Thursday, July 31, 2008

Princeton Pres Critic

We disagree with her stance as we feel that she is assuming the fact that intelligent design contradicts science and cannot coexist with Darwinism. We believe this is a false notion from her and that intelligent design and evolution theories possibly form the complete picture. Evolution explains and proves how humans evolved from a single celled organism and the changes it underwent. However, science has been unable to provide an explanation for the presence of the original organism in the first place and we feel that intelligent design fills that hole.

We do not believe that by teaching intelligent design, teachers are undermining science in any way. In fact, they actually provide students with an alternative outlook on the possible formation of humans and allows them to consider both possibilities before coming to a conclusion of their own. It is likely that human development and formation cannot be explained by either theory alone but instead by a combination of both.

Abhijit, Elaine, Thomas & Nicholas 09S06H

Is the intelligent design theory really an argument for god??

  The theory of intelligent design proposes the existence of a higher being that created nature, it also argues that it is impossible that the universe was created merely by chance. This hypothesis is backed up only through the observation of man, and man alone. As such, the five basic senses are insufficient to justify the existence of a higher being. The relationship between the doing of a supernatural force and the theory of supernatural design is not more then just speculation, based on assumptions and fallacies.

  The practice of the scientific method enables us to hypothesize and prove the laws of nature through a rigid set of procedure. However with the direct witness of the actual event, intelligent design can, and will, always remain a theory that acknowledges the interference of a greater authority, leading to the creation of man.


    Zoe,  Yingxin, Benkhoo, Cheryl &  Joel
We disagree with her stance.

Tilghman explains her stance by taking issue with the fact that proponents of intelligent design are challenging what is widely considered a "scientific fact", one that has been "tested and challenged for 150 years". However, she fails to recognize and acknowledge the fact that as with the concept of intelligent design, the origins of the theory of evolution was that of an idea conceived by man. This may be a theory that holds up to scrutiny, but that does not necessarily mean that it will hold forever.

In possessing such an extreme viewpoint, Tilghman neglects to acknowledge, too, that the two theories could actually be complements of each other. The theories in contention. in fact, postulate about different aspects of the origin of life. The theory of intelligent design puts forth the idea of a supernatural being who created a form of life while Darwinism involves the evolution of species through mutations in genes from a single cell. This would mean that intelligent design could actually occur before evolution, since the theory of evolution never advanced any hypothesis as to where that single cell originated from.

Thus, we feel that by teaching ID, teachers do not undermine science as the theory of ID seems to be valid by logic, and there are obvious loopholes in the argument for Darwinism as stated before. Teaching of alternate viewpoints will serve to create an environment where open discussion and debates can take place, thus fuelling the students' self-driven learning. This would also allow the students to understand that the laws of science are not permanent, and can be disproved.

bertrand mingmei yixin yuanning 09s06h

Princeton pres Critic

We do not agree with her opinion. Firstly, the theory of intelligent design is not in contradiction with science theories and hence will not challenge the concept of evolution in biology. While the latter explains how we changed, the former provide a reason for the origin of humas. Secondly, people have the misconception that Although scientific theories were proven with experiments, they have their limitations too. For example, the laws of classical physics cannot be applicable at many points outside of earth. While science seeks to find out the "laws" of nature, it does not have the ability to show the full picture yet, hence it is not as reliable as people thought to be.

We also feel that by teaching intelligence design, teachers are not undermining science but are offering a new perspective. As mentioned earlier, intelligence design does not undermine science but possibly compliment the scientific theory of evolution. Before the theory of intelligence is proven or disproven, it should be considered as an option and not be placed aside.

Shiyuan, Edmund, Jia han, Jonathon

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Richard Layard's 'Economics and happiness'

1. What is the evidence the writer points out in Paragraph 1? Use your own words as far as possible. [2]

The evidence that the writer points out is that our happiness is dependant on teamwork and the public welfare and not on any self enrichment.

2.Why does the author use the words 'high priests', 'prophets', 'wizards' and 'mystique' in relation to the field of economics in Paragraph 2? [1]

He uses these words to emphasise the point that the field of economics is now considered so great that it is superior to any other thing. Thus the author has to use such words to describe the field of economics.

3.Explain the use of the word 'yes' in Line 22. [1]

The word ‘yes’ is used to show that the author is answering an obvious thought and as it is the first word of the sentence, it emphasizes the author’s answer.

4.Using your own words as far as possible, explain the 'polluter pays' principle in Paragraph 7. [2]

This phrase means that whoever does anything to harm or negatively impact something or someone else should compensate for it. In this context it means that since the rich and the wealthy make the poorer people discontented, they should be made to compensate for the poor people’s unhappiness.


5.What view of modern society can you deduce from the phrase 'hedonistic treadmill' (lines 40-41)? [2]

It can be deduced that people in the modern society continuously work hard or keep trying to gain something in order to gain what they believe is self-gratification. However, like on the treadmill, they keep going but get nothing in return, i.e. they are never completely satisfied so they keep going.

6.What does the writer intend you to understand by the use of parentheses in line 51? [1]

The writer intends us to understand that he personally finds the public contempt for the politicians unfair.

Done by: Mansi, Emily, Evelyn, Yi Hui and Ying Hin

Richard Layard's 'Economics and Happiness'

1. The evidence is that how happy and satisfied we are is due to us working together for the benefit of the society, and not for our selfish personal gains.

2. The author is trying to show that people are beginning to place lesser emphasis on religion and are more concerned about economics instead. Economists are now considered as people who have great power and supremacy over others and the age of religion has been replaced by the age of commerce.

3. It is to show the irony that Daniel Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics when he actually studies hedonistic psychology, since economics and psychology are largely unrelated.

4. The rich are called the 'polluter' because the amount of wealth that they have causes tension between the different income groups, harming the society. However, they do not gain much from being richer than the average person.

5. Modern society is in constant pursuit for happiness, however the route seems long and never-ending as people are often caught in the working rat race and forever pushing themselves to work harder.

6. The writer wants to provide his personal opinion to the fact that politicians are now being detested, so he placed his opinion in parentheses. He feels that the detest shown to these politicians is unreasoned and unfair.

Fang Ting, Bryan cai, Junling, Min Jia 09S03K

CHANGING SOCIAL GOALS

BY TAN SEOW HON

FOR THE STRAITS TIMES

IT HAS recently been argued that if Singapore wants more babies, one approach that deserves more attention is to render access to abortion harder. This would necessitate that the law, which allows abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy without restriction as to reason, be amended.

The current law, the Termination of Pregnancy Act, is a consolidation of abortion laws that have remained substantially the same since 1974. The 1974 Abortion Act had liberalised the 1969 Abortion Act, which was passed contentiously with 32 ayes, 10 nays and one abstention.

An important reason for legalising abortion in 1969 was the widespread incidence of dangerous backstreet abortions. That, however, cannot in itself justify legalising abortion because a criminal activity should not be legally handed over to a dignified profession that does a better job. Whether abortion should be allowed must be determined by other factors.

If so, we must now ask whether the reasons adduced for the laws in 1969 and 1974 remain valid today. The various social goods cited by then-health minister Chua Sian Chin bear some re-examination.

First, the quality of life for children would be improved if they were wanted, he said. Mr Chua noted that this was good for society as "it is mainly from the ranks of the unwanted children, the illegitimate and broken homes where most of the delinquents, the criminals and the antisocial elements are derived. Our society in Singapore cannot afford to breed such people".

In contrast, parliamentarian Ng Kah Ting called the logic of the "every child a wanted child" slogan "crazy". It appeared to be based on the right of the child to be wanted, yet abortion deprived the child of the right to live altogether.

