How difficult is it to feel optimistic, rather than pessimistic, about the future?

The future can be seen in optimistic ways, thanks to science and technology, or in pessimistic ways due to environmental changes.

  • Media tends to focus on negative events. Wide coverage of bad news all the time.
  • Media always shows that there is conflict somewhere in the world
  • Confidence in a country’s political stability and order is often brought to question
  • Future prospects for young people such as education and jobs is questionable
  • Negativity can result in depression and low self-esteem
  • Greater opportunities to change lifestyle exist when one migrates but there is no guarantee.
  • Future depends on personal circumstances and ambitions rather than wider issues

‘Wars do not resolve questions but create further disputes.’ Does this mean that war can never be justified?

• There are likely to be references to more than one war
• Arguments for resolutions of various conflicts may be advanced
• What might be defined as a ‘just war’?
• World War Two, for example, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iraq wars, civil wars
• Examples of where negotiations and/or treaties have prevented conflict
• Distinctions may be drawn between ‘wars’ and terrorism
• The so-called ‘war on terror’ may be mentioned
• One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
• Allow for thoughtful interpretations of the term ‘war’

‘Young people are sometimes treated as second-class citizens.’ How far would you agree?

Keywords: ‘Young people’ and ‘second-class citizens’ and ‘How far’.

  • Lack of rights for under 18s
  • Stereotyping of youth is prevalent
  • Most youth are seen as idealistic and labelled as irresponsible
  • Degree of parental control – excessive or liberal – can impact the family and the youth
  • The respect for youth and status in society is non existant
  • Facilities for young people (e.g. employment, youth organisations and counselling are inadequate
  • The degree of exploitation is very high for young people, particularly in employment setting as they are paid low wages or even coerced to work

Examine why some democratic countries find it difficult to hold ‘safe and fair’ elections.

Key words: ‘Examine’, ‘democratic’, ‘difficult’, ‘safe and fair’, elections’

• Change from dictatorship (Arab spring/Libya/Egypt)
• Instability (still supporters of the old regime)
• Elections are complex, involving a whole population (the problem of logistics)
• Open to bribery and corruption (the problem of independent monitoring)
• Violent intimidation prevents turnout
• It can appear a sham eg, present government manipulates the process to win re-election
• Tends to be difficult in developing countries –depends whether there is a tradition of democracy
• Cost and security of election booths
• Some response might choose to emphasise the fairness of the system via discussion of media involvement, smear campaigns etc.

‘Crime affects the whole of society, not just the immediate victims.’ Discuss.

  • Society can be defined as small groups. It is not necessary to view society as a big world.
  • Barometer of safety and security has to be maintained in a society.
  • Constant media coverage can instil fear among people.
  • Society’s monitoring of the victims of crime affects attitudes and confidence in the justice system
  • The impact of crime depends whether it is localised or happens in the same neighbourhood
  • It could also depend on whether the victims are known family, friends or neighbours
  • Society can view victims with indifference, as a reality show as if it couldn’t happen to them

‘There are alternative ways to feed the world other than through biotechnology.’ Discuss

Mass hunger still exists alongside a huge food surplus.

There is a need to highlight the politics of food, the ownership of resources, control of markets, and decision-making power.

Consideration of GM claims has increased yields but there is resistance to disease. Some critics say yield gains have been minimal and GM seed is expensive

Technology may decrease biodiversity and contribute to the evolution of superweeds and the consequent use of herbicides creates damage via pesticide drift.

People are still hungry due to economic marginalisation and political impotence

While GM food can solve the problem of hunger, science can encourage the neglect of other priorities; health, education, housing

Support should be given to smallholder farmers and landless rural workers – agro-ecology

How far is religious belief, like art, a matter of changing taste?

Religious belief is a matter of changing tastes in that:

  • belief has adapted itself to the growth of scientific understanding over time
  • denominations and new religions have sprouted like isms in art
  • changing technology has influenced belief, as it has influenced styles in art
  • religious belief and art have both been subject to plays of power and patronage.

It is not a matter of changing tastes in that:

  • certain beliefs/doctrines have remained steadfast over time
  • scripture continues to be the benchmark for orthodox belief
  • the circumstantial details of observance have changed, but not the beliefs themselves
  • art and taste are superficial in comparison with the profound role of religion in our lives.

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

Given how pervasive social media has become, it is indisputable that it can influence individuals. Social media wields the power to both divide and unites the community. While social media divides and has the potential to create rifts in society by perpetuating generational divide and creating echo chambers, it has an even greater potential to bring individuals together. It cuts across physical boundaries to unite different opinions and people. Social media sheds light on various otherwise unknown situations. Therefore, social media does not, in fact, divide more than unite.

