KS Bull 2020

Issue 1

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. All submissions have been edited for language
before publication.

No portion of this collection may be reproduced or shared for any reason and by any means whatsoever.
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

CONTENTS

2020 Year 6 GP Timed Practice 1

Why is it that, in spite of international efforts, world peace remains

unattainable?
1 Matthew Tan | 20S06D 3

2 Lim Zheng Wei | 20A03A 8

Is it fair to say that technology has only worsened conflict in society?

3 Chee Kar Ho Russell | 20A01B 14

Is our trust in science misplaced?

4 Brendan Mark | 20S03C 21

5 Koh Yi Hui | 20S03H 25

Do you agree that a university education is becoming increasingly

unnecessary today?
6 Boo Jin An, Joshua | 20A01B 31

7 Elliot Han | 20S06F 36

Consider the value of having routines in today’s world.

8 Nellie Toh | 20A01A 41

‘We can never rely on social media to tell the truth.’ Do you agree?
9 Angeline Lai | 20S03H 45

10 Regan Ng | 20S03O 51

‘Support for the arts should come mainly from the government.’ Discuss.
11 Alvan Png | 20A03A 55

12 Siddarth Venkateswaran | 20S03Q 60

2
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Matthew Tan | 20S06D

Why is it that, in spite of international efforts, world peace remains

unattainable?

Slavery is not a relic of the past. The inhumane use of biological and
chemical weapons is not a relic of the past. Conflict is not a relic of the
past. Contrary to the mainstream perception that the world today is a far
cry from the barbarism and atrocities committed decades and centuries
ago, many of the horrors of humanity we thought we eradicated still
continue to haunt our society today. They hide behind a façade of lies and
cover-ups, standing between us and world peace: the ideal that every
global citizen lives harmoniously together and that no one is mistreated
or violated. Counterintuitive as it may sound, it is precisely our
international efforts to achieve world peace that have aided in allowing
such acts against peace to proliferate in the shadows: the United Nations
(UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and more. World peace
remains unattainable in spite of international efforts because of weak
international organisations that cannot enforce peace, the continued
presence of strongman authoritarian leaders who blatantly disregard
international efforts, and the hijacking of international efforts to obtain
world peace by malicious countries, despite the fact that some may say
international organisations have made leaps and bounds in creating peace.

A common (and often over-optimistic) argument for the attainment of

world peace is that international coalitions and organisations have
registered numerous successes in resolving conflict and ensuring peace.
Supporters of this argument cite the fact that numerous countries working
together, combining their resources, efforts, and intel to solve global
problems is what makes international efforts far superior to other
alternatives like unilateral action. They often raise the example of the
3
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

global coalition against the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS) as the hallmark of what international efforts can achieve. In the initial
fight against the Daesh, it was only Syria and Iraq that fought back. The
lack of international cooperation was what caused them to be largely
unsuccessful in their defence; major cities like Raqqa, Mosul and many
others throughout Syria fell like dominoes into the hands of ISIS. It was
only after countries all around the world chipped in that ISIS was finally
suppressed. Countries like U.S.A. and Russia contributed military might in
drones and fighter jets, while smaller nations like Myanmar and Singapore
contributed intelligence. The cumulative efforts of countries
internationally was key in eliminating this critical threat to world peace.

However, it is not accurate to claim that power in numbers necessarily

equates to a successful defence of world peace. It is the coordination
between different countries that makes or breaks international efforts.
Often, because countries may not be directly affected by a conflict
happening half-way across the world, they have no incentive to help in
international efforts, and waiting for them to attain world peace is not
reliable. The coalition against ISIS remains a fringe example because it is a
rare case where a huge number of countries were affected. In the majority
of smaller but significant conflicts like the current Rohingya or Yemen
humanitarian crises, many countries are unwilling to lift a finger because
the conflict is localised to a region and does not impact the rest of the
world. International efforts there are sorely inadequate at attaining peace.

In fact, on the topic of quantity not necessarily leading to quality, too many
countries being involved can even regress our march towards peace. One
reason why world peace has not been attained despite immense
international efforts is that international organisations are handicapped by
a need for consensus between too many countries that prevents
enforcement of peace. In international organisations existing today, the
United Nations stands out the most. It is supposedly responsible for
fostering world peace by acting as a common platform for countries all
around the world to engage in dialogue, arrive at a common conclusion,
and act on that conclusion. However, the huge number of countries in the

4
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) means that for any conflict
resolution being discussed, there is almost certainly one country that does
not agree with the rest. One might think that this is not that significant of
a problem, given that the UNGA functions on requiring just a super-
majority vote (two-thirds of members agree) to act and intervene in a
conflict, rather than an absolute consensus where not a single country
dissents. Unfortunately, in a web of global alliances and relationships, if
one country refuses to ratify a resolution to foster peace, that country can
easily call on its allies to follow its votes. For example, the news
organisation CNN uncovered a booming slave trade in Libya in 2017,
where slaves from all over the African continent were being sold and
trafficked. When the UNGA tabled a resolution to open an investigation
into Libya, it was not just Libya that voted against it, but numerous other
countries like Ghana, Mali, and Niger that voted against it as well. On top
of being close regional allies with Libya, these countries were also where
the main supply of slaves in the trade was. Other countries like China and
Russia voted against the resolution too, because they were afraid of
setting a precedent of having one’s sovereignty violated by an
investigation on the pretext of checking for human rights abuses,
something they are guilty of as well. This saga effectively shut down any
hope of salvation for the innocents in Libya who were robbed of their
freedom, because the investigation could not be carried out without a
successful vote. Although cliché, the saying “Too many cooks spoil the
broth” aptly sums up why world peace is unattainable despite
international efforts.

Second, world peace remains unattainable despite international efforts

because of the presence of strongman rulers who obstruct the
enforcement of peace and violate international regulations. These are
mostly leaders of large, powerful countries who regularly flout
international rules with impunity because no other country is willing or
able to stop them. Many such authoritarian rulers abuse the military and
economic prowess they have or the political clout they possess to carry
out acts that actively harm world peace because it benefits their own
country and bolsters their own popularity at home. The slew of political

5
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

and social conflicts today illustrate this. Xi Jinping routinely antagonises

East and Southeast Asian countries in the South China Sea by claiming
China’s “nine-dash line” that eats into waters of other nations like the
Philippines and Malaysia. Despite international efforts to mediate the
conflict, China has only worsened in its behaviour. It contravened rulings
by the International Court of Justice (ICJ, based in The Hague) when it sent
military installations to the Spratly Islands, which was claimed by the
Philippines. It continues to conduct navy exercises around the waters of
the Senkaku Islands claimed by Japan, despite multiple calls from the UN
to avoid conflict. These are just the tip of the iceberg of territorial disputes
China is embroiled in. Xi does this to improve his strongman cult of
personality back in China, portraying himself to be a defender of Chinese
interests and strength by standing up to the evil countries around them
“stealing their rightfully owned land”. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in
2014 was met by intense condemnation from the UN, but the military
might and nuclear arsenal commanded by Vladimir Putin meant that no
one could punish Russia’s actions – not the UN, and not even the North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). This successful military offensive by
Putin only served to boost his popularity in Russia for valiantly protecting
Russian countrymen abroad. That is why these international organisations
have been labelled “a talk shop” and “No Action, Talk Only” (a mockery of
the acronym NATO) respectively. They fail miserably in curbing the actions
of rogue and pariah states when they stir conflict and disrupt peace in the
world. This is not just limited to economic powerhouses like China or
nuclear powers like Russia. Saudi Arabia’s meddling in Yemen and its
continued use of excessively lethal weapons against the Houthi rebels,
ordered by its Crown Price Mohammed bin Salman, has not been stopped
by international efforts as Saudi Arabia controls key oil businesses and the
global supply chain via the Organisation of Petroleum-Exporting
Countries (OPEC), which it uses as leverage to deter international
intervention. That is why international efforts have failed to attain world
peace.

Lastly, the hijacking of international efforts is what prevents them from

fostering world peace. Often, in key decision-making panels like the

6
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

United Nations Security Council (UNSC), large powers have their own
vested interests that they pursue instead of world peace. In the Rwandan
genocide in the 1990s, France (a member of the Permanent Five on the
UNSC) exercised its veto power on the UNSC when deciding whether to
intervene in the Tutsi-Hutu conflict. It was later unveiled that France had
been supplying missiles and artillery to the Hutus through unmarked
weapon shipments. America’s continued refusal to stop Saudi Arabia’s
supply of weapons to Yemen to kill innocent civilians is precisely because
it sold those weapons to Saudi Arabia in the first place, and was able to
again profit massively from those sales. Often, international efforts fall flat
on their face because powerful countries at the helm of these efforts have
selfish ulterior motives, be it political or financial. That is why world peace
remains unattainable.

For all the criticisms against international efforts and organisations, they
do preserve some basic modicum of order and stability. Without them, the
world would stray further away from world peace than we already have.
However, such international efforts still have a long way to go if they are
to attain world peace. Unless Hobbesian theories of innate human evil are
true, in which case “some basic modicum of order and stability” may be
all we can ever hope to achieve.

Marker’s comments:
A fully relevant discussion addressing the idea of international efforts throughout. Ideas
are insightful and a balanced response. A good range of illustrations, most of which are
contemporary. Overall an engaging read!
Language-wise, there is a confident personal voice, assured response and it is framed in
convincing language. Ideas are well-mapped out except the last paragraph appears
hastily executed. Do make sure you qualify the abbreviation at the first instance before
using them for the rest of the essay (e.g. UNGA, UNSC).

7
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Lim Zheng Wei | 20A03A

Why is it that, in spite of international efforts, world peace remains

unattainable?

At the very dawn of the new decade, the world quivered with fear upon
the sights in Baghdad: multiple armoured vehicles lay destroyed, blown to
pieces by an American missile. Inside, amongst other bodies, lay the
corpse of top Iranian general Soleimani, who had overseen the rise of Iran
in the Middle East, spreading its political and religious influence through
the powers of proxy armies and even states. The world’s spotlight shone
on Donald Trump and Hassan Rouhani, as a conflict on the scale of World
War 3 threatened to erupt. Yet, it never did transpire. On the international
stage, world peace remains but an ideal for many, as conflicts – armed or
ideological alike – continue to break out across the world on a daily basis.
Indeed, with the prospect of a peaceful utopia seeming all the more
wishful by the day, one thus begs the question: can world peace ever be
attained?

