To what extent is formal education effective?

A really really terrible essay.

Education can exist in many different forms and variation. A parent communicating to a child and be considered as an informal education where life skills and values are being instilled in the child. Education in Singapore, as we know it, is mainly formal education whereby it is a classroom-based style of teaching provided by trained teachers in various institutions.

Formal education is effective because it is caters to the large majority of the population. Formal education allows for the easy implementation of new educational materials to the student body by the government and various institutions because of the coherence of materials taught in schools to these students. Rather than coming up with different measures and other forms of informal education to fit different groups of students in a different education system, the government and educational bodies can save on the administrative costs which can then be channeled into other government needs and concerns. There is no denying that informal education can be beneficial also but formal education provides a systematic way of organizing education materials to a large majority of the population hence allowing educational institutions to address the education needs of the population as a whole rather than individually which may be time consuming. In Singapore, the ministry of education (MOE), has used formal education such as the compulsory primary school education to the population at large to ensure that each student can

In a highly competitive world in which there is a stark difference between the rich and the poor, education can be said to be a great ‘leveller’ in the world. Formal education can be effective because it is cheap and cost efficient allowing for even low income earners to allow their children to study. Formal education in schools is normally implemented through a state-owned company instead of a private enterprise. Hence, the cost of education would be comparatively cheaper than those given by private firms or educational institutions. This would give a greater opportunity for the whole community of students to be educated rather than specialized forms of education tailored only for the rich. In the long run, there is a higher probability that formal education, because of the inclusiveness of even low-income family students, can improve the lives of these low-income families as well as remain cheap and competitive. In Singapore, education is heavily subsidized because it is seen as an important tool to build a knowledge base economy in the future. It is also compulsory to attend primary school for all students so that they have at least a certain level of education.

Furthermore, formal education is mostly standardized. This brings about benefits to not only students but also the economy as a whole. The system of formal education can be geared towards skills required by economy. In the past, focus on calculus and arithmetic in Singapore was important because capital intensive style of the economy which required engineers. In this modern day, science and math are placed of importance as our economy enters into a technological advanced world so as to allow progress to take place. Formal education provides a platform for governments to implement the education system across the country, making it fast, efficient and fair to the society. As such, formal education can be effective because it is standardized which allows easy implementation of policies to deal the economic progress of the country.

Formal education certainly provides a systematic platform for the governments to education the vast majority of the population. However formal education may have its limitations hence it may not be as effective in certain aspects. For one, formal education limits creativity in students. The standardization of the education system to fit the majority of the population may restrict students who are not used to the specific type of learning formal education brings. Learning can take place in different forms. These include audio, visual, kinestatic and tactile learning. More often than not, formal education tends to neglect some of these aspects that may hinder some students in their learning which may be a downside in the near future. In addition, formal education tends not to focus on the arts as much as math and science. Students who are artistically inclined in dance and music may not be able to cope well with the formal education system. They may not excel in school as a result because of the lack of opportunities in other areas that formal education brings. Although Singapore has opened up new colleges such as SOTA (school of the arts) and laselle college of the arts,  every other school focuses on formal education which comprises of mainly math and science to educate students so that they can work to allow the economy to progress. Hence when dealing with creativity of this form of education, formal education may not be as effective.

Formal education may not be as effective because in the long run, students may not appreciate what they have learnt in schools. Formal education, in a way, conforms students to adapt to the idea of learning which is chosen not by them but by the government. This may not allow the students to fully appreciate the subjects which are taught to them and in future, there might be a possibility of forgetting the knowledge causing formal education not to be as effective. Also, talent, which could have been nurtured, may as a result be undeveloped in formal education where the child does not have the exposure to further his talent. As  result, formal education can be limited and not as effective as it could be.

In conclusion, formal education is effective in many different aspects even outside the scope of this essay however we have to recognize that formal education can be limited in certain areas such as creativity as well as the appreciation of studying in general.

Can mathematics be seen as anything more than a useful too in everyday life?

Mathematics has always been used as a tool in our routine life, in its most basic applications of monetary exchange and transactions, estimating the travel time required to get to our workplaces so as to avoid being late, to its more complex deployment in the value-analysis involved in stock exchange in the global business market. Yet, the intrinsic value of mathematics is found not only in its concrete uses – being used as a mere tool – but more predominantly in its power to empower people and the world we live in. By taking a deeper and closer look into the power of mathematics, mathematics can effectively be seen as a language – a medium for interaction and communication. It can also be seen as a rich source of enhancement for the human mind, taking mental activity and capabilities to new heights. Most of all, mathematics should not be seen as a mere mash of numbers, questions and results, because by looking beyond that, we would see the large amount of information those “mere numbers” can tell us, where mathematics itself, can be seen as an entity, the engine that drives how we live and how we will live in the distant future.

