'Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out its own problems.' How far do you agree?

Image from Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons.

'Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out its own problems.' How far do you agree?

Ex-President of Nigeria, Jonathan Goodluck, flatly refused to acknowledge the growing problem of the Boko Haram, at least officially. Rather than deal with the conflict consuming his already-troubled nation, he sought to fling wave after wave of his men, armed with just forty bullets each, to give the fractured segments he resolutely refused to acknowledge. His staunch refusal to sort out such evident escalations of disagreement has led to exacerbating tensions not just in his nation, but in and around the region. Unfortunately, Nigeria is far from alone in being incapable or unwilling to sort out its own problems, at least not in a manner deemed satisfactory to the powers that be in the world. Such distrust has led to cries for world powers to intervene in any domestic issue that potentially could escalate in conflict, justifying America's role as the de-facto World Police. Still, there are others who believe that countries have the ability to sort out their own problems and manage the conflict within their territories, with their nuanced knowledge of the issue, and facilitated by a lack of resistance to the interventions, as typical of external help. Having considered both sides of the issue, I must admit I am more for non-intervention, believing that countries experiencing conflict should be generally left to sort out its own problems.

Admittedly, there is some merit to the argument that such countries facing conflict should not be abandoned to their own devices since the conflict is often, in large part, due to a lack of ability or resources. This is indeed a fair point when we consider that the conflict is a testament to the inability for the initial disagreement to be resolved. Whether it is due to a lack of resources to meet the needs of the nation, or less tangible forms of inability, it does appear that patient optimism would likely prove insufficient in resolving the problems. King Mswati III of Swaziland has been turning a blind eye to the abject poverty that most of its people struggle with on a daily basis, while indulging his fifteen wives in luxuries and comfort. The growing resentment in the community is gaining attention, even if the monarch is determined to ignore it. Sadly, Swaziland is far from being alone, with Aung San Suu Kyi's conspicuous silence on the Rohingyas deafening, to say the least. Whether the conflict is borne of a lack of resources or ability, the severity that fuelled the escalation can indeed be said to justify intervention of some sort. At least, at first glance, it seems we are morally obliged to not leave the troubled to their own limited devices.

Armed with the perceived need for a foreign power with an arsenal of both resources and morality, we have embraced intervention, conveniently overlooking the vested interest of such measures. We have so often painted in our minds, images of countries in conflict as torn, broken souls incapable of survival, and the intervention as the arrival of justice and light to life the afflicted out of the miasma and darkness. Most of the time, we completely fail to consider the motivations of such assistance. In the rare occasion that we do, we defend it as fair reward for the supposed altruistic efforts. America's fervour in ensuring justice, somehow seeming to be confined to nations that have oil, is perhaps the clearest indication of such vested interest. Even if we dismiss this accusation, there are an abundance of other examples. Be it the generous assistance extended from Australia to Nauru, so as to solve its economic challenges, that has seen Nauru become the dumping ground for refugees turned away by Australia. Or the recent news of Filipino President Duterte rejecting millions and millions of financial aid offered by the United Nations for different problems and issues. All these cases reveal one undeniable truth: Assistance is rendered with vested interest. Even if it can mitigate issues in the short run, the implications, not to mention obligations, make the intervention or acceptance of it, rather imprudent.

To complicate matters, problems are not universal, couched in the unique context and mindset of its people. This hinders the effectiveness of intervention in other countries' problems. The reality is that we see the world from our own perspectives, so the assessment of the cause, and by extension the solution, is very much married to our perspectives. Our perspectives, again a product of our time, experiences, and social values. To then apply this lens to a society not our own is foolhardy at best. Without understanding the multitude of causes and the byzantine web of exacerbating factors, the simplistic imposition of a supposed panacea, with the naive arrogance accorded by privilege, will bring little of the reprieve we vainly seek. Our prideful ego, in seeking to bring advancement and improvement to perceived forgotten lands, can be found littered in the annals of history, thwarted by the savage, ungrateful creates unable to comprehend the gifts of modernity. From the futile attempts to educate women on menstrual hygiene, or merely seeking to eradicate the abhorrent practice of Chhaupadi - banishing women to secluded huts during their menstrual cycle - our efforts to solve problems and eliminate conflict are clearly thwarted by our lack of true understanding. Whether conflict stems from gender, cultural practices, race, religion, or whichever arbitrary division prevalent, intervention on the basis of wisdom, knowledge, or wealth, does little to resolve conflict, even if it might numb the extent somewhat.

What perhaps is the straw that breaks the camel's back is the pride involved in conflict resolution. This is particularly troubling since one country's problem can be construed as injurious to the image of the nation. To then have another nation coming to the rescue is likely to be far more than any self-respecting citizen can bear. After all, nationalistic pride would prevent one from accepting the superiority of another nation and its ways, especially at the implied rejection of one's own, or at least the acknowledgement of its inadequacies. From Castro's rebellious declaration that Cuba does not need "gifts from the Empire", to North Korea's persistent efforts to credit the Supreme Leader for the items sent by America, the insecurity and threat to sovereignty is plainly evident. Even in the face of rational reason, the acceptance of assistance from other nations is an admission of weakness and ineptitude. Moreover, this is assuming that the help was not already mired in a Gordian knot of terms and conditions, intended to impose the values and will of the party offering help. The European Union's offer to bail out bankrupt nations often included a requirement for austerity measures, at once a clear show of dominance and also a less than covert criticism on existing leadership. Such efforts, rationally sensible, provoke resentment and retaliation, further fracturing the communities already having difficulties.