Of course, we have come a long way since the mass destruction seen on
the world stage from the mid-20th century. The signing of the UN Charter
by the Allied Powers in 1945 nurtured a vision or a peaceful world through
the establishment of the United Nations. Since then, international co-
operation has received a massive boost, with such geopolitical
organisations aiding its members to broker deals with one another and
even arbitrate in times of unrest. The likes of the European Union and
ASEAN are but a few of the numerous organisations seeking to promote
regional stability through the alignment of international policy. By
fostering closer ties with their geographical neighbours, these groups of
countries are less likely to engage in military interventions against one
another since disputes can be resolved through peaceful summits. Outside

8
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

of these regions, armed interventions on the global stage are becoming

increasingly rare due to the threat of NATO and its military prowess;
through which most of the Western world will willingly intervene to bring
peace to conflict-torn regions should their interests be compromised.
Additionally, the rapidly increased rate of globalisation since the Second
World War has made countries all the more interdependent, pressuring
countries to maintain good political and thus economical terms with other
nations. Indeed, Iran’s supposed development of nuclear weapons – a
threat to world peace – was heavily suppressed through the imposition of
significant financial tariffs by the United States, severely crippling its
economy and threatening to plunge the nation into a recession. In a global
economy increasingly dependent on other nations for imports and exports,
cutting yourself off from other nations is simply detrimental. Indeed, the
state of North Korea is in financial derelict today with most of its citizens
living in absolute poverty due primarily to the autocratic ideology of the
Kim family in their strong refusal to open up to a globalised world and
constantly threatening to disrupt peace on the Korean peninsula. On the
other hand, its neighbour, South Korea, had sought a more amiable
avenue of development, fostering close ties with capitalist superpowers
and henceforth prospering in the global economy. Seeing as to the
disparity between the two nations today, it is no surprise to see why most
nations choose to pursue the latter’s route, embracing peace and stability
in return for prosperity. Consequently, substantial progress toward world
peace has been made since the late 20th century, hence sharply reducing
the number of armed conflicts today.

Nonetheless, international efforts to create a global, homogenised world

will always be undermined by ideological and cultural differences between
both citizens and political citizens. This is ostensibly true with the
dominance of nationalism in today’s political rhetoric, with many right-
wing governments choosing to outwardly prioritise the needs and
interests of its own nation even at the expense of a Pareto-optimal
outcome. The U.S.’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Brexit
are but two of the more prominent examples of nations choosing to
retreat from the rest of the world in favour of more ideological and social

9
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

freedoms. Indeed, with citizens increasingly choosing to define themselves

by their country of origin rather than by our common species, humanist
ideals threaten to crumble as the selfish, conflicting interests of nations
threaten to spark conflict at any time. Particularly, Russia’s recent
interferences in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections are but one instance
of Russia’s attempts to increase their sphere of influence worldwide. With
President Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian style of rule contrasting greatly
with America’s belief in free and fair elections, it is no surprise that rifts
have once again formed between the two global superpowers as they
compete to claim ideological supremacy over the world. Whilst tensions
between the two have largely dissipated since the days of the Cold War;
the two are in effect still heavily opposed to one another on the
international stage, most evidenced by their proxy wars in the Middle East
in states such as Syria and Yemen. Furthermore, outright differences in
political ideology have caused geopolitical conflicts, with the Western-
Centric UN and its member nations seeking to profess their ideals of
democracy and capitalism upon the rest of the world. Dissidents to these
tenets are, thus, politically ostracised. In Venezuela, world leaders such as
Trump and Maduro have publicly applied political pressure upon socialist
leader Nicolas Maduro via throwing their support behind the opposition
leader Juan Gaido. Gaido’s rising popularity in his nation has contributed
to increasing civil unrest in Venezuela over the past year, as military forces
have sought to unsuccessfully crack down on protestors, inadvertently
causing harm to many. In the past, nations have even resorted to military
interventions as a means of disapproval, usurping power from
authoritarian dictators such as Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

Additionally, economic disparity has created tensions between the

developed and developing world. Indeed, in a global economy fervently
prizing dollar votes, richer countries have amassed more power on the
global stage and many poorer nations have been subject to their whims,
raising calls for an end to such lopsided balances of power. More
pertinently, funds from international aid have largely been channelled in
directions accorded by more influential financial backers such as the EU
and the US. Detractors have thus accused international organisations of

10
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

being unfair in their giving practices through their bias toward resource-
rich or politically friendly nations. In the aftermath of the Iraq war, many
Western powers left Iraq in a derelict state financially and politically,
leading many locals to harbour adverse sentiments against foreign powers.
In recent years, the political void created by social turmoil has even led to
the ascent of the Islamic State, which was able to harness their profitable
oilfields as a means of funding their ideological crusades against the West,
establishing an Islamic caliphate whilst committing acts of terrorism
overseas. Had the Western world more clearly supported the economic
redevelopment of Iraq and furthermore rose its’ citizens’ standard of living,
religious extremism may not be as widespread in today’s world.
Furthermore, geopolitical conflict can be used as a tool to extract financial
windfalls, threatening world peace at the expense of gaining financial
stability. This art has been perfected by North Korea, wherein Kim Jong-il
and Kim Jong-un have created the world’s most pressing conflict via the
destabilisation of the Korean peninsula. Faced with a stark ideological
contrast against the rest of the world, the Kims have perilously held on to
power by insisting upon the tight suppression of political liberties, at the
expense of financial tariffs. Nonetheless, the recent rise in its nuclear
capabilities has paradoxically propped up the state financially. According
to research, the lifting of trade restrictions as well as the generous
provisions of financial aid by the international community during peace
summits have greatly funded Kim Jong-un’s lavish lifestyle. Accordingly,
every nuclear test or show of military might by Kim has successfully
extracted even more funds from the West, thus paradoxically mastering
the profiteering from conflict.

Economic and ideological diversity has fractured nations worldwide,

giving rise to vast instances of refugees and illegal migration from poorer
to richer nations which have exacerbated international tensions. For
example, outbreaks of violence and financial turmoil in the nations of
Venezuela and Syria have caused a mass exodus of its citizens to the
‘Global North’. In spite of international efforts, such an influx of refugees
has placed considerable strain on infrastructure and social cohesion in the
developed world, with the harbouring of hostile sentiments toward

11
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

refugees shattering social peace and dividing the public sphere in many
countries. Along borders, frequent skirmishes have broken out as refugees
become increasingly desperate to gain access to better living conditions,
yet facing an increasingly displeased Western world who have begun
ceasing to accommodate outsiders. Indeed, anti-migrant, nationalist
politicians such as Le Pen and Trump have gained scores of political
supporters through their non-conciliatory approach to refugees, which
has only served to proliferate conflict along national borders and between
nations who are unable to reach a compromise on the handling of such a
massive influx of foreigners. Anti-migrant rhetoric has thus been one of
the major fuels of nationalism, straining international relationships and
increasing the hostility of our political climate, symbolising a large
deviation from world peace. Furthermore, the implementation of other
divisive nationalistic ideals tends to give rise to the development of larger
geopolitical conflicts, further threatening world peace. In the Kashmir
region, the rise of India’s Hindu nationalist sentiments has incurred the ire
of Muslim extremists in Pakistan, hence triggering an armed standoff
along their border. With each passing day, Prime Minister Modi’s
increasingly divisive policies – such as the citizenship ban which outlawed
numerous Indian Muslims and effectively rendered them stateless – have
exacerbated tensions between India and its other Muslim neighbours of
Pakistan and Bangladesh. A mutually reinforcing effect is created as
nationalist sentiments (such as those championed by Pakistani Prime
Minister Khan) are gradually strengthened in nations, eventually sparking
conflicts such as the one in Kashmir.

Lastly, it is almost impossible that peace exists within one’s own national
borders. With globalisation, many are being increasingly influenced by
political ideologies and moral values imported from overseas, placing
them at odds with the more conservative and traditional mindsets
ingrained in many. Whilst this precarious equilibrium merely manifests
itself through political disagreements, armed conflicts and protests such
as those observed in Afghanistan and Hong Kong can break out, invoking
military use and thus causing an undermining of social stability and
disruption of peace. Many of the poorer states in the Middle East such as

12
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

Syria have even been wrecked by years of international and national

conflict, thus bearing outward resentment and becoming outwardly
hostile as a nation and spending disproportionately heavily on their
military budgets, thus being antagonistic toward efforts for world peace.

Thus, whilst humanism as an ideal is still prized by many, human beings

and nations still fall susceptible to selfish inclinations via the prioritisation
of their own needs above others, eliciting unprovoked hostility and
increasing artificial delineations along the boundaries of race, religion,
class, nationality and beyond. This fatal flaw in humans thus perennially
causes divisions on a local, regional, and international scale, creating an
endlessly perilous social and physical sphere which can be easily
destabilised and spark conflicts for time immemorial. Consequently, whilst
peace has now become a societal expectation for many in the developed
world, conflicts between and within nations will never cease to exist.

Marker’s Comments:
Quite a comprehensive essay replete with abundant and relevant examples. Try not to
just discuss the causes of conflicts. Remember to address the condition “Despite
international efforts” more explicitly. Highlight the failures of international efforts to
address such issues. Overall, still an impressive essay under timed conditions.

13
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Russell Chee Kar Ho | 20A01B

Is it fair to say that technology has only worsened conflict in

society?

“Do no evil.” Though Google installed this as its official credo when it was
still a nascent company with little inkling of the massive powerhouse it
would later become, it nonetheless saw it fit to pursue what it termed
Project Dragonfly, or the creation of a related search engine that censored
politically sensitive terms, for approval by the Chinese government.
Though this ultimately failed, this incident reflected the ethos of most
technology firms today – a willingness to sacrifice moral courage and any
ethical considerations in exchange for the relentless pursuit of profit and
greater innovation. The tide of public opinion, once adulatory and servile
towards these innovators, has decisively turned; erstwhile bipartisan
support has transformed into vocal opposition from all parts of the
political spectrum. Public commentators hasten to decry the overgrowth
of technology in our lives, arrestingly indicting them on the charge that
they have worsened conflict across the globe – whether violent military
conflict or the latent tensions of inequality threatening to tear society
apart, they argue that technology, in its present guise, simply has no
redeeming characteristics. Yet such a fatalistic view is a fundamental
misreading of technology – after all, humans had made little progress
from the first Homo sapiens until the dawn of the Industrial Revolution,
an indisputable testament to the fundamental importance of technology
to human progress. While technology may, in its inchoate birth, give rise
to unforeseen outcomes that worsen societal tensions, they ultimately
serve the fundamental purpose of bridging these gaps, often bringing
together diverse communities; technological development unbridled may

14
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

engender and exacerbate conflicts, yet suitable regulatory regimes may

channel them to more altruistic uses, in pursuit of a higher ideal – peace.