By looking at the application of mathematics in our everyday lives, it is obvious that is used in extreme magnitudes in almost every aspect of our daily life. Because of this, mathematics is gradually seen as a form of language, with its basis of operation being the analysis and observation of sequential patterns, and the whole simple yet potent idea of counting. Studies over the years have shown us that the frequency of a cricket’s chirp over specific time frames is relative to the temperature of the surroundings at that point in time. Counting and identifying the sequence and patterns of clicks and beats have also given birth to the “MORSE code”. The whole concept of code-deciphering in various artifacts and transcripts is also based on pattern observation, a key component in mathematics. Taking into consideration that English, Chinese, French and Russian are languages that can only be used to communication by people who know them, since mathematics is something that lives among us in our everyday lives all over  the world, there comes a possibility that mathematics could be the universal language of the future. Even during our daily conversations, there are instances where mathematically based observation is applied to allow us to arrive at certain conclusions. For example, too long a pause in between dialogue between friends can indicate either awkwardness, boredom or confusion. In the same light, panic or excitement can be observed when the pauses in between dialogue is abruptly cut off or too short, allowing us to conclude a certain level of anxiety and panic in the other party’s speech.  All of such observations are again, also based on the mathematically-based concept of counting and speech-pattern analysis. Modern lie detectors in crime investigation sectors not only use heart rate and blood pressure as a gauge, but also the complex analysis of such speech patterns. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that mathematics is not just a mere numerical tool, but a form of language that holds within it messages that we can uncover and allow us to arrive at various conclusions from a more careful observation of a simple string of patterns and numbers.

Moreover, mathematics is also seen as a source of enrichment to one’s mind. Because of the sometimes thought-stimulating aspects of math, the human mind is made to work more actively and process information at higher levels, thus familiarizing the brain with such demanding levels of mental activity and allowing individuals to attain a so-called “more intelligent mind”. The whole idea behind mathematics taking its place as a subject in educational institutes is not because of the direct usefulness of the various mathematical concepts taught. How often do we actually apply the mathematical concepts of the binomial theorem and Maclaurin’s series in our daily lives? With the modern day calculator at hand, none of those mathematical concepts are needed, and none of them would even prove to be useful in any way at all. Then why are students forced to learn such concepts of calculus if they are seemingly useless in today’s world? The reason is simple, and it is plainly because such concepts are supposedly difficult to grasp and questions pertaining to such concepts often difficult to answer, requiring deep thought and analysis in working towards the right answer. Based solely on this aspect, such mathematical concepts thus encourage the mental activity of the students, forcing them to think at higher levels and enabling them to grow more accustomed to high levels of thinking and the vital ability to think “out of the box”. With this accomplished, students would then grow into individuals with a higher mental capability, more prepared to tackle the many challenging problems and issues that they would most likely face especially in the working world, along their road to future success. Thus, mathematics is more than just a tool we make use of in the process of our daily lives but a form of “vitamin” that spurs us on to attain higher mental capabilities and a deeper understanding of how to go about solving problems and finding solutions whatever they may be, whereby such intellect is crucial to one’s success in the ever-changing world.

All in all, mathematics is not just a mere tool in our daily lives, but in actual fact the basis of all science and perhaps, all life. To provide a more absolute understanding of the value of mathematics, everything we live on has to do with mathematics, and everything around us functions by mathematical platforms, even us, as illustrated earlier. The houses we live in and every patch of man-made surface we set foot on, even the lights and air-conditioners we so conveniently turn on, are all constructed based on architectural analysis and measurements, as well as mechanical and electrical engineering which revolve around concepts found in mathematics. The computers and televisions we tend to seek daily entertainment from, even the electronic games we play and the computer applications we use to do work in the office, are all results of advanced and complex programming, another high level mathematical concept. In addition, processes crucial to the state of every country such as economic evaluation of market value and exchange rates, as well as statistical studies conducted to obtain relevant information from the population are also mathematical in nature. With so many things around us brought about by mathematics, and with so many crucial and important aspects functioning based on mathematical ideas, it would be foolish and naïve to still view mathematics as a mere tool, instead of something that empowers us with the many vital must-haves in life.  With the sheer extent of benefits and promises brought to birth by mathematics, it can possibly be said to be the engine of our universe.

Mathematics shows us how to find logical paths to truth, how to unambiguously describe those paths to others, and how to recognize descriptions of faulty paths that lead in the wrong direction or in circles. With it in our arsenal, we are endowed with the ability to think critically, avoid error and derive solutions to any brain-racking issue. Mathematics enables us to communicate,  to enhance our minds, and to develop the many things we find almost impossible to live without in our lives. Mathematics is not just a mere tool in everyday life, but an entity that brings about infinite possibilities.

‘Being a politician today is more difficult than ever.’ Do You Agree

T/S: Those who say that a being modern politician is the same as being a political figure in the past argue that the key factor of being a leader is an eternal constant; politicians portray themselves as compassionate yet powerful figures, capable of leading their nations to greater heights.

EG: Stalin and Putin of Russia both portrayed themselves as compassionate yet awe-inducing father-figures. Stalin often took photos of himself holding up young children with a wide smile, while Putin takes photos of himself spending time with animals like baby tigers or riding horses. Additionally, Putin often releases stories of himself accomplishing amazing feats such as discovering ancient Greek pottery during a recreational dive or successfully hunting down a large bear. Trump, a political outsider, blustered his way into the White House thanks to his effort in portraying himself as a strongman leader who could fight for “fair deals” with the Chinese “bullies”. Bernie Sanders was lambasted for being the oldest candidate and thus the most likely to die in the office should he be elected.

L/B: The main factor that decides the success of a politician is the portrayal of themselves as capable father-figures who are able to convince citizens that they can commandeer their motherlands and drive them to success.