With such clear limitations to intervention, it is logical for nations to be given the space to work through their issues. They have the clearest insight and knowledge; and whether they admit and acknowledge it is another matter.  The solutions, however juvenile or imperfect the rest of the world deems, is theirs and they can focus on tweaking it instead of being compelled to fervently defend it out of pride. Perhaps most poignant is the revelation that problems and conflicts are largely products of perception. The value-judgement and priorities already vary enough from individual to individual, without foreign input to complicate matters far more.

Now, it is not to say that foreign intervention has no place, but that the conditions must be thus urgent and severe enough to necessitate the actions, considering the implications and general futility. Thankfully, our pride does allow for the acceptance of help and intervention, at least when it is apparent that the refusal of which mean certain death and suffering in the immediate future. Typically triggered by natural catastrophes, the urgency and severity facilitate the expression and acceptance of humanity, without fear of the cynical self-interest that attaches itself to rational thought and plans. Wherever the catastrophe, the world rallies quickly, driven by the stark reminder of our own mortality, to help a fellow human being. We are cognisant that without assistance, irrevocable consequences are swift and cruel, spurring us to act as a collective bastion of humanity. Yet, in less urgent situations, we find ways to rationalise our way out of helping or accepting such help, however severe it may be.

In all, it is clear that countries experiencing conflict should generally be left to sort out its own problems, with its expertise and the futility of intervention, though it must be acknowledged that we should make an exception in cases of extreme urgency and severity. Whether the decision to not intervene is borne of acknowledgement of futility or trust in the community, this approach will at least reduce complications and divergence that lend itself to further disagreements. It takes a lot of faith to allow events to unfold themselves, the effort to resist intervention far greater than simply taking over. Let us not make the mistake of equating non-intervention with disinterest, but instead, choose to see it as the greatest expression of faith and confidence in the fellow humans in other nations. As much as we lambast Nigeria and their president, we should remember that the people had the wisdom to not re-elect President Goodluck. That should count for something.

~~~~~~

All sample essays in this blog are original works written by Belinda. They are handwritten under timed conditions (90 minutes), and are subsequently typed out as blog posts. If you like what you read, leave us a comment below! :)

'More than any other time, the old have no place in society today.' How far do you agree with this view?

Image from personal collection

'More than any other time, the old have no place in society today.' How far do you agree with this view?

As the horror of the Brexit poll hit the people, as they scrambled to make sense of what their collective stupor and ignorance had caused, the data-crunchers found a scapegoat on which to pin the responsibility. It turns out that the older voters had favoured the "Leave" campaign over the more rational "Remain" one. Vehement protests and moral outrage took over as the people shifted their regret into anger that the old had supposedly sabotaged the future in which they would not have to live to see. Many began to lament that the old, more than any other time, have no place in society, citing their entrenched mindsets, the rampant ageism, and their inability to keep up with the rapidly-changing world. The more rational, however, point out that the old today have more place than before, with the larger numbers of the old cementing their place in society as demographic composition changes, with ever more efforts in place to facilitate the old in attaining their needs, not to mention the commitment to their quality of life. Having considered both sides of the issue, even at the risk of sounding idealistic, I have to admit that I am of the opinion that the old in society today can hardly be said to have no place in society, when compared to any other time.

The pessimistic would argue that the old today are obsolete in modern cosmopolitan societies, unlike in the past when their entrenched mindsets were in sync with the more homogenous societies of yesteryears. Many societies today are diverse and cosmopolitan, often embracing a breath of views hitherto unprecedented. The implication is that individuals may too easily feel out of place in society, with the older individuals plausibly having difficulty feeling at home in a society that has evolved at a pace that far outstrips their ability and willingness to let go of the familiar. It is then a hop and a skip away from concluding that the old must then have no place in this dynamic world. The popularity of the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme featuring Professor Farnsworth of Futurama aptly reveals the perception of the elderly mentality, suggesting that the old must feel utter disgust and disappointment in the world today. It is evident there is widespread discomfort in the current state of affairs, with the old seeking escape from the world they no longer recognise. While amusing and humourous, even possibly true in some cases, this argument grossly overlooks the flawed assumptions that render the conclusion invalid. It may be difficult to admit, but this widely held belief regarding the old is, in fact, born and perpetuated by the younger generation eager to dismiss the abilities of the old, whether out of pride or ignorance. In particular, the older generation's staunch defence to preserve values and practices may be far too easily dismissed as a product of entrenched mindsets, thus alleviating the possibly equally stubborn younger generation's need to give due consideration to the words of the old. One such example could be the distorted feminism that is prevalent. Female empowerment and rights are indubitably evidence of progress, though the more extreme efforts, such as the Slut Walks, in which women often demonstrated their freedom through the abandonment of clothing to embrace varying degrees of nudity may bring concern. Likewise, the efforts of the sexual minorities to gain acceptance have often turned to provocative means. Such perverse goals and unorthodox means are understandably likely to be met with disdain of the older people in society, who may feel some discomfort at the ways of the youth today. The stereotype of the old as concerned though out-of-touch with modernity, manifesting their good intentions in the form of nostalgic laments, unsolicited advice, and even condemnations of shame, quickly come to mind. However, rather than misconstrue these phenomena as evident that they have no place, we should recognise it as precisely the very reason why the old have a place. As much as their natterings may seem unimportant, the old in fact play the crucial role as the last bulwark that slows the rapid changes across domains that are simultaneously gnawing away at the foundations that underpin society. True that the words of the old, so steeped in the past, may not garner the same media attention that the latest social movement can, but even as the young struggle to break free from the reins, they need the old there to hold the reins and prevent them from a path more tangential and problematic than they had hoped for.