Naysayers typically decry technology for worsening societal conflicts in

two areas – by disrupting international rules of war, technology threatens
to ignite a military firestorm; by its empirical nature, technology can only
further concretise present inequalities in society. The first of these
arguments may indeed appear convincing. International conflict has long
been governed by two main principles – the first is that of Mutually
Assured Destruction (MAD) as a means of deterring conflict between
established nuclear superpowers; the latter is honourable and humane
conduct in the waging of war – sparing civilians and minimising damage
to civilian infrastructure, particularly medical. Recent technological
advancements threaten to be the undoing of both. The development of
hypersonic missiles – capable of travelling at speeds of over Mach 5 – by
Russia, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, would concretise what
Ronald Reagan’s dream of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) once
threatened to do: it breaks the notion of a mutual nuclear deterrent, since
America can no longer guarantee a sufficiently rapid response in the event
of a Russian first-strike. In 1983, Reagan’s announcement of the SDI set
the bipolar Cold War on knife-edge, culminating in the mobilisation of the
Soviet leadership to prepare to fire a nuclear missile, a decision only
revoked at the last minute. So too, modern Luddites fear, today’s
technology threatens to upset the precarious international balance. The
danger posed by the second aspect seems even more acute. With the
development of increasingly advanced Artificial Intelligence drones,
questions have been raised surrounding the ethical issue of conduct in
war. Such drones fall into three categories – “in the loop”, “on the loop”,
and “out of the loop” respectively. This latter category raises the most
questions, as unlike any technology before, it will operate completely
autonomously once deployed, raising the issue of how belligerents will
continue to be held accountable for their actions if they did not commit
them legally. This raises the possibility of a complete collapse of the laws
governing war. What raises the stakes is the rise of rogue states and
international terrorist and criminal organisations worldwide, who may not,

15
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

in both principles, conform to existing guidelines. In the realm of warfare,

then, it seems that technology has succeeded only in worsening existing
tensions.

The latter argument is subtler yet far more insidious. Due to the prevalence
of AI in modern-day technology, the notion of Big Data as a predictive
paradigm has become paramount, with algorithms drawing on vast banks
of historical data to prognosticate potential future choices or preferences.
While this has streamlined much of modern life and increased everyday
convenience, it also threatens to perpetuate and worsen existing
inequalities. In California, for example, an algorithm has been developed
that seeks to predict the likelihood of recidivism of a given criminal to set
an appropriate bail figure. Yet, because this is based on past records of
recidivism, it will inevitably reproduce – and worse, legitimise – past
prejudices and discrimination that have led to higher recidivism rates
among underprivileged minorities like poor Black Americans. In its cold,
unflinching assessment of the past, technology threatens to rationalise
human prejudices that have led to historical disparities and injustices. As
technology becomes become ever more integrated into daily life, this
threatens to create an inescapable trap for minorities and underprivileged
groups, worsening the already stoked tensions gripping most modern-day
societies that are grappling with the inevitable inequality that arises in any
minority group.

These individuals who do nothing but direct harsh opprobrium at

technology, however, are not Cassandras, accurate in their pessimism yet
overlooked by a narrow-minded society. Rather, they are false prophets,
rigid Luddites who remain a tiny minority – with good reason. A
straightforward assessment of our daily lives exposes not only our utter
reliance on technology, but also how powerful technology has been for
humankind as a corrective force for progress. While technology may not
be able to solve every problem and may not always be an entirely positive
development, it would be completely unfair to indict it on the count of
having only worsened the conflict-ridden world we live in today. While
technological development may have disrupted the 20th-century rules of

16
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

war, making the potential severity of impeding war far more threatening,
it has created many important benefits that inherently encourage peace,
reducing the chance of outright conflict to begin with. Furthermore, while
the rigid application of technology may worsen and promulgate existing
inequalities, the greatest benefits of technology have often accrued to
underprivileged groups, and communications technology has been utterly
integral to the empowerment of such groups as well.

Explicitly militarised technology has only ever been a tiny subset of overall
technological development. In fact, the bulk of innovation is far more
benevolent, not only engendering further safeguards to the escalation of
conflict and war but often resulting in consequences that disincentivise,
discourage or simply disallow war, guaranteeing greater peace and
stability than in a world bereft of such technologies. One of the most
significant (but underappreciated) advances in battlefield technology has
in fact been the engineering of ever more sophisticated, comprehensive
supervisory systems. After the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was
signed by all 6 parties in 2015, outlawing the further enrichment of
uranium by Iran, a thorough system of supervision was created employing
state-of-the-art detectors and navigational systems that were able to
ensure that Iran did not violate the terms of the agreement. Used in this
way, technology can be a tool for enforcing peace, and ensuring that
rogue states are kept in check. Even when less explicit, however,
technological development has become utterly integral to disincentivising
war and conflict in a world of exponentially increased complexity. Europe,
for instance, has become intimately linked due to its collective efforts at
developing complex technologies like the Galileo navigational system or
the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. Much as the necessity of
international cooperation in the development of 5G networks has led US
allies to take more calculated decisions and continue cooperation with
Huawei, thus lessening tensions with China, the nature of technological
development today suggests that engendering greater international
peace and cooperation, it is not only the product that engenders such
outcomes but the process of innovation as well.

17
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

Similarly, while technology may indeed appear poised to set existing

inequalities in stone through the rationalisation of past prejudice, it has
also provided such underprivileged communities with precisely the tools
needed to combat such systemic inequalities. One might further argue
that while minorities have historically, always, and inevitably been
underprivileged groups susceptible to the prejudices and discrimination
and minorities, with today’s technology symbolising merely a continuation
or worsening of this effect, the converse is true for their empowerment by
newfound technological innovations. These represent an entirely new set
of tools with which underprivileged groups can finally effectively contest
their marginalisation by society. Social media, in its democratisation of
both access to and production of information, has played the most
important role in this regard. One of the groups that have been most
empowered by this is the youth – due to voting regulations, often
regarded as unimportant and peripheral by political decision-makers. The
youths of today have been empowered on both the individual and
collective levels; in the former, take Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg,
now an icon of the global climate change movement; in the latter, take
the #MarchForOurLives, the first genuinely effective collective
mobilisation by American youths standing against gun rights. These
effects, however, have impacted almost all other minority groups as well.
Whether in #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, #TimesUp or #OscarsSoWhite,
the unimaginable virality of social media has spawned an entire cottage
industry of hashtag movements that, even if failing to directly effect
immediate change, have been overwhelmingly significant in bringing
minority voices to the fore, legitimising their concerns and warranting
greater discussion of the innumerable majority-minority tensions
wracking society. It is thus impossible to argue that technology has only
worsened intra-societal conflict – while algorithms represent merely a
repackaging of the eternal under-privileging of minority groups in society,
democratising technology has had a sui generis, never-before-seen
impact: it has genuinely widened the conversation, including previously
marginalised voices and pointing to a more hopeful possibility of the
eradication, rather than the worsening, of societal injustice.

18
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

In fact, however, the most significant error critics make in their unqualified
rage at technology is not in the nature of the impact it has on society
(where they fixate on the negative outcomes and neglect the undeniably
beneficial consequences technology can have), but in the nature of the
contested subject-matter. Technology only worsens conflict because it is
unbridled and unregulated, without a strict ethical code of application and
laws to prevent its misuse. So long as technology and innovation are
coupled with an effective, extensive and comprehensive set of laws and
regulations, its negative impact can be minimised while the myriad of
positives it brings are fully explored and enjoyed. Take social media as an
example; while it has been important in giving a voice to minority groups
in society, it has also laid the grounds for the rise of bigoted, intolerant
views held by racists, xenophobes and radicals. Holocaust denialism, for
instance, which denies the Jews their fundamental legacy and history of
oppression, has become almost commonplace on alternative social media
platforms such as 4chan, along with a rabid anti-Semitism. Yet, if the
fundamental purpose of technology is to aid human progress and improve
our lives, it is imperative that suitable limits are developed by society
alongside new technology to prevent excess, misuse and abuse. In what
has become infamous as Section 230, an obscure qualification of a US Bill
regulating media platforms exempted online forums from the
responsibility of ensuring truthfulness and decency on websites,
something that social media platforms have used to justify the
proliferation of intolerant, intolerable opinions across the Internet. Yet, this
regulatory measure is clearly obsolete, having been implemented in the
1990s, when the Internet was still a nascent platform. To ensure that the
utility of technology to society is maximised, it is essential that safeguards
are developed to ensure and enshrine the ideals of technology in such a
way that its application will ultimately benefit society, lessening the
conflicts across the globe without their abuse (in the cases of breaking the
laws of war) nor unintended misuse (as in the concretisation of injustice
through big data).

Ultimately, it is simply overly parochial to take such a revisionist stand

against technology. There is no doubt that technological development has

19
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

been almost single-handedly responsible for the astonishing

improvement in global standards of living as witnessed in the past three
centuries. In itself, this has reduced the potential for conflict, because
outright war is disincentivised in a time of material comfort that risks
ruination were conflict and disruption to arise. While it is true that the
latest iteration of unprecedented technological advances may have
worsened the severity of potential military conflict and deepened societal
tensions by raising the possibility of the long-term normalisation of
historical injustices by algorithms, it is arguable that, as it is often wont to
do, technology has also provided solutions to these prospective problems.
It has rewritten the rules of international engagement and cooperation to
such an extent as to make a major war genuinely unthinkable; it has given
unprecedented voice to previously disempowered minorities to make
their injustices known and seek redress. Both those outcomes
demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding – that technological
development has been excessive and uncontrolled when it is in fact society
and its attendant faults that have failed to keep up. Facebook’s motto
sums it up – it was once to “Move fast and break things”, and it was
society’s acquiescence in this destruction that enabled its many damaging,
tension-exacerbating outcomes witnessed today. Technology is ultimately
always something novel to society, yet it is important that, through a
robust system of institutional safeguards and a powerful regulatory
regime, society is able to keep a lid on this novelty, so that, to paraphrase
Joseph Schumpeter, technology may “create” and not “destroy”; so that it
may only resolve, and not worsen, the conflicts society is dealing with
today.

Marker’s comments:
You have packed in so much in 1 ½ hours! Good breadth and depth of content and
argumentation.
1. ‘worsen’  state clearly its extent/scale, intensity, and frequency
2. Just as you discussed the nature of technolgy, see if you can say something about
the nature of conflict.

20
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Brendan Mark | 20S03C

Is our trust in science misplaced?

Living in an era where it has never been easier to see the works of Man
shaping the world around us, we all too often take for granted the
universality of one of mankind’s greatest collective achievements —
science. The empirical study of the world around us, as well as the
advancements and applications it has in our modern lives, is a discipline
that mankind has indubitably lent much credence to and placed
humongous faith in. Yet is there reason to believe that our trust in science
is mistakenly placed? While some may argue so because of the ethical
problems science has introduced into our already-troubled world today,
our trust in the reliability, utility and continuity of scientific study is well-
placed, as science has proven itself to be credible and reliable, with real-
life applications to solve pressing issues in our world today, and has great
potential for future contributions to the human race.