T/S: However, the dynamic modern world with its interconnected global issues means that politicians must grapple with a new set of challenges while still satisfying the demands of local constituents that make their job more difficult than it was in the past.

EG: The British Exit (Brexit) from the EU was a very surprising and shocking event of which its impacts rippled across the globe. The British voted to leave in order to gain better control of their borders while the EU lamented the loss of the large British market. Ex-Prime Minister Teresa May and her successor Boris Johnson both got their positions mostly due to their claims that they would be able to reconcile the differing goals. However, May has failed, resigning in disgrace while Johnson seems to be treading down the same path. To be fair, they are facing a monumental task, the scale of which rivals the challenge Churchill faced during World War II.

 L/B: The complex relations that come with an interconnected world make it difficult for politicians to deal with both internal and external problems simultaneously, especially when those goals are in direct opposition of each other.

T/S: Additionally, the genesis of new media has led to the rise of various movements that challenge the decisions of politicians, making it harder to enact such decisions.

EG: The Hong Kong riots originated when Carrie Lam’s government implemented an extradition bill that would allow people in Hong Kong to be deported to China and be judged by Chinese law. While born out of good intentions when a murderer could not be judged while on Hong Kong soil, the prevalent fear was of China abusing this power to deport dissenters and judge them for speaking out against the Chinese government, causing massive riots to break out across the country. While police were deployed to stop them, protesters organized themselves using encrypted chat services such as Whatsapp and Telegram to plan where to strike as well as the locations to avoid. Additionally, the protests have gained the support of the Western world. Social media sites, like Twitter, have posters incessantly voice their support for the protests, garnering international attention and putting more pressure on Lam’s government. She eventually relented and dropped the bill, but the protests have yet to end, with the demands of the protestors yet to be fully fulfilled.

L/B: The rise of the 5th Estate that has almost no barriers to entry has allowed for the rise of the public consciousness that has the ability to refute government decisions, making it more difficult for politicians to do their jobs.

T/S: Voters are changing and are looking for a different set of values in their politicians, causing established figures to be unable to keep up and not be elected.

EG: In recent years, the low skilled have felt the strain of globalization with cheaper foreign labour taking their jobs, creating a disgruntled citizenry that desires nationalistic leaders who can protect their interests. Additionally, the rise of successful terrorist attacks close to home has entrenched Islamophobia in their society. This has led to the wave of nationalism that has swept the Western world. Donald Trump, Marie Le Penn, Jair Bolsonaro are just some of the examples of the innumerable nationalist leaders in the world.

L/B: The rise of nationalism has caused political extremists to be chosen in major elections and make the lives of established politicians more difficult.

Is a world dominated by science a dream or a nightmare for future generations?

Bleak, dystopian views of a world dominated by science have been around for quite some time. Literature and popular culture have successfully embedded in our collective psyche such nightmarish worlds as Orwell’s “1984”, Huxley’s “A Brave New World”, or more recently, the Wachowski brothers’ “The Matrix” – all of which are worlds in which science and technology have a powerful influence. However, one might argue that if we continue to use science in a way that is guided by sound morals and a desire for the greater good of humanity, then a world dominated by science need not necessarily be a nightmare for future generations. Science may not be a perfect dream in which one has nothing to fear, but it certainly does not have to be a nightmare that strikes terror in our hearts.

Some may argue that a world full of surveillance technology is reminiscent of a nightmarish world where Big Brother is always watching. Privacy would become a thing of the past and there would be no guarantee that the surveillance information gathered will not be abused. While it may be true that surveillance technology in the wrong hands may violate one’s right to privacy, one must remember that in most democratic countries today, there exist checks and balances on the powers of governments to prevent or at least minimize this sort of violation. The answer to Juvenal’s famous question “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (ie. Who guards the guards?) is a range of checks and balances like legislation, the media, and lobby groups.

Others may say that a world where biotechnology plays a dominant role cannot be anything but a nightmare – one characterized by Frankenstein food, armies of clones or a highly stratified society where being born an Epsilon Minus condemns one to a life of drudgery. Biotechnology may indeed have its dangers, but so does just about any other tool wielded by mankind. We do not refuse to use fire just because fire can pose a great danger if it goes out of control. In the same way, we should not refuse to use biotechnology just because there are risks associated with it. The fact is that biotechnology if used with prudence and caution, could do a great deal of good for humanity. Laws have been put in place to ban the practice of human reproductive cloning; research is being done to find viable alternatives to the sacrifice of embryos upon the extraction of stem cells; etc.

Yet others may say that the spread of nuclear power technology around the world ensures that our world will meet a nightmarish, apocalyptic end in the near future. Already, intransigent states like North Korea and Iran, as well as terrorist cells the world over, are suspected of being in possession of nuclear weapons. It will only be a matter of time, they argue before these are unleashed upon the world. The concept of “mutually assured destruction” is an insufficient deterrent to some of these groups as they may have no qualms about sacrificing their own lives besides those of others.

The fear that groups in possession of nuclear weapons may use them to destroy others and themselves is indeed very real. That is why the international community continues to engage with North Korea and Iran today, to try to broker agreements for disarmament. There has been some success lately, with North Korea pledging to disable its nuclear facilities and declare its nuclear programmes in exchange for energy aid and political concessions. At the same time, there is greater global cooperation today in dealing with terrorist networks and there have been some successes in foiling terrorist attacks. Etc.

