2017 Ks Bull Issue 2a

KS Bull 2017
Issue 2a
The views expressed in each essay are purely for the academic purposes of crafting a viable argumentative
response. They do not necessarily reflect the personal opinions of any student or staff member, nor do they
necessarily represent the perspective(s) of Raffles Institution.
No portion of this collection may be reproduced or shared for any reason and by any means whatsoever.
KiasuExamPaper.com
KS Bull 2017 | Issue 2a (Year 6)© Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited
CONTENTS
C
CO
ONT
TEN
E TS
2017
201
20 17 Year
Year 6 GP
GP CT
CT2
1 In time
times
es of economic hardship,
hardshi is it acceptable for a government 4
to spend on weapons and its armed forces?
Jiang Zixing | 17S06A
2 Do you agree that fashion serves no real value? 8

Leia Teo Wen Hui | 17S03N
3 To what extent can we rely on the media to be truthful in today’s 12

world?
Chloe Chia | 17S03N
4 “Urban living and nature cannot co-exist in modern cities today.” 15

Do you agree?
Chiow Hui Min | 17S03N
5 “Urban living and nature cannot co-exist in modern cities today.” 21

Do you agree?
Lee Jia Ming | 17S06E
6 ‘At a time when the world needs capable leadership, many 25

politicians do not seem up to be up to the job.’ Do you agree?
Marcus Choo | 17S06K
7 ‘The idea that science and technology will solve our problems is a 25
delusion.’ Discuss.
Cerise Lim Yin Xin | 17S03L
8 ‘The idea that science and technology will solve our problems is a 33
delusion.’ Discuss.
Clara Keng Hui Lin | 17S06E
9 ‘The fact that poverty still exists today is an embarrassment to 36

mankind.’ Discuss.
Clara-Ann Cheng Ling | 17S06E
10 ‘The fact that poverty still exists today is an embarrassment to 39

mankind.’ Discuss.
Tan Li Kang | 17S03N
2
KiasuExamPaper.com
1
11 ‘‘The
‘T
The
he ffact
acct th
a that
hat p
poverty
over
ov
over
erty
t sti
still
till
ll exi
exists today is an embarrassment to 43
mankind.’
mank
ma d ’ Discuss.
kind. Discuss.
s.
Zhang
Z
Zh ang
ang Zh
Zhii | 1
17S06E
7S0
06E
12 Paper 2 – Passage 48
13 Paper 2 – AQ Response 49
Leia Teo Wen Hui | 17S03N
Xu Yukun | 17S06D
Gwen Tan Jing Yi | 17S06M
2017 Year 6 KI CT1
16 Critically assess the view that History is a set of lies agreed upon. 60
Tan Xin Hwee | 17A13A
17 Critically assess the view that History is a set of lies agreed upon. 63
Yeo Jun Wei | 17S03B
2017 Year 6 KI CT2
18 How much evidence do we need to justify our knowledge claims? 63

Khin Yadanar Oo | 17A13A
19 ‘The researcher’s opinions and beliefs always interfere with his 67

research.’ Discuss with reference to knowledge construction
in History and the social sciences.
Khin Yadanar Oo | 17A13A
20 ‘The right to punish someone is contingent on the knowledge of 71

what is right and wrong.” Discuss with reference to the nature and
construction of ethical knowledge.
Yeo Jun Wei | 17S03B
Editorial Team 75
KiasuExamPaper.com
1
2016
20
016 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa er 1 Jiang Zixing | 17S06A
IIn
n times
times of economic
e hardship,
is it acceptable for a government to spend on
weapons and its armed forces?
“What you cannot defend, you do not own”, said Lee Kuan Yew, the founding
father of Singapore. While it may seem too nihilistic a view, it unfortunately
reflects the painful truth of the Machiavellian realpolitik and world order today.
This Catch-22 situation is further compounded by economic hardship in a
country where states are often caught at the crossroads trying to strike a
balance between rescuing themselves from economic hardship spending funds
on weaponry and its armed forces, because given the limited funds and
resources available, one of the two choices would have to be neglected in
favour of the other. However, in the face of economic hardship, it is still
acceptable, and in fact necessary, to spend on arms and armed forces in this
cut throat volatile world today. This is in order to establish peace and security,
only upon which economic hardship can be truly solved. Ultimately, a delicate
balance needs to be struck between the two options to achieve long term
progress and development.
Pacifists would claim that in times of economic hardship, it is unacceptable for

governments to spend on arms and armed forces. This is quite a valid and
logical stance since it is apparent that the finite resources available should be
used to ameliorate economic hardship. After all, it is the government’s
fundamental duty to guarantee a quality standard of living for its people.
Moreover, in the relatively peaceful world we live in today where conflicts are
merely reduced to skirmishes, excessive expenditure on arms seems more
irrelevant than ever. The government should therefore channel its funds and
resources to invigorate the economy through a slew of financial reforms and
market intervention. Ultimately, this would ensure that the state remains
accountable to the electorate that had put them into power in the first place.
Conversely, spending on arms and the armed forces in the advent of economic
hardship would further compound the financial crisis, and several countries
bear testimony to such an oversight. The Soviet Union experienced a series of
famines and the depreciation of the ruble in the 1970s and 1980s. Then, Soviet
citizens languished in the purgatory of economic hardship and struggled to
KiasuExamPaper.com
obtain
o basic
asic necessities,
btaiin ba necesssities, even more
more so when exorbitant price tags were placed
o
on n them
them inin the
the black
blaack markets.
markets. Despite
Desp the glaring problems, the Soviet
ggovernment
overnm ment continued
conntinued toto fund
fund military
milit programmes that developed the
IIntercontinental
ntercontin nental Ballistic Missiles
Ballisttic M issiles and nuclear stockpile, and mired itself in the
cash-burning arms race, even in space, to combat the US threat in the Cold
War climate. Ultimately, it trapped the Soviet government in a vicious cycle of
endless expenditure on arms that it could not step down from. As a result, this
decision cost millions of lives and led to resistance against the regime which
ultimately collapsed in 1991. Today, North Korea treads on the same
unfortunate footsteps by pouring funds into nuclear development while its
citizens are reduced to eating grass and tree barks. Evidently, economic
concerns far outweigh the need to spend on arms and armed forces because it
compounds economic woes and blatantly disregards the livelihood of its
citizens and even their sanctity of lives. This moral hazard therefore renders
expenditure on arms and armed forces unacceptable during economic crisis.
However, in the face of Machiavellian realpolitik today, the security of a nation

must be guaranteed at all cost because it is the utmost priority to remain
capable of defence so as to survive. Hence, economic hardship is merely a
small problem that pales in comparison in the grand scheme of things. Ancient
historian and war strategist Thucydides presciently warned centuries ago that
“the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must”. This quote
epitomises the politics of survival in this cut-throat world. The ability to
safeguard sovereignty is the basis of all progress in a country, hence to not
spend on arms and armed forces at all times would be tantamount to removing
the cornerstone of progress and prosperity. If the country does not even exist,
what economic hardship will there be to speak of? This urgent need and
justification for military expenditure is further augmented in small states like
Singapore and Kuwait. In the nascent years of independence, Singapore mired
in financial concerns as she lost her hinterland for exports. Yet even in the
crisis ravaged era and region where all hopes of prosperity remained bleak, she
set aside a significant amount of budget to develop a formidable armed force,
the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). For a country whose population was
barely one percent of the US population, it seemed preposterous to splurge on
the SAF. However, such dedication to financing a reliable armed force have
paid off as the SAF delivered 50 years of stability and ensured that Singapore
retained her sovereignty despite being surrounded by much larger and more
hostile neighbours. Conversely, Kuwait was invaded by Iraq in 1990 due to her
5
KiasuExamPaper.com
ccontrasting
ontrrastinng focus
focus onon eradicatingg eeconomic
co problems. If not for the
in nternatio
onal ccoalition’s
international oalittion’s ssupport
upport aand
nd commitment to world peace and rights to
ssovereignty,
overeiignty, K uw
wait wou
Kuwait uld have
would have disappeared
disa off the world map today and only
rremain
emainn as a d istant me
distant emorry. EExpenditure
memory. xpend on arms and armed forces therefore
greatly outweigh economic concerns because it is perhaps the only way to
safely guarantee survival in a volatile world today.
It would also be parochial to assume that economic hardship and the need to
spend on arms and armed forces diametrically oppose each other. In fact, such
expenditure can invigorate the economy and resolve the issue of economic
hardship, therefore effectively killing two birds with one stone. It could be
argued that such expenditure is justified as it turns a crisis into an opportunity.
Spending on arms and armed forces can create employment opportunities,
developing arms can demonstrate the ability to secure peace and therefore
earn the trust of military alliances for more funds. First, by developing the
military, the workforce is mobilised for construction and conscription. In some
cases, the development of arms can even invigorate downstream industries
where a need for their basic materials fuels the supply and demand chain. A
case in point would be Djibouti’s construction of the naval base and naval force
with the aid of Chinese military contractors. Hundreds and thousands of locals
found themselves a source of stable income through the construction of the
port and naval base, and country was actively mobilised in its energy and raw
material sector to facilitate the construction, and as such, breathed life into the
Djibouti economy that once mired in poverty. Second, military exports serve
as a source of direct revenue. During the Second World War when the
American economy was still recovering from the debilitating aftermath of the
Great Depression, the United States invested extensively in its military sector
and as a result, armoured vehicles, warships and light arms like M16 rifles were
developed by the likes of Lockheed Martin and exported as revenue. This
served as a cash cow to lift the U.S. out of the remnants of the Great
Depression and prop the U.S. up as a world leader in economics after the war.
Thirdly, by spending on arms and armed forces, it also demonstrates countries’
commitment and capability to maintain peace in the region, which would earn
the interest of superpowers. During the Cold War, Sukarno’s Republican
Army received generous funding from the US government to counter the
perceived and growing communist threats, even when the country was still
barely making ends meet after its independence war and 80% of Indonesians
were still stuck at the bottom of the global value chain. However, the
6
KiasuExamPaper.com
eexpenditure
xppeendituure on
on military
miilitaryy pproved d tto
o bbe a worthy investment when it proved to
tthe
he USUS that
that IIndonesia
ndoneesiia ccould
ould sserve
erve as a bulwark of peace against expansionists
ccommunists
ommu unists iin
n SSoutheast
outheasst A sia, hhence
Asia, enc the US directly provided foreign aid to
p rop up
prop up the
thhe rregime.
egime. C onseequentially Indonesia’s problem of hyperinflation was
Consequentially,
solved and it even emerged as a regional economic powerhouse a few years
later. Therefore, the reconciliatory nature between military expenditure and
economic problems would justify such expenditure.
All in all, the justification for military expenditure can be argued to be

necessary even in times of economic hardship because in the grand scheme of
things, some sacrifices have to be made for long term peace and prosperity.
This conflict, however, must be carefully balanced in order to progress
smoothly into the future.
Teacher’s Comments:
A well-considered response that shows effective arrangement of ideas
to present a convincing stance. Good job choosing examples that
immediately address the question demands and the main point in
each paragraph. Overall, a thoughtful and well-executed essay!
KiasuExamPaper.com
2
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa er 1 Leia Teo Wen Hui | 17S03N
Do you agree that fa

fashion serves no real value?
The image conjured upon hearing the term ‘fashion’ is most likely one of glitz
and glamour—stick-thin models clad in flowing, diaphanous gowns, adorned by
shimmering jewellery and strutting down the runway while eclectic house
music plays in the background. As such, many hold the assumption that fashion
is superficial and holds no real significance. It is capricious, ever changing with
the times and has no true purpose other than to cater to the fickle palate of
elite fashionistas, who constantly crave and hunt after the latest ‘avant-grade’
outfits from their favourite designers of haute couture. Yet to condemn fashion
as having no real value simply based on what it appears to be on the surface is
superficial. While certain types of fashion really do hold no significance, the
macrocosm of fashion does in fact provide several benefits in different aspects
that reflect how purposeful it truly is.
It must first be conceded that the most typical idea of fashion—haute couture—
does not have much real significance other than aesthetic beauty at times
because of its high cost and lack of functionality. How many can afford the
exorbitantly-priced floor-length dresses with plunging necklines or the dégradé
pleated tulle gowns hot off the runway from the House of Dior’s latest
Spring/Summer collection? Better yet, how many would want (or dare) to clad
themselves in quirkily–cut tops and uncomfortably tight wrap skirts even if they
were produced by Italy’s top designers? These types of fashion are highly
impractical and unaffordable, especially for the middle-class and lower-income
class of the population, who would rather go to work in comfortable, practical
clothing rather than stand out like a sore thumb while suffocating from the
discomfort simultaneously. Paired with uncomfortable climate conditions such
as the intense humidity and heat in Singapore, such garments are all the more
out of the question. In this sense, this ‘haute couture’ type of fashion serves no
real value as it is both impractical and expensive, and therefore not applicable
to a majority of society.
KiasuExamPaper.com
On
O n deeper
deeeper aanalysis,
nalysis, itt sshould
hould also
also be acknowledged as a fact that fashion
ffosters
osters a culture
culture of
of consumerism,
connsumerism, resulting
re in a waste of resources.
Fashionistas
Fashionistas, both the elite and main mainstream alike, are constantly hopping from
trend to trend and dressing according to the latest fads in order to seem ‘cool’
and ‘trendy’, a form of flaunting of their supposed social status. These
ephemeral, fleeting trends often result in a massive wastage of clothing and
resources. Studies have revealed that several million tonnes of relatively new,
functional clothing are discarded or donated (more of the former than the
latter) every year. It does not help that popular fashion labels are feeding this
fashion frenzy in an attempt to keep their clothes lines fresh and entice people
to purchase more—H&M introduces hundreds of new outfits every week,
promptly disposing of older designs. This throw-away culture perpetuated by
society and firms not only erodes the valued principles of prudency and
thriftiness, but also promotes materialism and places a strain on resources like
cotton which could have been devoted to other industries which directly
improve society’s welfare. Hence, seeing as how fashion encourages
consumerism and wastes resources, both detrimental for society, fashion may
once again appear to lack real purpose.
However, to simply write off fashion as useless based on the above arguments
would be a benighted oversight of the benefits fashion brings to society, in
both tangible and intangible aspects.
To begin with, fashion is a powerful instrument in making statements that

express certain causes or beliefs, especially when the appropriate attire is
selected. People, first and foremost, perceive others to be of a certain
personality or the like based on their clothes, as supported by countless
research. Fashion is expression on the individual level and collective level. In
the social arena, large groups of people often garb themselves in the same
collective attire to make a stand for particular social causes they believe in.
Take for instance the Pink Dot Movement in Singapore, where thousands
gather en masse in pink-coloured clothing to show their support for the LGBT
community and ensure that these individuals do not feel left out or socially
ostracised in a relatively more conservative society. This social statement is
one of such great impact that even tourist participate in it to express their
support as a collective body. With meaningful social statements like these
KiasuExamPaper.com
made
m adee ppossible
osssible tthrough
hro g fashion,, hhow
ough ow could one possibly argue that it serves no
re
eal vvalue?
real alu
ue?
IIn
n aaddition,
ddition, on
on a more
more global
global scale,
scale, statements
s made through appropriate
d ressing furth
dressing her diplomatic ties betw
further between countries. When diplomats or
persons of power visit other countries, there exists an inherent cultural
barrier between the visiting country and the host country. This is all the more
pertinent in today’s increasingly plural societies, where culture-related issues
are becoming trickier and can easily spark conflict. This is where the donning
of appropriate clothing comes in— dressing in a certain fashion that pays
tribute to the host country reflects the visiting country’s appreciation and
respects for the host country’s culture, easing tensions and allowing for the
smoother progression of amicable discussions, even if intangibly so. A case in
point would be Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, who wore a dress
featuring the emblematic silver fern when visiting New Zealand, aiding in the
bridging of cultural gaps intangibly. Therefore, one cannot dismiss fashion as
serving no real valve when it is capable of fostering closer ties between
countries through the use of appropriate attire.
In a more tangible aspect, the fashion industry provides employment to millions

across the globe, lifting many out of poverty. It is no head-turning fact that the
fashion industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry, what with countless designer
brands and labels as well as multi-national retail chains around the world today.
Italy, home to renowned brands like Dolce & Gabbana, has a fashion industry
worth 83.6 billion Euros. Many of these major fashion labels often require
massive amount of manpower due to the sheer amount of clothing churned
out by mass production every year. Less developed countries also benefit as
some of the work is outsourced to them, allowing numerous individuals to be
lifted out of unemployment as these jobs typically only require low skill levels.
This directly impacts large numbers of people globally who have benefitted
from the employment opportunities provided by the fashion industry and now
have higher standards of living. Moreover, fashion has also taken up the mantle
in protecting the dying breed of artisans by providing them with jobs.
Designers travel to places like South Africa to employ the locals there to
create intricate handmade crafts and to South Asia to tap on the centuries-old
techniques in hand–dyed fabric. The employment provided not only allows
these minority artisans to put food on table, but also brings the beauty of their
technique and craft to an international stage, where many more will be able to
10
KiasuExamPaper.com
vvalue
aluee aand
d aappreciate
nd culture
ppreciaate their cultu
pp and skills, giving new meaning to their craft.
ure an
A
Ass ssuch,
uch, ffashion
ashion most
most definitely
definitelyy has
has real significance in this aspect.
FFinally,
inally, ffashion
ashion is
is hhighly
ighlyy ccapable
apable of pushing
p the boundaries of today, especially in
tterms
erms of creativity and inclusivity.
inclusivity Fashion
Fa is an outlet for expression, and the
kind of expression is entirely up to one’s imagination—there are no rules, no
right or wrong when it comes to fashion. As such, many are coming up with
the most interesting of ideas and concepts, manifested in their unique and
funky outfits. Rihanna’s overflowing ’Flower Dress’ at the Met Gala this year is
one such example. It was created not simply as an aesthetic piece, but rather
as an interpretation of renowned Japanese designer Rei Kawakubo’s past
collection of artworks. In addition, while fashion only used to be dominated by
the West, it is now accessible and celebrated by those of different countries as
well, as reflected by Turkey’s International Modest Fashion Week, which
featured headscarves and conservative dressing. This goes to show how
fashion has grown to encompass and embrace more cultures and societies
despite differences in dressing. Hence, fashion serves real value in this sense.
In the final analysis, fashion may seem to be superficial and wasteful on the
surface, but it in fact has much more purpose to it such as in terms of
providing employment and making meaningful statements. Ultimately, fashion
does serve real value as its benefits are far-ranging and impact both tangibly
and intangibly, but whether this true purpose it holds can be appreciated by
the world or not depends on how we choose to portray it.
Comments:
A very comprehensive analysis that has taken advantage of a wide range of examples
to highlight insight and deep evaluation and use of a good range of expressions that
lacks pretension.
Teacher’s comments:
A very comprehensive analysis that has taken advantage of a wide