Indeed, some have argued that rights of such babies are better protected by counselling women to welcome the pregnancy. Another option would be to establish programmes that help women financially and emotionally to put them up for adoption, which would also help couples unable to conceive.

The second social good Mr Chua cited was the improvement in the net quality of the population if the mentally and physically handicapped may be aborted.

Mr Ng rejected such eugenics reasoning for abortion as it would lead to a slippery slope on which it would be equally justifiable to also legislate to destroy deformed or mentally defective babies, the incurably ill, the old or the economically worthless.

Mr Chua dismissed Mr Ng's concern by saying that "no community anywhere in the present world, irrespective of its political character, has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit".

Yet, today, Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer can remain a highly regarded academic even though he has propounded the view that severely handicapped newborns may be justifiably killed. This suggests that we need to reconsider whether the slippery slope argument is indeed as far-fetched today as it sounded then.

The third social good was population control for the sake of economic advancement. Mr Chua feared that the population would hit four million by 2010. Ironically, in 2008, Singapore's concern is quite the opposite. We want more babies, so his concern is quite obsolete.

Unlike debates in the West, little was said about the right of women to control their own bodies in our parliamentary debates then. Still, it seemed to have been thought that we could let those who wish to abort choose to do so, and those opposed to abortion could simply not undergo abortion. This argument is unacceptable if the unborn was worthy of protection.

By way of analogy, consider how the slavery laws of South Carolina in 1859, which compelled no white man to own slaves, would still be unacceptable today. While this argument has not yet prevailed in the West to overturn its abortion laws, the changing nature of the abortion debate suggests our laws merit revisiting.

The Select Committee in 1969 did not think it fit to debate whether the foetus had a right to life or whether it had any human rights. Mr Chua suggested the question was how to treat an unwanted pregnancy.

As there is consensus that an innocent life cannot be taken, allowing abortion without restriction as to reason assumes that the unborn is not a life. This means that the law has necessarily taken a stand that life does not begin at conception.

But if the metaphysical question of when life begins is truly unsettled, it would be counter-intuitive not to err on the side of preserving life and disallow abortion. As one critic has noted, if a hunter senses movement behind a bush and shoots at it without making sure it was not caused by a human being, he would be considered highly irresponsible.

Although Mr Ng cited various medical codes and conferences for the view that life began at conception, Mr Chua dismissed them as being religiously motivated. Mr Chua suggested that the considerations governing the regulation of abortion ought to be medical only – the viability of the foetus and the danger of the procedure to the mother.

Medical technologies have advanced since that babies born way much earlier than full term are now viable in the best centres. There have also been more long-term studies that show abortion is not free from adverse effects, psychological and physical, on women. There are also studies that correlate abortion with breast cancer though causality has not been established apodictically. Thus it would be prudent to revisit the medical grounds Mr Chua had cited.

Nearly four decades on from the legalisation of abortion, our changing social goals in relation to fertility and demographics, as well as the advances in medical knowledge, suggest that the reasons which undergirded the law back then may no longer be valid.

It is high time that Parliament reviewed the law.

The writer teaches law at the National University of Singapore. The views expressed are her own.

Dear students,

I chanced upon this and although we have already covered the topic of abortion earlier on in the Term, it may be interesting to read the views presented in this article and question if you agree or disagree with what is being suggested here.

Regards,
The GP Tutor

Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?

by Casey Luskin

Introduction
Many critics of intelligent design (including various critics in the April, 28, 2005 Nature article on ID) have stated that intelligent design is an argument for the existence of God, or that it posits an explicitly supernatural creator. This, they might argue, is detrimental to intelligent design for 2 reasons:

· Appealing to God or the supernatural makes intelligent design unscientific because the scientific method cannot detect the supernatural

· Appealing to God or the supernatural guarantees that intelligent design cannot be taught in public schools since the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1987 that teaching a "supernatural creator" is religion, and unconstitutional. (see Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).)

Indeed, science can only study natural objects, and cannot make statements about the supernatural. IF these critics are indeed correct in their characterization of intelligent design theory, then intelligent design would not be scientific. However, the claim that intelligent design theory proposes a supernatural designer, or that it specifically appeals to God, is a mischaracterization of intelligent design theory, and the critics are not correct.

The Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents
An extensive look at the actual writings and arguments of those in the ID research community reveals that intelligent design is not an appeal to the supernatural, nor is it trying to "prove" the existence of God. The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.

Here are some excerpts from ID literature making it clear that ID is not an appeal to God or the supernatural:

"If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause." (Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 7, emphasis added)

"Surely the intelligent design explanation has unanswered questions of its own. But unanswered questions, which exist on both sides, are an essential part of healthy science; they define the areas of needed research. Questions often expose hidden errors that have impeded the progress of science. For example, the place of intelligent design in science has been troubling for more than a century. That is because on the whole, scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science." (Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 126-127, emphasis added)

"The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs and normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." (Of Pandas and People (2nd ed, 1993), pg. 161, emphasis added)

"The most important difference [between modern intelligent design theory and Paley's arguments] is that [intelligent design] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. This while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo. (Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165, emphasis added)

"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that." (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).

"One of the worries about intelligent design is that it will jettison much of what is accepted in science, and that an “ID-based curriculum” will look very different from current science curricula. Although intelligent design has radical implications for science, I submit that it does not have nearly as radical implications for science education. First off, intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. Intelligent design does not claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation." (William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pg. 314, emphasis added)

"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)

"Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42)

"The most obvious difference is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas intelligent design does not. ... Intelligent design ... has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 40)

"Intelligent design begins with data that scientists observe in the laboratory and nature, identifies in them patterns known to signal intelligent causes and thereby ascertains whether a phenomenon was designed. For design theorists, the conclusion of design constitutes an inference from data, not a deduction from religious authority." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42-43)

"Natural causes are too stupid to keep pace with intelligent causes. Intelligent design theory provides a rigorous scientific demonstration of this long-standing intuition. Let me stress, the complexity-specification criterion is not a principle that comes to us demanding our unexamined acceptance--it is not an article of faith. Rather it is the outcome of a careful and sustained argument about the precise interrelationships between necessity, chance and design." (William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pg. 223)

"ID is not an interventionist theory. Its only commitment is that the design in the world be empirically detectable. All the design could therefore have emerged through a cosmic evolutionary process that started with the Big Bang. What's more, the designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation. Scott and Branch at best could argue that many of the ID proponents are religious believers in a deity, but that has no bearing on the content of the theory. As for being “vague” about what happened and when, that is utterly misleading. ID claims that many naturalistic evolutionary scenarios (like the origin of life) are unsupported by evidence and that we simply do not know the answer at this time to what happened. This is not a matter of being vague but rather of not pretending to knowledge that we don't have."(William Dembski, Commentary on Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch's "Guest Viewpoint: 'Intelligent design' Not Accepted by Most Scientists, emphasis added)

In each of these quotes, it seems clear that intelligent design proponents are stating that intelligent design theory tells us nothing about the nature of the designer, and cannot determine if the designer was natural or supernatural. If intelligent design is truly a scientific discipline, then this makes perfect sense, for there are limits on what science can tell us, and science is not capable of studying the evidence to tell us if the designer was supernatural or natural.

Intelligent design theory begins and ends with observations of the natural world. It begins with observations of intelligent agents in the natural world, in order to quantify the sort of information they tend to emplace into their designed objects. It ends with observations as we study natural objects to determine if they contain that information which we know is a tell-tale sign that an intelligent agent played a hand in the origin of that object. True to the scientific method, throughout the entire process of testing for intelligent design, we are making observations of the observable natural world.