From one perspective, social media perpetuates and exacerbates the generational gap between the older and the younger generations of today. Food, fashion, music and even relationships are guided by the trends on social media. The chasm between the young and the old is ever-growing due to social media. Thanks to social media, the young now have a vocabulary that is not easily understood by older people. Terms like woke, lit, awks and are host of other terms are just too dope for the older generation. In terms of world outlook and language, social media has divided people.

Avoiding a totally absolute view of the ability of social media, we have to acknowledge that social media facilitates the interaction of people across borders. Social media allows people to make new friends from different countries, as well as sustain relationships with friends and family who have moved overseas. Through sites like Tumblr and Instagram, friendships can be forged between diverse people. Critics opine that these links do not allow for a deeper understanding of other cultures, practices and ways of thinking. The connections are cursory at best. While social media has shrunk the world, it nevertheless has become an echo chamber and polarised view of people. The divisive nature of social media is shamefully sublime.

Fortunately, there are some small nuggets of positive experience through social media. It has helped unite the global community by shedding light on situations all around the world. With the ease of dissemination of information, netizens all around the world are not just able to glean insights into the struggles of others but are empowered to take action. For example, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge started in the summer of 2014, raised $115 million for its cause. #MeToo Movement, #BlackLivesMatter, #YouAintNoMuslimBruv and a host of other movements have brought millions of people together, working to stamp out prejudice and discrimination. Social media has raised awareness about issues that society is confronted with and mobilizes people to act in the interest of their communities.

In essence, while social media may cause some rifts to occur within a society, its tendency to unite and bring people together is even greater. The availability of information online allows for more understanding and hence a more united world. As social media becomes part of everyday life, it will perform only one function, unite us in sociopolitical issues that matter far and wide.

‘Convicted criminals lose their freedom and that is punishment enough.’ How far do you agree?

  • Discuss the purpose of punishment (eg deterrence and compensation) and prison (eg, incapacitation and rehabilitation)
  • Huge recidivist rates at the moment, so the punishment should get harsher
  • The general idea is that prevention is better than ‘cure’
  • The rights of victims need to be acknowledged and protected
  • The guilty need to undergo a radical social as well as psychological change
  • The public needs to feel protected
  • A violation of social rights should automatically dilute rights of the offender.

Should sport be free from government intervention?

In today’s society,  sports play a  prominent role in the world.  It is able to contribute to the international standing of a country, improve the welfare of the people and contribute to the economic growth of a country, to name a few benefits. With sports playing such an instrumental role,  it will inevitably be tied together with government intervention.  While some believe that government intervention is not necessary and would be detrimental to the spirit of the sport itself, others think that the government’s intervention is paramount in cultivating a sporting culture in a country and ensures that more people have access to sports. As a whole, sport should be supported by the government insofar as the provision of funding and facilities but not to the extent that sport is used for political means. Therefore, I believe that sport should not be free from the government.

Some people feel strongly against government intervention in sports as the corrupt nature of some governments would dilute and fragment the spirit of sports due to the methods employed by governments to gain prestige in the sporting arena. In many countries, sport is looked at as a measure of a country’s international standing and prominence on the world stage. As a result, governments would often want to ensure that the athletes are able to compete in international sporting competitions like the Olympics, so as to bring glory to the country. However, in some countries, the desire for success and triumph might cause governments to compromise on the spirit of sporting, which includes fair play and engages in underhanded methods to secure a victory for the country. This can include state-sponsored doping programmes,  which undermine the sport and the health of the athletes. A prominent example would be during the 2014 Sochi Olympics, where Russian athletes were caught in a complex doping scandal whereby more than fifty athletes were found to have used performance-enhancing drugs in order to optimize their performance.  What made it worse was that the Russian government had been the ones who had sponsored and funded these doping activities. All in all, the Russians were accused to have orchestrated doping programmes at the Olympics and other competitions that involved or benefitted a thousand athletes in thirty sports. This not only led to the athletes being stripped of their medals but also stripped of the opportunity to ever compete again as the International Olympic Committee had issued lifetime bans for some of the athletes. This would demonstrate how the involvement of governments in sports would increase the probability of negative outcomes as some corrupt governments would be willing to compromise on the integrity of sports in order to ensure glory on the world stage. Therefore, many objects to the government’s intervention in sport as they believe that it would only serve their own agendas at the expense of the athletes.