range of examples to highlight insight and deep evaluation. Use of a
good range of expressions that lack pretension.
11
KiasuExamPaper.com
3
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6|
6| GP C
CT2
T2 | Pa
P
Pape
Paper
ape
er 1 Chloe Chia | 17S03N
To
T o what
wh
hat extent
extent can
ca we rely on the media to
be truthful in today’s world?
It would have been an unassuming day for the staff and patrons at a
Washington D.C. pizzeria during election season, if it were not for the sudden
intrusion of an armed gunman and the subsequent shot he fired. He was
quickly taken into custody (willingly, even), where the reasons cited for his
actions were revealed upon questioning. They were ‘noble’ – he had garnered
much disturbing information about this pizzeria, from some far right new
sources and programs, and was convinced that Clinton and her aides were
operating a paedophilic sex ring within its doors.The above incident, dubbed as
“Pizzagate”, left many people shocked, and questions about tackling fake news
came to prominence as it became clear that as fake as some news were, they
could exact very real consequences. So, the question that many now ask is: is
the media of today trustworthy? On my part, I am inclined to think that while
the larger part of information provided by modern media outlets can still be
relied upon as true, some caution is necessary as not all media sources deserve
the same amount of trust.
Due to the apparent rise in frequency and incidents of fake news, as brought to
light during the 2016 US presidential election, many media outlets have placed
an increased emphasis on the factual accuracy of what they report. This is true
of some of the established media outlets worldwide, including countries such
as Germany, where concerns about the honesty of the media was questioned
after some news outlets reported the occurrence of a violent incident
happening on New Year’s Eve when there was none. In response to readers’
heightened awareness of the questionable veracity of whatever the media
presents due to events such as the above, however, established news outlets
have taken the initiative to become more reliable sources. For example, in the
context of Germany, even news outlets with rather dubious reputations – such
as that of a local tabloid known for its salacious reporting and penchant for
sensationalising – have publicly vouched to maintain journalistic integrity in its
subsequent issues. To that end, some of these outlets are working with home-
grown organisations such as Correctiv (based in Germany) to confirm the factual
accuracy of the stories they publish. This is thus reflective of a concerted effort
12
KiasuExamPaper.com
tto o present
prresen
p nt ttruthful
ruthfull media coverage
coverrage despite mistakes previous made, and
ssuggests
uggests tthat
hat tthey
hey will
will maintain a suf
maintain sufficient level of truth to be relied upon in
ttimes
imes too ccome.
ome.
However today’ world of journalism, due to political,

However, the truth is that in today’s
social or economic incentives or problems, there are many occasions in which
the information presented might not be wholly true. To this end, news from
the media should thus be taken with a pinch of salt, with the level of trust in
the media being accorded to it by the reader in terms of the context whereby
the journalist wrote a particular article, or even the country from which the
news outlet in question has its headquarters.
Political context is of key relevance in ascertaining if a media outlet presents

truthful news and can hence be relied upon, in terms of the amount of a state
control present in the society. In authoritarian regimes, or even democracies
less liberal in nature, the media can end up being a mere mouthpiece of the
government that fails to act as an effective fourth estate by omitting reports on
any, for instance, results from a failed policy that might reflect poorly on the
government. This is the concern that many human rights watch officials have
about the situation in countries as Russia, China, and increasingly, Turkey. In
Turkey, the shuttering of popular newspapers such as Zaman, and the
replacement of its original office of editors with one of Erdogan’s office’s own
choosing led to the newspaper’s complete reversal in stance from critical to
very supportive of the current government, with articles that gloss over any
views perceived to be dissident in nature. Of course, this can be taken to new
extremes when it comes to countries such as North Korea, where any media
coverage may be completely false, and presented simply to further the
interests of the government. Fortunately, even if the trend is worrying, many
countries today still have relatively better levels of freedom of the press.
However, it is nonetheless a factor to be considered as a reason why some
media should not be taken at face-value.
The same can also be said for objectives of alternative news media outlets
aside from journalistic purposes of presenting and reporting on the truths of
today’s world. Especially pertinent in today’s age is the financial incentive that
comes with higher ratings. Due to the saturation of the news and media
industry, rival firms have taken to increasingly sensationalised, exaggerated or
even utterly fake news with zero factual accuracy in order to generate
revenue. A rather infamous, yet recent example would be the decision of Fox
13
KiasuExamPaper.com
News
N ews toto post
post anan article
article on thee death
deat of a Democratic politician who belonged
tto
o tthe
he D emocraaticc N
Democratic ational Committee
National Commi (DNC), who the article accused of
having
h aviingg lleaked
eaked inside
insside information
ormation about
info abo Clinton and other DNC members
during
d uring tthehee election
eleection season
seaason to
to WWikiLeaks,
ikiL rather than attributing it to Russian
hackers. Not one to be one-upped, other far right news sources soon put up
articles boldly headlined with titles along the lines of “Information leak an inside
job, not by Russians!”, which generated much readership due to their
controversial nature. The crux of the issue is that all of this was done with any
fact-checking on the truth of the matter, in which these turned out to be
baseless accusations. It can thus be seen that sometimes, the tendency of
larger-than-life stories to be popular and the wishes of some media outlets to
exploit this causes them to present fake news that should not be fully relied
upon. This is especially true for media that tends to be very extreme in its bias,
whether on partisan, ethnic or gender lines, and should be considered when
evaluating the reliability of some media.
Lastly, there is also the possibility that journalists may not be able to present the
whole truth due to concerns about their safety, if they are writing about
controversial or sensitive topics. One saddening example would be of journalists
in Mexico covering the ongoing drug war there. Recently, a prolific journalist
known as Javier Valdez Cardenas, famous for such in-depth pieces on “narcos”
(referring to drug cartels), was shot dead with twelve bullets in his chest. On
the same day, two other journalists were targeted, one of whom (Jonathan
Rodriguez) also died, marking more than two hundred deaths of journalists
stationed in Mexico since the beginning of the drug war. The death of Jarvez was
especially chilling due to the time of his death having coincided with his recent
article detailing the violent rise to power of a member within the Sinaloa Cartel
– indicative, perhaps, of lines that should not be crossed; of truths that should
not be told. In dangerous situations such as the above, then, relying on the media
to be truthful in reporting about these matters is perhaps too cruel and idealistic
a hope. After all, the people behind the media too have their own families to
raise and lives to lead, and if threatened, they cannot be fully blamed if they
should decide to post untruths and omit information rather than risk their lives.
In conclusion, it is definitely understandable today to have a jaded outlook on

the media and the veracity of its news. However, there have still been
commendable efforts made towards the goal of preserving journalistic integrity,
and hence not all media should be disregarded as untrustworthy. After all, every
14
KiasuExamPaper.com
fflock
ockk aass it
lo its own
ts o wn black sheep,
bllack sheep p, and
annd instead
in of generalising, we could instead dole
o ut our
out our reliance
reliance aand
nd ttrust
rust inn m e
media based on outlets’ specific contexts in
reporting
repportin ng aabout
boutt particular
particulaar iissues,
ssues, oonn a case-by-case basis.
Chloe, I’m delighted by the sensitive treatment in which you formed

your analysis around your cautious optimism about reliance on the
media. I’d liked to see how you’d analysed how the western film
industry can possibly portray other regions and nationalities. All the
best.
15
KiasuExamPaper.com
4
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa p r1 Chiow Hui Min | 17S03N
““Urban
Urb
ban
n lliving
iviing and
an
nd nature
na
ature cannot
can co-exist in modern cities today.
Do you agree?
The urban environment and nature have a tendency to be seen as opposing and
fundamentally unable to co-exist due to their inherent characteristics. This was
exemplified in the recent cases of animal culling in Singapore, targeting macaques,
which bit humans, and jungle fowl, who were disrupting the area around them
due to their excessively loud crowing in the wee hours of the morning. It is no
wonder, then, that there are claims that urban living and nature cannot co-exist
in cities today, given ever-increasing population densities and a need for
expansion. However, to then say that they are completely unable to co-exist is
too quick a judgement, especially today, when the importance of nature is
becoming increasingly accepted. Therefore, while there are difficulties to
peaceful and effective coexistence between urban living and nature, it is possible
for both to be integrated in cities today.
Critics of the idea often point to the innate characteristics of urban living, and
as a result, cities, as reasons for why coexistence is impossible. Urban living is
associated with a high population density style of living, surrounded by others,
and with a focus on jobs away from the primary sector of resource extraction,
which includes industries like agriculture. Urban living tends to require a greater
consumption of resources from nature than rural environments, as people often
drive and electricity is being used in huge amounts thanks to giant shopping malls
or billboards, among other reasons. The same critics like to say that it is
inevitable for there to be a clash between humans and nature in the urban
context, especially as the cities today are continually having to expand to cater
to influxes of people. It is true that urban living often results in the concretisation
of lands, with green spaces bulldozed in favour of roads, or in a notable case in
Singapore, a prospective MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) line. Even though issues of
preserving the nature that has sat at the Central Catchment Reserve, in the very
heart of the city, arose, the final decision was that merely an environmental risk
assessment would be carried out, rather than a cessation of the project. This
clearly seems to denote that ultimately, the needs of the urban population will
outweigh the benefits of nature, forcing nature out of the urban context.
16
KiasuExamPaper.com
Additionally,
A ddittionaally, others
otherrs raise the ppoint of view that urban living, with highly planned
oint o
aandnd m anicured environments,
manicured envvirronments, does
does not even allow for the existence of nature
iinn iits truest
ruestt fform.
ts tr m. In thiss case,
orm case, nnature
atur is regarded to be ‘wild’, free from human
ttouch
ouch or or interaction.
innteraction. Therefore,
Thereefore, the truly ‘wild’ nature cannot co-exist, or even
exist, in urban living situations. This line of argument does hold water, as we
look to the situations of urban life in cities today. Given that people travel all
over the city, the parts of nature that are a threat to human safety surely cannot
co-exist in a city. If a tiger were to suddenly appear and walk through the streets
of London, it would certainly spark panic, and there would be a threat not only
to the humans, but also to the tiger, as people could shoot at or hurt it in their
panic. Hence, an attempt to co-exist with the more dangerous forms of nature
could cause harm to befall both those engaged in urban living and nature itself.
While it is unlikely to see a tiger in modern cities today, there are plenty of
other initially unassuming creatures or plants that are dangerous to humans. 1
Urban living thus cannot co-exist with a truly wild nature, because it would
require fundamental shifts in the way we live, to the point where characteristics
of urban living could be lost. Another example to bring up would be the
thousands of skyscraper buildings, a relatively modern construction, in cities
worldwide, which have sprung up due to the urban lifestyle that requires many
to live in apartments and small houses instead of mansions, for reasons of space
and money. These skyscrapers pose a danger to many of the animals in nature,
and we see this manifested in how thousands of birds are reported each year as
having slammed into the glass windows of these structures, having been unable
to distinguish them as hazards. So, we see why many claim that urban living and
nature cannot co-exist.2
However, it seems that many of these issues that lead critics to condemn the
idea of coexistence stem from the fact that modern cities have often tried to
overcome, not work with, the forces of nature. Instead of considering ways for
urban living that incorporate or integrate with nature, many efforts to improve
and build cities and urban living tend to work against, or without regard for,
1
Editor’s comments: Awkward substantiation in an otherwise well-developed essay. While this idea is valid,
there are certainly cities where animals abound (e.g. scavenging foxes in English towns and cities and
venomous snakes in Melbourne city)! Moreover, the tiger example is a speculative one. Do avoid such types of
substantiation where possible.
2
Editor’s comments: Substantiation for this paragraph could be more convincing. Skyscrapers are not the only
element of urban living threatening wildlife; loss of habitat, vehicles and toxic substances put out to control
pests all inhibit animal populations in urban communities.
17
KiasuExamPaper.com
nature,
n aturre, and
nd this
an this can
caan generate th the
he imimpression that urban living and nature are at
o dds, when
odds, when they
they do
do nnot
ot have
have toto bebe. Take Singapore’s Kallang-Bishan floodway
aass an ex
example.
xample. IItt w
was originally
as ori iginally a rriver,
ive before it was channelized and concretised
iinto
nto a sstraight drain
traaight drain forr tthe
he ppurposes
urposes of stormwater runoff. This did alleviate the
issue of flooding that had plagued the area, and served as a boon for some to
claim that nature had to be conquered for the urban dwellers in the area to
continue living well. However, this was only a stop-gap measure, and in years
where nature’s forces resulted in heavier precipitation, the channel overflowed
and inundated some of the houses anyway. This led the Singapore government
to try and change the way they were approaching the issue, leading to the
destruction of the concrete man-made channel, back to a gently meandering
river, with wildlife and vegetation. Now, the area serves as an extremely effective
catchment area and floodplain, nature taking the water that the asphalt roads
and bricked pavements cannot handle. This is an exemplary ideal of coexistence,
where nature acts to preserve the urban living concept by protecting the houses
and urban dwellers when it is given the chance and worked with, instead of
against. This is not the only case, as the destruction of dams near cities in the
U.S. and Latin America have also shown that cities and those living in them can
benefit when working in tandem and co-existing with nature. 3 Hence,
coexistence between urban living and nature is definitely possible, and may be
even more so in modern cities, where technological advancement has made it
possible to engineer effective solutions like the aforementioned turning of the
channel of concrete back into a sustainable river through creative engineering.
Another reason that urban living and nature can, and indeed should, co-exist is
the increasing acceptance of nature as a necessity to good living, due to recent
scientific progress showing its benefits. Urban living no longer excludes nature,
but has seen a shift towards its inclusion instead. In many modern cities, the idea
of urban living has often grown to include the provision of green spaces for
leisure and recreation, and in light of that, it may be becoming increasingly
possible for them to co-exist in the cities of today as mindsets change to
accommodate. This shift can be seen in a range of cities worldwide, though it
has been less recent for some. Many Scandinavian countries, including Norway
and Sweden, have sought to increase the greenery and nature in their cities
through schemes and policies that encourage planners to ensure that every
3
Not clear how dam removal shows the possibility of co-existence. Some elaboration required e.g. this has
been undertaken by urban communities for the sake of environmental rehabilitation and has succeeded in
boosting aquatic life such as salmon as they regain access to their original spawning grounds.
18
KiasuExamPaper.com
person
p ersoon inn tthe
he city
cityy has
has access to o a ggreen
re space in their neighbourhood. Singapore
ttoo,
oo, seeks
seeks tthis,
his, with
witth a ggoal
oal o
off 880%
0% oof the population to be living within 1km of a
ggreen
reen sspace.
pacee. It iiss a phen
phenomenon
nomenon eeven ve present in developing countries like India
orr Brazil,
o Brazil, bboth
o th ooff which
whhich have implemented urban planning that accounts for
have impl
green spaces in their cities today. Therefore, as mindsets and ideas of what
constitute urban living change, especially important in today’s context as studies
show that exposure to greenery and nature has health benefits, the possibility
of coexistence between urban living and nature is set to increase.
Finally, the idea of coexistence implies that there is some form of give and take
involved in the process. While parts of nature may be difficult to reconcile with
the concept of urban living, others are less so. Urban living is regarded by many
to mean a lifestyle centred in the city, with traits such as convenience and a fast-
pace. These characteristics are not, in fact, at odds to certain aspects of nature,
especially if the existence of said nature brings benefit to those leading urban
lifestyles. Keeping an herb garden or beehive, as is allowed in the state of New
York in the United States, can actually be beneficial to the urban dwellers. In fact,
since these types of cultivation do not need much space, which tends to be
scarce in modern cities, and additionally, can provide a source of income or
eliminate the need to purchase certain goods, which may reduce the costs of
living that are generally very high in most modern cities, they might actually be a
complement and advantage in tackling urban living and its associated problems,
rather than something to be eradicated or avoided. Hence, nature may not be
at odds to urban living, provided that the subset of nature involved fits nicely
into the existing characteristics that define urban living, like convenience or high
population densities, and the ability to co-exist may be greater if people are
more aware of this.
To conclude, while the initial response of many may be to dismiss the idea of
nature being able to co-exist with urban living, and the sentiment does have a
point of successful contention when the nature in question cannot exist together
with the other characteristics of urban living, we cannot say coexistence is
entirely impossible and cannot be done. Rather, there are many ways for nature
and urban living to successfully co-exist, especially in today’s world of advancing
technology and changing mindsets, provided that effort is made to ensure that
they are complementarily implemented, instead of at odds.
19
KiasuExamPaper.com
Teachers’
T eac Comments:
cherrs’ Comm
ments:
An
A n iintelligent discussion
nttelligent d ussion incorporating
iscu incorp a detailed discussion of cited
e xamples tthat
examples hat artistically
arttistically evaluated
eva key points in a paragraph.
Relevant
Relevant, coherent and well-considered.
well-co Some suggestions/questions
were inserted for a possible more intensive discussion. However,
supporting details could be more developed. Balance and detail could
be more convincing and well-supported.
20
KiasuExamPaper.com
5
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa p r1 Lee Jia Ming | 17S06E
““Urban
Urb
ban
n lliving
iviing and
an
nd nature
na
ature cannot
can co-exist in modern cities today.
Do you agree?
In recent years, environmental degradation and pollution issues have increasingly