Science, and thus intelligent design theory, can only discover what is found in the observable realm. We cannot access the supernatural. Thus intelligent design proponents make it clear that all their theory can do is tell if a natural object bears the hallmarks of having been designed--it cannot tell you anything about the designer, much less that it was a supernatural deity. If some supernatural agent took action in the natural world, we might be able to detect that action, but not detect whether the actor was supernatural or otherwise. As Eugenie Scott herself concedes "Science cannot tell you who done it, but how it happened."

Science can indeed tell us if aspects of biology were designed, but it turns out to be silent on the question on the nature of the designer.

Understanding the Identity of the Designer:
The scientific theory of intelligent design cannot identify the designer, but only detects the past occurrence of intelligent design in the natural world. Intelligent design theory cannot name the designer because it works off the assumption that all intelligent agents would generally create certain types of informational patterns when they act. While we can detect that type of information in the natural world to infer intelligent design, finding that type of information does not give us any information about the nature or identity of the designer. All we can infer is that the object we are studying was designed. Consider the following diagram:

The identity of the designer cannot be identified simply by detecting the telltale signs of general design, such as complex and specified information



In this diagram, many types of intelligent agents could produce identical objects with high levels of complex and specified information (CSI). Intelligent design theory can only find the object containing high levels of CSI and works backwards to detect if an intelligent was at work. While it can detect that the object was designed, it cannot discriminate what kind of designer designed the object, nor determine any specific properties about the designer, other than that it was an intelligent agent. All intelligent design theory can infer is that the object was designed. Intelligent design, as a scientific theory cannot identify the identity of the designer.

Not identifying the designer is not a cop-out nor does it stem from an unwillingness to be honest about motivations. It results solely from the pure empirical limitations of scientific investigation:

[The] only commitment [of intelligent design theory] is that the design in the world be empirically detectable…This is not a matter of being vague but rather of not pretending to [have] knowledge that we don't have.

The scientific method and empirical data are presently incapable of helping to understand the identity of the designer. Thus, the scientific theory of intelligent design simply cannot identity the designer because it is not a question which can be addressed through the methods of science. At this point, this question of the identity of the designer can only be answered via faith, or divine revelation, and other religious "ways of knowing."

The fact that the identity of the designer is a religious question does not negate the purely scientific methods through which we can infer merely that an object was indeed designed. Indeed, when we find the type of information we know tends to be produced by intelligent agents, we have a valid scientific rationale for inferring intelligent design.

Princeton pres criticizes intelligent design

By Matt Davis
The Daily Princetonian (Princeton)
12/09/2005

(U-WIRE) PRINCETON, N.J. — In a lecture at Oxford University last week, Princeton University President Shirley Tilghman pointed out potential clashes among science, politics and religion and defended Darwinian evolution against the challenges presented by proponents of intelligent design.

Her remarks at the prestigious annual Romanes Lecture mark the second time in the past month that Tilghman has publicly criticized intelligent design. In an interview Wednesday, she explained why she passionately and frequently defends the scientifically accepted theory of evolution.

"It's one of the two monumental pillars on which modern biology rests," Tilghman said. "When you have a group of people challenging one of the central tenets of biology, it's very serious."

Tilghman said opposition to Darwinian evolution began with "a small group of evangelical Christians" who, after creationist theory failed to gain popularity, "went back to the drawing board" and started pushing intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism.

Proponents of intelligent design assert that Darwinian evolution is only a theory and that their theory is an alternative and equally valid explanation of the same observed phenomena.

Tilghman, however, said the approach lacks the substance of a scientific theory.

"Evolution is a theory that has arisen in the scientific field and has been tested and challenged for 150 years," she said. "Intelligent design is a philosophical position that can be taught in social science classes or philosophy classes, but it's not science."

She also noted that advocates do not follow standard scientific procedures.

"The proponents of intelligent design are not working in the mainstream of modern biology," Tilghman said. "They don't publish papers. They don't do experiments."

According to Tilghman, the methods of intelligent design supporters are comparable to an attack on Einstein's famous E = mc2 equation from an opponent who suggested a new relationship among mass, energy and the speed of light without any experimental evidence.

When asked what she thinks of those who support teaching evolution and intelligent design in the same classroom, Tilghman responded, "I think they're undermining scientific education."

She argued that an academic comparison of evolution and intelligent design would "require you to compare apples and oranges."

Tilghman noted that intelligent design supporters have played politics effectively. Because voter turnout for school board elections is typically very low, for instance, a small minority can have a significant influence.

But she praised the recent election in Dover, Pa., in which school board members who supported teaching intelligent design were voted out of office.

"I think it is a very positive sign that the voters of Dover, Pennsylvania, showed up in force ... and voted for the teaching of evolution," she said.

In Oxford last week, Tilghman pointed out that discrepancies between scientific and religious thought are not a recent phenomenon.

"From the very beginning, science and politics, especially religiously inspired politics, had the potential to become 'strange bedfellows,' by which I mean working at cross purposes with one another rather than in harmony," she said. But she added that the "potential for conflict seems greater now than at any time in my career."

This is especially disturbing, she said, because of the extreme importance of Darwinian evolution in biology.

"It is virtually impossible on the problem at hand," Tilghman said. "Time and again in the course of my career, I have encountered a mysterious finding that was explained by viewing it through the lens of evolutionary biology."

In addition to addressing intelligent design as a potential source of academic conflict, Tilghman's speech also touched on political influence in American space exploration.

The Bush administration, she said, has ignored the analysis of scientists and the progress made by unmanned space vehicles, such as the Voyager missions and the Hubble telescope, pursuing instead the "tangible — even romantic" goal of manned space exploration.

Copyright ©2005 The Daily Princetonian via UWire

Sunday, July 27, 2008

1) Discuss the remarks made by president Tilghman.

President Tilghman said that proponents of intelligent design do not prove prove their work using the scientific method and are hence not valid as a opposing theory to evolution and does not discount the evolution theory in anyway. she feels that since the Darwinian theory is "one of the two monumental pillars on which modern biology rests", any challenge to the theory has to at least have "the substance of a scientific theory". This is true as intelligent design is often thought as a religious view and less of a scientific theory hence it is often scoffed by scientists. However, till there is prove against intelligent design, we cannot say for sure that evolution is more true and scientific than intelligent design.

2) Do you agree/disagree with her views? Why?

We feel that it is true that intelligent design may not undermine the theory of evolution at all but there is no prove that the theory of intelligent design is wrong hence it cannot be dismissed as an alternative to the theory. although there are little scientific evidence for the theory of intelligent design, it can be said to be due to the difficulty in conducting experiments to prove this theory as there is no way to go back to the beginning of time and it will be hard to reconstruct this in the present. As the theory of evidence is discussed in biology classes, the theory of intelligent design should also be discussed together as an alternative and not only taught in social science classes or philosophy classes as biology students would also need to know the arguments, which may or may not be scientifically proven, against evolution.

3) Would teachers be undermining science by teaching intelligent creation?

Teachers will not be undermining science, but merely opening up another possibility other than evolution, to explain the origin of the humankind. Science is about questioning hypotheses and formulating new ideas, while discarding old ones. Intelligent creation poses new frontiers other than evolution, and is not undermining science. While it is true that evolution and intelligent creation is conflicting in their ideas on how humans were created (one postulating the idea that humans were evolved over millions of years, and another one in 6 days with the involvement of a supernatural being), teachers will definitely not be undermining science by introducing intelligent creation to the students, and will not be wrong to do so since there is no right answer to the question of our origins. Even the theory of evolution, which has been tested and researched on, cannot provide a good explanation on how living things were first created, and can only explain how we were evolved through natural selection. Therefore, we should not only limit our knowledge solely to the theory of evolution.

Li Min, Rachel, Shi Min, Yi Yue 09S03K

Richard Layard's 'Economics & Happiness'

1) Our welfare is affected by how well people work with each other and how societal benefits and not by trying to make oneself richer.