Thus, science is to some extent a nightmare rather than a dream because it has the potential to threaten people’s privacy. It also poses dangers in the field of biotechnology. The fact is science can be a dream if used with prudence and caution. It has the potential to do a great deal of good for humanity.

The world has done enough to conserve the environment. Do you agree?

Ever since the Industrial Revolution, rapid industrialisation in many countries had caused a lot of damage to the environment. Many forms of modernization have also contributed to environmental problems such as global warming and water pollution. In recent years, things such as the ozone layer depletion and the melting of glaciers in the North and South poles have raised an alarm to the world. As a result, man efforts were put in by the world to conserve the environment such as trying to reduce the number of emissions of greenhouse gases. However, I do not agree to the statement that the world has done enough to conserve the environment as there are contributors of environmental pollution being overlooked and several large-scale projects being carried out which are harmful to the environment.

Recently, there are indeed global efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. For example, there is a treaty brought up by the United Nations to be signed by all countries to reduce their annual emission of carbon dioxide by a certain percentage. This is to try to bring down the global emission of greenhouse gases by a significant amount and is seen as a global effort to conserve the environment. However, it is not deemed as successful as main contributors of greenhouse gases such as the United States of America refused to sign the treaty. The reason for the refusal is because they are unhappy that rapidly industrializing countries such as China are only subjected to reduce by half the amount of that required of USA. Hence global efforts are hard to succeed as many countries are thinking of their own benefits above the benefits on the environment. Projects to conserve the environment may just be an empty proposal as countries are more concerned about their economic growth and are unwilling to compromise. Efforts are not put in enough especially by the developed countries and there is hardly any significant change to the environment through these projects.

In addition, there are many sources of pollution that are overlooked by the world. Underground activities and also activities carried out in rural areas of developing countries are slowing causing deadly harm to the environment as well. However, there are often overlooked by the world and nothing is done to prevent and reduce these activities. An example will be the disposal of high-tech trash. Every day, thousands of used computers and electronic gadgets are transported and dumped in rural areas of China, Indonesia and other developing countries. The job for many people there is usually to sell the copper obtained after burning away the rubber insulation with fire. This is a harmful process which emits carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and many other harmful gases. The process is repeated and carried out at a large scale in the villages as it is the livelihood of many. The consequences of this improper disposal of high-tech trash can be more deadly than those emitted from industries in a developed country. However, no efforts are done to stop transporting the high-tech trash or to stop this kind of trading copper for cheap cash. It will be a silent killer to the environment and conservation efforts are not covered at all in this aspect. In another village in China, waster like high-the trash is dumped into rivers while people living downstream consume the water every day. Water pollution done can be fatal and will increase collectively over the years if countries fail to discover and try to take action to prevent these from happening.

Furthermore, developed countries are still promoting environmentally unfriendly projects for their own economic benefit. Influential countries such as the US are not taking the lead and conserve the environment. This will cause a chain effort and many other countries are increasingly unwilling to compromise for conservation efforts. The adoption of nuclear power is a very good example. Nuclear power is a process where it emits a large scale of harmful gases and causes more environmental problems than the currently used fuel. If adopted totally by the US and put to use at a large scale, the environment will deplete at a faster rate than anyone would imagine. However, the US is unwilling to rethink about it and no follow up methods are done to reduce the number of harmful gases being emitted as well. Hence, half-hearted efforts by developed countries also make conservation efforts seem weak.

In conclusion, there is generally not enough effort put in by the world to conserve the environment. Many contributors to the pollution done are not recognized and dealt with while there is no full support from economically strong countries such as the US. The world is still not fully aware of the consequences that may come. If the countries do not try and start to conserve the environment now, the environment will be even depleted at a much faster rate and the damage done may be irreversible.

Terrorism can be justified. How far do you agree?

The introduction is overly long but the essay has a mature quality about it.

Maximilien Robespierre, an influential and instrumental figure in the period of the French Revolution generally branded as the Reign of Terror, formerly affirmed that, “subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty’s repression against tyranny.” In the present day, contemporary terrorists impute Robespierre’s perception that aggression is mandatory to protect and emancipate a population. Given that the number of global inhabitants is projected to multiply to 8 billion by 2025, state and international conflicts will propagate as a root of concern for the human race. The perpetual discussion for an explicit definition of what constitutes terrorism by the United Nations appears to be infinite since member countries are ineffectual to form a bilaterally accepted definition. Although the general public condemns terrorism, there remains a double standard of “us versus them” involved in such beliefs. Terrorism can be justified on one hand as there is an element of actuality to the remark “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. On the other hand, terrorism is intrinsically corrupt therefore the rationale is to oppose terrorism in the name of ethics.