Image from knowyourmeme.com

Still, the most cynical would insist on the old having lost their place, choosing to see the old as burdens and helpless victims of ageism in the societies that are now cognisant of the realities when faced with unprecedented numbers of the previously-celebrated rare few survivors into old age. They point to the undercurrents latent in many developed societies between the young and old, suggesting that the younger have grown tired of the old, exhausted under the weight of supporting the many older people, who seem utterly incapable of being self-sufficient and fighting the discrimination they incessantly lament about. As an illustration, these cynics point to both the disgruntled comments of the young and the old, with the occasional incident on the news as irrevocable evidence of such sentiment. Despite some existence of the impatience and frustration that rears its ugly head every once in a while, the fatalistic notion of consequent irrelevance as inevitable overlooks the need for adjustment to changing demographic shifts, which although uncomfortable, is rather temporary. As much as there are a number of societies still negotiating the changes, there are many that have successfully adjusted its mindsets and policies to support the needs of the growing silver generation in their population. From atop the list of ageing populations, Japan has successfully found a place in its heart and well-oiled economy to accommodate the elderly, who take on meaningful tasks with the traditional skills few youths have, and who contribute to the community in ways considered less effortful and more suited to the realities of old age. In other ageing societies, the old are far from just useless burdens, cast aside and preserved in the name of ethical duty. It is evident that besides the initial adjustment and irreverent few voices that cast doubt, the old have a place in society.

Admittedly, some sympathetic individuals have expressed pity and concern for the old who they perceive to have no place today, considering the degree of technological advancement that drives our world today. There is fear that the rapid progress and seemingly ever-changing processes are far too much for the old who would supposedly feel out of place and obsolete, in a way that the old from other times would plausibly not. Putting aside the fact that this conjecture is a construct of imagination and laced with some well-intentioned stereotypes, this view, in its zeal for compassion, under-estimated the ability of the old to learn and overlooked the abundance of resources now available to quench the insatiable thirst for knowledge and self-improvement, both of which are unaffected by age. As much as age has been a convenient excuse to justify a lack of interest, effort, and success, especially when it comes to learning, this argument fails to hold water when we consider the sheer amount of options now available to facilitate the learning of the older generation. The subsequent silver invasion into domains once solely dominated by the young, such as social media platforms, reveal the undeniable truth that when the old desire it, they have a wealth of resources to enable them to get it. Today, they reign over social media platforms that the young hurriedly left behind, finding more ways to make use of the platforms, be it livestreams of garage sales or sharing of the latest health tips. The elderly are able to, and have embraced technology, thus cannot be considered obsolete, especially when we realise that the efforts to help the old and resources provided are, in fact, clear indications of the continued relevance of the old.

In the face of the arguments on empowerment and resources, the most staunch would still insist that the frailty of old age means less place for the old in society. This is arguably exacerbated by the limits that have been pushed in terms of medically-preserved decrepitude. As individuals age, it seems logical to no longer retain the physical prowess associated with youth in their peak physical states. Medical issues seem to creep up and ageing bodies try to negotiate the issues to compensate for, and carry on, some semblance of life. The feared fall of an elderly, the dreaded hip replacement or knee replacement, are some physical issues faced. The intangible senile dementia and other conditions add to the fray, with the old already embroiled in this private struggle. Thankfully, the concerns surrounding health in old age have been largely mitigated by the powerful strides in technology that has the ability to negate the ravages of time. Physiology has been thoroughly studied and many treatments and interventions developed. From the media's hype over ordinary women who defy time by looking like they are their children's ages, we can see that the old have access to and employed techniques to overcome these physical limitations. Even for the mind, there are many pharmaceutical interventions, such as to delay and even reverse brain ageing. Clearly, technology can, or at least soon, ensure the old still have a place in society. I do concede that such tools and benefits may not be available to all the elderly in every society. The availability of the resources and efforts are still predicated on one's wealth and thus not readily accessible to everyone. Still, the circumstance that the old find themselves in is not without reprieve. As we look beyond today, we need to help the old and those without resources to be able to seek the help they need.

All in all, our cynicism, fears, and criticisms, may tempt us into downplaying the place for the old, but we need to keep a rational mind to focus on the place they have. With the world staring down a silver tsunami, it is best we make pace with any existing issues to help our society, young and old through the next set of challenges. A convenient scapegoat the old may be, it is still unwise to give them up as sacrifice whenever any polarising poll comes around. Before blaming "Brexit" on the old, it would make more sense to listen to the views in an objective manner and understand the issues, rather than take the easy way out by blaming the old.

~~~~~~

All sample essays in this blog are original works written by Belinda. They are handwritten under timed conditions (90 minutes), and are subsequently typed out as blog posts. If you like what you read, leave us a comment below! :)

'The pursuit of equality between the sexes is not only futile but foolish.' Do you agree?

Image by GDJ via Creative Commons

 
'The pursuit of equality between the sexes is not only futile but foolish.' Do you agree?