become more pressing. We have seen widespread destruction of nature to give
way to the development of urban areas we live in today. As the world’s
population increases further, together with the increase in the proportion of
people living in cities, there is cause for concern on whether nature will further
be impacted in the future. At first glance, in the modern cities that we live in
today, it may seem that nature is a necessary trade-off to the energy-intensive
urban lifestyle. However, I believe that it is possible for nature and urban living
to coexist in these cities today, as not only have improvements in technology
helped us integrate eco-friendly features into our daily life, nature has also
evolved to be an integral part of many urban dwellers’ lifestyles.
Granted, as people in modern cities become increasingly affluent in recent times,

urban lifestyles have also become more energy-intensive, harming our natural
environment. The age of globalisation has allowed for unrestricted movements
of people and goods, facilitating global trade and economic growth. The bulk of
this growth benefits those living in cities, particularly those who usually work in
higher value-added industries such as service or research. Thus, we can see many
of these cities growing at unprecedented rates, especially cities like Shanghai
which were previously less developed. As such, there is a growing proportion of
people in the middle-income group who have greater purchasing power and
desire to consume more goods in their urban lifestyles. 4For instance, Beijing has
seen a boom in the number of vehicles on the road as many move towards
ownership of their own private vehicles for transport. This causes problems,
especially for the environment. As the number of cars increase, together with
congestion issues due to the lack of supporting road infrastructure, the air in
Beijing has worsened and seen increasing bouts of severe pollution. The air
quality in Beijing has deteriorated to dangerous levels, part of which has been
contributed by the problem of excessive road usage. On a more general scale,
4
This rather long sentence is not directly relevant to the tension between urbanisation and nature;
it can be omitted so that you focus on the transportation infrastructure characteristic of cities.
21
KiasuExamPaper.com
iincreased
ncreeasedd consumption
consum mption byy ho households
ouseh require increased manufacturing and
pr roductio
production on toto meet
meeet these
these demands,
demands further contributing to carbon emissions
iinto
ntto thee atmosphere.
atmospphere. Thus,Thus, w wee can
can see that as people have higher incomes,
nature
n ature suffers
sufffers aass a resu
result
ult off iincreased
ncrease consumption, showing that there is indeed
a trade-off between nature and urban living especially in the world today.
However, in today’s world, the development of technology has allowed for those
living in cities to incorporate environmental-friendly practices in their lifestyles,
integrating nature into modern living. In recent years, there have been
developments in technology which have not only increased the energy efficiency
of machines, but also reduced their costs as well. Home appliances, including
fridges, televisions and air-conditioning units, have since added eco-features,
such as Panasonic’s air-conditioners which use intelligent sensors to monitor
room conditions to minimise energy consumption. Lowered prices have reduced
cost barriers of such products, making them more price competitive with
traditional models. This has facilitated more and more people to adopt them
instead, building eco-friendly initiatives into their lives. Another example would
be electric and hybrid vehicles, which have seen prices go down due to
improvements in battery technology. Although currently, these cars may still not
be widely adopted due to other factors like fuel ranges or accessibility of
supporting infrastructure, the increasing trend of people buying cards like the
Toyota Prius paint an optimistic outlook for such eco-friendly features in daily
transport. Thus, we can see that, in many cities today, improvements in
technology have made it much easier for the individual to contribute to nature
in their lifestyles, reducing their harmful impact on the environment. It acts as a
mitigating factor against current trends such as carbon dioxide emissions and
global warming, showing that caring for nature can indeed coexist with an urban
lifestyle today.
Moreover, in today’s highly competitive world, increasing stress levels have given
an opportunity for nature to play a recreational role in the lives of city dwellers.
As the world becomes more competitive especially due to competition from
foreign countries, many workers and students experience increasing stress levels
to edge out over their rivals. Such stress often leads to negative impacts on
psychological health and well-being if left unattended to. Thus, many people living
in cities often seek ways to relieve the stress from work, through engaging in
recreational activities. In many countries, nature then plays a huge role in
22
KiasuExamPaper.com
providing
p roviidingg a w way
ay for
or people to ccalm
fo alm their mind and take a break away from the
hig gh-rise uurban
high-rise rban la andscape. N
landscape. ature, as a form of recreation, has become an
Nature,
iintegral
ntteggrall ppart
arrt off urban
urban living
liiving for
for many.
ma For example, in New York City, many
w ould visit
would visitt the
the Central
Centraal P arrk tto
Park o have a stroll or hang out with their peers due to
its scenic nature away from the buzz in the city. This is prevalent in other major
cities too, such as London with Hyde Park or Singapore with multiple parks and
nature reserves spread across the country. There are other ways of engaging
with nature too. For instance, there is a growing trend of people engaging in
urban farming, where they can engage in recreational gardening in empty plots
of land in the city like on rooftop gardens. Thus, we can see that nature has
grown to coexist with urban lifestyles, by providing a means of recreation and
relaxation in the stressful world we live in today.
Also, nature needs to coexist with urban living in some cases where countries
rely on it for economic development, especially in the face of global competition
today. Countries often need to maintain an edge over their competitors to
encourage economic growth and development, to improve their citizens’
standard of living. To do so, they need to tap on their strengths to set them
apart from everyone else, and for some countries, nature plays an important
part in their economic development. For example, some countries especially
those in the Caribbean and South America do rely on ecotourism for economic
opportunities and growth. Should nature be sacrificed in such places, these
countries would face a decline of the tourist industry and lose out on their
competitive advantage and potential economic growth.5 Another example would
be Singapore, which has prided herself as a “City in a Garden” as a source of
attraction for tourists. National sights integrated with the urban lifestyle play a
part in attracting them, such as at Gardens by the Bay or Marina Barrage. Being
extremely essential for the future growth and economic development of a
country,6 nature thus sometimes need to be integrated into urban living, for
there are few other choices. There needs to be sustainable development, to
ensure that nature, a precious resource for them, do not get depleted or
destroyed. Urban living then needs to coexist with nature in these cases,
especially when global competition is intense, for economic growth.
5
Support here is problematic given that while you are discussing entire countries rather than urban
communities per se and urban lifestyles.
6
These examples suffer from the same weakness as the above; this paragraph could be more clearly relevant.
23
KiasuExamPaper.com
IIn conclusion,
n coonclussion, although
altho g in manyy ccases,
ough ase urban living causes a trade-off with nature,
itt iss still
still possible
possible for
for them
them to to coexist
coe in today’s times. The development of
ttechnology
echhnollogy hashas eenabled
nabled usus to
to ddo
o sso,
o stress from work has allowed it to evolve
tto
o fulfil
fulfiil a rrecreational
ecreational nneed,
d, aand
eed nd for some, in the face of global competition, they
just simply need to preserve such a core resource. Although trends seem gloomy
with respect to nature as cities continue to develop, I am sure that in the future,
the situation will definitely improve as we see more of nature in our daily lives.
Teachers’ Comments:
C – A pleasurable read as you’ve provided a well thought-out and

balanced treatment on the issue at hand with a range of arguments to
support your thesis. Substantiation is also wide-ranging to boot. Well
done.
L – Fairly fluent and very coherently organised with the exceptions of
minor slips (perhaps due to timed/exam conditions and stress factors).
Last content paragraph could be more directly relevant but nothing
that detracts from the merits of the script on the whole.
24
KiasuExamPaper.com
6
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa er 1 Marcus Choo | 17S06K
‘‘At
At a time
time when
wheen the world
wo needs capable leadership,
many politicians do not seem up to the job.’ Do you agree?
Our world is changing at an unprecedented pace, and with the advent of

technology such as the internet, our world is becoming more interconnected.
Hence, countries increasingly need competent leadership to navigate a
complex web of internal and external issues facing every country, and political
leaders need to have the foresight to deal with the many threats facing
countries and the international community. However, it increasingly seems that
many politicians are not up to this difficult task.
Some may argue that there are some politicians who are capable enough to
make bold moves to help their country and the international community
navigate through difficult situations. These leaders are unfazed by the many
crises facing the world today and are able to make sound decisions that help to
alleviate these issues. For example, when faced with the serious humanitarian
crisis that is the Syrian refugee crisis, German chancellor Angela Merkel made
the bold decision to open Germany’s borders to these refugees who were
fleeing the devastating war in Syria. This greatly helped to reduce the number
of refugees that were fleeing their country and could not find a new home,
helping to alleviate a serious crisis. In addition, her decision set an example for
other countries to follow, encouraging other neighbouring countries to accept
more refugees as well. Accepting a large number of refugees with different
backgrounds and cultures into a country and helping them to integrate
undoubtedly posed a large logistic challenge and put a great strain on a
country’s budget and hence only a capable leader would be willing to take such
a bold step and be able to manage the situation well. This shows that even in
the light of the increasingly serious and difficult crises facing the international
community today, there are some leaders who are willing and are capable
enough to take bold steps to alleviate seemingly insurmountable crises.
However, political leaders so capable are seemingly becoming the minority

today. In an attempt to gain power, many politicians are taking the easy route
out – refusing to face global problems head on and instead pandering to
popular sentiments within a country. In many Western countries today,
25
KiasuExamPaper.com
politicians
p olitiicianss aare
re ssticking head
ad iin
tickkingg their hea n the sand, refusing to acknowledge global
isssues and
issues and promising
promisiing to to close
close off ttheir
off he country to the outside world. One of
tthe
he more
mo ore high
high pprofile incidents
rofile inccidents wwasas the United Kingdom’s vote to exit the
European
E uropean Union,
Union, alsoalso known
know wn as Brexit.
Bre Politicians such as Boris Johnson and
Nigel Farage capitalised on the British people’s fear of immigrants and refugees,
choosing to ignore the growing crisis just outside their borders and going with
the popular sentiment to close the country’s borders and stop the flow of
immigrants and refugees into the U.K. These politicians do not want to face
the growing refugee crisis, trying to win people over using popular sentiments
instead, showing that they are incapable of not only dealing effectively with a
serious crisis, but also winning voters over with tangible and feasible policies to
improve their lives. The pro-Brexit politicians managed to push their agenda
through, which may lead to undesirable consequences to people outside and
within the U.K. Such politicians who are incapable of facing the numerous
issues facing the global community today are not unique to the U.K. They gain
power by pushing populist, protectionist policies that are unsustainable in the
long run, showing that in a time where international cooperation and aid are
required, there are politicians who are seemingly incapable of stepping up to
the plate.
In addition, in today’s hyper-partisan world, politicians are incapable of

cooperating to solve serious issues within their country and within the
international community. Instead, these leaders choose to place more emphasis
on their party’s agenda than on the betterment of a country’s citizens. Crucial
issues like healthcare and government budget are being used to push partisan
goals, and as a result have less chance of getting passed into law. This results in
citizens suffering from inadequate government aid in crucial areas such as
healthcare and infrastructure. For example, politicians in the United States
Congress are sharply divided along party lines, and do not cooperate to pass
bills that are beneficial to its citizens. Americans pay the highest amount for
healthcare in the world, and yet it took 45 years before a comprehensive
healthcare bill was signed into law by President Obama. Politicians from the
opposition party refused to support the bill, and employed strategies like
filibustering to prevent the passage of the bill. This eventually led to a
shutdown of the U.S. government, as Congress could not pass a government
budget that funds Obamacare. The shutdown led to other consequences such
as government employees having to work without receiving a salary. Evidently,
despite the fact that the American people were facing serious issues such as a
26
KiasuExamPaper.com
poor
p oorr healthcare system,
heallthcare syystem, U.S. politicians
politic were incapable of seeing the bigger
piccture and
picture annd ccould
ould only
only ffocus
ocus onn ppetty
ett partisan politics, resulting in the
American
A mericcan people
peopple having
havingg to
to suffer
suffer from
fro insufficient government aid. Such short-
ssighted
ighteed politicians
pooliticians aare detrimental
re d etriimental to the well-being and satisfaction of a
country’s citizens, and are definitely not up to the job.
Countries across the world are facing serious national security threats, and
with the rapid spread of terrorist groups such as ISIS, the need for
international cooperation is more crucial than ever. However, short-sighted
politicians are unable to see past the potential disadvantages to their country,
and impede the international community’s efforts to stamp out such threats.
One such example is the current U.S. president, Donald Trump, threatening to
pull out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which is a cooperation
between America and European countries to bolster security, because he felt
that the U.S. was putting in too much money into a programme that he feels
does not benefit the U.S. Such myopic views threaten to disrupt international
cooperation, and may reduce the ability of America and European countries to
protect their citizens from foreign attacks. In a more recent incident, Donald
Trump revealed classified information about ISIS from a U.S. ally to Russian
officials to boast about the intelligence he receives. This is another short-
sighted move that threatens the cooperation amongst global intelligence
communities. Intelligence agencies may be reluctant to share information with
the U.S. in future, impeding the U.S. government’s ability to effectively counter
terrorist organisations such as ISIS in the future. Incapable, and arguably
incompetent leadership leads to a country not being able to protect itself
against the complex and multifaceted threats facing the world today. Politicians
such as Donald Trump who make short-sighted decisions not only threaten the
security of their own country, but they also expose other countries to the risk
of a terror attack as well, and hence, they are not up to the job of protecting
their citizens against security threats.
In conclusion, there seems to be a trend of politicians who are not able to

navigate the complex world today after being elected into office. They pander
to populist sentiments, shy away from the outside world and are too short-
sighted to see the bigger picture. It is now up to the checks and balances of a
country’s government to effectively counter the effects of incapable and
incompetent leaders, and hopefully help the country better cope with the
complex world we live in today.
27
KiasuExamPaper.com
Teacher’s
T each Comments:
her’s C omments:
O
On n tthe
he whole,
whole, you a
you nsw
wered th
answered the question. Your argument is also
clear. However, it would be to your advantage to broaden your
scope. You seem to be well versed with American politics but a
range of countries would broaden your scope. E.g. India where Modi
is promoting Hindu nationalistic sentiments among the population –
creating tension at a time where he should be promoting economic
policies to further India’s development.
28
KiasuExamPaper.com
7
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa er 1 Cerise Lim Yin Xin | 17S03L
‘‘The
The idea
ide
ea th
that
hat scienc
science and technology will solve
our problems is a delusion.’ Discuss.
Science and technology has often been regarded as the main drive behind
humanity’s progress. Through medical advancements to smartphone
technology, science and technology has increased our lifespan, brought people
from all over the world closer than before and is largely the reason behind
why mankind has managed to survive and thrive over thousands of years. Yet,
is science and technology the panacea to all our problems? Perhaps the idea
that science and technology alone will solve the challenges of today may reflect
some naivety, or even delusion, on our part because scientific advancement
alone cannot solve our problems, is sometimes the cause of our problems and
is ultimately a tool without a proper moral guide.
First and foremost, it must be conceded that science and technology has
improved our lives in ways beyond what we would have thought was humanly
possible. Where in pre-historic days we faced hunger and starvation unless we
hunt or gather enough food, our study of science has allowed us to successfully
domesticate animals and grow crops sustainably to effectively satisfy our basic
need for food in a convenient and safe manner. Ventures into medical
technology have also helped us extend our life expectancy by decades, and
have progressed to the point where we are able to eradicate diseases, like the
smallpox virus, completely,whereas a hundred years ago, people of the
medieval age were susceptible to disfigurement and death by the virus. In more
contemporary terms, even though scientists have not found an absolute cure
to cancer yet, they have been able to develop treatments for previously
deemed fatal forms of brain cancers, saving lives that would otherwise be
doomed to a fatal end. Indeed, scientific advancement is undeniably a powerful
force that propels tremendous improvements to our quality of life. This is
made possible by the methodical and logical process of the scientific method,
that allows us to identify the root causes of problems and effectively target
them. As science allows us to deepen our understanding of the workings of the
world in a highly logical and systematic manner, we are able to pinpoint
underlying issues and correct what have gone wrong. For instance, the mad-
cow disease that struck livestock and people who consumed the diseased cows
29
KiasuExamPaper.com
rremained
emaained d rrampant
ampantt in its initial stages
stages as people were unable to identify the
vvector
ecttor of
of transmission.
transmisssio
on . W ithouut a clear
Without c understanding of the problem, people
w ere helpless
were heelpless to
o prevent
prevennt tthe
he spread
spread of the disease. Through scientific research,
tthe
he culprit
culpritt was
was identified
identifiied to
o be
be prions,
prion and with that, doctors were able to
provide a proper diagnosis and contain the spread of the virus. The ability of
science to facilitate problem solving in this manner makes it undeniably one of
the biggest forces for change and solving our problems.
Science and technology also seems promising in solving our problems despite
some of its creations leading to environmental and health problems as it
seemingly provides solutions to the problems it has caused. The golden age of
scientific advancements in the 1920s that spanned for decades led to the
invention and subsequent widespread use of machines such as fuel-driven cars
and machinery for mass manufacturing. This propelled transportation to the
next level and sated our desire for material goods. Years later, we now feel its
detrimental effects: high carbon emissions from an overpopulation of cars as
well as from a booming manufacturing industry that boasted rows of factories
dutifully puffing out greenhouse gases. This has led to a rapid rise in global
average temperatures, a phenomenon known as global warming. In China,
where the manufacturing industry is still thriving, levels of smog have risen so
high that in city areas like Beijing, doctors have seen a significant rise in lung
cancer cases. Yet, all is not lost, for green technology is rising in popularity and
promises to reverse the damage done. Many green innovations have emerged
such as Tesla’s electric cars, that guarantees zero carbon foot print. Not only
that, solar and hydroelectric power are all alternative sources of energy that
have shown tangible potential to be able to replace environmentally
detrimental practices of using fuel energy. In this way, even though scientific
advancements have created new problems in its place, there seems to be still a
glimmer of hope that science and technology can be the answer to our
problems.
Yet, one alarming trend we see is that many of such innovations do not end up
being actively utilised to solve the problems they claim to solve. Hence the
ideal that science and technology can singlehandedly solve our problems
border on delusion, as many other human factors come into play for it to
effectively solve the problems we face. For instance, the aforementioned
sources of renewable energy have shown the promise of entirely replacing our
current sources of petroleum oil, natural gas and coal. Yet, bureaucracies and
30
KiasuExamPaper.com
power
p oweer struggles
strrugg have
gglees ha impeded
ave imp peded tthe he iimplementation of such solutions: oil
reemains a vvaluable
remains aluablee ttrade
rade ccommodity
ommodity and the OPEC participant countries
ccontinue
onttinu
ue to
to ensure
ensuure that iitt iiss sso.
o. Furthermore,
Furt the US has also recently
d iscovered
discovered d new
new shale
shale oil
oil fields
fieelds that sent oil prices further tumbling down. With
oil prices remaining low, it is hard for the relevant industries to turn to
greener renewable energy as they may lose their competitiveness by incurring
higher cost. If we remain blind to other such limiting factors and do not target
them, we will only end up developing more solutions, that sometimes lead to
more problems, without ever solving the issue in question. Since the
development of hydroelectric power, more dangerous sources of energy like
nuclear energy have been developed, which brings with it the threat of
radiation poisoning as a trade-off for zero pollution. Hence, it would be myopic
to suggest that science and technology can be the solution to problems when
there is a multitude of other factors that need to be addressed.
Moreover, science and technology is sometimes itself the creator of problems.

