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
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
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
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
- 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
- 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 “Where fathers can go for help
CENTRE FOR FATHERINGOffers: Workshops and seminars, father-child bonding camps and corporate programmes to equip young fathers. REACH FAMILY SERVICE CENTREOffers: Face-to-face counselling, parental support groups, talks and workshops. HELP EVERY LONE PARENT (HELP) FAMILY SERVICE CENTREOffers: 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
‘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.
No comments:
Post a Comment