Only one female made it into the top hundred list of highest earners in the sports industry. Serena Williams, the last woman standing, is ranked a mere fifty-first in the 2017 list, according to Forbes. This has led to outrage and disappointment among the feminists, who consider this a scandal and reason for their renewed vigour. The more realistic are aware that the pursuit of equality between the sexes is utterly futile, being fraught with challenges, and the cynics among them would be quick to argue that the endeavour is clearly foolish if clear results are not attainable. The more idealistic would choose to focus on the principle and value of the endeavour, believing that it is a sensible choice. Having considered both sides of the issue, I harbour no unrealistic notion about the efficacy and acknowledge the futility of the effort, but I must admit I see value in the pursuit nonetheless, with the ensuring debate, empowerment, and hope for our humanity in the long run.

I must concede that there is truth in the viewpoint that the endeavour is futile, being fraught with nuances and complexities that led some to believe the entire pursuit as being foolish. It is true that the concept of equality is already challenging to grasp, much less apply to the sensitive topic of differences between and within the sexes. Equality, being about ensuring similar access to opportunity, is already challenging to understand, being so often misunderstood as equitable outcomes. The problem is further complicated with inherent differences between the sexes that render any pursuit of equality rather pointless, with many misconstruing the fundamental notions and consequent inability to arrive at a common consensus. The pessimists would then point to the innumerable efforts on the part of feminist and activists in pursuit of equality and feel buoyed by the evident lack of success, not to mention vast amounts of time, effort, and other resources that have been poured into the pursuit, all in vain. The Slut Parade, International Women's Day, and even #Women2Drive would perhaps be at the top of their minds as they shake their heads at the foolish squandering of resources, believing that the pursuit is foolish since it would be for naught. I must disagree on it being foolish. I choose to focus on the discussion that ensued, though rather inconclusive, and at times, even controversial, the discussion is still very much of value. The fervent and often heated debate actually serves much importance to the growing maturity of the society, as the populace considers different views on the respective sexes and reflects on what equality means for themselves and others. The emotional debate over victim-shaming in rape cases and the extent of rights that each individual has over himself or herself is an invaluable discussion, even if little consensus is achieved in the end. Hence, as much as I agree that the pursuit of equality between the sexes is not likely to bring results, I do not think it is foolish when we consider the resultant discussion.

On top of the discussion that the pursuit brings, it is imperative that we consider the resultant empowerment of the vulnerable that renders this admittedly futile pursuit not so foolish after all. Pursuing gender equality may well be doomed due to ingrained mindsets, but the overt emphasis on the situation at least ameliorates the situation of the less powerful gender. Take for instance, the oft-cited plight of Saudi Arabian women, who are deemed to be victims of one of the most unequal societies in the world. The females in the society are not even adequately empowered to be allowed into a common space with the males of the society, not to mention have a bank account without the blessings of their husbands, or be eligible to earn their driving licenses. With the admittedly pointless pursuit of gender equality, what it at least does is to highlight the plight of the gender most disenfranchised, so that some improvement and attention is at least possible for those who are incapable of helping themselves. The concessions in allowing the women in Saudi Arabia to finally get their driving license without providing means for independent travel and even vote, albeit in a most undemocratic society, at least serves to alleviate the grievous sense of injustice somewhat, despite clearly not being meaningful representation or even indication of true equality. The same can be said for the women in Afghanistan and Yemen, or even the men in Singapore. Hence, while I do acknowledge the endeavour as futile, I simply do not consider it foolish.

Still, the staunchly pragmatic would dismiss the pursuit as foolish, with the futility, or at best insignificant benefits. They argue that the social upheaval and polarising debate are far too much a cost to bear, in the light of the inconsequential outcomes. They would point to the sharply divisive controversies that have threatened to tear the already fraying social fabric in most societies already under pressure from global forces. As it is, traditions and norms are already under siege from the diversity brought about by the unprecedented mobility and diasporas that have spread far and wide. In this situation, the pursuit of gender equality may well be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back, as it could well be what stretches the fibres that are barely holding society together. The outcry over the treatment of Indian women, especially the Dalit women, has been made the scapegoat for the division and lack of progress in the Indian society. Yet, such a fatalistic and pessimistic view overlooks the possibility of some progress and maturity in the society, albeit in the long run. The risk-averse approach focusses too much on the short-run threat, without giving due consideration to the possible progress that can be gained in the long run. This is not to say that the endeavour would be eventually successful or to even bear some fruit in gender equality. Instead, it is entirely likely that we would be condemned to the perpetual over-compensation that the pursuit of gender equality serves to constantly result in. Rather, what makes the endeavour meaningful, and not foolish as claimed by the pessimists, is the development of the maturity of the populace and, dare I suggest, the advancement of society and civilisation. As much as we have yet to have any true equality of the sexes, we can infer the potential of such pursuits of equality between criminals and non-criminals. The enlightened approach seen in the Nordic countries had been sparked by the humanitarian emphasis on equality. Norway's revolutionary, world's-first commitment to equality, seen in the Halden Prison and the Bastoy Island Prison, had its genesis in the pursuit of equality at the realisation of the cruel ways previously employed on juvenile delinquents in the Boys' Home on Bastoy Island itself. The contemporary island retreat of a prison is testament to the progress such pursuits can bring. While true that these Scandinavian countries are, for now, rather lonely in such enlightenment, what is undeniable is the prerequisite of the pursuit for equality in the long-term progress of the society. Hence, as much as the pursuit of equality between the sexes is unlikely to bear fruit, given that it is perhaps one of the only inequalities backed by actual differences in biology, the pursuit itself is hardly foolish as it is a necessary first step in societal progress.