Proponents of the view that our trust in the beneficence of science is

gravely misplaced may put forward the assertion that science has
introduced an entirely new set of ethical problems into our already-
problematic modern world. The study into the universal forces that govern
our world, while carried out with the noble aim of improving our lives
today, has opened up a Pandora’s box of ethical concerns. In the nature
of scientific study to push boundaries, studies into artificial intelligence
have introduced the fear of machines taking over much of the role humans
play, in the workplace or at home, creating the possibility of human
redundancy in society, as well as ethical concerns over the recognition of
such sentient beings as humans. At the forefront of scientific research,
gene editing and cloning technology have given rise to questions as to

21
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

the ethicality of “playing God” to create and destroy life, as well as to

correct flaws in our molecular composition.

Such fields of science can be polarising and divisive, with the thought of
Nazi-esque eugenics giving pause to some people who think our trust in
science’s ability to solve problems has gone too far, especially in a world
already riddled with human rights concerns and moral struggles. While
fears like these are not unfounded, they reveal a parochial view of scientific
study and fail to realise the many benefits science has brought into our
lives, that merit the trust humanity has placed in it today.

Firstly, our trust in the reliability of scientific information is well-placed, as

science has proven itself to be a credible discipline. At the crux of scientific
investigation is a firm philosophy of evidence-based deduction. The
common thread linking all fields of science together is the empirical
testing of hypotheses to explain an observation. In the study of chemistry,
chemists use a variety of molecular techniques to corroborate theories
about the molecules around us. The theory of atoms composed of
charged particles revolving around a densely packed nucleus was one of
many hypothesised centuries ago to explain the different reactions of
elements with one another. Through ages of rigorous testing and
corroboration, theories that did not hold water were eliminated, and the
model of the atom we know today is one that has withstood the test of
time. Scientific theories are only accepted as fact after rigorous
experimentation to verify the authenticity of a hypothesis, ensuring the
reliability of scientific information. Such studies often involve peer review
within the scientific community, where independent teams of researchers
put hypotheses to the test to arrive at the veracity of a theory that holds
water. The multiple checks and balances in scientific study ensure that new
information is reliable beyond doubt before being published, reinforcing
a self-regulating system of knowledge discovery constantly refining a
database of information that is reliable and credible, and hence worthy of
our trust.

Secondly, our trust in the utility of scientific study is well-placed, as it has

applications in solving pressing real-world problems. While scientific
22
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

research is conducted by and large by a learned few, its applications in

human society are deep and far-reaching. Many areas of our lives have
been revolutionised by science to such an extent that life without it is
unimaginable. The problem of lacking the food supply to feed an
exploding global population has been countered by applications of
science in mechanised refrigeration and food preservation, giving food
supplies much longer shelf lives in packets and cans. This enables the
transport and distribution of food en masse to regions in the world that
do not produce enough to feed their population. Granted, there are still
areas in the world where access to food and nutrition is limited, but
science has come a long way in allowing us to keep and store food for
extended periods of time. Furthermore, the scourge of disease, once a
plague to human life and wellness, has seen a huge reduction in
magnitude and severity around the globe, thanks to scientific progress in
pharmacology and healthcare standards. What started with the study of
Penicillium mould in petri dishes has now led to a plethora of antibiotic
treatments, and the continual refinement of surgical procedures based on
new information about the anatomy of the human body has allowed
countless life-saving surgeries to be performed, most notably in the fields
of cardiology and oncology. With decades of science greatly boosting the
affordability, accessibility and effectiveness of healthcare, science has
vastly diminished the once-major threat physical ailments posed to our
health. Similar scientific breakthroughs over the years have indisputably
ameliorated many of the problems humans face, heightening our quality
of life and life expectancy to unprecedented levels. Therefore, science has
proven itself to be extremely impactful in its utility to tackle problems
faced by humanity, easily meriting our trust.

Furthermore, our trust in the continuity of science is also well-placed, with

science showing great potential to sustain itself and contribute to the
human race. More scientific breakthroughs have been made in the last 100
years than ever, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “snowball
effect” of science. As the database of scientific information continues to
expand, new discoveries and advancements are allowed to occur at an
exponential rate with the increasing accessibility of scientific information

23
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

to the layman. While once thought of as a discipline confined to the ivory

towers, it is now easier than ever to make new discoveries in science. The
science of today is hence a mighty discipline built up by generations
before us, left for us to pass down to the generations to come with an
ever-growing bank of information. Science in this regard is not only self-
sustaining, but continually expanding in its size, and consequently
relevance to our world. The science of tomorrow may hold solutions to
hunger and global warming, as breakthroughs are already in the works.
Science hence has great potential to sustain the human race too, and is
hence deserving of our trust.

Science has long been heralded as one of the greatest achievements of

our world, and this is certainly not without grounds. With the credibility,
utility and continuity of science, it is a discipline undoubtedly worthy of
the great trust humanity has placed in it. The world of infinite possibilities
lies well within the expanse of science, and it is up to us humans solely to
discover it.

Marker’s Comments:
An excellent response, fully relevant with a range of illustrations. This is clearly one of
your best essays! I enjoyed reading it, especially the choice of vocab and use of convincing
language. Keep up the good work!
While the last point is OK, is there any way to substantiate it so that it doesn’t just sound
theoretical?

24
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Koh Yi Hui | 20S03H

Is our trust in science misplaced?

A disease-free population, genetically modified food and humans, or even

autonomous self-driving vehicles. These are just some of the promises
that science offers in the rapidly advancing world today, whereby the shift
in focus to science has catalysed its progress by leaps and bounds.
Dubbed the “driving force” of societal progress and a key hallmark of an
educated society, science has undoubtedly been placed on a pedestal by
many. Each year, notable awards such as the Nobel Prize, or Breakthrough
Prizes are given to scientists deemed to have made the most significant
contributions to the scientific community, emphasizing the prestigious
and vital role science is accorded in our society. Some believe this is
rightfully so, with the rational, fact-based, and accurate nature of science
leaving little space for argumentation, offering us indisputable
explanations that allow us to better understand how the world works. This
trust in science has given rise to its formidable power and influence. Yet, I
believe that our trust in science may be misplaced with the undermining
of the very nature of science which we place our trust in.

Proponents of science within the scientific community such as scientists,

argue that our trust in science is not misplaced as science is able to deliver
what it promises. They attribute this to the fact-based, objective nature of
science, which ensures its universality and applicability in the real world.
Citing the vigorous fact checking procedures and scrutiny that the
scientific community is subjected to, they posit that science does indeed
present accurate, fact-based explanations for the phenomena we observe
in our daily lives. For instance, scientists are required to carry out
numerous experiments to determine the validity of their hypothesis,
repeating the experiments over and over again to increase their sample

25
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

size, hence increasing the reliability of the results that they have obtained.
When sharing their conclusions and findings with the entire world, they
are required to present these experimental data in academic research
papers, which are then published in scientific journals. These scientific
journals, such as the widely acclaimed Nature, are then subjected to
scrutiny by the rest of the scientific community, serving as a means of
checks and balances to ensure the reliability and credibility of results
observed. Such a process typically takes years in itself, due to its tedious
nature that only serves to ensure that science delivers on what it promises,
ensuring its reliability and accuracy. Furthermore, the scientific community
also holds prestigious scientific conferences throughout the year, acting
as an avenue for scientists to share their insights with others, while
providing an opportunity for others to examine their work and challenge
any assumptions that they have made, further serving as a check and
balance to ensure that any scientific knowledge gleaned at the end of the
day is trustworthy. Such events include the Singapore Science and
Engineering Fair for budding student researchers, or even conferences like
the International Science Fair held in other countries. As a result of these
rigorous checks and balances present in the scientific community, it is
argued that there leaves little avenue for science to be inaccurate or
unreliable, and hence science is to be trusted, for it can deliver what it
promises.

While I concede that there are indeed rigorous checks and balances to
ensure that science is able to maintain its fact-based, accurate nature that
we so highly value science for, it is not to say that science is always able
to ensure its trustworthiness. There are certain limits as to what these
checks and balances can do, undermining its very nature. As a result, our
trust in science would be misplaced.

The rigorous checks and balances are insufficient to prevent instances of

scientific fraud within the scientific community due to alternative
objectives that overpower the need of the scientific community to ensure
science’s fact based and accurate nature. Such alternative objectives
include firms’ vested interests or even the personal motivations of their

26
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

scientists carrying out the research. In the headlong rush to keep up with
the ever-evolving nature of science due to the rapid speed of
developments and breakthroughs, the essence of science becomes
threatened and diluted. For instance, to secure funding for hefty scientific
research projects that at times rack up thousands, if not millions, of dollars,
scientific research firms often have to collaborate with other firms which
might influence the nature and outcome of such research. This is often
difficult to ascertain due to confidential Non-Disclosure Agreements
signed between both parties, but it is certain that other profit-maximising
firms have at least a say in which scientific results are to be published, or
even involved, in the research process. This potentially results in
misrepresentation of results, or even scientific fraud. For instance, research
firm Global Balance Energy Network once published a scientific report
dismissing the link between sugary drinks and obesity. Upon further
investigation, it was found to be linked to carbonated drink manufacturer
Coke, which funded the entire research project. It is evident that the vested
interests of other stakeholders can hence undermine the fact-based and
accurate nature of science we trust in. Besides, stakeholders such as the
scientist himself can contribute to scientific fraud due to a misalignment
of personal vested interests and the aims of the scientific community. Such
scientists may be tempted to act in such a manner in pursuit of personal
fame and recognition, leading to scientific fraud. For instance, Japanese
stem cell scientist Obokata had previously published a scientific paper
describing her breakthrough in developing a new method to obtain
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. This was met with great favour and
enthusiasm, but none of those who tried to replicate her work could
achieve results similar to what she had reportedly observed. It was only
upon further investigation that she was found to have doctored the
experimental data, and was hence labelled as a fraudster. Through such
instances, it is evident that the checks and balances put in place to ensure
the reliability of scientific results are insufficient, and could be easily
overpowered by the alternative vested interests of the stakeholders
involved. As such, our trust in science is misplaced, for it does not always
deliver what it promises.