2) He is trying to show economists are now worshipped by society, that people now worship economics and that the age of religion has been replaced by the age of commerce.

3) It is used to highlight the irony that Kahnman is recognised for his contribution to economics when he is more well known for his research in the field of psychology.

4) The wealthy are like the polluters, bringing about dissatisfaction due to the widening income gap which does not benefit the either and thus they have to be responsible for it.

5) It can be deduced that the main aim in life for the modern society is that of pleasure and that they are stuck in a never ending chase for it, just like being on a treadmill.

6) The writer is trying to say that he feels that society's disdain for politicians is uncalled for.

Inez, Isis, Bryan Oh, Charlene
09S03K

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Richard Layard's 'Economics & Happiness'

1) The evidence is that the emotional state of people are affected bythe combined efforts fo the people, as well as the welfare of the whlesociety, and not merely individual attainments.

2) The author uses the words to show that people now worship economics and
wealth more than religion so the world of religion is replaced by theworld of economics.
3) It is to express the irony of the situation that even though
Kahneman won the nobel prize in economics, his work was more related to psychology.

4) People who upset the balance in a society, such as the rich peoplewho contribute the most to pollution, ought to be responsible for itsnegative impacts.

5) Modern society regards the pursuit of money as the source ofpleasure and are in a never ending race to achieve it.

6)It is his personal view and judgement and is telling us that thereis no valid reason for the negative perception of the economics today.

Li Min, Rachel, Shi Min, Yi Yue, Tao Tao (who is in UK now), 09S03K

Thursday, July 24, 2008

some random paragraph

Whilst it can be contended that technology can alleviate the problems caused by environmental damage, it perhaps is more salient to realise that most if not all of environmental damage is a result of technological development. However, it is possibly more a matter about the lack of human responsibility of technology rather than technology itself that has contributed to environmental destruction. Take the Minamata case in Japan for example. Technological advances contributed effectively towards better production processes, thus helping firms to generate more efficiently. However, the lack of responsibility in the Minamata case lead to the dumping of waste products containing mercury into rivers, and thus creating a whole string of mercury poisoning in the eitire ecosystem. The technology was by itself neutral, but the mishandling of the process was the contributing factor towards environmental destriction.

Claire Trung Sim Michelle Qiwei

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Connecting the dots

Despite technological advancement there are many other ways to tackle the environmental destruction problems. By implementing laws, some environmental problems may be solved more effectively even without the help of modern technology. In China, for example, authorities made it compulsory for costumers to purchase plastic bags if they would like to use them. This policy stops shopping centers from providing a colossal amount of free plastic bags and greatly encourages the citizens to use their own shopping bags. As a result, the wastage of plastic bags is reduced compared to the past. The so-called “white pollution” is thus tactically dealt with by policies, while the advanced technology still not being able to solve the problem.

Toan, Serene, Andrea, Lionel, Xiaoxiao (:

Sample questions on Richard Layard's 'Economics & Happiness'

Please identify the questions types and try to answer these questions to the best of your ability - bearing in mind all that we've talked about with regard to comprehension skills this term.

  1. What is the evidence the writer points out in Paragraph 1? Use your own words as far as possible. [2]
  2. Why does the author use the words 'high priests', 'prophets', 'wizards' and 'mystique' in relation to the field of economics in Paragraph 2? [1]
  3. Explain the use of the word 'yes' in Line 22. [1]
  4. Using your own words as far as possible, explain the 'polluter pays' principle in Paragraph 7. [2]
  5. What view of modern society can you deduce from the phrase 'hedonistic treadmill' (lines 40-41)? [2]
  6. What does the writer intend you to understand by the use of parentheses in line 51? [1]
Happy working!

Scrutinizing an ‘A’ grade essay - Follow-up activity

Is technology the best answer to environmental destruction?

1. Read the essay through quickly and say whether or not it clearly deserves a good ‘A’ grade.

2. Go through each paragraph and examine how it is developed. Highlight the topic sentence. Highlight one other sentence, if there is any, that seems as important to you in adding to clarity and flow.

3. Examine and evaluate the introductory paragraph. Comment on what impresses you. Why and in what way?

4. Comment on the way the essay flows. How is this achieved?

5. Pick out an instance of where the quality of balance is obvious; comment.

Follow- up activity:

Look at an essay that you have written. What have you done well? What could have been done better?

A model essay

The essay below is from a Science student and hopefully it will prove to you that you don't necessarily have to be an Arts/Humanities student with exceptional flair with the language to score well for GP. Might also not put you off so easily as you appreciate the more "scientific" approach to writing the essay rather than the relatively flamboyant ones we normally get to see in KS Bull.

Cheers.

Is technology the best answer to environmental destruction?

It is clearer today, more than ever, that Man’s short-sighted actions in the pursuit of material wealth is causing the destruction of the environment. There is a growing international consensus among scientists that human activity is a direct cause of global warming and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” brought this to the forefront of public consciousness. Meanwhile, huge swathes of rainforest in the Amazon are destroyed each day to be used as cattle grazing pastures. Given the undeniable fact that human activity is responsible for environmental destruction, it is then not surprising that the best answer to environmental destruction is not the development of new technology to patch up the problem, but instead a fundamental change in mindset and attitudes globally which would address the root of the problem.

It must be acknowledged that technology can indeed help to address the problem of environmental destruction. This is especially evident in situations where it is impractical to stop human activity. For example, it would be impossible to stop all forms of transport as people would face severe restrictions in where they could go. Thus, in this case, technology could help tremendously, like through the introduction of hydrogen-fuelled cars which only produce water as a waste product and do not emit carbon dioxide. Also, better technology has helped refineries to refine crude oil while releasing less harmful byproducts into the environment. The development of unleaded petrol also reduced the amount of pollutants emitted into the environment by cars. All of these examples go to show that technology can and indeed, already has, helped to reduce environmental destruction.

However, technology may not be the best answer to environmental destruction as there are situations in which it is useless. An example close to home is the proposed development of Chek Jawa, a section of coast on Pulau Ubin with a rich marine biodiversity, by the Singapore government. Had the government decided to go ahead with its plans, no amount of technology could have saved the biodiversity in the area from the bulldozers and construction cranes. Thus, it is clear that technology cannot be the best answer as it is unable to negate the effects of habitat destruction. Instead, what is more pertinent in this situation is the attitude towards conservation of such important habitats. In the Chek Jawa situation, the government demonstrated an applaudable mindset towards environmental conservation as it halted development plans and even gazette the area as a protected area. It is clear that human attitudes were what saved Chek Jawa from destruction, not technology.

Furthermore, technology is limited in its impact as it is only effective when used properly and regularly. For example, although electric cars that are less harmful to the environment than conventional cars have been developed, the usage rate of such cars in not high due to their relatively higher price. If, for whatever reason, superior technology is not implemented, then it is effectively useless. In short, the effectiveness of technology is dependent on society’s attitude towards it, and technology that helps reduce environmental destruction will only be implemented if society feels the need for environmental conservation.

Another problem with using technology as the answer to environmental destruction is that, more often than not, cavalier attitudes towards environmental conservation as demonstrated by excessive consumption and extravagant wastage can negate any benefits brought about by technology. For example, proponents of the recently-developed biodegradable “plastic bag” hail it as the answer to the problem of non-biodegradable petroleum-based plastic bags. However, should people take the biodegradable nature of the new “plastic bag” as carte blanche to use and waste as many as they desire, they could be contributing to even more environmental destruction. This is mainly because more energy is required to produce these extra bags, thereby creating more carbon dioxide and waste through the production and incineration process as compared to the impact of conventional plastic bags. Through this, it is clear that the ultimate answer is not technology, but the changing of society’s attitudes.

