Ex 1
Using material from the article as well as your own ideas, consider what the priorities of education should be for your country and justify your reason for choosing these priorities.

In Singapore, education is more or less a political and social engineering tool that prepares Singaporeans for the workplace of the future. In the 1960s, education was driven by the need for Singapore to survive as a small, independent city state with limited resources. Thus, there was a strong link between education and economic development. Given its history, it’s not surprising that Singapore still values education as part of the nation-building process. The main priority of education in Singapore should be economic growth. Singapore has no natural resources other than its own people. Given this situation, it is imperative that our human capital is completely harnessed and developed for nation building. Education, which allows for the accumulation of knowledge and skills, thus becomes vital for sustained economic growth. In this century, economies all over the world are transformed by globalization, to remain competitive, Singapore needs to transform itself into a global hub of knowledge and innovation driven industries. To achieve this, a world-class workforce that is creative, entrepreneurial and adaptable needs to be cultivated to survive the many challenges of this new century. However, as the article pointed out, education is also a personal right, an entitlement. While the government values education as a pre-requisite for economic progress, however education for the sake of personal development has been neglected. The meritocratic educational system places so much emphasis on grades that students face enormous pressure to do well in their studies, so much so that all interest and curiosity in the subject was lost. This not only affects an individual, the government is at risk of losing a large, innovative talent pool as it is interest that spawns creativity. In this context, the government definitely needs to put creating interest in students as their top priority.

Ex 5 I. Make a list of these strengths and weaknesses.

|Strengths |Weakness |
|Integrity and trustworthiness |Not good at blue sky ideas/finding solutions to |
| |non-technical problems |
|Dedicated to work and task-oriented |Not curious enough |
|Analytical, methodical and focused |More conforming than independent |
| |Unable to advance the frontiers |
| |Weak in impromptu interactions |
| |Not enough leaders |

II. The contention is that Singaporeans make good managers, but not good leaders. What is the difference? (write as many points as you can)

|Managers |Leaders |
|authority |influential |
|Rational, analytical |Motivated, driven |
|Impersonal attitude towards goals |Create possibilities |
|Persistence |Creative, out-of-the-box thinking |
|tolerance |flexible |
|Focus on system and structure |Decisive |
| |Far-sighted |
| |confident |
| |Experiment, take risk |
| |Passionate, enthusiastic |

III. “We have to move up the food chain, to product innovation and the ‘R’ in ‘R&D (research and development), not just the ‘D’”. Explain what you think he means by this.

He meant that we should not just develop and expand on our existing products and industries, but venture into new fields, thus knowledge is obtained and this gives us a competitive edge in a knowledge based economy.

Ex 6
Given the criteria for democracy and the examples of societies where illusory democracy reigns, how democratic would you rate the Singapore government? You must give detailed evidence to support you opinion.

Article 6 lists the criteria for democracy while article 7 reflects on the illusory nature of democracy in many societies. In my point of view, there is a high degree of democracy in the Singapore government. First of all, the Singapore government is highly democratic because the government gives freedom. The general elections held in Singapore are free and fair. One of the core values of the Elections Department of Singapore is integrity and impartiality. They instill public confidence and trust as well as show transparency in all that they do. This shows that the Singapore government displaces the principle of political equality. Thus, the Singapore government is highly democratic. Furthermore, the Singapore government is highly democratic because they account all their actions and activities to the public. The Singapore government accounts to the legislature or parliament for its policies and expenditure of public money and to the courts for ensuring that all public officials, elected and nonelected act within the powers granted them by the law and the constitution. This implies that the Singapore government displaces a high degree of freedom of information and a lively tradition of investigative journalism. Thus, the Singapore government is highly democratic. Moreover, the Singapore government is highly democratic because Singapore is well-known for its democratic society. In Singapore, the quality of democratic life within the social, cultural and economic spheres are relatively independent. It is evident that opportunities are available for all social groups; effective education is provided regardless of race or religion; as well as a vigorous artistic life offering a critical reflection of the society. This shows that the Singapore government successfully developed a democratic society in Singapore. Hence, the Singapore government displaces a high level of democracy. In conclusion, the Singapore government is highly democratic because it conducts free and fair elections; it is open and accountable; and it has developed a democratic society.

Ex 7
These letters express the writers’ views on good government and democracy. In your view, is democracy a pre-requisite of good government?

In my point of view, democracy is not a pre-requisite of good government. I would like to argue that good government matters more than democracy; there is nothing wrong with one-party government. It is evident that Singapore has been prosperous since 1965. Majority of the people is Singapore do not deny that ‘our nation is a relatively safe place to raise a family’. The Singapore government, since 1965, has ‘pushed us to greater heights of achievement’ and made Singapore a peace and harmonious country to live in. I agree that ‘opposition politics are irrelevant’ if it is the ‘wish of the majority of citizens to continue to have a one-party government, without a strong opposition in Parliament’. Thus, I believe that democracy is not essential for good governance. On the other hand, one may argue that ‘democracy is the basis for good government’. While it is true that we have prospered much as a nation since 1965, the fact that democracy played a pivotal role cannot be over-emphasized. However, I beg to differ from this point of view. In the olden days, many nations were ruled by an emperor or king. A good emperor had wisdom, vision and integrity. He was able to appoint the right officials to run state affairs, and brought prosperity and security to his people. In the same way, a good government can contribute to a greater tomorrow for the nation and its people, with a single, strong party running the country. Thus, democracy is not a pre-requisite of good government. In conclusion, democracy is not the basis for good government and democracy does not put a good government in power. Hence, democracy is not a pre-requisite of good government.