27
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

Additionally, our trust in science is misplaced as science need not be the

absolute truth. It merely offers the most logical, plausible explanation or
conclusion thought of at that particular point in time, but this does not
mean that it is absolutely accurate or reliable. Some may even go as far as
to assert that science is merely what we believe until otherwise proven
wrong. A common argument for this cites the phenomenon of inductive
reasoning, whereby we make conclusions based on our limited sample
size, which might in fact, not be representative of the entire world we live
in. This is due to the inherent limitation of scientists to observe and
experiment on all aspects of the world before drawing any reasonable
conclusions, due to the sheer scale of the world we live in. For instance,
just because Down Syndrome has been observed to be caused by a third
chromosome in the 23rd chromosome pair might not mean that it is a fact
for sure - it may simply be a case that the anomaly to this observed trend
has not been encountered as of yet (though it still remains the case as of
now). Science does not necessarily offer the absolute truth, for there are
times when scientific theories have been overturned and replaced with
new scientific concepts as well, based on the ever-evolving contributions
in the scientific community, characterised by rapid breakthroughs and
developments. One such example is the theory of evolution, which was
initially merely based on observing similarities in the physical traits shared.
Following recent years, with the development of science enabling the
sequencing of genomes of various organisms, molecular homology is
increasingly used in place of such physical observations to determine
inter-species’ evolutionary relationships. This has allowed for a more
accurate understanding of the world we live in, and has also overturned
previous falsehoods that we mistakenly believed in due to the fact that
they were presented to us in the name of “science”. Evidently, science is
nothing more than just hypothesising the best explanation at the point in
time to explain the world around us, and might not be the absolute truth.
This challenges the fact based and accurate nature of science that we trust
in it for, and hence our trust in science is misplaced.

Lastly, science also has its inherent limitations in modeling the complex
world we live in, hence undermining the fact based nature and accuracy

28
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

that we trust in it for. This is especially so when the world we live in is

highly intricate and dynamic, with a number of factors coming into play at
any given point in time to possibly give rise to different phenomena we
observe. Meanwhile, science only serves to isolate one factor at a time,
studying its effect in great detail when we might in fact be missing out on
the bigger picture altogether. One such example is the way scientific
experiments are designed, with only one independent variable at any
given point in time. This is highly unrepresentative of the complex world
we live in, falling to account for different factors out there which might
influence the end result. Additionally, due to ethical considerations,
experimentation regarding human diseases are often carried out on
animal models such as lab rats, as compared to directly on humans. While
animal models serve as a means to model the way humans will react to
certain substances introduced to their bodies, animal models are still
fundamentally different from humans, giving rise to differences that we
cannot possibly postulate due to the lack of research. What might be
successful in an animal model may be unsuccessful when applied to real
life. As such, due to the inherent limitations of science to model the
complex world we live in, science might not always be able to offer us
accurate or reliable results, and hence our trust in science is misplaced.

This is not to say that the concept of science, in itself, is something that
we should no longer trust. Rather, it is the way science is executed, along
with its inherent limitations, that undermines its reliability and accuracy,
compromising on its ability to deliver on what it promises. Nonetheless,
science is still placed on a pedestal in today’s time and age, with an
increasing emphasis on science like never before. It is undeniable that
science heralds great promise - the cure to diseases, world hunger,
increasing convenience, amongst the many other benefits that science can
bring. Yet, before we blindly agree and trust whatever science presents to
us, perhaps it is time to stop and consider whether we should even trust
whatever is presented in the first place.

29
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

Marker’s Comments:
+ Good work here, Yi Hui. A very thoughtful response that shows a very thorough
understanding of science, its limitations and how other factors like profit impact it.
+ Depth of evaluation is evident by providing insight into the traits of science.
o Examples are consistently developed but some tend to be general trends/standard
material. This is one area you can improve in.
+ Overall, your writing is very clear with apt word choice, complex sentence structure
and some evidence of personal voice.

30
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Boo Jin An, Joshua | 20A01B

Do you agree that a university education is becoming increasingly

unnecessary today?

A university education has traditionally been held in high regard by most

of society. The prestige attached to brand-name institutions like Oxford
and Cambridge has generally been seen as a vital factor in marking an
individual out for future success, and as higher education became more
accessible, what was once perceived as the preserve of the elite gradually
evolved into a product seen as necessary for accomplishment in life in
more and more societies. However, the notion has recently surfaced that
a university education is becoming increasingly unnecessary today. I
disagree with this because if anything, a university education is in fact
becoming increasingly necessary.

Some individuals, believing themselves enlightened, argue that a

university education is becoming increasingly unnecessary as our current
era requires members of society to have a more creative, entrepreneurial
mindset – something they believe the rigid, institutional education in
universities cannot provide. The rapid, ever-accelerating growth of
technology and the increasingly unstable world order means that it will be
independent, self-sufficient thinkers who will be able to innovate and stay
on top of things. The world increasingly needs this type of people to steer
it through a global wave of uncertainty and crises, as reflected in the “21st-
Century Key Competencies” framework which privileges entrepreneurial
thinking above skills like rote-learning and repetitive task-performing.
Large employers like Google specifically look for “creative” people to solve
increasingly complex modern problems, and in an age of Silicon Valley
startups, innovators are gaining increasing prominence in the media,

31
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

business and myriad other areas. The key gripe proponents of this
argument have with university education is that it fails to prepare students
for this increasingly chaotic world that relies on out-of-the-box thinking.
They point to the very nature of the university as an institution, arguing
that it renders it poorly suited for developing 21st-century mindsets. The
fact that the power over every student’s education rests in the hands of a
cabal of professors means that students are steeped in the mindsets of
tradition and the previous era, as not all professors, it is argued, can or will
change and develop courses fast enough to keep up with the times.
Courses like the classics are increasingly being mocked – in the 21st
century, why would the study of Latin be useful in navigating the ever-
shifting global climate? Those who believe a university education is
becoming increasingly unnecessary point to these factors to illustrate its
growing irrelevance – in an era where thinkers need to be dynamic, agile
in responding to the rapid changes in modern society, a university
education does not develop dynamism. It provides students with a
knowledge base that may be rapidly outmoded, rather than focusing on
providing them with the skills needed to survive. A university does not
teach students to fish; it gives them a fish which will inevitably rot with the
increasingly chaotic and fast-paced progress of the rest of the world.

Such an argument does make a valid point in recognising that society

shifts and changes much more rapidly today and it is important to be able
to respond to that. However, its error lies in assuming that universities are
static. Even institutions must evolve over time, particularly when society
around them is evolving quickly. Universities, in fact, have even more of
an incentive to adapt to the confusing modern climate: they need to
uphold that prestige attached to a university education in order to
safeguard their own interests. A university cannot afford to become
irrelevant. To sustain itself, it must continually draw in students by proving
that they can develop mindsets that are needed in the 21st century. For
this reason, many universities are in fact creating such opportunities for
students to learn modern key competencies – and precisely because they
are institutions, these opportunities tend to be extra-special: they are not
open to the general public. Furthermore, universities do not merely

32
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

provide knowledge. A university education includes access to networks

that are in fact needed to translate dynamic mindsets into actual change
in reality. People who believe a university education is becoming
increasingly unnecessary fail to make the link that mindsets without means
are unactionable – a link that a university education can bridge, and solve.

Thus, one reason why a university education is not becoming increasingly

unnecessary – but rather the opposite – today is that modern university
education actually does provide opportunities for developing
entrepreneurial and creative mindsets that are unavailable elsewhere.
Students are a university’s lifeblood for many reasons: for the money they
provide, for the educational spirit of the institution, and so on. To nurture
students prepared for the modern world – and hence attract new ones –
universities have thus attempted to innovate themselves. Professors and
consultants routinely attempt to plan new courses and experiences that
will provide students with the empathy and creative thinking needed to
respond to modern crises. In addition, the weight behind universities
allows them to partner with other organisations in providing such
experiences. Such avenues allow students to gain a deeper insight into the
workings of the modern world, and thus develop empathy for the situation
which encourages students to find innovative ways to help deal with them,
rather than regurgitating information spoon-fed to them in the courses of
old. The exclusive nature of these opportunities means that students are
able to exercise creative problem-solving in contexts that others would
not normally get to experience. This gives them a leg-up when surviving
in the ever-changing modern landscape, as they can use their experience
to traverse the minefield of modern problems and deal with them more
effectively. The College of Alice and Peter Tan (CAPT) at the National
University of Singapore provides an example – t allows residents to adopt
a hands-on approach in visiting and interacting with members of society
who are facing modern problems, like inadequate support for the elderly
in aging Singapore. This develops greater levels of empathy and
understanding in the college residents, who can then use that insight to
develop more innovative, targeted approaches to tackling such issues.

33
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

This demonstrates the necessary value of university education in giving

students opportunities for developing dynamic mindsets in today’s world.

Another reason is that a university education provides a crucial platform

for networking between these creative individuals, which is essential in
translating 21st-century key competencies and the like into actual, tangible
success and results. Mindsets change nothing without action. Even the
best ideas are useless if they cannot be put into practice, to do what needs
to be done. This is particularly true in the modern world, where
transnational and global issues like international trade and climate change
are increasingly taking centre stage. By the same token, cooperation
between great minds is needed to tackle problems of such scale and
severity. One person cannot tackle climate change alone, and creative
individuals will need to work together to make the most of their abilities.
Two heads are better than one – and university education provides one
with a network of many heads. Professors, peers, et cetera: university
education gives one a chance to interact with them, to develop and refine
one’s own thinking by discoursing with them, and to potentially cooperate
with them to deal with ever-growing problems in the modern world. This
undeniably enhances the efficacy of change enacted by these individuals.
If people with entrepreneurial thinking are best suited to survive and lead
us in the increasingly complicated modern era, then teamwork and co-
optation between them can only enhance those qualities. The power of
networking is evident, for example, in university alumni associations. Their
influence, pooled from several individuals, is so large that in America some
of them are accused of having outsized political influence in today’s
climate. This provides us with a glimpse of the power of networking in
causing actual change and influencing real-world events. Since universities
give students the opportunity to network with peers and mentors, it
provides them with an avenue for translating innovative mindsets into
actionable solutions, something sorely needed in this modern world more
than ever.

In conclusion, a university education is not becoming increasingly

irrelevant. Rather it could well be increasingly relevant in today’s context

34
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

because it provides students with the mindsets needed to survive and the
opportunities needed to put such mindsets into substantial action. Amidst
the shifting climate of today, the necessity of university education can only,
if ever, shift in one direction: the positive.

Marker’s Comments:
Good, Joshua! You have addressed the requirements of the question well. Good quality
of ideas and arguments.
There are two areas on which you could work:
1. Examples: Without examples your claims will remain as such.
2. You may want to consider comparing a university education to alternatives and
examine why these alternatives pale in comparison.

35
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Elliot Han | 20S06F

Do you agree that a university education is becoming increasingly

irrelevant today?