Terrorism can be accounted for as a reaction of the perpetrator due to subjugation and individuals’ political principles. Those labelled “terrorists” seldom identify themselves per se, and conventionally resort to euphemistic terms or titles specific to their condition such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, militant, guerrilla, and rebel. It can hence be construed that the perpetrators consider their actions to be righteous, perhaps even obligatory. Terrorists launch wars, claiming for just causes such as self-defence as well as aegis of innocents from threats from despotic governments, civil disorder, and external assaults. Due to a disintegration of law and stability, terrorists bear arms in retaliation to suppression of fundamental constitutional rights. By and large, the sense of duty to defend a society is vested in sovereignty clout but the administration may fail. Under these circumstances, a climate of alarm emerges thus the genesis of guerrillas. The case in point, insurgents validate Islamic terrorism as resistance to American policies in the Middle East or Israeli occupation of Palestine. Terror campaigns are also implemented in an attempt to advocate the customary system. Take for instance, Protestant extremist communities in Northern Ireland have exerted terrorism against those supporting a cohesive Ireland. Therefore, terrorism can be substantiated from the rebel’s stance, in response to contravention of one’s societal, parliamentary, spiritual and ethical dogmas.

However, religion is an inexcusable pretext for acts of terror. The Islamic faith does not condone terrorism. Suicide bombers’ actions mainly stem from political conflict, not religion. Terrorist organizations have illustrated their grounds in spiritual and cultural expressions. Nonetheless, this is frequently a blatant strategy premeditated to conceal political goals, spawn widespread fear and silence disagreement. It is fallacious to presuppose religion would typically result in carnage although religion is not totally above suspicion either.

In reality, ostensible religious terrorism transpires only under the coalescence of idiosyncratic political, social and ideological conditions. Religion becomes fused with vehement expressions of communal objectives, personal egotism, and movements for governmental reform. Thus, such heinous acts cannot be justified on tenets of religious beliefs.

Explanations for terrorism are further complicated by the ethical ambiguity that encircles terrorism. Pragmatic theorists and non-utilitarian philosophers hold contradictory opinions on whether particular acts of terrorism can be vindicated as the lesser evil in a specific circumstance. Utilitarian logicians can hypothetically formulate instances in which sin of terrorism is outweighed by significant commodities that cannot be secured with less moral loss. In practice, pragmatists repeatedly rebuff terrorism since it is extremely questionable that acts of terrorism achieve imperative goods in an efficient conduct or that the detrimental outcomes of undermining the pact of non-combatant immunity is considered to prevail over the success of terrorism. On the contrary, Don Quixotes stress that terrorism is constantly amoral unless the society faces the acute peril of absolute annihilation and the sole means of self-preservation is through deliberately targeting non-combatants. Due to ethical inconclusiveness, it is challenging to realize an accord on the settings in which terrorism can be justified.

Terrorism can be justified through the communal, constitutional, religious and moral creeds of the insurgents because in the modern world, there is no absolute right or wrong concept and there is no standard of doctrines. Moreover, terrorism is a pejorative term with intrinsically negative insinuations which are broadly relevant to one’s dissidents. To a large extent, the application of the term is exceedingly prejudiced such that its use implies a moral assessment. If a person empathizes with the victim of antagonism on one hand, then the act is considered terrorism. On the other hand, assuming one identifies with the freedom fighter, the brutal act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not encouraging or at least ambivalent light.

Young Offenders should be given a second chance. Do you agree?

In the world of today, the young are subjected to all sorts of influences, be it positive or negative. Friends, television programmes, movies and games inoculate the young with trends, attitudes and thinking. With the mind of the young still undergoing development, such influence affects their actions, and the fact that much of the content of the media consists of violence and crime, it is inevitable that the young commit offences. In recent times, the number of young offenders is on the rise and punishment is employed to reduce crime by young people. Should young offenders be given a second chance? I believe so for the most part.

First of all, these young offenders– first-time offenders no less– are but young individuals aged thirteen to nineteen. Their minds are still undergoing development and are not very capable of rational thinking. As such, they more than likely did not mean to commit their first crime. If they understood the situation and consequences, things will be very different. A study by the American Youth Foundation shows that at least two-thirds of all young first-time offenders committed their crime simply because they were either not thinking clearly, subjected to peer pressure or being unaware that it is a crime, to begin with; reasons displaying a lack of rational thinking. It is unjust to punish one when one was not thinking rationally or did not mean to commit the offence in the first place. It is the same as subjecting chastisement to a toddler for flaunting vulgarities. Simply put, it is not fair. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance as they are not very capable of rational thinking since their minds are still developing and it is unfair to punish them.

Secondly, by punishing them when their minds are still undergoing development, a scar will be etched into their minds. In this way, we are forcing them to link the committing of offences to pain and suffering. These methods are barbaric. We can not possibly employ methods we use on beasts of burden to young people. For instance, we whip horses to run faster and beat cows that leave the boundary designated by the farmer. These animals feel the pain and link their so-called “wrongdoings” to the abovementioned pain. Treating animals like this is bad enough; to do the same to a fellow human is reprehensible. Instead of punishing them on their first offence, counselling should be employed. Not only will they be fully aware of their crime and learn from it, but it is also humane. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance and not be blindly punished simply because they broke a law.

Thirdly, young offenders should be given a second chance as it is their first offence. By punishing them, we are refusing their right to fully comprehend the severity of their crime. By doing so, they are simply suffering although they do not know why, potentially leading them to a repeat offence, or even leading them to be recalcitrant offenders. The whole point of punishment is to prevent young offenders from repeating their crime. If the young offenders repeat their crime, the purpose of punishment is defeated. A study done by the Juvenile Court in Britain has shown that at least three-quarters of repeat offenders committed their crime a second time as they were punished on their first offence and were not entirely clear why thus spurring them to repeat the same offence a second time. Indeed, it is ludicrous to punish young offenders on their first offence. Instead, counselling should be employed as mentioned above. Only then will the young offender be completely aware of their wrongdoings and prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore, young offenders should be granted a second chance as punishing them on their first offence proves to be an ineffective way of preventing them from repeating their offence.