Proponents of the superiority of technology may argue that with sufficiently advanced and large-scale technology, humans need not alter their attitudes at all. They may point to ongoing projects which attempt to find a way to dump Mankind’s waste into space or pump the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into huge underground caverns to reduce global warming. However, such initiatives tend to be large-scale and extravagantly expensive, taking up valuable scarce resources which could be used for the betterment of society or even to feed the hungry. Furthermore, according to Occam’s razor, the simplest solution to a problem is often the best one. It would be resource-wasting and foolish to pursue such grand initiatives to solve a problem which can be solved so simply – by a small change in behavioural attitudes.

Although cynics might argue that it is much harder to change human attitudes, current events point to the contrary. They show that people, once educated about the impact of their actions on the destruction of the environment, tend to act in a way to reduce that impact. For example, the number of couples who serve shark fin soup at their weddings here in Singapore has steadily declined over the years, due to increasing awareness that the shark fin trade is endangering the shark population. Also, statistics collected in conjunction with the “Bring Your Own Bag” campaign, which was recently launched in Singapore, has shown that more people are starting to eschew the one-time use of plastic bags in favour of reusable ones. This is attributed to increased awareness of the environmental destruction caused by plastic bags. Thus we can see that people do change their actions and attitudes when educated about the negative impacts of their actions.

Moreover, there need not be a drastic change in attitudes and actions to solve the problem of environmental destruction. Saving the environment need not require everyone to stop all air travel or stop all activities non-essential to survival. As is often seen, all that is required is a small change in behavior, such as using turning up the temperature on the air-conditioner or printing documents double-sided. For example, if everyone switched off their computers when not in use instead of leaving them to idle, 45 million less metric tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted per year. Thus, even small individual actions can lead to a great impact is done collectively.

It is for this reason that a change in people’s attitudes towards conservation is a superior answer to environmental destruction compared to technology. It is far more likely to succeed and requires less of the Earth’s scarce resources.

Monday, July 21, 2008

GP Blog Post: Is technology the best answer to environmental destruction?

The development and growth of technology has caused massive environmental destruction in the past, and thus, the application of technology would be the answer to environmental destruction: the problem it created in the first place. The process of developing technology has led to the clearing of wildlife habitats, endangering of wildlife species, global warming, pollution, and the depletion of irreplaceable natural resources, all of which are examples of environmental destruction. However, the result of this development, such as hydrogen fuel cells and renewable resource technologies, which can help to solve the problem of environmental destruction. Therefore, it can be said that technology is able to curb environmental destruction.

Abigail Kang, Abigail Ho, Nicholas Yun, Christian Chow

Is technology the best answer to environmental destruction?

Technology can also be seen as a means to alleviate environmental destruction caused by its applications. This is done through constantly adopting environmentally friendly practices with regard to harnessing the available technology so as to minimise environmental destruction before an entire substitute cleaner technology or production method is invented. That is because research and development (R&D) processes usually span a long time before an alternative technology is created. For example, air pollution, and consequently, the amount of greenhouse gases, is minimised in certain engineering industries such as Sasakura Engineering Co. Ltd. (Japan) by continually creating new equipment to filter off harmful gases, such as using chemicals to react with the harmful sulphur dioxide. Another example is the use of recycling as a means of reusing waste materials which would otherwise lead to increased waste generation, a cause of global warming. Companies employing recycling technologies are present in many countries, such as the Waste Management and Recycling Association (WRMAS) of Singapore, to curtail the environmental impact caused by the production of goods and services. Hence, technology can be said to mitigate the destruction of our planet Earth.

- vionna, timothy, samantha, jonneo 09S07A

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Is technology the best answer to environmental destruction?

The government plays a pivotal role in solving environmental problems. New initiatives and policies by the government enable the citizens to make a difference to the environment. For example, in Singapore, a new initiative was introduced in 2007 to encourage shoppers to bring their own shopping bags. This will cut down on the huge amount of plastic bags that retailers and supermarts uses everyday, making the shops more environmentally friendly. In addition, on the international level, governments are co-operating to limit the amount of carbon dioxide emission. The environmental conference held recently in Bali also provided a platform for governments all over the world to gather together and pledge for the reduction of carbon dioxide emission. Carbon dioxide, being a greenhouse gas, is one of the major causes of global warming and by limiting the amount of it released into the atmosphere, the harm to the environment will be reduced. In general, governments do hold much power and their decisions will determine whether their country will save or harm the environment.
Done by: Chenxuan, Jiwei, Weiliang, Yongsheng from 09s06J

Is technology the best answer to environmental destruction?

Technological solutions are not the best answer to environmental destruction, because some countries have neither the capability nor the resources to utilise them. This is especially so as some countries cannot afford expensive technological equipment, and thus have no choice but to rely on older and cheaper but environmentally harmful methods to sustain their livelihood. For example, farmers in Indonesia are unable to utilise cleaner and greener technology to increase their harvest as it would be too costly for them. Instead, they depend on reliable and cheaper but much more environmentally destructive slash and burn tactics to sustain their agricultural industry, a main source of these farmers' income. Hence, it is evident that some countries will continue to rely on older and more dependable sources of incmoe despite the environmental degradation they bring, as they are unable to afford the new technology.

Done by: Shiyang, Joel, Yan De, Yadi & Chelsia (09S06J)

Friday, July 18, 2008

Is technology the best asnwer for environmental destruction?

Technology is not the best way to mitigate environmental destruction as it is often a costly venture and there is no assured outcome of success as compared to its alternatives. Research and Development (R&D) is relatively time-consuming and do not always produce constructive results, especially in the short run. Even if billions of dollars were invested into R&D in search of alternatives to fossil fuels that are less harmful to the environment, there is no guarantee that such a technology will be developed. In comparison, a concerted and coordinated effort to cut down on the consumption of the Earth’s resources such as the excessive use of electrical appliances will be a much more efficient and clear-cut method which is also easier to implement. Thus, technology is not the best answer to environmental destruction, especially in the short run.

Ewen Chong, Goh Shi Hua, Edith Ong, Toh Hong Xiu
09S07A

Is technology the best answer for environmental destruction?

The crux of saving the environment from destruction is ultimately the societal attitudes that we hold towards the issue, as technology would not suffice in curbing further environmental degradation. Technology in its entity is simply the means to an end, although helpful in alleviating environmental degradation, cannot entirely eliminate this issue as it may be the cause for more environmental destruction. Conversely, changing the societal attitudes of people is an end in itself. We, denizens of the earth form the main contributors to the destruction of our environment, and hence the most direct method to undertake in reducing this issue would be to cultivate good environmental habits, and inculcate it as a form of our lifestyle. For instance, everyone could do their part for the environment by taking small and impactful steps such as using eco-friendly bags for grocery shopping, or perhaps bringing their own cutlery for meals to cut down on the use of disposable cutlery. The aggregate of these actions may prove to be significant in curbing environmental destruction. Thus, given that a more direct and effective approach in reducing humans’ ecological footprints is available –i.e. changing the societal attitudes of people towards our environment, the use of costly technology may no longer provide the best answer to environmental destruction.

Ivan. Zhefei. Sabrina. Yu Wen. - 09So7A :)

Is technology the best asnwer for environmental destruction?