Eat, study, sleep, repeat. That is the life of Junior College students across
Singapore nearing the A-Level Examinations, all to pass with flying colours.
Why all this effort? Such drive comes from the widely held belief that good
grades allow students to pursue a university education at prestigious
universities, which in turn lays the foundation for a successful career.
Indeed, there is societal pressure to study hard and pursue a degree due
to benefits such as higher potential wages and greater career
opportunities. Nevertheless, with soaring university costs, rapidly evolving
demands of the job market as well as alternative online learning platforms,
university education is becoming increasingly unnecessary in this day and
age in fulfilling the aspirations of students.

Other than providing a gateway to future opportunities, universities are

essential for broadening an individual’s knowledge and experience.
Proponents of a university education argue that such an education allows
students to delve deeper into the subject matter they are studying,
developing an understanding that goes beyond the superficial level. Other
than building depth in their knowledge, students also widen their body of
knowledge through various compulsory courses beyond their immediate
field of specialisation, such as critical thinking and the humanities. By
drawing parallels between different fields, students can offer more
innovative solutions to existing problems. A comprehensive education
obtained from attending a university not only serves to benefit students
in their personal lives but also their professional lives, making them more
attractive job applicants to employees. In such a case, a university degree

36
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

acts as a marker of having gone through rigorous education and offers a

degree holder an advantage over non-degree holders.

However, to assert that a university education is a necessity because of the

above reasons, while holding some merit, is unfortunately not reflective of
the ever-evolving demands of our contemporary work landscape. It is
increasingly apparent that what is valued by employees today is not a
university degree, but rather the practical skills that individuals possess
and the contributions that they can make to the company. Contrary to
popular belief, such skills can be developed outside of a university
education. In such a case, theoretical knowledge gained from a university
education is less of a necessity but rather a complement to real-life
expertise. This is reflected by the increasing number of top companies that
no longer require a university degree, including Apple and Google.
Furthermore, certain occupations like software engineers prize relevant
experience and skills needed to excel at such a job over a degree. Software
engineers must be intimately familiar with the inner workings of real-life
software development projects and the tips and tricks required to work
efficiently in such a developmental environment. Other professions like
architects and engineers likewise make use of productivity-enhancing
tools that are covered in brief in university courses. The preferences of top
companies for individuals with real-life working experience and a cohesive
portfolio serve to highlight how a university education, though ideal, is
not necessary in today’s job market.

Furthermore, with the proliferation of online learning courses, individuals

can pick and choose an education best suited to their circumstances and
interests, thus nullifying an advantage previously held by traditional
universities. Online learning platforms, through means like Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs), allow every individual with an internet
connection, regardless of finances or background, to pursue knowledge
in a way that will further their careers as well as strengthen their
knowledge base. Platforms such as edX and Coursera allow students to
pick and choose from a variety of courses from well-known universities
like Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). These

37
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

platforms give the general population a taste of a university education

that is varied and relevant to the individual, whether the courses chosen
are famed computer science courses or more esoteric liberal arts courses.
The efficacy of such courses has been proven, with a survey done on
MOOCs participants finding that about 70% reported career benefits like
finding a new job and job promotions. Other than MOOCs, certain online
platforms provide an opportunity to obtain a degree from a respected
institution at a lower cost and at greater convenience. For example,
Georgia Institute of Technology offers an online Master of Science in
Computer Science that enables students from a wide variety of paths,
whether they may be current computer science students or working
professionals with some background in the field, to obtain a Masters
degree that is equivalent to one obtained on campus, while at the same
time allowing them to go about their daily lives. Courses cover an
extensive scope of topics, including Artificial Learning, Cybersecurity and
Robotics. All of this comes at a relatively economical cost of about 10,000
SGD while an equivalent education on campus would be 10 times more
expensive due to tuition and school fees. Ultimately, these online
platforms offer a means through which one can develop his or her
portfolio, the key to landing a job in today’s competitive and volatile job
market. With the proliferation of online learning platforms in the past
decade providing focused, applicable and accessible knowledge to
students or today, a traditional university education that takes up years of
one’s life may no longer be as necessary as before.

In addition, skyrocketing school fees place a university education

increasingly out of reach of students, especially those from less privileged
backgrounds. Looking abroad, tuition fees in countries like the United
States have risen exponentially in the past few years, with what used to be
affordable by the masses now becoming a hefty financial burden for those
who decide to pursue a college education. The student loan situation in
the United States speaks for itself, with student loan debt above US 1.5
trillion dollars. This situation is not exclusive to the United States, with
school fees rising approximately 40% since 2007 in Singapore. The
question of worth then arises: in this day and age, what value does a

38
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

university education provide to justify the costs of attending one? The

value of such an education will continue to be questioned, with local
university costs soaring into the six digits range, more students will pursue
alternative pathways that are cheaper and offer better value for money.

Lastly, a university education may be increasingly unnecessary because of

the rapid pace of innovation today, potentially rendering the degree
useless. Technology and business trends come and go quickly, and a
degree chosen four years prior may become irrelevant upon graduation.
Spending time and money on a degree which may bear no significance to
one’s career is a weak value proposition. Artificial Intelligence and
automation are quickly replacing many tasks previously held by humans
and significant job disruption will occur with many employees developing
skill gaps. In such a situation, lifelong learning will become increasingly
important, with people continually needing to adapt and improve their
practical knowledge during short breaks from employment. A 4-year
university education does not offer the same robustness and may not
adequately prepare students for an evolving job market, at the same time
burdening them with loans which they will struggle to repay for years.
Thus, a university education may be increasingly unnecessary and less
appealing than before.

In conclusion, adaptability and suitability is the name of the game when it

comes to the modern job market. By possessing the latest practical
knowledge that is highly demanded by employers, individuals increase the
chance of getting employed. A traditional university education, one that
places a tremendous financial burden on students for getting a degree
that may become irrelevant rapidly, can be considered archaic. While
traditional universities do provide value, especially when it comes to
academic and research endeavours, this is of peripheral concern to many
who pursue a university education solely for the degree. For universities
to be relevant to the masses, they will have to utilise their wealth of
knowledge and come up with novel ways to make their education and
presence relevant today. Such examples include online degrees that offer
exceptional value in comparison to degrees obtained from in-person

39
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

traditional universities. Otherwise, a university education will be

unnecessary now and even more so in the future.

Marker’s Comments:
1. This is a well-written essay exemplifying an insightful understanding of the
reasons why a university education is fast becoming irrelevant to the needs of
employers and employees alike. You’ve managed to offer quality examples to
substantiate your argument in your 3rd content paragraph in particular; keep this
up.
2. Nevertheless, you might wish to consider why opponents of your view would
continue to staunchly defend the continued relevance of a university education
today. One reason is because universities are still very much at the forefront of
knowledge, particular in fields such as medical science, among others. The
research to be gleaned from faculty-led research and university funded projects
continues to hold immense value for real-world sectors, such as healthcare. Also,
consider how many universities have been effectively adapting higher education
to meet the ever evolving demands of a volatile world and economy.
3. Content-wise, there appears to be a bias towards IT-related knowledge and jobs
in terms of the examples you’ve cited in this essay.

40
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Nellie Toh | 20A01A

Consider the value of having routines in today’s world.

Human lives revolve around fixed structures. The vast majority of us

depend on a certain routine to live out our daily lives - students go to
school and working adults go to work every Monday morning just as
certainly as the sun rises in the East at dawn. Routines and structures may
seem dull and mundane, but they are necessary for the average person to
form a sense of discipline and stability in their lives. However, while we
blindly cling to this sense of security that our daily routines lend us, the
rest of the world might not. Arguably, it seems that the global trends of
today are moving further and further away from stability and structure -
with threats of wars, the uncontrollable effects of climate change, and
uncertain political futures looming over humanity like a dark cloud, it
seems foolish to rely on routines to stabilise our lives. While these
uncertainties are indeed undeniable, however, it is because our world is
ever-changing that we must retain routine and structure - whether it be
for an individual’s, society’s, or even the world’s wellbeing.

As mentioned above, the world we live in today is a volatile one. Thus, as

many world leaders and figures of authority have advised, it is necessary
for individuals, groups, and companies to be flexible and able to adapt to
changes that seem to take place every day. The recent situation with the
outbreak of the COVID-19 virus is one such example - in today’s globalised
and increasingly interconnected world, things spread quickly, and one
country’s problem can soon become a global issue. In the case of the
COVID-19 threat, this particular global issue has quickly become deadly.
It was inevitable that the virus would spread, and with it came a suspension
of our daily norms. In countries like South Korea, Italy and Iran, the rapid
spread caused various institutions such as churches and schools to

41
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

suspend activities temporarily. People’s daily lives were massively

disrupted - citizens whose lives once revolved around the routines of
school and work became confined to their homes, whether by law or by
choice. This suspension of daily norms for hundreds of thousands of
people globally is a clear example of the ever-changing conditions of our
world today. This event has made it terrifyingly clear to countries and
people across the world that, in the cases of major global issues or events,
continuously carrying out the routines that we depend on so dearly are
made useless and, to an extent, even illogical. Hence, having routines in
today’s volatile and unstable world could be considered entirely devoid of
value.

There are however, several flaws to this argument. While it is no doubt

true that today’s world often changes too rapidly for our routines to catch
up, it is precisely this unstable nature of our world that necessitates the
establishment of routines in our lives to ensure that order and social
structures in communities around the world remain intact. The COVID-19
threat saw the sudden suspension of our daily norms, but it also brought
about the installation of new routines. This sudden threat of a global
pandemic quickly brought to attention the importance of maintaining
good hygiene and practicing social responsibility. In countries where
religious institutions, schools, and workplaces were not closed, various
temperature taking routines were set in place to confirm that every
individual involved in an activity was healthy, thus reducing the risk of
spreading the virus further. Medical healthcare workers, in particular, had
to follow even stricter routines to ensure that any possible germs that they
might have come into contact with were gotten rid of before they had left
their stations. Other threats that come along with our increasingly
interconnected world - say for instance, threats to cyber-security - are
similarly contained by precautionary routines, such as the setting and
regular usage of unique passwords and security systems when accessing
personal information. While routines like these may seem mundane and
repetitive, they are absolutely necessary to combat the threats and
challenges that today’s volatile world presents us with on a daily basis, and
therefore prove themselves more than valuable today.

