increased interaction between countries has also helped to diminish certain problems that plague an array of countries. Consequently, it is my stand that increased interaction between countries has amplified, yet diminished, certain world problems.

One of the foreseen and inevitable results of increased interaction between countries is that of the amplification of conflicts between nations. Although ironic, globalisation and the interconnectedness of countries have indeed resulted in increased division between nations and societies. One such conflict is that of power struggles. As countries tend to interact, they tend to form allies and enemies. In the late 19th century, the effects of the Industrial Revolution was omnipresent; it was clear that industrialisation of economies was necessary for the development of countries. However, such a noble act of improving the quality of life of citizens within countries started to become a competition. Countries attempted to outdo each other as they realised the strength and weaknesses of other countries via interaction. Tension built up and alliances were made. Tension was so high that the assassination of the Austria-Hungarian prince resulted in a devastating war that involved the majority of countries in Europe- World War 1. Every country wanted to be dominant and have a say in international politics. Their economy had to be the best. It was observed that such international competition and the alliance among a select group of people resulted in forms of elitism; such were the effects of increased interaction. Consequently, tension was amplified; war was created. The divisions in the world were amplified by increased interaction between countries.  

Still related to the topic of politics, the division between countries is amplified due to the spread of varied ideologies via increased interaction between countries. On the international stage, what nations care about is power. From North Korea’s missile trials to Beijing’s grand staging of the 2008 Olympics, there are a plethora of ways in which countries make their presence felt. The stiff nature of competition in the world and the complicated dynamics that play out in relationships between countries require countries to assert themselves and gain ascendancy in order to have power to bring out situations that are favourable to their interests. In the late 1900s, one such mode of assertion was via the spread of ideologies. Immediately after World War 2, there was an immense competition between the United States of America (USA) and former USSR to spread their ideologies of democracy alongside capitalism and communism respectively. Via the increased interaction between these two superpowers and other countries, several countries were influenced to take up the various ideologies. Most of Eastern Europe was communist; North Korea and North Vietnam favoured communism as well. Both Korea and Vietnam were split up such that two exclusive societies were created to oppose each other in every way possible. The Cold War was inevitable. Nuclear weapons were built; an arms race was initiated. Such increased tensions based on the reality of mutually assured destruction were merely due to conflicting ideologies and increased interaction between countries. Again, increased interaction between countries resulted in increased divisions in the world; the adverse relationship between countries were amplified.

Increased interaction between countries has also resulted in the strengthening of far-reaching effects of terrorism. Transnational terrorism prospers based on the interconnectedness of our international society. Acts of terrorism are carried out for the spread of messages to a large population, especially via the media. For instance, the main aim of terrorism by Al-Qaeda, a Muslim extremist group, is to force US troops out of all Muslim States, with special reference towards Iraq and Afghanistan. Via the Bali and London bombing, they have incontrovertibly been successful in striking fear within the hearts of the general international populace and made the leaders of countries wary of groups from other countries. Such terrorism has consequently resulted in increased tensions as certain countries ally one another to stereotype other countries as the birthplace of terrorism; this was the main reason why America attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. As such, it can be said that increased interaction allowed the flourishing of transnational terrorism that has resulted in tensions and enemies made between countries.

Such an action has had far-reaching effects. For instance, the authoritative, military regime in Iraq by US soldiers has been utterly counter-developmental and detrimental to the survival and progress of Iraq. This has consequently led to the exacerbation of the situation as people not only suffer from overt violence but from destitution and increasing crime rates as well. The mere ability of certain countries to dominate over other countries has resulted in further inequalities and counter-productivity. The world thus cannot progress as a whole.

Other than that, the increased interaction between countries has resulted in income inequality. The dominant players in the international world economy tend to overexploit the weaker participants. Even China has resorted to expanding their market to Africa; they intend to take advantage of the labour force and resources present. Indeed, Africa will benefit from trade with China; however, China will reap the lion’s share of benefits. At the same time, the USA exploits the labour market in China. The entire world realises that the cost of labour in China is extremely low. Undeniably, this has benefitted the entire world. Increased interaction between China and the rest of the world has benefitted all active participants in the macroeconomy at large. However, looking at the micro-level, we face a problem that has been greatly amplified by such increased interaction-income inequality. Most labourers in China earn less than US$300 a month. In Singapore, the Gross Domestic Product is as high as US$32,000 annually. Within countries themselves, there is the presence of inequality which can simply be measured by the Gini coefficient. Throughout the entire world, due to our complex and extensively interconnected economies, the rich 20 per cent of the world have possession of 80 per cent of the world’s resources. The poorest 50 per cent of our international population only has access to 1 per cent of the world’s resources. As interaction increases, such a pressing problem will continue to grow exponentially as the tune of capitalism is promoted.