Moreover, some are also cynical about government intervention in sports being used to further their political agendas against other countries, which might cause sports to be intertwined and tangled in politics. It is not surprising that sports are being used as a form of political leverage. However, sports are supposed to bond and unite people regardless of nationalities together under a common passion. Critics believe that as seen from history, some governments are willing to use sports as a method for them to further their political agenda while completely disregarding the essence of the sport. An example would be during the Moscow Olympics in the 1980s, at the peak of the Cold War. In response to the Soviets’  decision to invade  Afghanistan,   the  Pentagon decided to ban  American athletes from competing at the games and boycotted the event completely. This was to the dismay and outrage of some athletes who had trained so hard for their event only to have the political motives of the American government ruin their chance of participating at the Olympics. Although this had happened decades ago, many fear that the past would repeat itself and governments would start to use sports in order to further their political feuds with other countries and deprive their athletes as a result. Due to the association of governments with politics, many believe that their intervention would only set the pretext for the politicization of sports,  which would cause the unifying spirit of sports to be tarnished. As a result of this reason, many feel that in order to prevent sports from being tainted by the world political climate, it needs to be free from government intervention.

However,  while the above factors might be true in some countries,  governmental intervention in sports would be able to support the growth of athletes in terms of fiving those with talents an avenue to showcase their own abilities through the provision of economic means.  In some instances,  an aspiring athlete would not be able to reach his optimum level of performance without support being offered by governments. Some forms of support would include economic support, in order to provide one with the relevant resources to work at his sport and the provision of adequate infrastructure and training facilities. These forms of support would ensure that everyone in society with the talent and the skills would be able to be provided with equal opportunities to succeed and represent the nation, regardless of their socio-economic status. For instance, in Singapore, the government has established the Singapore Sports School (SSS), which is a niche school catered to students who have a keen passion and the ability in their sport. SSS is a six-year programme where these students would be able to be developed to their full capacity while also having time for their academic work. Through the establishment of such niche schools, the government is ensuring that the young talents are well supported by the country and that adequate provisions are given to them to ensure that their studies are not being compromised for sports and vice versa. Furthermore, the government has also included a wide range of scholarships for students in SSS to ensure that regardless of their economic status, their skills would still be able to be honed. This demonstrates how crucial the role of the government is in cultivating athletes in a nation as not everyone would have equal opportunities to develop their skills due to the different economic situations of each individual. The government would be able to alleviate certain limitations that hinder the development of one and provide him with the avenue to sharpen and showcase his talent nationally or internationally. Through the funding, developments and policies of the government, there would be more accessible for athletes to develop their passion and have the opportunity to succeed. For this reason, the extensive support towards the development of sports would justify the government’s interference in sports.

Additionally,  governments should not wash their hands off sports completely as their intervention would enable for the inculcation of an active lifestyle amongst the people in society. Usually, the government has the responsibility to maximize the welfare of the people and ensure that their basic needs, like healthcare, are not neglected. One aspect of healthcare would be ensuring that its people lead an active lifestyle by exercising so as to keep fit and healthy. In order to encourage people to maintain a healthy lifestyle, governments would need to provide people with activities that would enable them to maintain their health. One prominent method to achieve this would be through sports. Bearing the aims of the government in mind, which is to ensure that high standards of health are maintained, the government has the ability to promote sports in the lives of its people in order to fulfil this goal. In China, which has one of the world’s highest obesity rates, the government has been active in ensuring that the people learn and have the habit of maintaining a  healthy lifestyle through mandating compulsory morning physical training in school to ensure that students would have a uniformed workout routine and engage in sports. By instilling the importance of sports and activity in children from a young age, they would have the habit of engaging in sports to keep healthy as they grow up. This would reflect how important the government is in ensuring that the people have access to sports so as to improve the welfare of the people through leading healthier lives. This would mean that governments should continue to intervene in sports to ensure that the majority of the people in society understand the importance of these sports to their health and lifestyle.   Therefore, governments should not wash their hands off sports because it is a fundamental tool that they can effectively utilise to improve societal welfare.

To add on, governments should also intervene in sports, as they are able to make alterations to policies in order to encourage the development of sports.  In many countries,  athletes are tied down by legislation that hinders their progress and development in their sport. Through the use of the government’s political power, they are in the position to allow for the development of athletes and any particular sport in a country.  An example would be in Singapore,  where after the  2016  Rio Olympics, the government,  having been urged by Singaporeans,  deferred the gold medallist Joseph Schooling’s time for conscription in order to give him ample time to focus on training for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Through concessions like these being made, athletes would be given opportunities to shine and train seeing as their rigour and momentum would not be hampered by the policies of governments. As such, this would also culminate in many other aspiring athletes to be encouraged to take up sports as they know that the government would wholly back them in their career. Therefore, the ability of the government to push for proper policies to support its athletes is a crucial reason why governments should intervene in sports.

In conclusion,  the government should intervene in sports because they play an instrumental role in facilitating the growth of the sport economically,  socially and politically. With that being said, their intervention for their own agendas should not and cannot be tolerated but should instead be discouraged to uphold the spirit of sports.