On a more practical note, the admittedly futile effort is still not foolish when we consider the actual need for change in gender roles and responsibilities brought about by the changing circumstances, which the pursuit would facilitate. The world today is changing rapidly in terms of technological advancement, altering the situation in societies, cost of living, and also work demands. Along with these, society's expectations with respect to gender roles, procreation, and family, have also shifted. Some more significantly than other perhaps, but nonetheless, changed and are still changing. As a result, the entrenched gender inequality would prove to be a hurdle for the required changes to keep up with changing societal needs. Hence, even when the pursuit of gender inequality would likely fail to bring about true equality in terms of access to opportunities, it is a worthwhile endeavour as it crucially paves the way for much needed changes that facilitate society's adapting to the changing circumstances in order to survive, much less thrive. This can be seen in the Finnish society, which is often held up as a guiding light for equality, where females are given concessions and support so that motherhood would not unfairly penalise them. Putting aside the controversial argument that this is equality in practice, when so clearly the men do not have access to similar concessions, what is evident is that the society has benefitted from the pursuit of equality, in that the effort has been leveraged upon to make much-needed changes to the landscape of work and socio-exploitation of human resources to ensure Finland's continued survival in the modern world. The same can be said of the Chinese in mainland China, which in the name of gender equality, has made being a leftover woman a badge of honour to harness the previously unexploited potential of the female population. In South Sudan, the practice of abusing fattening pills to achieve the societal standard of feminine beauty, at the expense of health, is now criticised, again under the banner of gender equality, to ensure the populace moves away from such wastage of resources and onto the empowerment that would help improve the pitiable plight of the impoverished nation saddled by traditional notions steeped in gender subjugation. Evidently, as much as the pursuit is indeed futile, the potential of the endeavour as a means to ensure society is able to keep up with changing circumstances makes it far from foolish.