Nevertheless, increased interaction has also helped to diminish world problems. Via increased interaction, there was the initiation of the League of Nations- the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson. However, it failed terribly to effectively address world issues; this problem ended off with World War 2. Nevertheless, such intense interaction between countries, especially during World War 2 allowed us to appreciate world problems better. Consequently, the United Nations (UN), as an international body to unite nations and allow constructive interaction, was proposed. The UN was much more effective than its predecessor mainly due to the efforts between countries to increase their interaction with one another. Consequently, the UN was a success and its activities have been a great testament to its progress. For instance, it sent down peacekeeping troops to countries affected by the 2004 tsunami so that the problem was not amplified and the situation could be improved quickly. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, coalition forces were sent to the Middle East as well. Such efforts by the UN has made our world today a better place for tomorrow’s world by promoting healthy interdependence between countries and reducing tensions and adverse relationships between societies.

Besides that, increased interaction between countries has also improved racial and religious harmony. As countries attempt to forge ties with one another, there is the interaction between the people of those countries. For instance, the Southeast Asian countries have come up with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a form of regional, multilateral diplomacy. One of its stated aims is to promote cultural awareness of the various ethnic groups and countries; this is often done through overseas educational trips organised by the Ministry of Education. International events such as the 2008 Beijing Olympics also are a platform for increased interaction between countries; at the same time, there is religious and racial appreciation as well. Consequently, interactions between countries have assisted in the diminution of racism and other forms of dehumanisation which is detrimental to the very basic fabric of society.

In conclusion, increased interaction has amplified various problems. However, they have also successfully reduced and diminished certain problems as well. Whatever the case may be, we have to accept the fact that globalisation and its effects have contributed more towards the amplification rather than the diminution of problems. As members of the international society, it is our responsibility to reduce the amplification of world problems to ensure sustainable development and a better place for future generations to live in. We should aim to build a world in which the future of civilisation does not experience the aftermath of our selfish actions which consequently results in the exacerbation of world problems.

‘Rules are meant to be broken.’ Is such a perspective justifiable?

People feel the presence of rules everywhere. Oppressive presence of rules, both written and unwritten are a norm in some societies. Rules are prescribed to dictate people’s every move and keep their behaviour in check. Many believe that rules are an affront to their freedom, and argue that they are there to be broken. However, rules are necessary for any society so that it can run smoothly and progress in a stable manner. Increasingly, many hold the view that rules are usually meant to be followed but, in some cases, when rules hinder progress and are unjust, then the rules can be broken.

Rules are the building blocks of a harmonious society. Rules in society are meant for the well-being of the individual and society as a whole. As such rules in society must be followed so that everyone can stay peacefully. In society, rules are in the form of laws that help society to progress. For example, many developed nations have rules and laws in place that make education compulsory for children. As good education is the sign of a progressive society, with responsible citizens. Similarly, there are laws or rules against crimes like murder, robbery, bribery and other so that people can be protected from practices that oppress them in any way. Even following the simplest rules in a society leads to harmony and smooth functioning of that society. For example, not smoking near schools, following the traffic signs, queueing in an orderly manner, not littering are all rules that are meant to prevent society from falling into anarchy. Therefore, rules must not be broken in society as they are there for protecting the well-being of the individuals and communities that stay within that society.

However, sometimes people need to break rules to achieve success and revolutionise people’s lives. Most influential people all had to break rules to initiate change and bring on multitudes of new ways to people’s lives. If people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had stuck to following the rules, then we may not have the technological advances like we do and thrive on today. Similarly, if Galileo did not propose Heliocentricity, people would have never established that Earth is not the centre of the universe. There is a need to strive for more especially when people are innovating. Rule-breaking in innovation helps to make a positive impact not only for an individual but also the lives of others in society. Therefore, to create something path-breaking rules need to be broken.