While technology offers many promising solutions to the problem of environmental destruction, it also has the potential to aggravate the problem when it is applied recklessly. In such an unfortunate case, whatever benefit a certain technology has brought will then be negated by the drawbacks arising from the improper and reckless implementation of it, resulting in a net deterioration of the environment instead of an improvement. An example for such a scenario is the cultivation of certain crops such as corn and maize to produce ethanol as biofuels. Such technology that allows us to tap into renewable resources definitely helps to tackle the problem of environmental destruction by preventing us from depleting the earth’s natural resources. However, the reckless and overzealous rush to support such biofuel production, spurned by government subsidies, has instead resulted in the opposite effect. Natural habitats are being converted to farmlands in order to accommodate the rising demand for these biofuels. Indonesia for instance has burned so much wilderness to grow palm oil trees for biodiesel that its ranking among the world’s top carbon emitters has surged from 21st to third according to a report by Wetlands International quoted in the cover story of the 7 April 2008 issue of TIME. Hence, we can see that the reckless implementation of technology that is meant to solve environmental degradation is actually self-defeating and thus, I believe that technology cannot be the best answer to environmental degradation without the correct and proper implementation.

Eugene, Ying Ying, Rui Ting, Yik Sin (09S07A)

Thursday, July 17, 2008

2008 JC1 Common Test Paper 1 Examiners’ Report

Question 1 “Do not mix sport with politics.” Do you agree?

Candidates who attempted this question did fairly well.

Most essays were balanced in their approach. They typically pointed out that while it is not ideal to mix sport with politics, it is often inevitable. Some reasons why sport should not mix with politics include: political agendas could dampen and interfere with the spirit of unity in sporting competitions; political differences could result in countries’ refusal to participate in sporting competitions (which could have a negative impact on athletes, host countries etc); political differences could lead to even greater tension in the sporting arena; and so on. However, there could be reasons why sport and politics are inevitably mixed: politics is sometimes the reason why sporting competitions are held in the first place (eg. friendly matches to signify unity); and boycotting or refusal to allow certain countries to participate could send a strong political message that is necessary/effective.

Thankfully, those who focused solely on the Beijing Olympics as an example were in the minority. Most were able to give varied and interesting examples like the American boycott of the Moscow Olympics and the subsequent Soviet boycott of the LA Olympics; and the war that broke out between El Salvador and Honduras not long after an explosive soccer match between the two countries. Other interesting examples for consideration include: the kidnapping of Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists during the Munich Olympics; South Africa not being allowed to participate in the Rugby World Cup due to its apartheid policy; North and South Korea doing a joint Olympic march in a show of reconciliation; and so on.

Question 2 “Giving monetary incentives is the best way to encourage procreation.” Comment.

This was not a popular question. Many answers focused solely on the Singapore experience. Reference to examples from other societies or countries was limited. Where these were used, they tended to be unspecific. References that were made to Singapore’s “Baby Bonus Scheme” often displayed a lack of knowledge and awareness of the details of the scheme, which sometimes led to misrepresentation. These answers also appeared to be lacking in maturity of thought as they tended to make uncritical statements about the objectives and results of the scheme.

Many answers disagreed with the statement that monetary incentives are the best way to encourage procreation, but failed to provide other tangible solutions to the problem of an aging population or falling fertility rates. Many suggested the importance of “changing [the] mindsets” of the people, or “inculcating good values”, but were not able to suggest concrete actions that could be taken in place of, or in partnership with a monetary incentive scheme.

Question 3 Is technology the best answer to environmental destruction?

This was a highly popular question among candidates, but it also invited some of the most disappointing responses.

The best answers contained a sustained evaluation of the efficacy of technology as a solution to environmental destruction. Candidates are expected to explain reasons for agreeing or disagreeing that technology is the “best answer”, and to weigh technology against other possible methods to justify their evaluation. Simply preaching about what should be done to counter environmental destruction is unsatisfactory, as this is clearly not the intended thrust of the question. A notable number of candidates also misunderstood the key word “answer” as “cause” and thus produced largely irrelevant responses.

Concern is raised about the frequent use of statistics as an argument support strategy in some scripts. Candidates must not have the misconception that examiners will be more accepting of their argument claims simply because precise figures have been presented. In most cases, this strategy does little to persuade examiners except to arouse their suspicion as to whether the figures have been concocted or fabricated for the purpose of “winning” an argument.

Question 4 ‘The only effective way to champion a cause is to get a celebrity to do it.’ Discuss.

Common weaknesses and mistakes

  • Neglect in noting keywords

Students tended to discuss whether it is indeed effective to get a celebrity to champion a cause. The answer is likely to be ‘yes’: in many cases, celebrity endorsement is an effective way to champion a cause. However, this does not fully address the question.

Students need to notice the keyword “only”, and cite other effective ways to champion a cause to prove that celebrity endorsement is not the only effective way.

Some students took the term ‘celebrity’ to mean any famous person, when the term usually applies to a famous person in areas of entertainment such as film, music, or sports.

Some students also misinterpreted the phrase “championing a cause”. They took it to mean commercial product endorsements when it usually refers to efforts to publicize non-profit/charitable endeavours.

  • Lacking in breadth of coverage

Many of the answers pointed to the great influence celebrities enjoy, which makes celebrity endorsements effective.

Some other effective ways to champion a cause include:

- ordinary heroes who perform exemplary feats (e.g. Terry Fox, doctors and nurses who valiantly fought SARS)

- organizations (e.g. PETA – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, AWARE – Association of Women for Action and Research)

- governmental initiative (e.g. campaigns to fight aids, Yellow Ribbon Project, Make Poverty History)

- peer-to-peer influence (e.g. promoting environmentally friendly ways, anti-piracy)

- experience it for yourself (e.g. 30-hour famine)

- use of mass media (e.g. An Inconvenient Truth on climate change, rap to repeal Section 377A of Penal Code)

- use of events (e.g. march in protest, concerts)

  • Poor substantiation or failure to critically evaluate points raised

We don’t want students to produce a list of other effective ways. While citing the various ways, students should be able to anticipate objections, justify how these ways are indeed effective, prove their effectiveness in certain contexts, while not forgetting to mention their pitfalls. For example, celebrity endorsement may not be as effective as expert endorsement in certain causes where the celebrity in question is certainly not an authority on the cause. Alternatively, there may be credibility issues such as when the life of the celebrity shows up contradictions to the cause that he or she ostensibly endorsed. Instead of promoting the cause, he or she may end up jeopardising it. How sustainable, in fact, is the celebrity’s commitment to the cause? Is it not more effective to get someone who truly believes in a cause to promote it?

Students may want to deliberate on the meaning or measure of effectiveness. Does effectiveness consist in merely having drawn attention to a cause, being able to raise a lot of funds in support of it, or must there be a change of attitude or outlook or greater conviction in subscribing to a cause. Must this effectiveness be long-term?

Question 5 “There can be no art without freedom.” Do you agree?

This was probably the least popular question on the Common Test. Most candidates wisely steered clear of this highly challenging question. To tackle this question adequately, one needs to examine the assumption that art can only exist when there is freedom of expression or conversely, that censorship makes it impossible for art to exist.

A balanced approach might be to show how it is indeed difficult to create art when there is no freedom of expression. Yet, one might also challenge the statement by showing how creative endeavours that are engaged in to celebrate an oppressive political regime could still be considered art; how a lack of freedom could drive artists even more to push boundaries and create works of art; how a lack of freedom does not necessarily make it impossible to create and disseminate works of art in the media-saturated technologically-connected world of today; and so on.

Question 6 Is banning certain books from libraries ever justified?

This proved to be an easy question. Most candidates were able to apply their knowledge of censorship pros and cons to produce balanced responses. Most wrote about the need to protect the interests of certain groups of people in society and maintain racial harmony (especially in Singapore) in support of banning. Specific examples of books that have been banned from libraries and the reasons for banning, however, were severely lacking in almost all the responses received. Candidates could have aptly used such examples to show how certain books may threaten social cohesion or security if not banned, for instance. It is assumed that examples will form a natural part of any essay answer, so students should not leave their ideas vague or unsubstantiated.