Still, it is not logical to let them be scot-free on their first offence. It really depends on the offence. Exonerating a teenage boy for committing murder is exorbitant. Therefore, they can only be granted a second chance if their crime is minor enough to warrant a chance, such as stealing or shoplifting. However, since most of the first-time offences are minor, it is logical to grant young offenders a second chance in general. Statistics by the Singapore Police Force shows that at least 2% of all crimes committed by young people are severe enough to warrant severe punishment, such as manslaughter or murder. Therefore, since such a small percentage of crimes committed by young people are severe, second chances should be granted to the first time, young offenders.

In conclusion, I believe that young offenders should be given a second chance for the most part as their minds are still undergoing development which undermines their ability to think rationally, it is their first offence, most of the crimes are minor, to begin with, it is only moral to use humane methods and it is their right to be fully aware of their crime and punishing them on their first offence is unjust. This second chance should be coupled with counselling so that they may be fully aware of the severity of their crime and prevent a repeat in history.

Progress is Good. Discuss

Progress — the word commonly employed to describe improvements and advancement with regard to the passage of time, invoking positive connotations. Yet is what we typically call progress all that good— for us and the world at large?

The passing of recent centuries, most notably the nineteenth to twentieth, has been described as steps forward for mankind. One would frequently come across commentators talking about the “progress” we humans have made since the 20th century. Indeed, we have been pushing the frontiers of science, making huge break-throughs in innovations and understanding. Average life expectancy globally is and has been on the uptrend with the advent of modern medical science. Previously hugely dangerous and potentially fatal child-birth has been conquered by knowledge gains in gynaecology and measures developed to counter the myriad of hazards. Innovative mechanisation of mundane and repetitive tasks like production lines have been turned over to more efficient robots. Judging by these yardsticks, no doubt we have progressed positively over the years.

Yet, on the other hand, the same period saw the exponential increase in military capabilities. We went from fighting localised contained wars into dreaming of global annihilation. From shooting muskets round by round on horseback in the Napoleonic Wars, we have “progressed” into mowing down advancing waves of each other with machine guns while hiding in the trenches of World War I. World War II saw the spreading of destruction from the battlefield into the population at large through indiscriminate allied airborne bombing runs. The Cold War brought about winds of change bearing nuclear bombs. Opposing sides began threatening each other with the ability to destroy each other’s half of the planet with a rain of nuclear detonations. In light of all these, militaries continue to use “progress” to describe the upgrading of their capabilities when all that does is to spur each other into acquiring progressively deadlier weaponry to keep up. How exactly is this “progress” beneficial?

On the political front, leaders who make little or no change to the status quo are described as conservative, even regressive — as opposed to leaders who make sweeping changes and supposedly help the nation progress. No doubt some positive quantum shifts have been made with regards to women rights and their roles in society. Yet more often than not, progress described as beneficial and introduced by “progressive” politicians are nothing more than policy oscillations between political leaders. Take the Woman’s Charter in Singapore for an example. In Singapore’s formative years, women typically took a back seat to males and the Woman’s Charter was hailed as a huge progressive step in the right direction for woman rights. Yet progress now is defined by the rolling back of certain parts of the Woman’s Charter and implementing the rolling-out of a “Man’s Charter” to enshrine gender equality. As such, how does a person even begin to ascertain the benefits of progress in the political sense when it is nothing more than skin-deep policy vacillations to suit voter sentiments of the moment?

Perhaps one can ask about the global economy – surely, we must have progressed in that aspect? No doubt average incomes and wealth worldwide have generally increased and by western standards, the standard of living has increased too. Yet absolute figures do not tell the whole story. Much of the world is labouring under the umbrella of capitalism despite its inherent imbalances. Capitalism generally rewards the person with the most resources at his disposal, leading the rich to get richer and the poor to get comparatively poorer as the gap widens. This is akin to letting the sprinter who jumps the gun and emerges first to win. In addition, who is to say that leading simple carefree lives by subsistence farming and living off the land, having shorter life expectancies as compared to leading a longer modern life of consumerism, makes a person any less well off? Thus, how exactly can such progress be said to be beneficial, if it can even be called progress in the first place?

Progress, as we know it today, is based upon the western world’s ideas of advancement and can hardly be described as universal. However, going by that yardstick, it is beneficial only in certain aspects where it is ambiguous at best for the rest. In this light, we should be more discriminating in areas for advancement and not progress for progress’ sake; rather, we should weigh the consequences of each advancement to allow the world to benefit from progress together.

Science never provides solutions, it only poses more questions. Discuss.

This essay is presented with the accompanying critique.

Mankind has always been a curious creature; religion gave him an answer to birth, death and the life after death, philosophy answered his questions on the purpose and values in life but science has been an important tool, which provided him answers to all the basic questions he was looking for, like why an apple would fall from its tree. [_1] The question asserts that science has never brought any solutions for mankind, and that scientific discoveries have merely created more problems for us in our endeavours to find the truth. While one can argue that science does provide solutions, one can’t[_2]  deny that it also poses more questions; for example, vaccinations have helped eradicate diseases that have plagued man for ages, while the same scientific knowledge in the wrong hands can lead to the outbreak of biological warfare. This essay would will focus on how science has brought progress for mankind; although science may pose questions for mankind, it is ultimately the source for the answers to these questions too. It would be a stretch to say that science never provides solutions.