In all, the pursuit of gender equality is likely to be futile, given the complexities and subjectivity of the notion, not to mention the entrenched mindsets that hinder any effort. Still, it is far from foolish considering the consequent debate, empowerment, and its potential as a tool for progress and advancement. As much as it is a thorny topic and a source of frustration for many, we must resist the temptation to surrender the pursuit using the simplistic assertion that futility equates folly. Instead, we should recognise the excuse for what it is and look beyond its immediate futility to recognise its central role in our growth, be it personal or societal. Perhaps another way of looking at it is to realise that it is more foolish to succumb and accept limitations as told, for if Serena Williams did, she would not have made it to the top hundred list, nor become the inspiration for so many in the world.

~~~~~~

All sample essays in this blog are original works written by Belinda. They are handwritten under timed conditions (90 minutes), and are subsequently typed out as blog posts. If you like what you read, leave us a comment below! :)

MOE's GCE A-Level Curriculum and the General Paper (GP) Syllabus

The information below are extracted from the MOE website.
https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/pre-university/gce-a-level-curriculum
https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/english-language-and-literature/

Note: We have reproduced these information for easy reference. If there is any infringement of copyrights, kindly drop us an email and we will remove this page.


GCE A-Level Curriculum

The inner circle centring on life skills ensures that students acquire sound values and skills to take them through life as responsible adults and active citizens. It comprises the non-academic curriculum.

The middle circle on knowledge skills seeks to develop students’ thinking, process and communication skills. This will enable students to analyse and use information and be able to express their thoughts and ideas clearly and effectively. It comprises skills-based subjects.

The outermost circle covers the subject disciplines i.e. Languages, Humanities & the Arts, and Mathematics & Sciences. It ensures that students have a good grounding across different areas of study.

2012 General Paper (GP) Syllabus

The ‘A’ Level curriculum offers a broad and flexible curriculum to students entering Junior Colleges (JCs) and the Centralised Institute (CI). It aims to foster new approaches to learning and develop in students a wide range of skills so that students are challenged to think critically and creatively. 

General Paper (GP) is offered as one of the three Knowledge Skills subjects under the ‘A’ Level curriculum framework. Knowledge skills subjects focus on the development of thinking, process and communication skills in students. 

General Paper (GP) aims to develop in students the ability to think critically, to construct cogent arguments and to communicate ideas using clear, accurate and effective language. 

GP encourages students to explore a range of key issues of global and local significance and provides students with a good foundation to thrive in a fast-changing world. At the end of the course, students should have a broader understanding of the world, and be ready to meet the challenges of higher education and the workplace of the future.

This Teaching Syllabus explicates the desired learning outcomes of GP and sets out the principles for teaching GP. Together with the Teaching and Learning Guide, it serves to encourage good classroom practices.

The General Paper aims to encourage students to:

1. Understand better the world in which they live by fostering a critical awareness of continuity and change in the human experience 
2. Appreciate the interrelationship of ideas across disciplines 
3. Broaden their global outlook while enabling them to remain mindful of shared historical, social and cultural experiences both within Singapore and regionally 
4. Develop maturity of thought and critical reading and creative thinking skills 
5. Develop the skills of clear, accurate and effective communication 
6. Develop the skills of evaluation of arguments and opinions 
7. Promote extensive and independent reading and research 

By the end of the course, students will be able to:  

LO1: Demonstrate Knowledge and Understanding

• Draw on relevant knowledge and understanding of diverse topic areas through independent research as well as exposure to a range of print and non-print sources 
• Develop awareness and understanding of the significance and implications of issues on the individual and society 
• Develop an awareness, understanding and appreciation of the shared historical, social and cultural experiences both within Singapore and regionally 
• Cultivate respect for, and appreciation of diverse perspectives and inter-connectedness of issues

LO2: Demonstrate Skills and Processes 

• Read text(s) critically 
• Infer and summarise relevant information 
• Make observations about trends and relationships 
• Analyse and evaluate issues across disciplines 
• Apply knowledge and understanding of issues in addressing specific task(s) 
• Construct cogent arguments and formulate informed and insightful personal responses

LO3: Demonstrate the use of Language for Communication 

• Use accepted conventions of spelling, punctuation and grammar 
• Use and demonstrate understanding of a wide range of appropriate vocabulary 
• Use tone and style appropriate to the context, task and audience 
• Express ideas and issues in a succinct and accurate manner

Participatory Learning Environment 
GP teachers should seek to create an intellectually challenging learning environment where students exercise mutual respect in considering and objectively evaluating competing voices and views. The GP classroom should provide the space for students to participate actively in a safe environment and to form opinions based on reasoned evaluation and respond to issues with maturity. Students should be encouraged to question, reflect on, and persevere in their learning process.

Timely and Timeless Content 
GP is a skills-based subject and content serves as a vehicle for the teaching of critical thinking and communication skills. GP teachers should aim to create a classroom where students can explore and engage actively with real world issues that are timeless as well as contemporary. In discussing these issues, students should be encouraged to adopt broader perspectives and appreciate the inter-connectedness of issues.

Engaging Pedagogies 
GP teachers should use a range of engaging pedagogies that increases student participation, collaboration and independent thinking. Teachers should consider the learning needs and different learning styles of their learners in designing classroom activities for their learners. Teachers should also expand the classroom experiences of their students through harnessing the range of learning opportunities afforded by digital technologies.

Compiled List of P1 Questions (2002 - 2017)

Note: These exam questions can be found on various blogs and websites. We do not, in any way, own the copyright to these questions, and we are aware that there are publishers who produce and print these questions for commercial sale. We have compiled these questions for the convenience of:

1. Students and educators who want a quick point-of-reference either in their revision or teaching
2. Parents who are curious and want to find out more about the General Paper (GP) examination
3. Ourselves... because we really don't want to flip, flip, flip, flip, and flip, just to find something

If there is any infringement of copyrights, please drop us a note and we will remove this page immediately.

2017 GCE GP P1

1. ‘The past is not dead. It is not even past.’ Discuss. 
2. Can the use of animals for scientific research ever be justified? 
3. In your society, to what extent is it acceptable for public money to be used for the acquisition of works of art? 