Societal and cultural norms need to be broken when they prove detrimental to the well-being of society. Unspoken rules are responsible for many of the atrocities that happen in society. Honour killing in countries like Pakistan and India is due to the rule in which the perpetrator believes that the victim has violated the principles of a community or a religion. Similarly, in China, the foot-binding practice was considered a status symbol as well as a mark of beauty. However, the cultural practice was painful and limited the mobility of women, resulting in lifelong disabilities for most of its victims. With many campaigns in China, the practice finally came to an end in the early 20th century. In many parts of the world, discriminatory practices are entrenched into the cultures.  Thus, breaking rules is necessary when it comes to discriminatory practices rooted in cultural and traditional norms.

Rules in most cases should be followed, however when it comes to discriminatory practices or creating something new rules need to be broken. Individuals and societies, face a continual battle over rules, however, what needs to be understood is that rules are meant for the benefit of the society. Only rules that hinder innovation and lead to discrimination should be condemned.

‘A university education is becoming increasingly irrelevant to success.’ Discuss.

Success in today’s world greatly hinges on how outstanding a person is in his career. A few decades ago, university graduates were almost guaranteed a good job with a good measure of success. However, that is becoming increasingly untrue for society today. While university students are armed with much knowledge which is supposed to empower them, the increasing speed at which the world is moving is making university education increasingly irrelevant to success. The reality is that university education is becoming too common, too limited and how information learnt is irrelevant.

Our society is creating more new knowledge and technology than it can be learnt, causing university education to be outdated, rendering it irrelevant. The intention of studying at a university for an individual is so that he can be equipped with specialized skills needed to be competitive in the industry, and thereby achieving success. However, the turnover of information and technology in universities is not able to keep up with the world. Take for example the biotechnology industry where new discoveries are being made on a weekly or even daily basis. It is impossible for university education to remain relevant to a student’s success through the education provided.

Some may argue that though universities are not able to keep up, universities conduct projects for students to know more about the latest information, and also that this fast turnover of information does not have much effect, not in the field of science. However, a point to note is that most students, in order to do well, gather information from past students and add on to it so slightly. Hence, can it be said that their information is up-to-date, considering their desire to do well exceeds their desire for learning? Also, with regards to students not in the field of science, these students, they learn mainly from experiences of what happens in the real world. As the world moves faster, more things happen as well, the world is changing fast, and university education cannot keep up with it. Hence, university education is fast becoming increasingly irrelevant due to the fast-changing tides of our world today. University education is no longer a passport to success because it is becoming increasingly common. In the past, university graduates could easily get a job because they were the cream of their crop in their society back then.

However, degree holders are widely available for employers to take a pick from in modern society. This can be seen from graduates who end up as hawkers in the food court, and the number of unemployed graduates out there. It can be argued that university education is still relevant to success even though it is common because as graduates become more common, so do jobs requiring their skills to become available to them compared to old times. However, when one speaks of success, it goes beyond having a job but being distinguished as an individual apart from other people. With university education being so common, our competitors will very well end up as another university graduate, which makes university education irrelevant since graduates do not stand out. Furthermore, university education does not prepare students adequately for the world out there enough for them to wield success in their hands.

The world is shrinking, our economy is no longer confined to our region but going global. University education is unable to equip people enough to deal with people of different cultures and perspectives in the world out there, which is imperative to success. This is not something that can be imparted and remain relevant to university education due to a lack of time. This is evident from how university students in order to adapt have to take up cultural classes in order to survive. Indeed, it is true that learning is a life – long process, it is just right that graduates should equip themselves better by learning more, and does not make university education irrelevant to success. However, if it is so, university education does not play a part in success anymore, because anyone and everyone can take up such classes so as to survive, even without a degree. Hence due to globalization, university education is becoming increasingly lacking in providing social skills with regard to different cultures for students to thrive, hence making university education irrelevant to success.

Also, our world is becoming a world where people thrive because of innovation and abilities apart from those acquired from academic discourse. University education imparts the best that they know how for graduates to survive. However, in today’s world, a degree is no longer a benchmark of capability. In our world today, capabilities need to be proven first before it can be recognized and used for success, and such capabilities do not require a university education. In today’s world, we are seeing an increasing number of people without a university degree being successful because of their innovations and talents. An example would be the proud owners of Creative technology, and Breadtalk, where they did not get much of an education but made it big. The case is clear that university education is irrelevant today.