Science and technology has the unique ability to bring our ideas to life, be it for
better or worse. For instance, recent developments in genetic cloning have
outraged many as it appears to violate the sanctity and value of life. To see
human and animal embryos treated as lab experiments and to later make
proposals to harvest them for medical use make us question our morality and
our views on life. Similarly, scientific advancement has facilitated the
development of nuclear weapon and has arguably opened new avenues for
more bloodshed. On hindsight, perhaps such developments should have been
stopped in its infancy. In this light, science and technology enables us to make
our ideas possible but it does not provide any guidelines on what should be the
limit for scientific research.
Ultimately, pressing challenges today have become increasingly ideological and

political. Such problems cannot, at its root, be solved by technology. There
have been continual advancements in science and technology for the past
thousands of years. Admittedly, while there is still room for advancement,
increasing life expectancy and developing faster forms of transport and
communication are no longer relevant pursuits today. Instead, the greatest
concerns today are not due to the lack of scientific solutions, but it is the lack
of accessibility to these solutions. A case in point would be the prevalent
hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa, where many still suffer from malnutrition and
starvation, even though mankind has long science developed ways of efficient
31
KiasuExamPaper.com
ffood
ood production.
prodductioon. In In fact, develo
developed
oped countries have been reported to throw
aaway
way eenough
nough ffood
ood d from
from o verproduc
overproduction and wastage to provide for such
people
p eop ple who
who still
stilll live
live in hunger.
hunger. Hence
Henc there is a need for a shift in focus to
ffacilitating
acillittating tthe
he uusage
sage off eexisting scientific solutions to those who lack access to
xissting scien
it due to political or economic problems. For many of these countries,
widespread corruption remains the root cause of their poverty and until that is
solved, people in these countries are helpless even with new technological
innovations – like Golden Rice – being developed.
All in all, science and technology perhaps rightfully remains a powerful force
for improving human life and eliminating suffering in this world. It is however,
rather delusional to suggest that it can, by itself, solve our problems, given that
much of today’s problems are multidimensional and do not such call for
technical answers but require management of political and economic struggles
of stakeholders. Science and technology at its core is merely a force multiplier
to bring humanity to greater heights; but to find our way there, we would need
to be guided by our own moral instincts and our understanding of human
nature.
Marker’s comments:
A mature analysis that took into account the key terms of the
question and also made strong and accurate evaluative statements.
32
KiasuExamPaper.com
8
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa er 1 Clara Keng Hui Lin | 17S06E
‘‘The
The idea
ide
ea th
that
hat scienc
science and technology will solve
our problems is a delusion.’ Discuss.
Not long ago, researchers from the Institute of Bioengineering and

Nanotechnology (IBN) in Singapore published ground-breaking research on the
use of nanofibers to solidify and hence clean up oil spills. Indeed, astounding
innovations such as this have cemented the position of science and technology
as a front-runner in solving the problems of our modern day. Yet other
technologies have also raised problems for humankind, such as ethical and social
implications, casting doubts as to whether science and technology truly is the
game-changer it is heralded to be. In my opinion, while science and technology
can offer promising progress, it often does not live up to our expectation of
solving world challenges and hence this idea is most certainly a delusion. Science
and technology can create more problems, because it is agenda-driven and it is
inadequate in coming up with effective solutions.
Some may argue that science and technology have provided effective solutions
to certain challenges we face today, and this gives the impression to some that
it does live up to what many tout it to be. Technologies developed through
research often target specific problems, and these innovations can improve
people’s lives. To take a case in point, we can consider the research recently
done in Singapore on water-cleaning technologies. Researchers have developed
a ‘teabag’ coated with activated carbon from spent coffee, which effectively
removes heavy metal ions and common bacteria strains found in contaminated
water. The ease of access to this product in developing countries that are
plagued by water pollution issues will undeniably mark a significant step forward
in providing clean water for these people. This is merely one of the many
scientific and technological advancements that stands as a promising solution to
our problems. It is unsurprising that some believe that science is doing its job in
resolving challenges.
However, it is imperative to recognise that this is but the tip of the iceberg. In a
bid to solve many of today’s challenges, science actually churns out more
problems in the process. This is largely due to the fast pace of scientific and
33
KiasuExamPaper.com
ttechnological
echn developments
nologgical d with
eveeloppments wit which
th wh humankind is struggling to keep up with.
N
No o technology
technology ex xemmplifies this
exemplifies this m
more clearly than artificial intelligence (AI).
While
W hile intended
intended d tto automate
o auto omate pprocesses
roc for greater convenience for people,
llatest AII d
atest A developments
evelopmentss instead
insttead pose considerable threats to people’s livelihoods.
Robots programmed to perform menial, repetitive tasks have left lower-skilled
workers in the lurch, struggling to stay relevant in today’s rapidly evolving
economy. Already, robots have replaced food and beverage staff in Japan and
South Korea. Evidently, people expect that science and technology solves
problems such as a manpower crunch, but it instead results in further negative
repercussions as we are woefully unprepared for such advancements. On the
surface, AI technology may seem to help free up manpower for higher-skilled
jobs, but the negative impact that has resulted means that this hope cannot be
further from the truth.
In addition, while science and technology research led by companies often have
noble goals of benefitting humankind, the reality remains that the effectiveness
of such efforts are limited due to the pursuit of other agendas. For instance, in
drug technology, companies developing the drug are often motivated by profit-
maximization aims, resulting in sky-high drug prices that may be simply
unaffordable for people who need it most. Solvadi is a drug sold for more than
a few tens of thousands of dollars for a month-long dosage, yet a similar
alternative can be found for just a thousand dollars. Such price hikes are
commonplace as companies desire profit. It is therefore evident that in theory,
while such advancements can solve medical problems, the reality is not as rosy.
Restricted access to such technology and products, especially for people from
poorer socio-economic backgrounds, stands as a major obstacle in making them
an effective solution to such problems. Thus, it can only be said that this
perception that science and technology can solve our problems is nothing more
than a naïve dream for some.
Moreover, it would be a folly to not recognize that many of our social problems
of today cannot be easily resolved by science and technology. While science may
provide part of the solution, certain root causes are deeply mired in human
nature. Consider the Paralysis Challenge of the Longitude Prize a few years back.
Research was proposed to focus on the development of rehabilitation
technology for paralyzed patients. This technology would include innovations
like exoskeletons and with such technology, patients could recover their natural
movement. This was heralded as a major step forward in helping these patients
34
KiasuExamPaper.com
rreintegrate
einttegratte into
into their
thheir communities
communiities and a rejoin normal life. However, while such
a ttechnology
echnology d oess iindeed
does ndeed rrestore
esto
ore no
normalcy for the patients to a certain extent,
ssocial
ociial sscience experts
cience exxperts ppoint
oint ttoo tthe
he fact that much of the stigma these patients
ffaced
aced wwas due
as due tto
o ssociety’s
ocieety’s ttreatment
reatment of disabled people. The discrimination they
faced meant they were often shunned by others. It is painfully obvious that in
changing such deep-rooted mindsets, science and technology cannot do the trick.
Where social problems are so deeply intertwined with human nature, science
and technology may seem to be able to solve the problem but in fact cannot
tackle its root causes. Therefore, the idea that science and technology will solve
our problems is a mistaken mindset in such situations.
All in all, while science and technology has provided some solutions, it remains
more often than not regrettably limited. The power of science and technology
in solving our challenges is, in my opinion, a delusion. This is not to discount the
immense value of science and technology, but perhaps a timely wake-up call that
it will not be the solution to everything, as much as we hope for it to be.
Teacher’s comments
C: A strong response in part due to being sensitive to the key word in

the question & showing how there appears to be a misplaced faith in
S&T as we gloss over its limitations.
L: A very pleasurable read – very fluent, precise & script is free of

errors. Cogently & coherently structured, aided by apt vocabulary
choice & complex (but not convoluted) structures.
35
KiasuExamPaper.com
9
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa er 1 Clara-Ann Cheng Ling | 17S06E
‘Th
‘The
he fact
facct that poverty
p still exists today
is an embarrassment to mankind.’ Discuss.
Great leaps in the development of science and technology have always

catalysed shifts in eras of human history, and it is no wonder that the Stone,
Iron and Bronze Ages were named after the new materials developed and used
in those times. Technological developments have historically solved many of
the problems humankind has faced, enabling us to generate immense amounts
of energy and increase the human lifespan through advancements in agriculture
technology and medical science. However, the problems we face today are
complex and multifaceted – from inequality, climate change, war and conflict to
food distribution, each of these issues cannot be divorced from the specific
political and social circumstances that they are located in. While science and
technology may provide ways to solve such problems, to believe that it alone is
the panacea would be foolish, for the underlying causes of such issues cannot
be tackled by science.
It is undeniable that science does enable us to solve many challenges we face in

our world today. Advancements in medical science such as the countless
vaccines developed to prevent disease spread and treatments to cure illnesses
have had a palpable impact on the world we live in. Green energy is
burgeoning, due to costs of such technology rapidly diminishing due to
technological development. Science and technology does herald much promise
for the future – 55.6% of the world’s additional power generated originated
from clean energy sources such as wind and solar power. Germany announced
in 2016 that they are close to having all their energy needs supplied sustainably.
It does seem, on first glance, that science and technology will solve the
problems that we face in our world today, given the potential for benefit it
brings to human societies.
Despite the solutions science and technology provides to the problems that
we face, some problems are far more complex due to social and political
circumstances that hinder these solutions from being effectively applied to
benefit society. Metaphorically speaking, while science may provide the water
with which we may use to fight fires, these efforts remain fruitless if there exist
36
KiasuExamPaper.com
iinsufficient nt iinfrastructure
nsuffficien nfrastrructure to douse
doouse tthe flames effectively. Social situations such
aass ppoverty
overty may
may prevent
prrevent access
access to to medical
m care, and inequality entails staggering
aamounts
mountts ofof ffood
oodd wastagge iin
wastage n rrich
ich nnations
at but starving, malnourished populations
iin
n others.
others. TThehe w orld d
world oes have
does have the medical resources to treat people, and the
agricultural technology to supply sufficient food – yet social circumstances
dampen the potential of science and technology. Millions of people are afflicted
by HIV/AIDs in African countries, yet when there exist effective anti-retroviral
treatments that can allow people to live full, meaningful lives, the prohibitively
high costs, fear of social stigma and falsehoods propagated by their leaders
prevent people from access to such treatments. Their societies are being
hollowed from the inside by a preventable, treatable disease, yet the average
lifespan of the Gambians has fallen by 20 years over the past 2 decades. Science
and technology alone cannot solve such problems that are deeply entrenched
in the workings of these societies. Political and social change needs to occur
first, in order to allow technology to brighten the lives of people within such
societies.
Other societies face problems that simply cannot be solved by science. War
and conflict stemming from clashes in belief and ideology, and the human
propensity towards using violence as a self-defense mechanism are not issues
that a magical pill or new, cutting-edge technology can resolve. Indeed, science
can solve the symptoms of such issues. Surveillance, strong military defence
forces and advanced weaponry may be able to eliminate threats of terrorism,
but they only serve to tackle the symptoms of such problems rather than the
root cause. Rifts in society and faultlines of race and class simply cannot be
eliminated by science. The roots of inequality – human selfishness, greed and a
capitalist economy cannot be eliminated by science and technology. Such things
that are core to our humanity and rooted in the functionings of our society are
not solved by science. Even as technology has given us abundance in material
wealth, the capitalist system makes it such that any increase lands mostly in the
hands of the wealthy and powerful. It is no wonder, then, that problems of
food wastage and distribution are rampant in our world. To blindly take for
granted that our problems will be solved by science, then, would be naïve, or
even harmful, because much greater efforts have to be taken by our societies
to take steps towards a better world.
However, what may truly be the most dangerous stance to take is the
denouncement of science and technology itself. In a political climate where
37
KiasuExamPaper.com
sscience
cien nce and
annd technology
techno ology manipulated
gy is easilyy man by those in power, if science and
ttechnology
echnology is is not
not relied
relied uupon
pon and
and ut
utilized, its power to solve our problems will
only
o nlly further
furrther bbee diminished.
diminisheed. One
One need
nee only look to the climate change
rrenouncers
enouncerrs iin n tthe
he United
Unitted SStates
tates and the budget cuts for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA )and the Environmental
Protection Agency brought about by the Trump administration to perceive the
growing trend of anti-intellectualism in the world today. It is the denial of
science that truly endangers humankind’s ability to progress. If the funding and
resources for research and development are cut, following this trend, its ability
to provide solutions and bring benefit will be decreased further. Furthermore,
the uncertainties posed by corporations and lobbyist groups influencing and
manipulating scientific research for their benefit pose further threat – research
institutions in the United States have manufactured “results” proving the non-
existence of global warming, and corporations in the meat industry only fund
research that denies the threat of rearing of livestock to the environment. This
erodes the reliability of science in our world. As such, the ability for science
and technology to solve our problems is further limited.
Ultimately, the development of science and technology cannot be separated

from the environment it is in. Technology can cure illness, generate energy and
supply food, but its powers are limited by the circumstances that we apply it in.
Political and social instability and conflict cannot be resolved by science and
technology. To believe in the absolute power of science and technology would
be foolish. Perhaps, the more important question here would be how to best
enable the development of and application of technology we have access to, by
first assessing and tackling the social and political circumstances that surround
the problem.
Marker’s Comments:
C- Response reveals sensitivity to the actual demands of the question

and also supported by relevant substantiation
L- Very fluent and cogently and coherently put forth with minor
slips. Vocabulary choice is apt and essay structure is very sound.
38
KiasuExamPaper.com
10
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa er 1 Tan Li Kang | 17S03N
‘Th
‘The
he fact
facct that poverty
We live in an era where Mankind lauds its marvelous achievements of having

sent people to space and created Artificial Intelligence programmes with the
ability to beat top world players in games like chess and Go. It seems
inconceivable that a race that has achieved so much still has one-seventh of its
population surviving, or rather, trying to survive on one dollar a day. Each year,
millions of children die from starvation and malnutrition brought on by poverty
and the inability to obtain or purchase the bare necessities. Despite being
mentioned in both the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable
Development Goals, poverty is still rampant in many forms worldwide. While
some feel that the existence of poverty is not an issue so serious that it is an
embarrassment, I feel that its existence is a reflection of something deeper
which we ought to feel shame about.
Those who claim that describing the existence of poverty as an embarrassment