4. ‘Rehabilitation, not punishment, should be the purpose of the justice system.’ Discuss. 
5. Is regulation of the press desirable? 
6. Do events, rather than politicians, shape the future? 
7. How far is science fiction becoming fact? 
8. Examine the role of music in establishing a national identity in your society. 
9. To what extent are people judged more by their physical appearances than by their abilities? 
10. ‘Practical ability is just as important as intellectual skills.’ How far is this true in your society? 
11. Assess the view that attempts to control climate change can never be truly effective. 
12. ‘The quality of written language is being destroyed by social media.’ What is your view?
    

 
2016 GCE GP P1

1. ‘Any adaptation of a novel for a film, television or the theatre is never as effective as the original.’ Discuss. 
2. Assess the view that traditional buildings have no future in your society. 
3. ‘Longer life expectancy creates more problems than benefits.’ Discuss. 
4. Considering the money involved, should developing countries be allowed to host major sporting events? 
5. ‘Human need, rather than profit, should always be the main concern of scientific research.’ Discuss. 
6. ‘Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out their own problems.’ How far do you agree? 
7. How far has modern technology made it unnecessary for individuals to possess mathematical skills? 
8. ‘People who do the most worthwhile jobs rarely receive the best financial rewards.’ To what extent is this true of your society?
9.  Evaluate the claim that equality of opportunity for females is a desirable, but unrealistic, goal. 
10. Assess the view that most natural disasters are the result of human activity. 
11. Is competition always desirable? 
12. ‘Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone’s opinion is of equal value.’ What is your view?
    

 
2015 GCE GP P1

1. ‘There is no such thing as bad publicity.’ To what extent is this true? 
2. How far is it possible for one country to forgive another for its past actions? 
3. How effectively is public health promoted and managed in your country? 
4. ‘No cause is ever worth dying for’. Discuss. 
5. Consider the argument that the main purpose of television should be to educate rather than simply to entertain. 
6. In your society, how well are the demands of the economy and the environment balanced? 
7. ‘Parents have no right to impose their own values and beliefs on their children.’ Discuss. 
8. ‘Books serve little purpose in education as technological developments become more sophisticated’. How far do you agree? 
9. To what extent should the arts in your society focus on local rather than foreign talent? 
10. Should there be any controls over the production of energy when the need for it is so great? 
11. When a government’s finances for social welfare are limited, should they be directed towards the young or the old? 
12. ‘Human actions should be based on scientific fact, not religious faith’. How far do you agree with this statement?
    

 
2014 GCE GP P1

1. ‘Traditional marriage is an outdated concept.’ To what extent is this true of your society? 
2. How far should firms be allowed to limit their workers’ rights when profits are at stake? 
3. ‘Gambling on sport undermines its spirit and should be banned.’ How realistic is this position? 
4. Discuss the view that, with an increasing global need for energy, every possible source should be exploited to the full. 
5. ‘For the majority of people, the Arts are irrelevant to their daily lives.’ How true is this of your society? 
6. How far is it important for people to be aware of current events in countries other than their own? 
7. In times of economic hardship, should a country still be expected to provide financial or material aid to others? 
8. Do films offer anything more than an escape from reality? 
9. To what extent can the regulation of scientific or technological developments be justified? 
10. ‘Getting what one wants in life is what matters.’ Discuss. 
11. Examine the extent to which expenditure on arms and the armed forces is justifiable in the modern world. 
12. Consider the view that some careers are better suited to one gender than the other.
    

 
2013 GCE GP P1

1. ‘The world would be a better place if more political leaders were women.’ What is your view? 
2. ‘Unlike the Arts, such as writing or music, Mathematics lacks the capacity for creativity.’ How far do you agree with this statement?
3. Is there any point in trying to predict future trends?  
4. To what extent is it possible to make the punishment fit the crime?
5.  Discuss the claim that in the modern world people should care more about international than national issues.
6.  How important is it to save plant and animal species which are in danger of extinction?
7.  ‘Scientific research into health and diet is unreliable as it so often contradicts itself.’ Is this a fair comment?  
8. How far is increased prosperity for all a realistic goal in your society? 
9. Consider the view that spoken language is more important than the written form.  
10. Why should we be concerned with current affairs when most of them will soon be forgotten?  
11. ‘Education should only be concerned with what is useful in life.’ Discuss.  
12. How far, in your society, should unpopular views be open to discussion?
    

 
2012 GCE GP P1

1. Is there any value in preserving minority languages in the world? 
2. ‘People in the Arts, living or dead, receive far more recognition than those in the sciences, even though it is less deserved.’ Consider this claim. 
3. Should people be allowed to have children by artificial means? 
4. To what extent are the rights of animals protected in your society? 
5. ‘The most influential individuals in history are those who have caused the most harm.’ How far would you accept this view? 
6. Is violence ever justified? 
7. Consider the view that mathematics possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty. 
8. In your society, how far is equality for all a reality? 
9. Should everyone be expected to donate suitable organs after death? 
10. Can humour ever be serious? 
11. ‘The key criterion for good government is how well the economy is managed.’ Is this a fair assessment? 
12. How far is it acceptable for technology to be used only for financial benefit?
    

 
2011 GCE GP P1

1. Can prejudice ever be eliminated? 
2. ‘Taking risks is an essential part of life and should be encouraged.’ Discuss. 
3. Consider the view that efficient government is more important than democracy. 
4. To what extent is it acceptable for private companies to be involved in financing scientific research? 
5. ‘Environmental concerns and economic growth cannot co-exist.’ Do you agree? 
6. In the digital age, do newspapers still have a role in your society? 
7. Do awards and prizes serve any useful purpose? 
8. How far should medical resources be used to extend life expectancy? 
9. Can space research be justified nowadays? 
10. ‘Only modern architecture and modern art have a place in today’s world.’ How true is this of your society? 
11. How far should countries aim to be self-sufficient? 
12. ‘Science is unreliable, being based as much on theory as on fact.’ Is this a fair comment?
    

 
2010 GCE GP P1

1. Consider the view that most work these days could, and should, be done from home. 
2. How far can an individual be held responsible for crimes against humanity? 
3. Would it matter if all the performing arts venues in your society, such as concert halls and theatres, were closed down? 
4. ‘The person who dies rich dies disgraced.’ Discuss. 
5. ‘The book has no place in modern society.’ Discuss. 
6. To what extent has technology had a negative impact on the skill levels of people? 
7. Does sport merit the vast sums of money that are spent on it? 
8. How effective are international efforts to ease the problem of global hunger? 
9. ‘No politician’s reputation can survive the judgement of time.’ How true is this? 
10. How important is it for people in your society to retain a sense of tradition? 