Many mediocre essays on this question tended to give general arguments for and against media censorship. The better essays focused more specifically on the issue of banning books from libraries. For example, arguments that are more clearly focused on libraries might question the need to ban books from libraries when banned material could be easily obtained via other means like the Internet; or suggest that different libraries might serve different audiences and thus banning books (for instance, from a children’s library) might still be justified.

Question 7 “Public officials who make serious mistakes must be removed from office.” (emphasis added) Do you agree?

This was not a question that was chosen by many students. Most answers started by presenting definitions of the nature of serious mistakes that were referred to in the essays, though some of the lesser attempts lacked some finesse and subtlety. In addition, there were several answers that were very harsh in asserting opinions. As a result, the scope of discussion in the rest of the essays lacked a needed balance in evaluating the veracity of the given statement, without paying attention to the word ‘must’.

While most students showed their awareness of maintaining their stance in developing their line of argument, they should consider other extenuating circumstances or factors to indicate judiciousness in their analyses. Some of these circumstances/factors include the competence and the track record of the officials; the possibility that operational mistakes were committed by subordinates; the impact of immediate removal of the officials on the morale of the organization; the impact on a civil service that may already be facing manpower shortages.

Several scripts went on to ineffectually describe in great detail the basic ethical qualities of public officials (such as integrity, prudence and impartiality in administrating fair and equal treatment of all persons) as well as the consequences of a breach of public trust. Examples cited were usually provincial and run-of-the-mill (e.g. the effect of Mas Selamat’s escape on the credibility of Deputy Prime Minister, Wong Kan Seng), thus narrowing the scope of discussion further.

Generally, with exceptions of a few, students who attempted this question were not able to fully show a mature and judicious approach in giving a thorough treatment of the possible key issues underlying the given statement in the essay question. There were scores of generalizations and unqualified statements found in these essays. Often, relevant details or examples that were used for qualification of claims made were not clearly connected to the topic sentences so as to reassert the said claims. In some scripts, there were instances of inaccurate or irrelevant information used for illustration.

Question 8 To what extent should the government help the poor in Singapore?

A fairly challenging question; only a few students from each class attempted it. On the whole, the question was not well done. What was severely lacking in the scripts was a depth of analysis on the issue. Many students only skimmed the surface of a few government policies or provided a laundry list of policies, without paying attention to the key phrase in the question – “to what extent”. The variable ‘poor’ was also not very clearly explained, as well as the different types of ‘help’ the government could extend to the people. In the case of the latter, most confined ‘help’ to mean merely monetary aid.

The better essays recognised that there needed to be a distinction between long and short term governmental policies. They argued that while monetary aid and grants could be issued as a short-term solution for the poor, these cash packages could not tide them through the rest of their lives. The best essays expanded this argument further by suggesting that continual spoon-feeding could result in a complacent and idle population. These essays also saw the need for long-term solutions like the constant upgrading of skills and knowledge as a better way to lift them out of the poverty cycle.

Nevertheless, there could still be a need to provide long-term monetary aid to certain groups in society who may not be able to become employable – for instance, the aged sick or severely intellectually disabled.

Some of the better essays also provided a more detailed representation of the ‘poor’. For instance, they argued that the government had to take a cautious stance on the people who landed in poverty due to acts of gambling, investments in stocks, or through their uncontrollable spending habits.

On the other hand, weaker essays tended to use the term, ‘poor’, loosely, constantly referring to a generic group of people that had no means to support themselves. These students also failed to recognize that the ‘government’ should not be simply taken as one single body, but as numerous ministries, each working together, and in their own capacity for different aspects of societal welfare, to help those stricken by poverty. For instance, the education ministry has the power and authority to provide student monetary aid to families who cannot afford to see their children through compulsory education. In the same way, the Health Ministry has the ability to provide and contribute to individual saving funds in the event of a medical need.

The weaker scripts also saw the basis for help as a governmental obligation for them being elected into power. Thus, these scripts argued, the government had both duty and obligation to help the poor. While this is a valid point, it merely scratches the surface and has no merit in the analysis of the question. Weaker scripts also chose to focus on the affordability of necessities, and hence, neglected other aspects such as education, housing and healthcare.

Question 9 Science liberates, but religion imprisons man.” Comment.

Not many candidates attempted this question.

Structure was the biggest problem, due to the split focus in the question. Students were mostly unable to distribute their argument evenly: they tended to get carried away with the first part and leave little room for the second, or vice versa. A balanced approach to this question would require one to discuss: i) how science could imprison man; ii) how science could liberate man; iii) how religion could imprison man; and iv) how religion could liberate man.

Another common weakness was an inability to make connections to the question clear. Many essays discussed the benefits vs drawbacks of science and religion, or discussed whether science and religion could co-exist. Both of these approaches fail to answer the question. It is thus imperative that students learn to write topic sentences that make connections to the question clear. For instance, an argument that discusses the benefits of science (eg. in medical advancements) could be made relevant to the question with a topic sentence that shows how such advancements could liberate man from disease, physical suffering and a shortened lifespan.

A third common weakness is an intense bias towards either science or religion, resulting in highly charged essays with far too much pontification and too little dispassionate analysis. Those who were religious had a tendency to gloss over how religion could imprison man (eg. the Church in the Dark Ages shackled man in ignorance and hindered the progress of society; or misinterpretations of religion could be said to have shackled man in fear and conflict in our post-9/11 world today). Similarly, those who were biased towards science sometimes had a faith in science that was as blind as that which they accused religious people of having. This group often failed to recognise that science also has its limitations that could just as well imprison man (eg. the empirical method has its flaws and does not always give accurate answers; scientific solutions could lead to further problems that continue to imprison man; even the Darwinian theory of evolution is flawed in more ways than one and fails to liberate man from the continual search for answers to his deepest questions).

In short, candidates would do well to remember this piece of advice: if any exam question gets them emotionally worked up – avoid that question at all cost!

Question 10 “The best leaders are those most reluctant to be leaders.” Discuss.

Very few candidates attempted this question, which reflects fairly its difficulty. It is such an open question that no clear ‘content’-type example lends itself readily for students’ use in constructing a response. The crucial challenge that needs to be overcome in constructing a successful answer is to formulate a viable framework for discussing the statement. This, in turn, requires a viable interpretation of the key terms: “best”, “leaders” and “reluctant”.

The best responses recognise the contestability of definitions of the terms involved and qualify their claims accordingly. For example, one might argue that the given statement is true given one kind of reluctant leader, and one definition of best leader, but then go on to point out that this example would be anecdotal rather than representative of reluctant leaders or best leaders in general. This is due to the fact that the notion of leadership eludes any single, uncomplicated, widely-agreed-upon definition. Different kinds of leaders are good leaders in different ways, and different leaders are reluctant for different reasons. Consequently, it is not possible to generalise the given statement, though clearly many examples may be provided to illustrate it.

Question 11 Is affluence a blessing or a curse?

Common weaknesses and mistakes:

  • Neglect in noting keywords

Students tended to equate affluence with being not poor. As a result, they would raise the point that affluence enables one to meet one’s basic needs, and thus it is a blessing. In arguing so, they failed to recognise that one does not have to be very rich (i.e. affluent) in order to survive. There was constant use of the term ‘affluency’ (which is erroneous) in place of ‘affluence’.

Some students listed and elaborated on the many blessings and curses of affluence. They should have talked about the many benefits and drawbacks of affluence which makes it, in the final analysis, a blessing or a curse.

  • Lack in breadth of coverage

There are innumerable points that students can cite in support of affluence as a blessing or a curse. Students tended to be content with merely raising a few points such as:

- having to guard one’s possessions

- leading to family disputes over inheritance

- enabling philanthropy

- enabling one to live a comfortable life in the material sense

Some even went on and on about the many types of desires being affluent enables us to satisfy.