42
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

Routines play a key role not only in ensuring social stability, but in
maintaining one’s personal wellbeing and sense of security as well. While
human beings are innately capable of learning to improvise and adapt
when necessary, we are also, by nature, very much reliant on structures to
keep ourselves sane and give us a sense of security. Constant changes to
our daily routines are often perceived as a sort of disruption that may
throw us off-kilter, and if such disruptions are severe or shocking enough,
they can take a serious toll on our mental and emotional health. The
bringing up of children makes this very clear - many childcare experts
repeatedly emphasise the importance of keeping a sense of routine in a
child’s life. Children whose parents are frequently absent or inconsistent
in their caretaking feel keenly the lack of routine and structure in their lives,
and this may evolve further to become mental and emotional obstacles as
they grow up. It is why children seem to enjoy rewatching the same
cartoon movie over and over again, or demand the same bedtime story
every single night. In a world where children are increasingly exposed to
other influences online or changing global perspectives, the importance
of imposing a sense of regularity and structure in their lives becomes even
more pronounced. Routine and regularity is not just for children, of course
- mental health studies have shown that by adopting healthy, regular
routines in our lives, the mental and emotional health of individuals
improves to a great extent. These routines need not be drastic - for
instance, simply waking up at a fixed time - say, 8am - everyday, and
having a healthy breakfast, helps ensure a sense of regularity for an
individual, hence improving their sense of self and security. In today’s
world, many societies are seeing spiralling mental health levels, from a
combination of factors such as overexposure to unhealthy media or
increasing numbers of lonely elderly. These conditions therefore make the
imposition of regular, healthy routines completely necessary for the sake
of personal wellbeing.

On a larger scale, routines are also important in, ironically, bringing about
change. Routines seem to be defined by mundane repetitions of the same
thing, over and over again. However, in the bigger scheme of things, only
routines, where one can commit to faithfully carrying out the same action

43
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

over and over again over a long period of time, can truly create sustained
and concrete changes. Greta Thunberg, for instance, is well-acquainted
with routines. Young Greta began the ‘School Strike for Climate’ campaign
by carrying out her own weekly routine - namely, skipping classes every
Friday to protest for more to be done to combat climate change. If she
had done this only once or twice, it could easily have been dismissed as
an excuse to play truant. But the regularity of her protests over months,
now years, was what caught the public’s attention. Over time, more
students began to join her, and today, a teenage girl leads the largest
climate change movement in the entire world, spanning over more than a
hundred countries, and drawing support from thousands of celebrities and
hundreds of politicians - all because a teenage girl was able to set an
example by simply repeating her weekly routine, and in doing so, call for
change. On the topic of climate change, routines are also indispensable
when it comes to making a positive change. As Greta Thunberg has proven,
it takes regular, faithful repetition - not a one-off interest - to make a
change. Climate activists have encouraged people across the world to
incorporate simple routines into our daily lives to combat climate change.
For instance, regular recycling, though simple, can make a big difference
if enough people do it together.

Routines are, at first glance, boring and mundane, and to some,

increasingly unimportant in our ever-changing world. However, it is
precisely the volatility of our world that necessitates routine.

Marker’s Comments:
Content: This response shows good depth and maturity of thought, though the second
half was not as convincing as the first (see in-essay comments). Still, you have handled
an awkward question very well, referring to context quite successfully (though there are
gaps) and consistently, expanding your discussion to cover good breadth.

Language: Excellent control/organisation of points, with potentially disparate points

coherently connected. Sentence variation is evident. Vocabulary tends to be fairly
standard, but nonetheless there is hardly a word out of place.

44
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Angeline Lai | 20S03H

‘We can never rely on social media to convey the truth.’

Do you agree?

In 2016, a man stormed into a pizzeria in Washington DC, armed with a

rifle and ready to correct the incorrigible and wretched wrongs of society.
After seeing the lurid yet seemingly true accusations of then-Democratic
Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton running a clandestine sex ring in the
basement of the pizzeria, he drove hundreds of miles to the capital, fuelled
by outrage, disgust and anger. However, this accusation turned out to be
fake news propagated by Clinton’s detractors on social media. Indeed, the
emergence of the post-truth era is often associated with the rise of social
media due to its low barriers to entry and lack of gatekeeping. Yet, in this
post-truth era, it is too nihilistic to declare social media incapable of
reflecting the truth. Despite its shortfalls, social media is still able to
facilitate the transmission of societal truths and reliable information,
especially with reliable news outlets now taking to social media to connect
with its readers. Furthermore, these limitations of social media can also be
mitigated by government legislation, curbing the spread of fake news and
encouraging more accurate information to be shared on social media.
Therefore, it is presumptuous to generalise that social media can never be
relied on to convey the truth as it is very much able to deliver verified
information to its audience.

Proponents of social media’s unreliability posit that social media’s

inherent qualities dictate its inability to convey the truth. Characterised by
its low barriers to entry, social media enables all members of society to
express their views on the platform, engendering the democratization of
media. However, social media users are often insufficiently aware about
the veracity of the information they are sharing, thus end up
45
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

unintentionally propagating falsehoods. For instance, in 2017, reports of 2

secondary school girls being kidnapped along River Valley Road were
virally spread on social media, rendering social media platforms pregnant
with anxiety and rife with insecurity over local safety. This was later
dispelled by the Singapore Police Force following investigations into the
reports. Ostensibly, the present-day attraction to and propensity to
believe lurid and hyperbolic fare, coupled with the rapid transmission of
information enabled by social media, has allowed for these falsehoods to
be spread and not eliminated. In turn, users of social media are more likely
to come across fake news, further exacerbating the unreliability of fake
news.

The rising ubiquity of falsehoods – powered by the architecture of social

media – has attracted the eye of naysayers who wish to use social media
as a platform to foment social and political unrest. In other words, the
unreliability of social media is exacerbated by the type of users it attracts
and the appallingly unreliable information they feed into these platforms.
The aforementioned example of the Pizzagate scandal is a case in point.
In fact, its belligerent accusations against Hillary Clinton, alongside a
plethora of other posts lambasting and disparaging her by citing false
claims of her misdeeds in her stints as First Lady and Secretary of State,
have been found to have taken a toll on hsenter popularity at the polls. In
turn, this has benefitted Trump and his supporters, eventually accounting
for part of his success in the 2016 elections. This points towards the
potential use of social media as an avenue for misinformation and
manipulation of the public for one’s own hegemonic ambitions.
Considering social media’s hitherto success in helping these individuals
achieve their goods, social media is likely to continue attracting such
evildoers who flood social media with such falsehoods, rendering social
media an unreliable source of information.

Indeed, social media seems to facilitate and itself perpetuate the viral
propagation of falsehoods and their abysmal reliability. However, the rise
of these falsehoods and the abuse of social media, as well as the gravity
of its ramifications, have caught the eye of governments worldwide who

46
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

now deem it a cause for concern. In order to curb the spread of falsehoods
on social media, governments have pledged to take action to ensure the
veracity of information on these platforms. The most direct way to do it is
through legislation empowering the government to flag out falsehoods
and censor them to prevent irreversible damage. For instance, the
Singaporean government recently established the Protection from Online
Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which enables them to verify
or falsify information being spread on social media; when necessary, they
can demand the misinformation be taken down and even charge the social
media user if he was found to have borne malicious intent in spreading
the news. Having the whip of the law serves as a psychological deterrent,
reminding media users to be more careful and judicious when spreading
information. In the long run, this ensures that news on social media is
distilled down to its most accurate, raising the reliability of information on
social media. Furthermore, concerted government efforts to educate the
public on how to ensure the veracity of information and impart greater
discretion has enabled the public to be more discerning when they come
across information online. In addition to POFMA, the Infocommunications
Media Development Authority (IMDA) also formulated a slew of policies
and initiatives to raise public awareness about fake news, posting
numerous advertisements online about the characteristics of fake news as
well as examples and advice on how citizens should respond to fake news.
In doing so, governments are training citizens on the ground to become
gatekeepers of social media as they are now able to vet through the
swathes of information to prevent the spread of and even highlight
falsehoods to fellow netizens, plugging the government’s gaps in
enforcing the policy. On the whole, these government measures have
improved the reliability of social media and reinforced its role as a vital
source of truths to the public, having been vetted by the educated public
and the government.

Beyond just governmental measures that dampen the unreliability of

social media, the reliability of social media is further enhanced by the
presence of established news outlets on the various platforms.
Considering the increasing digitization and ubiquity of social media, many

47
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

traditional news outlets have also taken to social media to ensure

continued reception and survival in the long run. Thus, they often share
headline news on their social media pages in real time. For instance, during
the recent political turmoil in Malaysia following the resignation of then-
Prime Minister Dr Mahathir, The Straits Times and Channel News Asia gave
live updates on the twists and turns on the event on their Instagram and
Facebook pages, giving social media users a reliable source of current
affairs. Furthermore, these established news outlets have the financial
clout to maintain the quality of the news they report. The New York Times,
one of the most popular news outlets worldwide, has over a hundred
foreign correspondents in 67 countries globally. Coupled with a massive
and well-trained editorial team, it is able to deliver accurate and reliable
information on social media platforms. Given the ubiquity of such
international news outlets on social media, social media users have access
to reliable and certified sources of information; they are also able to fact-
check suspicious pieces of information they come across online, further
enhancing the accuracy of information that social media can convey to its
users. Thus, it is myopic to conclude that social media can never be relied
on to convey the truth.

Moreover, the high accessibility of social media has also allowed for truths
that run counter to the national narrative and history to be brought to
light, exposing the delicately weaved narratives that societies have come
to believe. The low barrier of entry to social media means that it is a free-
for-all and equips users with a large potential audience that spans nations
worldwide. Hence, users are able to bypass the highly regulated traditional
media outlets to highlight truths that are censored by the government.
Most recently, before the acknowledgement of the Covid-19 virus by the
Chinese government, Wuhan health officials were trying to bury the
emergence of the seeming reincarnation of SARS by suppressing reports
about it and not informing the Chinese public. However, Dr Li Wenliang
took to social media to share that he was under quarantine for a
potentially deadly virus that had begun to spread and threatened to
consume the city. In doing so, he brought to light the truth about the
situation, raising awareness of the actual situation and circumventing the

48
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

efforts to cover up by the Chinese government. Evidently, the plurality of

views enabled by social media allows individuals to escape government
censorship to highlight the truths being suppressed by governments. This
was particularly salient in the case of the Hong Kong Protests against the
amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Bill: despite the Chinese
government’s efforts to cover up the widespread protests and deny their
alleged attempts to insidiously undermine Hong Kong’s sovereignty, the
rampant accounts of protests about the reality of the situation – like the
police brutality they faced – foiled the Chinese government’s efforts to
portray them as troublemakers, instead highlighting their plight to the
international community. The sheer collective power of the ordinary
masses to express themselves through social media dampens the ability
of the government to engage in censorship in order to cement their
legitimacy and fulfil their oligarchic political ambitions, thus enabling
social media to convey truths that the government may seek to suppress.