11. ‘The key to good health is lifestyle rather than medicine.’ How far do you agree? 
12. Can mathematics be seen as anything more than a useful tool in everyday life?
    

 
2009 GCE GP P1

1. Is the elimination of global poverty a realistic aim? 
2. ‘Only educated people should have the right to vote in elections.’ What is your view? 
3. Are certain types of writing superior to others? 
4. Should a love of one’s country still be encouraged? 
5. To what extent has technology had an impact on both privacy and security in your country? 
6. ‘History records male acts, written by males, and holds little interest for females as a result.’ Is this a fair comment? 
7. How far should religion influence political decisions? 
8. Should every country have the right to carry out unlimited scientific research? 
9. Assess the impact of foreign films or foreign TV programmes on the culture of your society. 
10. Can transport of food over vast distances be justified? 
11. ‘Fashion is as much a good thing as a bad thing.” To what extent do you agree? 
12. As long as people in the public eye do their job well, does it matter what they do in private?
    

 
2008 GCE GP P1

1. Does the presence of a foreign power ever help a country with problems? 
2. How important are dreams? 
3. ‘The more science advances, the more religion will decline.’ To what extent do you agree? 
4. How far do physical features, such as size and location, determine a country’s progress? 
5. ‘Nowadays, the pleasures of reading can never compete with the pleasures of visual entertainment.’ To what extent do you agree? 
6. To what extent does the migration of people have a positive effect? 
7. ‘Air travel should be discouraged, not promoted.’ To what extent do you agree? 
8. Many developed countries are paying increasing attention to the needs of the disadvantaged. How far is this true in Singapore? 
9. Discuss the view that too much faith is placed in statistics. 
10. ‘Contemporary music has no artistic value.’ Is this a fair comment? 
11. How far is it possible to ensure that all producers of food and goods are fairly rewarded? 
12. To what extent is design important in your society?
    

 
2007 GCE GP P1

1. ‘The view of the majority is always right.’ Do you agree? 
2. Can a belief in the supernatural be sustained in our modern world? 
3. ‘The arts cannot change the world but they make it more beautiful.’ Discuss this view with reference to one of the following: painting, sculpture or music. 
4. How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders? 
5. ‘Mass production inevitably means a loss of craftsmanship and quality.’ Is this true in your society? 
6. How important is a sense of history in shaping the future of Singapore’s society? 
7. Should poorer countries develop their tourist industry when the basic needs of their own people are not being met? 
8. ‘The pen is mightier than the sword.’ Can written language really be so powerful? 
9. ‘Advertisements are often entertaining, but they rarely affect consumer choice.’ Is this your experience? 
10. Is it possible to protect the environment when many countries require increasing amounts of energy to progress? 
11. Should research into expensive medical treatments be allowed when only a few can afford them? 
12. ‘The word failure should never be used in education.’ Discuss.
    

 
2006 GCE GP P1

1. Is there still a place for charity in today’s world? 
2. ‘A picture is always more powerful than mere words.’ What is your view? 
3. Does modern technology always improve the quality of people’s lives? 
4. ‘National boundaries make little geographical or economic sense nowadays.’ Discuss. 
5. Should crimes that were committed many years ago simply be forgotten? 
6. How far is your country prepared for future crises? 
7. ‘The world would be a better place if everyone spoke the same language.’ Discuss. 
8. To what extent do young people in your society take an interest in politics? 
9. ‘Entrepreneurship is just another name for personal greed.’ How far do you agree with this statement? 
10. Do myths and legends still have a role to play in Singapore? 
11. ‘Women will never enjoy the same rights as men.’ Do you agree? 
12. To what extent do the newspapers and magazines that you read deal with what is trivial, rather than what is important?
    

 
2005 GCE GP P1

1. Is effective farming possible without science? 
2. ‘There is no such thing as luck. People determine their own lives.’ Do you agree? 
3. To what extent should the State involve itself in the world of business? 
4. Do the arts, such as music and literature, really play a significant role in Singaporean society? 
5. ‘Medical science has been so successful that people now expect too much of it.’ Discuss. 
6. ‘Hosting major sporting events creates more problems than benefits.’ Do you agree? 
7. Examine the claim that the world is too dependent on oil. 
8. ‘The tourist does not see the country the inhabitants know.’ How far is this true of Singapore? 
9. ‘Instead of speeding up the pace of life, we should be slowing it down.’ What do you think? 
10. Consider the view that the study of mathematics is intellectually satisfying, but of little practical use. 
11. ‘Too much attention is given to criminals; not enough to their victims.’ Is this true? 
12. How far do magazines or television programmes aimed at young people in Singapore have a positive effect?
    

 
2004 GCE GP P1

1. To what extent are the young in Singapore favoured at the expense of the elderly? 
2. Are the poor an inevitable feature of any society? 
3. Do the past and present offer any guidance for the future? 
4. ‘How inventions and discoveries are used is not the concern of the scientist.’ Do you agree? 
5. ‘People, not the government, should decide how to organise their lives.’ Is this a fair comment? 
6. How far is recycling the answer to the problem of waste? 
7. Can small countries have a significant voice in world affairs? 
8. Advertising encourages a desire for products which people do not actually need. Discuss. 
9. Have multi-national businesses had a positive or negative impact on your society? 
10. Discuss the appeal and value of fantasy stories and films. 
11. Discuss the importance of religion in society today. 
12. ‘Far too much attention is given to beauty products and treatments.’ Do you agree?
    

 
2003 GCE GP P1

1. To what extent are small businesses preferable to large ones? 
2. ‘A good leader must always look beyond the needs of his or her country.’ Do you agree? 
3. Does the book still have a future? 
4. Is History anything more than the study of warfare? 
5. Should medical science always seek to prolong life? 
6. ‘The only worthwhile form of discipline is self-discipline.’ Discuss. 
7. How far can the needs of minorities be met in modern Singapore? 
8. Can the media ever be relied on to convey the truth? 
9. Was life for young people in Singapore better in the past than it is today? 
10. ‘Statistics measure everything but prove nothing.’ Discuss. 
11. Does the modern world place too much reliance on technology? 
12. ‘The family has suffered at the expense of career in Singaporean society.’ Is this a fair comment?
    

 
2002 GCE GP P1

1. Is there a case for keeping animals in zoos? 
2. ‘Conformity should be the main aim of all schools.’ How far is this true? 
3. Can the trade in weapons ever be justified? 
4. ‘If people become ill it is largely their own fault.’ How far do you agree? 
5. Does a study of history make you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the human race? 
6. ‘Science and religion will always conflict.’ Discuss. 
7. Should the police have unlimited powers when dealing with crime? 
8. ‘The prospect of a Third World War is now unthinkable.’ Do you agree? 
9. Do you agree that city life is becoming increasingly unattractive? 
10. ‘Air travel creates more problems than benefits.’ Is this a fair comment? 
11. Is friendly rivalry ever possible? 
12. ‘A work of art can never be valued in just financial terms.’ Discuss.
    

We did not compile any questions earlier than 2002 because of the change in syllabus.