Ex 9
Which of the two viewpoints do you support? In your answer, refer to arguments in the passages and include your own thoughts and examples.

In article 10a, Michael Backman comments that Singapore needs to cultivate a society which has more freedom, especially in the aspect of media freedom whereas in article 10b, it was argued by Ms. K Bhavani that Singapore’s media model is adapted to our circumstances and needs thus it is indeed that Singapore civil servants have never had a monopoly on ideas.
I agree with Michael Backman. In order to improve media freedom in Singapore, she needs a media is conducive to the development and exchange of ideas and provides a venue for debate. There should be no censorship on such websites so the public is free to voice out any opinions that they have.
The government has implemented the Light Touch approach recently, through this it hopes to selectively target those who pose a clear and present risk to the real world. Consequently, there is no need to suppress new media unless specific laws are broken because people have posted seditious or racially offensive content which have come to our notice, and which have gained traction in our society. I feel that this approach is a very feasible first step that the government has taken to promote freedom of speech in our society.
However, the risk of allowing open debates regarding various issues might result in several societal problems as well as certain topics that are related to religion and politics can be rather sensitive at times, therefore, it is very difficult to draw the line between what is right and what is wrong. Thus the public has the responsibility to ensure that whatever they post online is of reasonable content which does not target any specific person or group. As long as the general public cooperates well with the government, I believe that by having a more liberal society, it will definitely help to improve the economy progress of Singapore, at the same time; we will still remain as harmonious multi-racial country.
On the other end, I disagree with Ms. K Bhavani as she is the Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts. Since she is working under the government, she has the obligation to defend the government by portraying a good image of Singapore’s media.
She mentioned that the public is allowed to raise their thoughts on the Internet, in letters to the press. However, not all the letters will be published. The content will still be screened and edited before being published on papers, since all the daily local newspapers are owned by the government, they will make sure that undesirable content does not appear, thus it is unfair to say that civil servants have never had a monopoly on ideas. Instead, dictatorship is trying to obtain an Orwellian world where everyone is of one opinion.

Ex 12
To what extent do you agree with the conclusions reported in the article that criminal behavior has a biological basis? Justify your answer in no more than 150 words.

I do not agree that criminal behavior has a biological basis.
According to the article written by Anastasia Toufexis, there was an example given stating that “a child with a fearless personality may turn into a criminal if reared in a chaotic home, but given a stable upbringing, he could well become a CEO, test pilot, entrepreneur or the next Bill Clinton.” I fully agree with this statement, human beings tend to shift the blame to our genes instead of the society for fear of different sectors of society being unhappy.
I feel that ultimately, it’s the environment that influences one’s thinking and behavior most. Even though there are scientific findings which prove that violent tendencies have got something to do with genes, however, it was also mentioned that out of 15 children of such cases, only 1 will actually become violent. Thus the society should not push all the blame to genes but instead, learn to accept social problems as public health problems.
164 words

Ex 14
With reference to articles 14 and 15, give your opinion on whether war crimes should be punished or forgiven. Refer to relevant information from these articles when substantiating your point of view. Keep to no more than 150 words in your answer.

War crimes committed purely out of greed with every intention to bring harm upon others for the sake of one’s self-interest ought to be punished. Article 15 details the horrific rape and murder of innocent victims by the Japanese military, bringing to attention the severely wrongful actions committed by aggressors who seek to obtain unjust control over others.
Although it may be argued that crime has a biological basis, a person’s environment and upbringing is more likely to exert a greater influence on his behaviour. As such, war crimes knowingly and consciously committed should be condemned as the aggressors have the ability to differentiate between what is wrong and what is right. In addition, in consideration of the physical and mental trauma imposed upon victims by the Japanese during the war, further emphasis is placed on the need for justice to be upheld.

Ex 15
What is your reaction to the Japanese ambassador’s reply to the letters and editorial published in The Straits Times? Refer to articles 15 to 17 in your answer.

I felt a degree of incredulity with regards to the Japanese ambassador’s expression of ‘deep remorse’ in response to articles highlighting the atrocities committed by the Japanese military during World War II, particularly the Rape of Nanking. The ambassador presents an image of an empathetic Japan by conveying ‘heartfelt’ apologies on behalf of ‘a large majority’ of Japanese. However, his stand is a stark contrast to how surviving veterans expressed that they felt ‘remarkably little guilt’ when they raped and killed victims, ‘no matter how young or old’. In article 15, Japanese veterans reported ‘honestly’ that they experienced ‘a complete lack’ of a sense of wrongdoing, ‘even when torturing helpless civilians’.
I also felt doubtful as despite the ambassador’s reiteration of the Japanese government’s stance, the very fact that school textbooks were ‘sanitized’ of its country’s aggression suggests a lack of sincerity. In addition, in article 17, Japan’s attempts to whitewash the truth underscores an absence of regret and reinforces Japan’s ‘half-heartedness’ in its apology.
In article 16, Howard Kleinderg highlights the unwillingness of the Japanese to shoulder responsibility for war crimes, exhibiting ‘continual denial’ despite an estimated 300,000 lives lost. Japan ‘remains reluctant to own up to its atrocities of World War II’ and the visiting of the Yasukuni shrine suggests that the war dead are honoured rather than condemned, which makes me feel affronted on behalf of the people who suffered.