is going too far do have their reasons for saying so. After all, there is no shame
in acknowledging that a problem exists, as long as one follows up with actions
to mitigate or solve the problem. Awareness of a social issue is often the first
step in solving it and making the world a better place. Given that some
advancements have been made in this area recently, how then can we call such
an issue an embarrassment to mankind? Around the world, non-governmental
organisations work around the clock for the betterment of the poor in less
fortunate countries, and governments also throw their weight behind programs
such as the UN World Food Programme. To prevent poverty from taking its
toll in terms of negatively affecting one’s health, countries have utilised
technology to create inventions such as the long-lasting insecticide-treated
mosquito nets, which are a major improvement over previous iterations of
mosquito nets, as well as the LifeStraw, to provide clean drinking water. With
these, families currently living in poverty are able to spend their resources such
as time and money on areas such as education to get the out of the poverty
cycle. For example, after a deal between some African countries and Chinese
corporations enabled the construction of a power grid with subsidised cost of
usage to African families, a study found that families with access to the power
39
KiasuExamPaper.com
ggrid were
rid w eree 225% more
5% mo ore likelyy to start
start a business which brought in an average of
$10 000 a year.
$1000 year. Not
Nott too
to
oo bad,
bad, in
in a rregion
egi where the average household income is
$700
$ 700 a year. More
yearr. Mor importantly,
re impoortantly, cchildren
hild were found to show a 78% increase in
tterms
erms ooff time
time sspent
pent onn sstudies, crucial step in lifting them out of the cycle of
tuudies, a cr
poverty. Hence, with non-governmental organisations, governments and
sometimes even corporations throwing their weight behind the cause of
eradicating poverty, and making actual, real improvements to the lives of
people, to simply dismiss poverty as a blemish on our record that we ought to
be embarrassed by does not do justice to the efforts of the aforementioned
parties.
Moreover, the nature of poverty makes it a difficult problem to solve in the

first place. If there is no shame in admitting the existence of a problem, then
what more can be said about one that is intrinsically difficult to eliminate?
Poverty is a tough nut to crack because it represents a vicious cycle – one of
unemployment leading to lack of time to pursue one’s or allow one’s children
to pursue further studies, which leads to unemployment due to lack of
qualifications, and so on. This endless, self-perpetuating cycle is very hard to
break out of, and is further exacerbated by the fact that the poor often live in
rural slums which are inaccessible, making it very difficult for aid to reach
them. How many organisations would forge on, completely undeterred, if they
knew their job entailed 3 days of hiking in a place with no roads or railways,
while carrying all their aid packages and supplies just to deliver them to a rural
village in Uganda? Hence, proponents of the view that the existence of poverty
is not an embarrassment take the stand that a difficult problem which we are
working hard to solve is not something we should hang our heads over, but
rather forge ahead with our heads held high knowing that we are working for a
worthy cause. After all, it is nigh impossible to completely eradicate poverty,
even in today’s world, hence it is no cause for embarrassment.
I feel that while poverty itself is not an embarrassment, it does reflect some
deeper social issues which should trigger a wave of emotion including some
element of shame. Firstly, if we examine the causes of poverty, we find that
one of the contributing factors is corruption in the governments managing the
areas where poverty is widespread. To date, more than a trillion US dollars
have been sent to Africa, and it seems incredulous that so many Africans are
still living in poverty today despite the cumulative contributions of so many
bodies up till now. The reason is simple; many officials grease the palms of a
40
KiasuExamPaper.com
ffew ew around
aroun nd tthem,
hem, and
and then helpp tthemselves
he to a share of this pie known as an
““aid
aid ppackage”.
ackage”. M innd you,
Mind you, these
these are
are not
n the stereotypical evil megacorporations
llooking
ookkingg to
to maximise
maxiimise profits;
ofits; these
pro these are
a officials and civil servants who are
ssupposed
upposed to to be
be working
workinng for
or the
fo the betterment
bet of their countrymen. The
nepotism that goes on behind the scenes to get family members into positions
of power so that they can siphon money from well-intentioned donations from
abroad is simply disappointing. Even heads-of-state, such as the previous
presidents of Zaire and Zambia, are sometimes in it for their personal gain,
such as when they pocketed millions of dollars meant for their people. A
blatant lack of integrity is a matter which one should feel ashamed of, especially
when it has allowed a problem as serious as poverty to persist up till now.
Secondly, the plight of some of our fellow humans is being capitalised on by

other seeking to exploit these circumstances. This act of utilising someone
else’s situation to one’s advantage is not something we should ignore. For
example, to access the oil in Ogoniland, Nigeria, oil giant Shell decided to enter
by means of obtaining a drilling permit in the mid-1950s. However, they
employed few, if any locals, and when they did, they often paid them the
minimum wage. Moreover, to cut costs, Shell pipelines were not maintained
often, exposing the locals to oil spills and fires. This was devastating
considering that the primary source of income for many was through fishing.
Never mind that Shell turned a blind eye to the state of affairs in Ogoniland,
what made it unacceptable was that they exploited the fact that locals were
uneducated and could not take this issue to higher authorities for their own
profit, while pushing the locals deeper into poverty by destroying their means
of livelihood. To date, many locals there still live in poverty, and tracking the
development of poverty and its continued existence in such a place is honestly
quite saddening. Elsewhere, cases like this are also not unheard of. Chinese
corporations, for example, often enter countries with an uneducated populace,
making use of them to mine out valuable resources such as diamonds, and then
pull out, leaving the people without their source of income and the country
with a gutted mining sector. Hence, this form of opportunistic exploitation
resulting in poverty today is something which we ought to reflect on.
Lastly, the fact that poverty exists amidst such flippant spending on other
sectors is also a cause for shame. Governments have found to be pouring vast
sums into other areas such as non-essential research when there are more
pressing problems such as poverty. For example, India’s space programme,
41
KiasuExamPaper.com
with
w ith its
its billions
billions of dollars
dollars of fun funding,
nding is still going strong despite poverty-
innduced starvation
induced starvationn al
allll aacross
cross IIndia.
ndia. T
This reflects that the government might be
prioritising
p space
rioritissing sp research
pacee resear rch oover
ver tthe
he well-being of its own people. Let us not
fforget
orget tthat while
hatt w hile there
theree aareree llofty goals to aim for, and yes, those goals are
ofty goa
worth achieving, each dollar we mindlessly pour in is one less meal for a
person who might not have eaten in a few days. Hence, the existence of
poverty amidst the budgets of governments today is another cause for
concern, reflection, and embarrassment.
In conclusion, I feel that the existence of poverty today is a reflection of more

serious social issues which should prompt a round of serious introspection on
our part as one human race. Poverty may not be a very relatable issue for
some of us who go home every day knowing that there will be food on the
table, but out there, there are real people who grapple with these issues on a
daily basis. However, as anyone who was caught red-handed as a toddler
would know, shame is a natural reaction to having done something wrong, or
not well enough, but it does not condemn us to an eternity of wrongdoing, just
as children learn from their mistakes to become better versions of themselves
Marker’s comments:
A strong analysis that has observed key terms in the essay and be
able to reflect the appropriate tone and angle of argument to the
examples cited.
42
KiasuExamPaper.com
11
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa er 1 Zhang Zhi | 17S06E
‘Th
‘The
he fact
facct that poverty
“Poverty is the worst form of violence,”Mahatma Gandhi once proclaimed,

alluding to the debilitating nature of poverty as well as its egregious impacts on
the impoverished and the society at large. Today, it would not be an
exaggeration to claim that poverty remains one of the greatest scourges of
mankind. Despite multiple efforts from both the public and private sectors in
combatting the perennial issue, more than 100 million people still live under the
US$1.25 poverty line. This eventually gives rise to the claim that the existence
of poverty today represents an utter embarrassment and an eternal stigma, in
view of the favourable conditions for the elimination of poverty in today’s world.
However, I beg to differ as such a statement does no justice to the existing
efforts on the ground, nor does it accurately capture the multifarious nature of
the problem. In fact, poverty as a social issue may never be truly eliminated,
given the multitude contributing factors as well as their sheer complexity, as this
essay endeavours to argue.
Prima facie, it does appear that with favourable technological and social changes
in today’s world, the eradication of global poverty could be easily achieved and
the fact that widespread poverty persists signals a grand embarrassment to
mankind. Indeed, technological advancements achieved in the past few decades
serve to augment world productivity and enable broad-based improvements in
standard of living, hence setting a favourable condition for the elimination of
poverty. Characterised by high-yield variety of crops, enhanced irrigation
technologies and modern management techniques, the Green Revolution in the
1960s made possible quantum leaps in global food production and provided a
sustainable way in feeding the world population. This has immense impact on
reducing poverty since with greater food security and stable output, people may
allocate their scarce land resources to alternative productive uses while
enhanced nourishment levels may enable higher productivity of workers, which
raises standard of living and extricates people out of poverty. Meanwhile,
improvements in transportation technologies as well as increasing global
interconnectedness have made possible reallocations of global resources
43
KiasuExamPaper.com
tthrough
hrou ugh aid
aid programmes
proggrrammes to the thhe ppoor,
o hence enabling developing societies to
tthrive
hrivve and
and move
move outoutt of
of poverty,
poverty, de despite possible constraints in environmental
eendowments
nd
dowm ments andd natural
naturaal rresources.
esources With technology and globalisation setting
up
u p a favourable
urable eenvironment
favou onment for
nviro the elimination of poverty, it might be argued
for th
that the world today is better-equipped than ever to eradicate poverty once and
for all. However, widespread poverty still persists in today’s world --- an
indication of our human inability to adequately address such a social problem
even when powerful tools are readily available. Hence, in view of the stark
contrast between entrenched poverty and favourable technological changes, it
seems justified to argue that the existence of poverty today represents an
embarrassment to mankind.
In fact, if we are to take a deeper look at the efforts on the ground today, one
would realise that the failure to eradicate poverty sometimes steams from
entrenched institutional problems and government failures, rendering our
unsatisfactory performance in eliminating poverty an utter embarrassment to
ourselves. In many developing societies where poverty is rife, ingrained
governmental red tape and corruption often stand in the way of the alleviation
of poverty. For example, it is estimated that more than 40% of international aid
to African countries such as Malawi and Zambia are siphoned off by government
officials overseeing their distribution, depriving such countries of the best hope
of extricating ourselves out of poverty. International aid provided by institutions
such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), while well-intentioned, come
with unrealistic conditions such as forced liberalisation of capital markets which
imposed grave harm on recipient nations due to the great uncertainty
introduced to their nascent financial systems, contributing to a series of crisis
and ultimately, poverty in these societies. Hence, it may be argued that the fact
that poverty still exists today is nothing but a testimony to prevalent
governmental inefficiencies and institutional problems, which represent a source
of utter embarrassment to ourselves.
However, by espousing the belief that the existence of poverty is nothing but an
utter embarrassment, proponents of the given statement risk adopting a
simplistic treatment of poverty as an issue that could be fully eliminated with
advanced technological solutions, impeccable governance and collective will by
the international community. Yet one must take note that poverty is, in fact, a
multifaceted issue with a whole range of contributing factors. As such, it would
be hard to believe that poverty can ever be eliminated even with the best
44
KiasuExamPaper.com
ttechnological
echnnologgical ssolutions
oluutions and clean,clean efficient government, given the sheer
m ultitude of
multitude of intersecting
interssecting ccauses,
auses, som
some of which are clearly beyond our capacity
ttoo be
be fully
ully rresolved.
fu esollved. In SSyria,
yria, mmultipartite
ultipa conflicts of political interests as well as
tthe
he emergence
emerggence of of religious
religgiouss ffundamentalism
undame have led to prolonged warfare that
have plunged two-thirds of the Syrian population into absolute poverty. Also
prominent are the ravage of natural disasters, as exemplified by the 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami which is believed to have left more than 100 million people
under the poverty line. In some developed societies, poverty may simply be a
result of personal sloth and the lack of clear ambitions, which is best illustrated
by the millions of poor in countries such as the U.S and Australia, who rely
heavily on meagre state pensions and refuse to make full use of available
opportunities to upgrade their skills and break free of the poverty cycle. Hence,
the eradication of poverty would demand the total elimination of all possible
contributing factors --- an uphill battle with little possibility of winning given the
sheer complexity of many of the contributing causes. Some forms of poverty see
their roots in human flaws and natural disasters which have no absolute cure,
while others result from deep-seated problems within the human society such
as conflicts and discriminations which are not likely to be fully resolved even in
the long-term. Hence, the mere fact that poverty still exists today should not be
interpreted as a form of embarrassment to mankind since poverty itself is a
problem that simply cannot be fully eradicated.
Moreover, the world today should hardly be embarrassed by the mere

persistence of poverty, given the various efforts made that have successfully
addressed poverty on the ground. With greater awareness of the adverse
impacts of poverty, governments worldwide have taken active steps to tackle its
root-causes and alleviate the suffering of impoverished people. In addition,
recognising the damaging effects of widespread poverty on the world economy,
the international community has joined hands to tackle the perennial problem,
in the hope of reducing global poverty and achieving tangible improvements in
standard of living. In response to deep-seated poverty at the Horn of Africa, the
Backpack Farmers Programme was rolled out as a collaborative project between
local governments and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to
educate farmers on sustainable farming practices and has since achieved
sustained success in improving average income in participating countries. Indeed,
such measures are far from perfect and can never fully resolve poverty given its
complex nature. However, it would be hard to deny that government measures
and international efforts have achieved commendable progress in alleviating the
45
KiasuExamPaper.com
eextent
xten nt and
nd scale
an scale of
of ppoverty.
povertyy. A After
fter all, the number of impoverished people in
A friica hhas
Africa as hhalved
alved inn tthe
he ppast
astt 330
0 years while countries such as China and
SSingapore
inggappore aare
re pprime
rime exa amples o
examples off co
countries that have pulled themselves out of
w idespreaad poverty.
widespread poverty. R atheer tthan
Rather han be
being embarrassed by the mere existence of
poverty, the global community should in fact, take genuine pride in its substantial
achievements.
In conclusion, it would be naïve to declare that the mere existence of poverty

today is an embarrassment to mankind, due to the complex nature of poverty
as well as real progress achieved on the ground. Rather than the existence of
poverty itself, perhaps a more fitting source of embarrassment would be the
failures and imperfections in measures introduced to combat poverty, as those
are the real stumbling blocks which stand in the way of human being’s perennial
quest to “make poverty history”.
Teacher’s Comment:
A pleasurable read obviously. Very knowledgeable on the given topic

as evidenced by the range of examples cited and the arguments put
forth. Apt and ambitious vocabulary with some minor slips that do
not detract from overall merit. Ability to deal with complex sentence
structures is evident.
46
KiasuExamPaper.com
12
2017
20 17 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pa
ape
er 2 | Passage
Pass
Pa sssag
JJohn
Jo
ohn
h Taylor
Tay
aylor writes
writititess about
wr aboout thee benefits
benef
efititss of
o teaching
teach students to think for themselves.
When the philosopher Karl Popper, writing in Unended Quest (1974), dreamed of his ideal
school, he imagined a place where learning takes the form of free, intrinsically interesting
enquiry, rather than mere exam preparation. I share Popper’s dream. I think that school
becomes more enjoyable and more effective when, instead of simply teaching students to
pass examinations, they teach students to think for themselves.
To understand how this can be achieved, we need to remember something that Socrates
drew our attention to long ago, but which in our eagerness to turn schools into engines of
economic productivity we have forgotten, namely that education is a philosophical process.
It begins with questioning, proceeds by enquiry, and moves in the direction of deeper
understanding. The journey of enquiry is powered by critical reflection, discussion and
debate. It leads not to final answers but to a greater appreciation of the limits of our
knowledge, both of the world around us and of our own mysterious selves.
It is this appreciation that Socrates termed ‘wisdom’. He tried to goad his fellow Athenians
into beginning to think for themselves by questioning them so as to expose their limited
understanding of ideas that were central to their lives, such as justice or courage.
Undertaken in a constructive spirit, Socratic questioning becomes the starting point for a
process of enquiry as we seek to expand our understanding. It can also engender humility
and openness to the ideas of others.
If schools are to fulfil their purpose, they cannot afford to neglect this philosophical
dimension of learning. They need to see themselves not simply as dispensers of the
knowledge necessary for success in the world of work but as communities of philosophical
reflection, spaces where students can explore the meaning of what they learn, and think for
themselves about what it means to live well. Understood in these terms, philosophical
education is not a discrete subject but an approach to learning that finds application at all
points of the curriculum.
Philosophical education begins when a teacher adopts the role of ‘Socratic mentor’. In a
conventional classroom, the teacher is seen as the provider of the information that students
‘need to know’, this being determined by the requirements of whatever test looms on the
horizon. Philosophical education takes the form of shared enquiry, a process in which the
teacher guides the class towards understanding through dialogue, not monologue.
The template for such enquiry is provided by Socrates, who once demonstrated that he
could, by a process of questioning, teach geometry to a slave-boy who had not been taught
any mathematics previously. When teachers adopt the role of Socratic mentors, their
questioning of students stimulates them to think for themselves about the problem at hand,
rather than passively absorbing information.
Yet, despite the evident advantages of teaching students to think philosophically, the
dominant mode of education remains staunchly traditional and of a particularly inhibitive
nature. The world over, the joy of learning is being sucked out and education reduced to a
47
KiasuExamPaper.com
dry,
d
dr
ry,
y soulless
sou
oullesss pr pprocess
occcess of
o o ‘delivery
‘delivery’ y’ off pprescribed
resc
re syllabus material, dictated by the demands of
standardised
st
tanda
dard
da
ard
r ised eed
d tests
tes
e ttss andnd
d aaiming
imin
im ing to ssatisfy
atis
atisfy
fy extrinsically
ex determined outcome measures.
As wwell
ellll as
as being
bei
eingn d damaging
amaaging ngg tto
o stsstudents’
tud
udenents intellectual development, this dry, assessment-driven
ts’ int
approach
ap
ppr
proa
roa
oacchh iiss so
ssocially
oci
cial
ia lyy aand
n pol
nd politically
lit
itic
ical
ally
ly uundesirable.
ndesir
d The result of teaching where there is no
scop
sc ope for
op
scope fo or ch hal
alleeng
nge,
challenge, ee,, disagrereeemen
disagreement entt oorr the open exploration of alternative answers to life’s
deepest questions is closed minds: dulled intellects lacking a capacity to question what they
are told. Schools that operate in this way fail to equip young people with the defensive
capability of reflecting critically on the constant flow of electronic information and
misinformation in which we are all immersed. They risk raising a generation ill-equipped to
resist the allure of simplistic, populist or subversive rhetoric.
In contrast, students who are taught to think for themselves are better prepared for life:
better equipped to face the uncertainties of the future, to think creatively and
independently, and to play a role as active, reflective citizens in democratic decision-making
processes. Though the focus of philosophical education lies beyond employability, it
nevertheless offers benefits here too, for in a fast-changing, unpredictable world, the
workplace of the future needs not well-trained sheep but creative, independent thinkers;
confident individuals who don’t expect someone else to tell them the right answer but who
know how to think for themselves and find new ways forward.
Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth leading. Yet for students now, education
means a life of examination. The best thing that could happen in schools is not further
reform of structures, processes, curriculum or assessment, but a rediscovery of the Socratic
purpose of education, a vision which prompted him to sit with slave-boy, poet and politician
alike, to inspire them to start thinking for themselves.
A striking feature of these Socratic conversations is that the slave-boy comes out rather
better than the supposedly more knowledgeable Athenian leaders. He emerges from his
encounter with Socrates having learned some mathematics, while those meant to know
what they were talking about became confounded by their inability to give an account of
what they thought they knew.
This tells us something important about the range and power of Socratic dialogue in
education. You might have thought that such methods work only with privileged, highly
articulate high performers in the education system. But you’d be wrong. Recent research
into the effects of Socratic-style philosophical dialogue with primary-school children found
that it enhanced their performance in both reading and mathematics. Moreover, the biggest
positive effect was on disadvantaged students. Study after study has noted that, as well as its
cognitive benefits, Socratic dialogue improves student confidence and articulacy.
To close the achievement gap in our schools, let’s go back to where education started and
do what Socrates did: sitting with his students, asking questions and, through dialogue,
teaching them what matters most – how to think for themselves.
WX
48
KiasuExamPaper.com
13
2016
20
016 | Y
Y5
5 | KI P
Promo
rom
romo | Paper
mo Pap
aperr 1 Leia Teo Wen Hui | 17S03N
In the passage,
passage, JJohn
ohn
n Taylor
Taylor explores
e the potential advantages of
teaching students to think for themselves and puts forth his
criticisms of conventional education. How far would you agree with
his views, relating them to you and your society?
Taylor presents several benefits of teaching students to think for themselves as