Here are some other benefits and drawbacks that students can cite.

Blessing:

- Serve the community. Help advance important social cause or fund worthy projects in education and medical research, for example.

- Pursue one’s interests, even indulge in expensive hobbies.

- Develop one’s talents/expertise, in such a way that one can not only be more successful, but serve one’s society even better.

- Enough reserves enable greater financial security.

- With wealth comes status and power. Affluent people are able to buy privileges (e.g. entry into certain institutions), and their words may carry more weight just because they are very rich.

Curse:

- Superficial relationships with friends who get near one owing to one’s affluence.

- Invite envy and jealousy

- Wealthy people may not enjoy a good image. They are often viewed as self-indulgent spendthrifts who depend on their wealth to mask a lack of character.

- With great wealth comes greater social responsibility. The rich are judged more on how they spend their money.

- The affluent face great pressure to maintain wealth and reputation. The fall is harder or the adjustment is more difficult if the very rich suddenly become poor.

- The greater the gap between the rich and the poor, the greater is the lack of understanding and empathy between them.

- The rich may suffer poorer physical health due to richer diets and more sedentary lifestyles.

- Consumerist, materially indulged lifestyles could be spiritually empty. This could explain why rich nations may have some of the most unhappy people.

Students could expand their discussion of affluence beyond an individual level, to a state level. In other words, they could discuss whether affluence is a blessing or a curse for an affluent state.

  • Poor substantiation or failure to critically evaluate points raised

As with many of the essay questions, students commonly lapsed into giving a list of points on both sides rather than adopting an argumentative style where there are movements in critical evaluation. (i.e. both arguments and counterarguments, thesis and antithesis). Students have to learn to lead the reader to a well-reasoned conclusion, rather than listing points on both sides and abruptly concluding in the final paragraph that which side is true all depends on, say, individual opinion or case.

For question 11, to say that whether affluence is a blessing or a curse depends on how the affluent person handles his affluence is not wrong, but is inadequate. Students should elaborate on what concrete ways, for example, of handling affluence render it a blessing or a curse. They could consider to whom it is a blessing or a curse: the affluent person or the people around him or the people his affluence affects. In addition, circumstances not within the affluent person’s control may make his affluence a blessing or a curse.

A reasonable answer to question 11 is most likely to conclude that in some respects, affluence can be seen as a blessing and in some others, a curse. Students may then want to deliberate over whether it is more of a blessing than a curse, or vice versa, rather than deciding if it is absolutely either a blessing or a curse.

Question 12 In your opinion, how easy is it to be a good father today?

Clarification of key terms:

‘In your opinion’

  • The question includes the expression “in your opinion”, yet students’ ideas / evaluation / judgement should be supported by social evidence. One common shortcoming was a lack of social contextualization, or simply confining one’s examples to Singapore (or America, for those who did the comprehension passage on how fatherhood in the US is changing!).

  • One possible problem with a lack of social contextualization is that a student would seem sometimes to be over-generalising, especially if s/he write statements such as: “Fathers are becoming more affluent, so it is easier to be a good father in terms of meeting all their families’ needs”. This situation is not always true for many fathers in certain countries (e.g. war-torn ones), or even for those in Singapore (e.g. those struggling with rising costs of food, fuel, electricity bills and education fees), so some qualification in the relevant paragraph would help.

  • As the question does not require an emphasis on Singapore (or Asian societies), it is expected, if a student attempts the question, that s/he should have enough knowledge to provide as balanced/holistic/ sophisticated a view as possible by examining a range of societies/countries. One assumes, of course, that students generally strive for more than a passing grade!

‘how easy is it’

  • This question can be understood subjectively; one would obviously have to look at a range of reasons (e.g. social expectations, social changes/developments, economic and even political situations) to determine if it really is easier to be a good father today, especially when the definition of a ‘good father’ can vary from society to society (or even across generations within one society/community), and has certainly acquired new dimensions around the world, especially in recent decades. Better responses to the question are those that display an understanding of the complexities of achieving exemplary fatherhood (instead of only sticking to two areas e.g. earning money and disciplining children).

  • Note: the student’s definition / ideas of what it means to be a good father (at least generally) should be clarified in the introduction. The extent of ease (or lack of ease, if that’s the case) should also be made clear (preferably in the form of a suitably nuanced thesis statement).

‘good father’

  • Students should also focus more on points particularly relevant to fathers (instead of only those which could also be applied to mothers, some of which, however, could be judiciously included) to address the question directly.

Part of a counter-argument could be: However, some countries (like Singapore) are providing more support for those who want to be good fathers in a modern sense (e.g. there are workshops on male parenting men can attend)… 
 
Where fathers can go for help
 
CENTRE FOR FATHERING
Offers: Workshops and seminars, father-child bonding camps and corporate programmes to equip young fathers.
 
REACH FAMILY SERVICE CENTRE
Offers: Face-to-face counselling, parental support groups, talks and workshops.
 
 
 
HELP EVERY LONE PARENT (HELP) FAMILY SERVICE CENTRE
Offers: Face-to-face counselling, e-counselling, talks and workshops on parenting mainly for single parents.

(Taken from The Straits Times, Pub Date: 18/06/2005, Page: S1,S2,S3, Headline: “Daddy at work” by: Melody Tan & Susan Long, Page Heading: Special Report)

 
  • For more interesting essays, students could also consider situations where it is particularly hard to be a good father. E.g. in cases of single fatherhood resulting from death of a spouse, divorce, non-marriage, accidental pregnancies etc; men in such cases may have to deal with social stigma or a whole host of difficulties due to a lack of various kinds of support). Students can also consider the idea that more men (in certain countries) are willing to be house-husbands so they can be even better fathers to their children, yet (even if their financial situations are comfortable, and spouses consent) they can still suffer from society’s clinging to gender stereotypes (e.g. men who can but do not work are sometimes seen as weak/effeminate/lazy/sponging on their wives, etc).

  • For those who blindly threw in or were tempted to throw in ONLY ideas about single fatherhood in America into your answer: use your reading material wisely or your essay will end up too narrow in scope/fraught with plagiarism!

‘today’

  • Another term which demands social contextualization. Students should examine the more important social phenomena (e.g. changing roles of women; the influence of modern culture, particularly the mass media and advertising firms, on youth; in certain societies: less emphasis on good parenting and more about being self-centred – satisfying one’s desires for fame, wealth, success) which have shaped/affected contemporary/modern ideas about good fathers.

  • Students should also, where necessary, make some comparisons between traditional and modern aspects of what is considered good fatherhood (and should not hesitate to state that some traditional aspects of good fatherhood have not disappeared).

Some other suggested areas for consideration:

Where possible, students should offer (more) counter-arguments for their points (for a more balanced and complex view of the question so certain situations do not seem bleaker than they actually are). Egs:

  • Problems in obtaining a work-life balance: e.g. how men are torn between (a) spending more time on their careers to get promoted and hence are more highly paid (because this is still how many people around the world largely define successful men), AND (b) spending more time to maintain excellent relationships with their family members – not just with children but also with wives.

However, there are, for example, companies which offer more family-friendly policies for their employees (e.g. jobs with flexi-time, or even the choice of working from home) which may make it easier not only for mothers but also fathers to spend more time nurturing their children (and this could reduce the possible stigma attached to fathers who stay at home with their children).

  • Increasingly materialistic cultures: Many fathers do have more money than their own fathers had to satisfy their children’s needs and wants.

However, it can be difficult for a father to restrain his child’s desires for branded items if the child’s peers have them as status symbols.