One of the greatest innovations in science has been in the field of medicine. Scientific discoveries such vaccinations for small pox and polio have helped to cure diseases that have plagued us for generations and hence have undoubtedly helped to make the quality of life better. However the solutions brought on by medical discoveries are outweighed by ethical concerns; sometimes, scientific discoveries are made when scientists evade ethical guidelines for their personal glory. In the past a lot of cures for diseases were made through self-experimentation and experimentation on unknowing subjects; for example, both the polio and the small pox vaccines were perfected through self-experimentation first on the scientists and their assistants and then experimentation on children. While these discoveries undeniably were a solution for diseases that would otherwise have claimed much more lives, the disregard for ethics poses the question whether contemporary scientists would follow Jenner and Sabin [_3] in put their lives and the lives of their subjects on the line for the personal glory gained from their discoveries. The solution to this lies in the Declaration of Geneva, a modern-day adaptation of the Hippocratic oath, which most doctors observe today. The Declaration stipulates that a doctor puts his patient’s health as his utmost consideration and that he would practice medicine with conscience. Hence medicine is not just one of the greatest scientific innovations of mankind but the social responsibility of doctors ensures that people are not abused in the pursuit of science. It would be a hard argument to swallow that science never provides solutions.

Sometimes there is nothing inherently wrong with the discovery itself, however inaccurate depictions of scientific discoveries by journalists with little scientific knowledge may lead to people questioning the value of scientific discoveries. A key goal of media companies would be to gain more audience; hence an impartial and subjective media may stress the problems of scientific discoveries without highlighting the benefits. Case in point was Andrew Wakefield’s publication on the MMR vaccine and a correlation with autism; such side effects of the vaccine were not only not replicated in other experiments, but also later proved to be false, simply published so as to gain a larger audience for the publisher. Media as a medium for disseminating scientific discoveries may cause people to question the costs of scientific discoveries as the solutions brought on by scientific discoveries may not be fully represented in the media.

Science is getting more important in our daily lives as we progress into the technological era. Scientific inputs in agriculture and technology helped the previously nomadic man to settle down and develop their civilisations. With agriculture, man didn’t[_4]  have to spend so much time hunting and gathering their food, while technology enabled man to build cities and the infrastructure, from the most basic necessity of sewers to building power and utility grids that help sustain our day-to-day lives. As we progress further into the technological era, we are becoming more dependent on technology to do our daily tasks; almost anyone in a developed country would spend at least an hour a day using a computer or a personal communication device. Technology has definitely made our lives easier, but the ease that technology has brought to our lives also poses the question, whether we have become slaves to technology. Innovations in technology were a solutions to increase our productivity but mankind has started to become overly dependent on computers, sometimes sacrificing personal interaction, because work can be done alone with a computer without much help needed from other people. However, if we are slaves to technology, it is because we ourselves have placed the shackles of slavery on our own wrists. The manifestation of technology as our enslaver is only an illusion that we have made up. In the end, we are the masters of technology, and as such, if we are too dependent on technology we are consequently our own enslavers.

Sometimes[_5]  science is used to gain political leverage over a country with the promise of economic gains for that country. Scientific breakthroughs that happened during the 20th century were funded by a western push. For example, nuclear fission as a source of energy and as a weapon was discovered in the 1940s and 1950s by both America and the Soviet Union. As part of the Atoms for Peace program, nuclear power plants were built in Iran to ease the burden on fossil fuels to provide energy. The US attempt to gain political leverage in Iran failed however when the US-allied Shah was overthrown. The solution of using nuclear fission for energy turned into a question whether Iran would use enriched uranium for weapons instead. As we move into a more globalised world, science would unquestionably be used to gain political allegiances of less developed countries. Yet the solutions given by science could pose problems if, like the case of Iran, this scientific knowledge falls into the wrong hands.[_6]  Hence it would be myopic to say that science never provides solutions when the problem is actually political.

Sometimes[_7]  scientific discoveries may tell us the truth about something but not provide any meaningful solution for us. Science research institutions help to foster scientific research by providing a conducive environment. These institutions provide scholarships to promote discoveries, which could be helpful for mankind in the future, yet they also pose questions for the layman, what if the discovery is not beneficial for mankind. Case in point, the Large Hadron Collider in CERN, . while the experiments in the LHC are meant to benefit the field of particle physics, they could also produce black holes that are potentially dangerous for earth.[_8]  The research done may not provide any solutions for us in the field of particle physics and may simply just pose more questions in our search for the truth.

Gustave Le Bon[_9] once said, “Science has promised us truth. It has never promised us either peace or happiness.” Science as a means of acquiring knowledge is pure, but the desires of mankind, be it personal glory, political leverage or commercial gains through media have corrupted science merely as a tool of finding solutions without thinking of any possible consequences. One would have to agree with Le Bon in saving that science does not promise peace or happiness, yet the discoveries made by science can indeed help make our lives better. Many scientific discoveries are irreversible; once they have been made, there is no going back. Therefore, we have to learn from our past mistakes of not thinking about the questions posed by science, so that we would know where our new discoveries would take us and we would be more prepared for the outcomes of these discoveries.