well as criticizes some of the downsides of conventional educations. While
some of his views are somewhat disputable and not particularly relevant to
Singapore, a large part of his ideas are agreeable to and are reflected in our
Singapore society.
Taylor argues that ‘schools… neglect this philosophical dimension of learning.’

(lines 21-22). He believes that school have failed to teach their students to
think critically, to engage in a process of enquiry that allows them to better
appreciate the limits of our knowledge. This is not very applicable to
Singapore. While there are grounds for this argument, seeing as how many
Singaporean students passively absorb information dispensed with scarcely any
discussion in mass lectures and the like, it is unfair to condemn all schools as
having neglected this aspect. In fact, there has been a rise in this form of
learning – Independent Programme Schools have philosophy classes that are a
compulsory part of curriculum, teaching students how to think critically and
reason, as well as the introduction of Knowledge Inquiry as a subject offered in
Junior Colleges islandwide. This observation is likely due to the Singaporean
government recognising the pressing need to nurture students who are
capable of reflecting critically in our increasingly ever-changing and fast-paced
world, in order to continue to secure our relevance and position as a financial
hub on the international stage. While not every school offers such learning
opportunities to develop critical, independent thinking, it is, in the very least, a
step in the right direction as Singapore gradually progress towards a population
capable of actively questioning what they have been told and thinking critically.
As such, such a sweeping condemnation by Taylor is not true in Singapore and
is not very relevant.
49
KiasuExamPaper.com
However,
H oweverr, Taylor
Taylor aalso argues
lso arg gues that learning is ‘dictated by the demand of
thhat le
sstandardized
tandardized ttests’
ests’ (lline 443).
(line 3). I aagree
gree with this view to a large extent. There are
ccountless
ountleess sstandardized
dardized ttests
tand ests aaround
round the world, from the British ‘A’ levels to
tthe
he USA’s
USA’s SSATs
ATs – and eeven more
venn m ore education
ed systems; tutoring services and
practice books are geared towards training students to be able to answer
questions that appear on these tests. As such, much of what is taught and
learnt follows the strict requirements of these standardised examinations. This
rings true especially in Singapore, where our pervasive culture of pragmatism
and consequently the desire for a stable, high-flying job in future has compelled
students to conform to such a learning style, and schools to adopt a drilling
sort of teaching style to ingrain in students only the necessary knowledge to
excel in such tests, with the short term goal of achieving stellar results to
attend a good university in mind. Due to this pragmatism, students often
choose to study and memorize facts rather than question them. While some
may point out how Singaporean students are offered opportunities to learn
beyond the standardized tests, such as with H3 subjects where knowledge is
no longer limited to the H2 ‘A’ level curriculum, there is ultimately still an
examination to ‘test’ what students have ‘learnt’, defeating the purpose of the
subject in the first place. In such a situation where an examination is still
present, the practical culture Singaporean students have grown up in
supersedes the desire to learn for the sake of learning, and instead follows the
prescribed syllabus to study for the exam eventually. Hence, Taylor’s point
here is highly relevant to Singapore.
Overall, Taylor’s views are mostly applicable to Singapore and agreeable to as

they reflect a global trend of dulled learning, one that Singapore is not spared
from and in fact, actively promotes for the sake of academic achievements and
on a larger scale, the future of our economy and place in the world.
Lucidly written and evaluative. Consistent effort to substantiate ideas
with evidential support.
50
KiasuExamPaper.com
14
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
P ap
Pa pe
er 2 | AQ Xu Yukun | 17S06L
In the passage,
passage, JJohn
ohn Taylor
Taylor explores
In the passage, John Taylor argues that questioning should replace all simple
provision of information as it helps us to think and thus learn for ourselves. I
agree that questioning and challenging knowledge does help us to gain new
insights, and this a view that has increasingly been championed in my society.
However, I disagree with the replacement of all imparting of hard knowledge,
given that in many cases this would limit the ability of students to question in the
first place. This is also reflected in my society, where both forms of learning are
used, to many positive effects.
In the passage, the author argues that a process of enquiry encourages students
to consider for themselves the issue that they are trying to solve, instead of
simply taking in information, and that this prepares students better for their lives
ahead of them. Indeed, in a world that seeks innovative talent more than any
other, where originality scores you points, this is the case. In my society,
Singapore, this creativity is developed with the introduction of new subjects such
as Project Work into the A level syllabus, as well as the restructuring of the
syllabus to reflect more of what happens in real life. Questions such as the
estimation of the weight of a coin in PSLE impart not only common sense, but
also make us try to think out of the box to use what we know to understand
and explain the world around us. The prioritisation of lifelong learning with many
workplace retraining programmes in Singapore further underscores the need for
us to continually question what is around us to understand more and thus
maintain a competitive edge in this ever more globalised world. Questioning
makes use of our innate curiosity to want to know more, to push us to find out
more through experimentation. As more societies become more developed, this
will increasingly be a vital skill, especially for my society, Singapore, where simply
having drills is not enough to survive.
The author also espouses the point that schools should convert all forms of
learning to the process of enquiry, and that rote learning should be removed.
51
KiasuExamPaper.com
While
W hille this
thiis may
may bee ideal in theory,
theeory, it is not practical in the real world, where
sspeed
peeed of
of imparting
impartinng ooff kknowledge
nowleedge is just as, if not more, important. If only
questioning
q uestiooning iiss us
used
sed to iimpart
mpart kknowledge,
now students would be encouraged to
ffigure
igure oout
ut wwhat
hat tthey need
hey neeed tto
o kknow
now by themselves, but this would take up more
time, and when today’s syllabus already spans so many topics, and many schools
in my society have co-curricular activities in addition to academic commitments,
there is simply not the luxury of time to partake in questioning as the form of
learning all the time. Instead, while requisite knowledge is imparted to students
in lectures and the accompanying notes, the students are then encouraged to
question and use this knowledge to solve problems that increasingly cater to
real life in their tutorial sessions. This two-pronged system allows for a balance
that not only saves time but also gives students the stable foundation of
knowledge which is required to question more distant concepts, and thus
combines the best of both worlds, allowing students to seek knowledge in future,
and use the acquired questioning skills to understand what they learn.
Einstein once stated that wisdom is what remains after we have forgotten what
we have learnt in school. This is interestingly true, as the problems we face
become more complex, and require us to be able to continue learning and
questioning by ourselves, instead of simply being spoon fed. Yet, as these
problems get more complex, we must also keep more and more of what we
were taught in school, using questioning to build on what we picked up in school,
and reinforce our memory of what we learnt in school, instead of using it as our
whole repository of knowledge, as we did in the past, because that is simply not
possible anymore, especially in my society, where cutthroat competitions deems
both the ability to learn by questioning and the possession of prior knowledge
necessary.
Teacher’s comment:
Comprehensive and impressive work! Good job.
52
KiasuExamPaper.com
15
2017
20
017 | Y
Y6
6 | GP CT2
CT2 | Paper
Pape
Pa er 2 | AQ Gwen Tan Jing Yi | 17S06M
In the
th
he passage,
passage, JJohn
ohn
n Taylor
Taylor explores
In the passage, Taylor opines the advantages of philosophical education as well

as criticises the dominant form of education present today. As his views are
fairly objective, I agree with them to a large extent. However, I believe that my
society has yet to see a monumental shift towards enquiry and traditional
education is still ubiquitous, although efforts have been made to change this.
Taylor proffers the view that teachers are often viewed as the “provider of…
information” that students “need to know” and that this information is being
determined by the “requirements of whatever test looms on the horizon”
(paragraph 5, lines 29-31).7 This suggests that education has become a passive
activity of absorbing information on the student’s part and regurgitating
information on the teacher’s part. Learning also seems to be very one-sided
and monotonous where the teacher seems to be giving a “monologue”
(paragraph 5, line 33). This process of absorbing and regurgitating information
is very relevant to Singapore’s context. Immersed in an Asian society that
values good grades and results, many students spend their days mundanely
studying away. The main objective of education for many would be to enter a
well-paying industry, be it medicine or law, rather than an actual mastery and
true understanding of the content subjects taught in school. This is clearly
evident in our “prescribed syllabus material” (paragraph 7, lines 42-43) for
major national examinations such as the Primary School Leaving Examinations
(PSLE) and the GCE ‘O’ and ‘A’ Levels. Despite the all-rounded objectives that
many schools promise, the matter of fact is that the content-heavy nature of
these examinable subjects require students to mechanically cramp and spit out
information rather than to understand the purpose and meaning behind the
7
Teacher’s comment: Quite a number of quotes here, seeming to suggest you are trying to address
several issues within one paragraph. The body of the paragraph does not in fact address how
teachers are viewed – so this element can be omitted in your presentation of the author’s view. (E.g.
Taylor proffers the view that conventional education focuses on what students “need to know” as
determined by “whatever test looms on the horizon”.)
53
KiasuExamPaper.com
ssubject
ubjeect material.
materiaal. For
For instance,, mmanyany do not understand the actual derivation of
fformulas
ormulas ssuch =mc2. H
uch aass EE=mc However,
owever, the t students can blindly substitute in values
iinto
ntto these
theese equations
equattions and d yyet
et sstill
till sscore
co well. Evidently, students are able to do
wwell
ell in
in examinations
exaaminnations without
without completely
compl understanding the nature of the
subject and the rationale behind learning.8 Thus, the true meaning of education
does not coincide with the way content is taught and hence, I agree with
Taylor that there is a flaw in the conventional education system.
However, in recent years, we have seen a shift in the way that learning is
conducted locally. Education in Singapore has been moving away from
“passively absorbing information” to stimulating students to “think for
themselves” (paragraph 6, lines 37-38). The government also recognises the
need for this shift in our increasingly globalized society and that students who
are “taught to think for themselves are better prepared for life” (paragraph 9,
lines 54-55). As such, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has been encouraging
the concept of all-rounded, holistic education where hands-on learning and a
movement away from conventional education are preferred. The addition of
physical education, music and arts is testament to the fact that we are seeing
this shift. The building of schools such as Singapore Sports School (SSP), School
of The Arts (SOTA) and Laselle suggests an increased emphasis on providing
alternative pathways for students as well as the government’s stance towards
non-conventional forms of education. Tertiary institutions like polytechnics and
the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) also gives us hope that education in
Singapore is moving away from classroom teaching to hands-on learning. MOE
has also introduced the use of technology in hopes of better student-teacher
engagement to develop “creative independent thinkers” who are “confident
individuals” that can pave the way forward (paragraph 9, lines 60-62). Thus, this
shift in emphasis from rote learning to holistic education is representative of an
increasing awareness of the importance of catering to the needs of a rapidly
changing world.
Hence, the Singapore government has indeed recognized the benefits of

teaching students to think for themselves rather than simply spoon-feeding
them information. Thus, we have seen a shift towards such an education
recently. However, being a result-driven country, the majority of the populace
is still clinging onto the tried-and-tested methods of traditional education that
8
Teacher’s comments: While evaluation is attempted and context is clear, this is a rather sweeping
claim.
54
KiasuExamPaper.com
has
h as pproven
roveen results
resultss and are not veryvery receptive to the idea of holistic education
aass o ow.9 Therefore,
off nnow. Thereffore, although
although I largely
lar agree with Taylor’s views, they are
nott very
verry representative
represeentative of of m myy society
socie as many have not responded well to the
nnew
ew initiatives
initiattives as
as eevident
videent inn the
the fact that many students still choose to go down
the route of traditional education rather than pursuing an unconventional path.
Teachers’ comments:
Fully relevant and there is a consistent effort made to evaluate.

Arguments are developed and typically supported by both illustration
and analysis.
At points more supporting details were necessary but overall a good

answer considering examination conditions.
9
Evaluation is evident here but details are lacking.
55
KiasuExamPaper.com
16
2017
20 17 | Y6 | KI CT
CT1 | Pa
P
Paper
ape
per 1 Tan Xin Hwee | 17A13A
Critically
Crit
ticallly assess the view that History is
a set of lies agreed upon.
It is not uncommon, in today’s post-modernist and liberal world, to be well-

acquainted with those “well-equipped” in life with a keen sense of cynicism –
towards everything from the actual freedom of the press to the verity of the
nutrition contents on a muesli bar. The validity of History, does not escape the
creeping tendrils of such cynicism, or skepticism, so to speak. Indeed, some
have gone as far as to condemn history as a “set of lies agreed upon”. This
bold indictment raises two key points of contention – the nature of truth in
history, as well as the validity of the basis for standards of this truth. Indeed,
the declaration does accurately describe the impossibility of absolute truth in
history to a certain extent, but its suggestions of a complete disregard for
truth as well as the nullity of history are questionable.
To begin with, one must necessarily make the humble concession that history
falls short of having that validity of being held up to a correspondent standard
of absolute truth. Being a discipline fundamentally rooted in the past, the
nature of evidence in history is unchangeably limited. In the study of Ancient
Greece, we only know what life was like to an Athenian, not a Thebian or a
Corinthan. History, as we know it, is ultimately “starred with lacunae” for it is
impossible for us to access reality as it really was. What evidence historians
can access often only offers a small glimpse of the past. To further complicate
matters, historical evidence, being a product of men in the past, fundamentally
contains the bias of firstly, the cultural mores of the time the evidence was
produced, as well as the opinions and biases of the individual through which
events are filtered into subjective accounts of what really happened. For
instance, accounts of Catherine the Great are more often than not heavily
drenched in sexist views that looked unkindly on liberal sexual attitudes in
women. These biases are carried forward into the accounts written of her,
mostly by the predominantly male royal court around her. Thus, the
foundation upon which historical knowledge is built seems in itself limited.
The limitations of historical evidence in providing us a pathway to truth in
History are further compounded by the necessary subjective investment of the
56
KiasuExamPaper.com
historian.
h orian.. IItt iiss commonly
isto com
mmonlyy ag agreed
greeed tthat ha no historian just ‘scissors-and-pastes’
eevidence
vid
dence toto fform orm a cchronicle
hronicle o off tthe
he past. Rather, a degree of imagination is
required
quireed of
req of tthe he historian
historiann tto
o ffill
ill iin
n tthe
h gaps inevitably present in the evidence, as
mentioned
m entio
oned d earlier.
earlier. To ffully
ullyy uunderstand
ndersta the motivations of the agents in history,
the historian invariably has to invest a certain degree of human empathy and
postulation about the state of mind of these in the past. However, this opens
up many opportunities for subjectivity to manifest, thus undermining the truth
of historical claims. Carr’s fish illustration demonstrates how a historian selects
his source of evidence and his facts just as a fisherman would choose his bait
and location for fishing – depending on the fish he seeks to catch. In the same
way, the historical method lends itself to the narrative that the historian sets
out to construct - the fact that Stamford Raffles was, indeed, wearing clothes
when he arrived in Singapore, may seem to one Historian as a redundant fact,
but of paramount importance to another tracing a history of British fashion in
Singapore. As such, it appears that even before the historian can work on his
evidence, the inherent subjectivity of the historian has already made objective
truth of his historical claims impossible.
The situation does not improve even after the historian has started work – the
tool of the historian, language; itself seems fundamentally bound to a set of
values and beliefs. It is arguable that no single account of history, no matter
how closely linked to the historical evidence available, can be couched in an
entirely central language. The very act of describing an event as “liberalization”,
rather than an “invasion”, or an “insurgency” rather than a “revolution”
betrays the historian’s attitudes towards the purportedly neutral data.
Therefore, no historical claim seems to be free of subjectivity, and no historian
can claim to be entirely deterred. In light of all these criticisms of History, it
appears that it is impossible to achieve absolute truth, or to paint a picture of
the past as it really was. Yet, there is a necessary leap from the criticism of
subjectivity to that of “lies”. While History fails to access the actual reality of
the past, it can give us justified true beliefs of what the past likely looked like,
and largely reliable historical knowledge.
This is due to, firstly, the close relationship of historical claims with the
evidence. Despite an inherent and inescapable subjectivity, History remains
tied to and grounded in the facts of the Historian. In the discipline, there is an
immense respect for the accuracy of facts, such that it has been hailed as “a
57
KiasuExamPaper.com
duty
d utyy not
not a virtue”.
virtue”.. This close relationship
relatio accounts for common historical
d ebates often
debates often taking
takinng pplace
lace o nly aatt th
only the margins, around a core largely agreed
uppon – no
upon no one
one disputes
dispputes tthat
hat M ao w
Mao was integral to the Cultural Revolution.
H istorianss o
Historians nly quibble
only quibblee over
oveer the
the extent
ext of his influence. Therefore, there are
still limits to the subjectivity of the historian, allowing us to identify when a
historian has overstepped the boundaries of his evidence. Historians claiming
that the Holocaust never happened, therefore, can be justifiably determined as
simply “wrong”. This ability to discern a degree of truth and falsity in History
points to its merits of upholding a certain respect for truth. The accusation of
History being “a set of lies”, therefore, goes too far.
The second point of contention is the basis for standards of truth in History.
As demonstrated earlier, the correspondence theory of truth is hardly
applicable in history. Rather, the coherentist approach of setting out to
construct a web of beliefs that are entirely coherent allows for a meaningful
pursuit of truth in History. Yet it is undeniable that the place of “agreed upon”,
or the subjective standards of agreement may pose limits to the objectivity of
history. This is because using human opinions as a standard of truth rather than
some other objective measure runs into the problem of theory-ladenness. The
historical community has long quibbled over whether Reagan or Gorbachev
ended the war, but underpinning this largely dichotomous debate is the Great
Man Theory. This is in comparison to the other fields of knowledge, where the
value of reproducibility and repeatability of scientific experiments allow the
scientific community to verify one another’s one another’s scientific claims, or
even in the social sciences where the postulation of adequacy rests upon the
subjects’ agreement with the analysis of their behavior. In fact, it can be argued
that the very coherentist nature of historical knowledge necessitates the place
of such agreement. And indeed, the collusionary nature of the historical
community could be a valid one, for the nature of justification in the
construction of historical knowledge does create a capacity to produce a “set
of lies”, as long as they are agreed upon.
Thankfully, however, historians are in actuality rarely in agreement. In the

historical community, there is a fervent striving towards truth that does not
pale in comparison to that of other fields, even those that are deemed more
objective, such as the sciences and mathematics. It is this respect for historical
truth and the constant recalibration of narratives to accommodate new
58
KiasuExamPaper.com
eevidence,
videence,, as well
as w ell aass the care in arriving
arriv at justified interpretation that continues
tto
o preserve
preserve the
the validity
vaaliddity of
of historical
histoorical claims. Because there still is a basis for
d etterm
miningg trut
determining th and fa
truth alsity iin
falsity nH isto we are still able to favour one
History,
h istorical nnarrative
historical arrative ove er th
over he o
the ther, aand discard theories that do not meet the
other,
standards. Historical claims of Stalin’s communist agenda, for instance, began to
be called into question and revised after the fall of the Soviet Union in light of
new evidence.
This might seem like a feeble defense of history, but one must realise how
integral truth is to the discipline of History. Historical narratives concern the
lives of real people in the past, their motivations, feelings and reputations.
Therefore, this creates a much more heightened disposition towards
uncovering true facts, as compared to the substantiation of mere theory or
opinion in other fields. Attempts to overwrite History and impose one’s own
narrative to one’s own benefit is often met with agitated pushback, and
condemned as an act that seems to violate an ethical principle by eliminating
the stories and lives of real people in the past. This explains why opposition to
claims that the Holocaust was a fabrication are thus emotionally charged as
well as firm, or why the revisionist textbooks in Japan have been criticized by
the Historical community across the world. Falsity in history is treated with
little tolerance and the constant struggle of voices to be heard and recognized,
a very natural human instinct is what fuels the search for truth in history. In
light of this, the portrayal of History as “a set of lies agreed upon” not only
exaggerates the faults and limitations of truth in Historical knowledge, but is
also an unfounded rejection of the standards of truth upheld in the community.
Xin Hwee, brilliant piece here! Cogent essay that consistently
discussed and evaluated the claim in question with great accuracy
and finesse. Just a pity that the penultimate paragraph was not as
well done as the rest of the paragraphs.
59
KiasuExamPaper.com
17
2017
20 17 | Y6 | KI C
CT1
T | Pa
T1 P
Paper
ape
per 1 Yeo Jun Wei | 17S03B
Critically
Crit
ticallly assess the view that History is
a set of lies agreed upon.
The pessimistic view that History is merely a set of lies we agree upon may
seem at first attractive, given the deeply subjective nature of the discipline and
the inaccessibility of the object of its study – the Past. Yet, History and
historical knowledge are too complex to be so simplified; even if we were to
accept that history were lies, we do not necessarily agree on the best way to
lie. Lying and the act of lying implies perhaps that we know the truth and
intend to deceive, or that we know the truth is quite beyond our reach and we
have made up something to mask our inadequacy; this essay however hopes to
argue that the state of affairs in history should not be viewed so grimly.
The statement that History is merely a set of lies first and foremost degrades
our historical knowledge to the level of plain untruths. Although it is extreme,
it is easy to see how historical study can easily lose its grasp on the truth – the
“real” past is inherently inaccessible due to the progress of time – we simply
cannot travel back in time to re-experience an event. As a result, truth must
be accessed through indirect means; a historian may look at newspapers,
artefacts, conduct interviews to obtain accounts of the past and evidence for
certain events. Yet, these means are often imperfect, such as when there are
an abundance of resources or a scarcity of it. We then rely on historians to
“fill in the gaps”, to select certain resources or to make inferences from the
few sources in order to find the truth. For example, studies of the prehistorical
age often face this challenge. Since human records have not yet begun during
that time, our knowledge of early human stem from the tools they made,
structures they built and so on. A clear criticism is that we perhaps do not
truly understand their way of life through these scraps of information; yet, we
claim to do so anyway, and write textbooks about it. This subjective leap to
the truth can be said to be perhaps our lying to ourselves – deep inside, we are
not sure if we can access the truth.
However, this is a naïve view. There are still many things we claim to know
about the past that, no matter how we try, we simply cannot doubt. Say you
think about what you have just eaten for lunch yesterday. Even if you are afraid
60
KiasuExamPaper.com
tthat
hat yyou
ou have
have hhallucinated
alluucinated it du due
ue tto
o a mental illness, you can check with a
ffriend
rieend w ho saw
who saw you
yo
ou eating
eating to
to reconfirm
recon your memories. Although trivial, this
ccan
an be expanded
expanded d ttoo much
mucch ofof hhistory
istory – no one really doubts that the Second
W orld W
World Warar hhappened,
appened d, tthat
hat tthe
he 9/1
9/11 disaster occurred, or that the French
Revolution a couple of hundred years back was a thing. This is because there
are so many written and verbal accounts of these events and so many artefacts
which, importantly, corroborate and provide a coherent proof about a past
event. Hence, historical studies of events which find clear sources of
information that corroborate cannot really be said to be lying. Perhaps it is the
factor of temporal distance that matters here – the further we go back in time,
the less clear and relevant sources we find. The lying, then, only happens at the
far reaches of our historical knowledge.
The real problem, however, lies in how we construct historical arcs and
stories. So far, we have only talked about historical facts – events which
happened, where and when they happened and so on. What is often more
interesting is why these events happen, or how the events fit into a bigger
picture; often the answers to these questions can be deeply controversial, and
there may not be a “true” answer. For example, some historians might claim
that Hitler caused World War 2, while others may claim that the event was
bound to happen given the overall trend of Germany and Europe. The reason
for this controversy could be the problem of causation as pointed out by
Hume – all we really have are a series of events and imposing cause-effect
relationships on them are unjustified. Add to that all the problems of
subjectivity and temporal distance mentioned earlier, and our narratives
perhaps are merely lies to ourselves, since we know that the truth is beyond
our reach. Hence, we do lie to ourselves, and we do not even agree on the
best way to do so.
When we agree on how best to construct our narratives, our lie deepens- our
notions of how history should be sometimes even corrupt the certainty of
those historical facts previously mentioned. In constructing our narratives, we
leave out important sources which may provide contradictory information, and
select sources which support us, which is tantamount to lying. For example,
the Singaporean government’s metanarrative of the nation’s struggle against
communism as a state enemy during its formative years leaves out details
which do not fit, such as the detention and expulsion of those accused to be
communists, which were perhaps unconstitutional or immoral moves, in
61
KiasuExamPaper.com
Operation
O on Coldstore.
perratio Coldsto ore. JJapanese
p e ttextbooks
ext don’t depict the cruelty of Japanese
ssoldiers
old
dieers iin
nW W2, or
WW2, or d eny the
deny the sseriousness
erio of events like the Nanking massacre.
Hence,
H ence, we
we twist
twistt facts
facts and
annd ttruths
ruths to
to our purposes, deceiving those around us
eeven
ven though
thouggh the
the truth
truth is
is within
within reach.
reac Through this, History perhaps really is a
set of lies that governments and those in power agree upon.
This all paints a dark picture of history, perhaps as a set of lies contained in
sets of lies. However, the lies are really the exception rather than the norm.
Many of the instances of lying occur due to political agenda, but as time passes
and political agendas are outlived, the tendency of History is to reach towards
truth once more. That said, the limitations of historical study as brought up in
this essay still hold in certain cases, such as when there is a lack of evidence,
and all we can do is argue over the best way to construct history. Once again,
time, the agent of history, plays a key role, as we discover more evidence and
paths towards the truth.
Fantastic dissection of the question and consistent reference to it all

throughout your answer. Also apparent is the fact that your essay is
relatively jargon-free, yet clear and convincing. Just a pity that you
didn’t go deeper with some points.
62
KiasuExamPaper.com
18
2017
20 17 | Y
Y6
6 | KI CT
CT22 | Pa
P
Paper
ape
per 1 Khin Yadanar Oo | 17A13A
How
How much
much ev
evidence do we need to
justify our knowledge claims?
This issue of the degree of justification required for our knowledge claims has
plagued philosophers since this enterprise of thinking long and hard was
reinvented by French mathematician Descartes. He espoused the view that we
need enough justification for us to believe that our knowledge claims are certain.
Otherwise, he opined, his could we afford to trust in the reliability of our
knowledge claims and make use of them to produce other similar claims? This
proved to be a gruelling endeavour for Descartes because any knowledge claim
he could conceive of relied on other knowledge claims as justification which in
turn relied on yet more knowledge claims. This infinite regress of justification
posed an important question: when do we stem this regress and conclude that
a claim is sufficiently justified? Descartes insisted that once we come to a
justification that is “clear and distinct” — which is to say, dubitable —, we can
rest our almost relentless hunt for justifications. Unfortunately, most of the
knowledge claims we possess and cherish like “the world around me is real”
cannot be traced back to such a firm bedrock of justification. We usually fall back
on justifications in the form of firsthand experience like ‘because I can see / hear
/ smell / taste / touch it’ that stem from sensory data which tends to be false.
Does this mean that none of our knowledge claims are justified and that we
should disavow all our precious notions about ourselves and the world around
us? I think not. Infallibility is not necessary for a justification to sufficiently
support a knowledge claim. Why? Simply because our knowledge claims do not
require that degree of irrefutable evidence supporting them to serve their
intended purposes well.
The question “how much evidence do we need to justify our knowledge

claims” seems to expect a homogenous answer. That is simply unfathomable.
Various disciplines require different degrees of evidence as justification because
the knowledge claims generated by different fields endeavour to fulfil different
purposes. A claim made in the field of the sciences requires rigorous justification,
for example, because scientific propositions are often used to predict future
events and hence need to be reliable for them to be of any use. A scientist
63
KiasuExamPaper.com
ttherefore
hereeforee undertakes
undertaakes a systematic
syystemmatic mmeans of producing his knowledge claims—
tthe
he scientific
scienttific methhod — aass a hhighly
method ighly reliable
r method ensures that it is more likely
ffor
or hhis
is ppropositions
roposittions to be
be of
of some
some uuse.
On the other hand, not as much justification is required in the field of

history as historians largely purport that their goal is to explain the past and not
to predict future occurrences, as science aims to do. Presenting an inaccurate
knowledge claim in history is therefore far less serious than botching up a
scientific knowledge claim as the latter mistake could lead to serious direct
ramifications such as the loss of lives if one claims that all humans need oxygen
and therefore, a doctor provides a new human patient with oxygen to save his
life but unwittingly ends up killing him because the claim is false. Thus, the
purpose of the knowledge claim made influences the degree of evidence required
for justification10.
Secondly, the nature of the knowledge claim made also significantly influences
the amount of evidence required to justify it. Take for example the claim that
“all triangles have three sides”. No justification is required for this statement to
be considered knowledge because it is self-evident. The subject — triangle —
necessarily entails the predicate — having three sides. These relations of ideas
are hence exempted from the arduous process of justification. One can compare
these statements to matters of fact — statements about the world around us —
which require far more evidence as they are not self-evident.
Philosophers who disavow radically skeptical stances such as “we can only know
what we are certain of” also espouse the view that some things do not need to
be justified or only require minimal justification. G. E. Moore, for instance,
argued that one does not need “clear and distinct ideas” to serve as evidence
for our justification of the existence of an external world. He opines that we
merely need to hold up our two hands in front of us and observe their existence
for if they exist, reality must too exist. This argument is favored by him because
he views it to be commonsensical and far more believable 11 than skeptical
arguments like the evil demon argument which outlines the possibility that the
eponymous demon could be tricking us into not believing that reality exists when
10
You have not got to the heart of the matter: how much evidence is needed?
11
You will need to explain why is it far more believable.
64
KiasuExamPaper.com
iin fact
n fac does
ct it d oes not.
no Therefore,
ot. Therefore e, MMoore’s
o stance implies a belief that we need
eenough
nough evidence
evidence for
for a kknowledge
nowledge cclaim to be believable on its own and more
believable
b ellievabble than
than other
other contrary
ontrary claims.
co claim Wittgenstein too subscribed to this view
aass hhee was
was convinced that
hat pphilosophers
convinced th hilosophe had set far too strict standards for what
can and should be considered knowledge. Instead, he proposed that we adopt a
layman’s definition of knowledge. In so doing, a ridiculous amount of evidence is
no longer required for every knowledge claim (like Descartes demanded).
Rather, one only needs to put forth enough 12 evidence to convince one’s
audience that one’s knowledge claim is justified. Take for example a girl’s
knowledge that Beyonce is in Singapore. Her friend would be satisfied knowing
that the claim is corroborated by other forms of evidence like photos of the
singer performing on social media and news reports. Further justification will
simply not be exhorted13.
The degree of evidence required to justify our knowledge claims does not
solely depend on the nature of the knowledge claim made, but also on how the
knowledge claim is constructed. If it is constructed inductively, far more
evidence would be required to make a knowledge claim14. For example, it would
be terribly foolish to see one white swan and generalise that all swans are white.
There is simply insufficient evidence to warrant such a conclusion (so much so
that no one would believe you if you made such an assertion. This weak inductive
argument can be contrasted against the following deductive argument. One
might claim that if one swan is not white, not all swans are white and come to
the conclusion that not all swans are white upon spotting one black swan beside
a pond. Both cases feature an individual making a knowledge claim after
witnessing a single swan. However, the latter is actually a sound argument and
more legitimate than the former. This is an instantiation of the amount of
evidence inductive arguments require to be believed as opposed to deductive
arguments. Hence, how your knowledge claim is constructed significantly affects
the amount of evidence required to justify it.
In conclusion, the amount of evidence we need to justify our knowledge
12
Once again, so how much is enough?
13
What kind of justification is this?
14
Why? Some explaination is needed here.
65
KiasuExamPaper.com
cclaims ms is contingent
laim continnggennt on the knowledge
owled claims we are making. For what reason
kno
aarere w
wee pputting
utting forth
forrth ssuch
uch knowledge
knowledg claims? What types of knowledge claims
aare they?
re the
ey? HHow
ow aare these
re thes se kknowledge
nowledg claims constructed? These questions and
tthe
he wide
de array
wid off aanswers
array o wers to
nsw to tthem
hem determine
de why there is no single homogenous
answer for the question of how much evidence is required for justification.
Generally good response here Yadanar. Decent set-up of the issue and
you covered a lot of ground in dealing with types of reasoning, kinds
of knowledge, nature of claims, etc. However, some parts required
greater explanation since the examples do not speak for themselves.
Also, the heart of the matter wasn’t addressed until only the second
half of the essay. Try to be more concise.
66
KiasuExamPaper.com
19
2017
20 17 | Y6 | KI CT
CT22 | Pa
P
Paper
ape
per 1 Khin Yadanar Oo | 17A13A
‘T
‘The
The researcher’s
research
her’s o
opinions
pinions and beliefs always interfere with
his research.’ Discuss with reference to knowledge construction
in History and the social sciences.
A researcher’s opinions and beliefs necessarily interfere with his research, in that
they influence the knowledge claims that he puts forth into the world15. This is
especially so in history and the social sciences, where the researcher’s objects
of study are his fellow human beings. It is inevitable that the researcher is
influenced by his own preconceived notions of the nature of human beings which
are informed by prior personal experiences and societal messages as such beliefs
are elemental core beliefs through which he interprets the world. However, this
is not to assert that a researcher’s opinions and beliefs are so intrusive that all
knowledge produced in the discipline of history and social science are utterly
biased and unreliable. Rather, we should hold the view that while social scientific
and historic knowledge claims are prejudiced to some extent, these prejudices
can be minimised and could even potentially be useful. 16
Let us first discuss why it is unfathomable to divorce a researcher’s worldview