 [_1]Good lead in statement. (Science never provides solutions).

 [_2]Avoid all Contracttions. OK for American styled writing. Contractions are casual terms.

 [_3]You need to introduce authority.  Who are they? Just listing them is not enough to justify a reference.

 [_4]Avoid contractions

 [_5]Avoid subjectivity.  Historical accounts shows that science has been used to gain political leverage…

 [_6]Nice example. Do you know of AQ Khan from Pakistan?

 [_7]Avoid subjectivity and never start a new paragraph using the same word as the previous para.

 [_8]If you have read the story about black holes being potentially created during the experiment, the scientists have said that they would be too small and minute to cause any damage. So you might want to tweak the idea of science never provides solutions.

 [_9]Gustave Le Bon, the famous French social psychologist and amateur physicist…

To what extent does the migration of people have a positive effect?

While this is a good essay, by today’s standards, the introduction and conclusion are excessively long.

Migration of people has become a collective norm, such that it is an ascendant characteristic of the contemporary society thus regulating international and cross-provincial migration is a prime concern on the policy agendas of developed and Third World states. The term “migration of people” refers to the movement of individuals such as refugees and economic migrants. This phenomenon is chiefly pertinent at present, taking into account the projection of unceasing global and regional migration animated by ageing of First World populations, mounting labour shortages in numerous developed states and urban provinces, as well as chronic disparities in income and standard of living across industrialized and developing civilizations. The modern unparalleled degree of migration incites substantial demographic, ethnical and socio-cultural reforms in many communities. Camps are divided on a myriad of issues and the aftermaths of resettlement. Consequently, there is an emerging consensus that migration of people, supposing appropriate policy measures are implemented, may engender crucial merits for expatriates, host nations and motherlands. However, given that immigration can be perceived as a double-edged sword, it does not emphatically imply propitious outcomes. Hence, migration of people has a positive effect to a large extent.

In a gradually more diverse world, where migration is repeatedly discerned as a menace to national and provincial identities in addition to social cohesion, it is fundamental to stress the positive stimulus migration initiates in host states and regions, with regard to workforce, creation of affluence, ubiquitous poverty decline, innovation and fecundity. On one hand, there is proliferating belief that immigration precipitates growth. Migration tends to boost employment in host societies, draw an influx of foreign capital and investment, beget a cosmopolis, and heighten the capacity for modernism. Several economists claim that the import of cheap labour has trifling bearing on incomes and trade openings for domestic workers since migrant workers are frequently employed in low-wage unskilled practices for which there is a lack of local supply of manpower. Therefore, the migration of people is beneficial for the receipt states and districts. 

On the other hand, sceptics assert that immigration would intensify public welfare strain as well as hostility between the migrant population and the locals in host communities. One Centre of Immigration Studies (CIS) repudiated the advantages of immigration, stating the case of Mexican migrants in the United States. The study alleged that Mexican immigrants have spawned a five percent regression in wages for the poorest ten percent of the American households. Furthermore, impecunious immigrants exploit social services at twice the rate of native Americans. Thus the detractors argue that migration is detrimental. Despite the element of legitimacy in their approach of analysis, I consider their deduction to be too sweepingly pessimistic. The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) elucidated findings such as the majority of immigration trends illustrated modest or zero influence on employment and earnings of residents. Although economic theory suggests that in the short run, and on the assumption that the skill composition of the immigrant inflow diverges from that of locals, migration may be adverse, the net effects of migration are generally positive over the protracted period.

Concurrently, Third World countries and rural provinces may experience the “brain drain” phenomenon which describes the loss of trained and educated individuals to emigration. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there are more African scientists and engineers in practice in the United States than in their homeland. The United Nations Population Fund, 2010 State of the World Population report determined that Africa merely retains 1.3 percent of the globe’s health care practitioners despite having over a quarter of tuberculosis cases worldwide. Moreover, Chinese farms are observing a scarcity of labour as rural-urban immigration level rise to a prodigious high. With escalating reliance on agricultural imports, China’s food security is increasingly threatened. Nevertheless, source states also reap benefits through remittances, both cash and societal, in the form of declines in fertility, child mortality rates, higher school enrolment rates and the empowerment of women. The exodus of highly skilled workers should be reflected as a symptom instead of a rationale behind failing public systems in those regions. Therefore, migration is advantageous on the whole, for the sending societies.

It is temerarious to form elementary assessments about the benefits of migrant flows from developing to developed states, and from rural to urban provinces. For poverty-stricken countries, the migration of a sizeable fraction of their talents imperils those remaining behind. The underlying reality is that communities necessitate human capital to ensure progress, assemble institutions as well as implement guiding principles which are the strategic pillars of sustained development. The central factors of intercontinental and domestic migration lie in the inequalities which exist in stages of development. Since the significant magnitude, doggedness and flagrancy of the gaps are likely to reinforce the pressures for migration in the imminent future, this migration trend is probable to increase. Given the considerable and multifaceted aftermaths of migration, the global community should seek a more impartial recruitment of less skilled, greater emphasis on provisional employment with incentives to return, and accent on remedying the institutional malfunctions which motivate talents to leave. With these rudiments in place, migration would be more advantageous for development.