from his research. A researcher, like any other human being, is a product of his
society. He is indubitably influenced by the social, political and cultural currents
of thought circulating around in his time and age. Some of these beliefs are so
conventionally accepted that it seems unfathomable and almost heretic to
challenge them. Take for example European anthropologists, who endeavoured
to catalogue the “Oriental” way of life. While these individuals took great pains
to live amongst the natives who were the objects of their study in an effort to
observe these natives in their natural habitat, accurate accounts of “Oriental”
lives were not produced as these researchers could not escape their
interpretative frameworks. Entrenched notions of Eurocentrism and the concept
of the diametrically opposed Other — that is the belief that Europe boasted a
conglomeration of the most cultured individuals and the stance that those who
are different from oneself are necessarily our opposites — lead researchers to
believe “Orientals” like Egyptians were heathens (despite evidence to the
contrary such as skillful craftsmen and architects. While we scoff at such a
15
This is too definitive an opening statement. Revise your introduction strategy.
16
This reads more like a body paragraph than an introduction.
67
KiasuExamPaper.com
narrow,
n ow, simple
arro simple worldview in in today’s age of multiculturalism and
in nterconnectednesss, it
interconnectedness, it is
is crucial
crucial to
to note
n that these assumptions were considered
ttoo be
be fundamental
undamenttal truthss tto
fu o the
the aaforementioned
for researchers. Imagine vigorously
aasserting
sserting tthat
hat tthe world
he wor rld wwas
as round to a mathematician-cum-astronomer from
an ancient civilisation. He would not deign to engage with that idea because it is
so contrary to all he has believed in and been told by sources of authority.
Would he change his calculations of the distance from the earth to the sun
because of your seemingly spurious claims? Of course not.
This segues nicely into another reason why researchers’ opinions always
interfere with their research. Researchers are not only incapable of cleaving
apart their beliefs and their research, but also incapable of producing any
knowledge at all without their opinions and beliefs. Existing opinions and beliefs
always interfere with research because they are the source from which all other
new ideas spring. Without a web of existing beliefs, how is one to justify one’s
knowledge claims? Take for instance, the proposition that the French Revolution
was bad. This claim could not possibly exist without some conception of “bad”
which stems from the historian’s existing opinions and beliefs. Only when the
historian infuses his existing database of knowledge — for example, the notion
that something is bad when it threatens human lives which are God-given and
therefore precious — can one make knowledge claims. Even seemingly
uncontroversial, bald statements like “many lives were lost” during the French
Revolution depend on answers to other questions — what constitutes “many”
and what is a “life”? Thus, a researcher’s options necessarily interfere with his
research because they are the starting point, the bedrock, the foundation of all
knowledge claims he makes. Without these preconceptions, there would be no
edifice of propositions whose bias we can debate.
Lastly, a researcher’s opinions and beliefs always interfere with his research as
he is bound by the conventions of language as a social scientist or historian.
When a researcher is communicating his findings in disciplines concerned with
human beings, it is most often through spoken word or written text. Therefore,
a researcher has to pick the words he would like to employ to communicate his
ideas. Herein kills the problem. According to post-modernists like Hayden
White, once the author selects certain phrases to put his point across, he has
inextricably infused his beliefs into the research he intends to present to the
world. A historian who claims that “the freedom fighters lost ground”, for
example, clearly regards the fighters with some degree of respect as opposed to
68
KiasuExamPaper.com
one
o ne which
whicch states
states that
that “the terrorists
terrrorist were conquered”. The former statement
paain
nts the
paints the ffigures
igures iin
n a bbetter
etter llight
ight as they do not come across as war-mongering
heathens
h ns that
eatthen ought
that ouught to bbee vvanquished
anquishe like they do in the second example., While
tthe
he context
contexxt of
of both
both sentences
seentennces are roughly
r similar — this group of people who
were fighting no longer have a hold of their territory or power, the connotations
of both sentences differ vastly due to the way in which the author of the
statement has allowed (consciously or not) his opinions and beliefs to seep into
his diction17. This is less of an issue in disciplines which do not endeavour to
communicate through language as it is conventionally defined. E = MC2 is a case
of a propositional claim in the field of science which employs sterile mathematical
notion that is self-contained and does not trigger other connotations, like
language does. For now, it does not appear that the discipline of history and
social science will escape the shackles of language, resulting in propositional
claims that are theory-laden to some extent.
However, espousing all of the above arguments is not equivocal to avowing the
notion that historical and social scientific propositions are merely or largely
opinions, not justified true beliefs. Historians and social scientists do endeavour
to minimise the influence of arbitrary personal beliefs on their own research as
they are aware that a distinction exists between beliefs and knowledge. The
latter should be justified sufficiently and rigorously for it to be a belief that can
be espoused by society and not only the self. Occasionally, arbitrary personal
beliefs are slotted into one's research unknowingly. Certain academics claim,
that this can be mitigated through a process of triangulation of knowledge claims
such as peer review18. I hold the view the this will minimise the presence of
arbitrary, unrelated and unpopular beliefs in research. However, this method
will not be able to overcome the interference of core opinions and beliefs (which
society at large espouses) with research. Furthermore, no new knowledge could
be produced in the fields of social science and history even if one did manage to
stow away one's beliefs and opinions when generating propositional claims19.
In conclusion, a researcher’s opinions and beliefs always interfere with his

research as he necessarily has to engage with them in order to produce is
research and communicate his findings.
18
How does this process help to mitigate bias?
69
KiasuExamPaper.com
Teacher’s
T each Comments:
her’s Comments:
W hile you
While you cchose
hose to ttake
ake
e a relati
relatively strong position, this piece was not
poorly argued. Good job on getting the big picture! Just a pity that the
segment on mitigation was not adequately beefed up to provide more
insight on how knowledge in history and the social sciences can still be
reliable. More detail and focus can be paid to the specific nuances of
the two different disciplines.
70
KiasuExamPaper.com
20
2017
20 17 | Y6 | KI CT2
CT2 | Pa
P
Paper
ape
per 1 Yeo Jun Wei | 17S03B
‘‘The
The right
righ
ht to
to punish
pu
unishh someone
someo is contingent on the knowledge
of what is right and wrong.” Discuss with reference to the
nature and construction of ethical knowledge.
Imagine that somehow the trolley problem has happened in real life and some
poor sod decided to pull the lever, killing one person stuck on the trolley
tracks while saving another five who were on the other track by diverting an
out of control trolley down the former path. You are the judge presiding over
the court case where the family members of the dead man are calling for
blood, while others praise the man for his ethical decision. What can we do in
such a case, and more importantly, what constitutes the right to punish
someone? Some may say that our right to punish does not depend at all on
ethical knowledge, but this essay seeks to argue that our right to punish
somebody is indeed contingent on ethical knowledge in three main ways - it is
affected by the nature of ethical knowledge, the extent of certainty we have in
this knowledge, and is itself an ethical decision that should be made according
to the best of our ethical theories.
Ethical knowledge would not help much in our courtroom if it does not exist
at all. Proponents of a non-cognitivist view of ethics support such a view; often,
our moral statements do not really mean anything about the truth of morality,
since they are rather a product of our emotional responses of inner desires;
these people would say to make your decision anyway regardless whether you
think you are right or wrong, since such moral beliefs are meaningless. For
example, Simon Blackburn suggests that moral statements are the result of a
causal chain of events; Mary sees a dog being attacked by young hooligans,
empathises with the dog’s pain through its whimpers and screams, and as a
result states that “this is wrong”. Hence, the statement does not refer to any
morality, but is rather almost like a biological responses, that merely proves
Mary’s ability to empathise with dogs and express her opinion. However, such
a view may be too extreme, and there is good reason to believe that moral
statements are truth-apt. First, such an argument could be extended to other
statements ad absurdum - “ the sky is blue” could also become a biological
responses or an expression about the good weather, while somehow not
71
KiasuExamPaper.com
rreferring
eferrring ttoo aan
n obvious
obvvious physical world;
phyysicaal w or second, by intuition we assume the
eexistence
xisstence o off m oraaliityy aand
morality nd sspeak
peakk of
of statements
s whether they are true of false.
Either
E ither way,
way, concluding
conccluding tthathat mmoral statements are not truth-apt does not seem
oral st
particularly
p articcularlly uuseful
seful to
to o our courtroom
ur coourtroom - let’s examine how ethical knowledge
may affect our decision to punish assuming we can speak of such knowledge.
An immediate reaction would be to say that of course we must know what is

right and wrong before we punish someone; how can we send an adulterer to
jail without understanding how adultery is really wrong? The nature of ethical
knowledge affects this relationship. Consider the possibility that moral reality
exists, and that somehow there is a “truly right” way of living one’s life, or a
magic formula that can tell you immediately what is right or what is wrong.
That is in effect what Derek Parfit tried to do in a seminal book, On What
Matters, by combining utilitarianism, Kantian categorical imperatives and
numerous modifications to reduce ethics to a clear cut, objective system of
defining morality. Such a system would benefit us greatly, since such objectivity
would mean that certain truths would become universally recognised by
everyone, and such universal agreement can give us a strong warrant for the
right to punish. Of course, the fact that such reality exists also means that we
can find truths that correspond to reality, a convincing argument for our right
to punish too.20 Hence, the possibility of moral reality enshrines our right to
punish - although we may not always know what is right and wrong, the
possibility for a correct answer is out there, and knowing that we are correct
we are confident in our punishment.
The case where ethical knowledge has no objectivity is a more difficult one.
There may be no moral reality - what is “right” depends on our opinions and
beliefs, our locations and cultures. In one view, morality is relative to the
communities we live in; in a tribal village deep in the Amazon, perhaps
cannibalism and incest is rampant, and nothing anyone says can really show that
these are “wrong” in their culture. This is damaging to our right to punish,
since universal agreement is no longer on our side, and there is no reality we
can seek truth in. What if you think that the poor sod was wrong, but in his
mind and culture, he was completely, and justifiably right? This concern is
mitigated somewhat by how there can be local moral “realities” through
intersubjective agreement; in your courtroom, you can be assured in punishing
20
So have we found such truths? State some examples.
72
KiasuExamPaper.com
tthe
he offender
offend der byy thee laws of thee country,
coun hopefully a reflection of what society
tthinks
hinks iss right
right o
orr w ro
ong - ssomething
wrong omething we do on an everyday basis.
Now
N ow that
that we
we know
know how ow the
ho thhe nature
nature of ethics can affect our right to punish, we
should examine how the certainty of our justified beliefs about right and wrong
affect our verdict. After all, we must be certain about our beliefs; how can we
be unsure whether someone has done wrong, and then send him to the death
row? Our decisions affect lives, requiring more certainty than other decisions.
Since we do not want to harm others. First, ethical knowledge that is certain
helps us; beliefs such as “killing is wrong” seem undeniably right, even though
they may be violated in certain occasions (e.g our trolley problem), they are
often violated not because they are not true, but rather because there are
greater evils or other overriding statements21. Hence, this category of ethical
beliefs is reliable, allowing us to make our verdict. Secondly however, not all
beliefs are so obvious; “abortion is wrong” and “euthanasia is wrong” often are
hotly debated. How can we better achieve certainty for these statements? Of
course, perhaps certainty is not needed to such a great extent in the first place
- a young frightened girl raped and left pregnant must make a decision - and
sometimes, the urgency of such a decision overcomes doubt we may have in
our beliefs. Yet, this idea of pragmatism should not be taken lightly, the way we
may accept scientific truths because they are useful; moral truths are more
personal and can drastically change lives.
Finally, the decision we make over whether we have a right to punish is itself
an ethical one. Whether we punish a wrongdoer or withhold punishment
because we are unsure can also be said to be right or wrong. This is because
the right to punish is also defined by an intention to help others or benefit
society in some way, essentially establishing what is “right” or “just”, hinging on
our ethical knowledge once again. Hence, we can use our ethical knowledge to
judge if we are justified in possessing22 the right to punish in various situations,
such as in the previous cases mentioned where our knowledge of ethics is not
completely certain or flawed in some regard. After all, letting an adulterer go
may be bad for society in the long term, although we are not sure whether
adultery is wrong, hence giving us the right to punish
21
Evils and overriding statements such as? Do indicate.
22
You will need to explain how this is significant.
73
KiasuExamPaper.com
IIn conclusion,
n coonclussion, ethical
ethiical knowledge
knowledgge deeply
dee informs our right to punish. We should
bee careful
careful w ith ethics
with ethhics aass w
wee d ecide o
decide on our verdict in the courtroom; what is
decided
d d ccan
eciided change
ann chan lives.
nge lives s.
Great response - systematic treatment of the issue with good
support from theory and relevant examples. A large part of your
approach/argument is inferred though - avoid leaving this to chance.
Good job on the whole!
74
KiasuExamPaper.com
KS
K S Bull
Bull 2017 | Issue 2a
Editorial
E dit Team
Ms Sharon Chan
Mr Clement Cheng
Mrs Ruth Koh
Ms Michelle Kwok
Ms Edina Rahman
Ms Cindy Tan
Mr Adrian Tan
Mr Patrick Wong
75
KiasuExamPaper.com

2017 Ks Bull Issue 2a

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Ks Bull Issue 2a

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 Ks Bull Issue 2a

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KS Bull 2017

2 Do you agree that fashion serves no real value? 8

3 To what extent can we rely on the media to be truthful in today’s 12

4 “Urban living and nature cannot co-exist in modern cities today.” 15

5 “Urban living and nature cannot co-exist in modern cities today.” 21

6 ‘At a time when the world needs capable leadership, many 25

9 ‘The fact that poverty still exists today is an embarrassment to 36

10 ‘The fact that poverty still exists today is an embarrassment to 39

2017 Year 6 KI CT1

2017 Year 6 KI CT2

18 How much evidence do we need to justify our knowledge claims? 63

19 ‘The researcher’s opinions and beliefs always interfere with his 67

20 ‘The right to punish someone is contingent on the knowledge of 71

Pacifists would claim that in times of economic hardship, it is unacceptable for

However, in the face of Machiavellian realpolitik today, the security of a nation

All in all, the justification for military expenditure can be argued to be

Do you agree that fa

To begin with, fashion is a powerful instrument in making statements that

In a more tangible aspect, the fashion industry provides employment to millions

A very comprehensive analysis that has taken advantage of a wide

However today’ world of journalism, due to political,

Political context is of key relevance in ascertaining if a media outlet presents

In conclusion, it is definitely understandable today to have a jaded outlook on

Chloe, I’m delighted by the sensitive treatment in which you formed

In recent years, environmental degradation and pollution issues have increasingly

Granted, as people in modern cities become increasingly affluent in recent times,

C – A pleasurable read as you’ve provided a well thought-out and

Our world is changing at an unprecedented pace, and with the advent of

However, political leaders so capable are seemingly becoming the minority

In addition, in today’s hyper-partisan world, politicians are incapable of

In conclusion, there seems to be a trend of politicians who are not able to

Moreover, science and technology is sometimes itself the creator of problems.

Ultimately, pressing challenges today have become increasingly ideological and

Not long ago, researchers from the Institute of Bioengineering and

C: A strong response in part due to being sensitive to the key word in

L: A very pleasurable read – very fluent, precise & script is free of

Great leaps in the development of science and technology have always

It is undeniable that science does enable us to solve many challenges we face in

Ultimately, the development of science and technology cannot be separated

C- Response reveals sensitivity to the actual demands of the question

We live in an era where Mankind lauds its marvelous achievements of having

Those who claim that describing the existence of poverty as an embarrassment

Moreover, the nature of poverty makes it a difficult problem to solve in the

Secondly, the plight of some of our fellow humans is being capitalised on by

In conclusion, I feel that the existence of poverty today is a reflection of more

“Poverty is the worst form of violence,”Mahatma Gandhi once proclaimed,

Moreover, the world today should hardly be embarrassed by the mere

In conclusion, it would be naïve to declare that the mere existence of poverty

A pleasurable read obviously. Very knowledgeable on the given topic

Taylor presents several benefits of teaching students to think for themselves as

Taylor argues that ‘schools… neglect this philosophical dimension of learning.’

Overall, Taylor’s views are mostly applicable to Singapore and agreeable to as

Comprehensive and impressive work! Good job.

In the passage, Taylor opines the advantages of philosophical education as well

Hence, the Singapore government has indeed recognized the benefits of

Fully relevant and there is a consistent effort made to evaluate.

At points more supporting details were necessary but overall a good

It is not uncommon, in today’s post-modernist and liberal world, to be well-