The post-truth era seems to suggest that social media has been reduced
to an unreliable source of information that is rife with falsehoods and
therefore unreliable. However, it is myopic to assume so simply because it
has facilitated the spread of fake news in the past. As illustrated above,
social media does have reliable sources of information like news outlets
as well as multiple gatekeepers installed officially and unofficially by
government legislations. Furthermore, it also empowers the public with
the ability to deny the national narratives that the government may
attempt to propagate in a bid to consolidate their own power, allowing
them to highlight living truths and flag up lies crafted by the government.
Nonetheless, this does not mean that societies are inoculated against fake
news on social media. Especially in view of the upcoming elections – be it
in USA, Australia or Singapore – as well as the looming Covid-19 threat, it
is imperative that governments continue tightening their grip on
misinformation that threatens the social fabric and stability of the country
while citizens work in tandem with governments and exercise their
discretion when they share information on social media platforms. Only
then can societies capitalise on social media and fulfil its fullest potential
of becoming a widely accessible, fast and reliable source of information.

49
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

Marker’s Comments:
A fully relevant and thoughtful response. Good work here. You raise a range of points
and examples from a range of societies and there is consistent effort to engage with
social media and truth. To improve, focus on depth of evaluation by considering social
traits more consistently. When you raise them, the analysis is done well, but such
treatment is missing in the balance. Overall, a well-structured, organised essay with apt
vocabulary.

50
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Regan Ng | 20S03O

‘We can never rely on social media to convey the truth.’

Do you agree?

Today, virtually anyone with access to the Internet can share thoughts,
opinions or anything that they find interesting. The advent of social media
like Facebook and Twitter resulted in a flurry of posts, and content varying
from cat videos to serious investigative journalism floods every user’s feed
daily. With diverse and even conflicting information being seen by the
average user every day, it raises the question: can we truly be able to find
the objective, unbridled and unbiased truth on their social media pages,
or are they merely a distorted reflection of reality? When fake news
spreads like wildfire in this age of virality, and when nearly every post (that
is not a cat video) is charged with emotions and bias in this adversarial
political climate, it is a sad truth that social media cannot be relied on to
convey reality through an untinted lens.

The unreliability of social media is most blatantly exemplified by the

prevalence of fake news across all social media sites. When users come
across convincing articles that mimic real newspaper coverage, it is easy
for them to simply buy into the story and share the shocking “news” to
anyone who follows them. As social media was designed to allow for
convenient, no-frills browsing, many people do not go through the
trouble of verifying the validity of an article they come across before
sharing it. Because of this phenomenon, fake news pieces written by
people with malicious intent and even well-known satire sites such as The
Onion can go viral on social media. Unfortunately, this evidently affects
the reliability of social media to convey the truth; how can we trust
anything we read when there is a possibility that it is fake? This is
evidenced by an article posted by the satirical news site WTOE 5 news in

51
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2016, which claimed that US presidential candidate Donald Trump was

endorsed by the Pope. Although there were no credible sources to back
this claim, and it contradicted the long-standing tradition of Popes
abstaining from backing any political candidates, the article was still
shared by ignorant users a whopping million times. With fake news like
this becoming so popular and overshadowing credible reporting (in
comparison, an investigative piece by The New York Times on Trump’s tax
returns was only viewed 200 thousand times), it is clear that as long as
there are irresponsible and negligent users online, social media will always
be used as a tool for falsehoods to spread. When Facebook is more likely
to show us a lie about Trump being endorsed by the Pope than the truth
behind his tax returns, it simply cannot be said with confidence that social
media is a reliable conveyor of the truth.

Furthermore, even if what we see on these sites is somewhat grounded in

reality, it is almost never free from bias, especially with an adversarial
political climate and algorithms in place promoting the existence of echo
chambers within these sites. Considering how fiercely critical people are
of opposing stances online, nowadays, most of the news posted online is
very politically charged and in favour of the author’s viewpoint. However,
this poses a serious problem: because of the political nature of such
articles, the precious “truth” being reported is often distorted or at least
presented with a partisan slant. Take for example news media outlets such
as Breitbart; even if an event that they report on did take place, with their
extreme right-wing stance they tend to word their articles in a manner that
manipulates the truth into something that supports their stance. Due to
the commonplace existence of such dishonest reporting, what is seen on
social media cannot be trusted. This is further worsened by the existence
of algorithms on sites like Facebook or Reddit, which identify content that
you are most likely to click on and recommend it to you. As a result, users
who view more conservative content are more likely to be directed to
r/The_Donald (a community consisting of Trump’s diehard fans) on Reddit,
and pages like Turning Point USA (a conservative account which solely
posts right-wing views) on Facebook. The consequences are rather dire,
as users slowly start to only consume one-sided, biased content and are

52
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

oblivious to opposing views on the same issue, and are only introduced
to communities that support their views. This places users in echo
chambers, where they only see content that feeds into their uninformed
version of reality. As social media has the tendency to place users and only
show them biased and distorted versions of what actually transpires in the
real world, it can hardly be considered a reliable beacon of truth.

Detractors to this claim, however, disagree, as there still exist traditional

news outlets with credible sources and fact-checked reporting which
publicise their accurate stories on social media. With such articles online,
it is still considered possible to come across true stories on social media.
For example, publishers like The New York Times, Washington Post and
The Straits Times which are widely regarded as “purveyors of truth” and
subject to strict journalism standards all own social media accounts on
Facebook and Twitter and frequently post their articles there. With the
existence of such accounts and posts, it is indeed plausible that social
media can convey the truth by showing such articles.

However, these publishers are not free of guilt either. With the incentive
of advertisement revenue, publishers like these succumb to
sensationalism, where they post articles with misleading and dramatic
headlines to generate clicks. This practice, of course, hinders users from
seeking the truth, especially because of their reputation as reliable. For
example, in the book entitled “Factfulness” by Hans Rosling, it is said that
in the United States, the number of violent crimes a year decreased
drastically from 14.5 million a year in 1990 to only 9.5 million in 2012. Yet,
reputable newspapers still cited the 9.5 million statistic and dubbed it
troubling, with some even going to the extent of calling it a “crisis”. With
even the most reputable companies being prompted to post more
attention-grabbing headlines that distort the truth, it cannot be said that
their posts in social media are reliable. Furthermore, even if they were, it
is precisely their emphasis on factual and unbiased reporting that
ironically makes them drowned out in the sea of information on social
media. If headlines were not sensationalised, the articles by these
companies (such as the aforementioned New York Times scoop on

53
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

Trump’s tax returns) will not be shared as frequently as fake news articles
that go viral. Thus, even with the existence of publishers regarded as
credible, social media still cannot be relied on to seek the truth.

In conclusion, because of the prevalence of stories that are either falsified

or distorted by bias, what we see on social media is never truly an accurate
representation of reality. Even reliable publishers are guilty of
manipulating the truth for views, and those that do not are often ignored
and do not have their articles surface on people’s feeds. However, as
depressing as it may be to see such a potentially useful tool go to waste,
all is not lost. It is our responsibility as users to distinguish fact from fiction;
to do cross-referencing and fact-checking, as well as to identify the
provenance of articles and their biases. Thus, even if what we see on social
media is not the truth, it is still up to us to sieve out any relevant details
and arrive at a reasonable conclusion of what we find in the swamp of lies
and falsehoods.

Marker’s Comments:

Content: This is an excellent response! A few gaps here and there, but overall, it is pithy,
to-the-point, nuanced, mature with examples that are apt and aptly used to underpin
convincing arguments and thoughtful evaluation.

Language: This is a superbly controlled response in terms of organisation and flow - the
concession sits in an unusual place, but you knew exactly what you were doing, so it
works very well. Your phrasing, sentence variation and vocab range are also very good.
Intro and conclusion are well presented too.

54
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Alvan Ng | 20A03A

‘Support for the arts should mainly come from the government.’
Discuss.

Whether or not one agrees that the arts are important, it is hard to not
acknowledge that in many nations, the arts and cultural sectors play very
large roles. In Singapore, the arts and cultural sector was estimated by the
National Arts Council (NAC) in 2015 to have an approximate economic
value of 1.7 billion dollars. And in this burgeoning and active sector,
support (at least, financial support) has mainly come from the
government’s pockets, with the NAC estimating that approximately 85%
of the arts sector funding was from the government. But this does - and
already has - raised the question: should support for the arts (perhaps not
just financially but also in endorsement) come mainly from the
government? Today I will be arguing that yes, the support for the arts
should come mainly from the government - however, support for the arts
should come mainly from the government - however, that should still be
maintained through this support is the creative liberty of the artists; and
support is still vital from other aspects (like the population of a given
nation).

But firstly, what simply has to be acknowledged and recognised is that

from an economic perspective, without government support the art scene
of a given country would be unable to flourish. The arts are very expensive
to house, maintain and showcase; and government funding is crucial to
covering those expenses. For example, the government in Singapore spent
over 929 million dollars in funding the arts in 2015. This includes holding
exhibitions, providing grants to artists, staging events and the setting up
of two museums (The National Gallery, Indian Heritage Centre) dedicated
to Singaporean and South-East Asian art. And as profitable as ticket sales

55
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

from independent and concert events ($121.8 million in 2015) and

museums are, relying entirely on the private sector (sales, donations,
patrons) would not only be inadequate to match a minor portion of
government funding; it would also be highly unstable and in flux as
donations and sales change in quantity from year-to-year, sometimes
decreasing sharply. Thus, to ensure a stable, flourishing arts scene, support
for the arts (at least, economic support) should come mainly from the
government.

In addition, support from the arts should mainly come from the
government as art is a valuable tool to preserve (and educate individuals
about) a nation’s culture and history. As art emphasises and is influenced
by the society around it and the cultural zeitgeists of the time, it is an
important, insightful and deeply personal way to gain insight into the
history and culture of our past. Since history and culture unify individuals
as a nation and create a sense of belonging, it is important for the
government to support and protect these arts by erecting institutions
dedicated to showing these works, or advocating for events that showcase
and perform cultural art. Conversely, if the government does not mainly
support the arts, it is more likely that these art pieces and art forms that
defined their nation would be erased with time, creating what has been
termed a “cultural desert”. For example, in Singapore, the government has
attempted to preserve history and culture in art through the National
Gallery, which holds the largest collection of Singaporean and South-East
Asian art worldwide, as well as the Peranakan Museum which, in addition
to housing many articles of crafts and art pieces that elucidate and
illuminate the customs and traditions of the Peranakan individuals in
Singapore’s history, also has a branch at Changi Airport’s Terminal 4 that
functions almost as cultural advocacy to those that fly in from countries
worldwide. In particular, the government has also funded NUS Museum’s
Ng Eng Teng Collection, a collection and curation of over 1200 works from
pivotal and pioneering Singaporean Artist Ng Eng Teng, spanning over 4
decades. Had the government not been the primary funder and supporter
of these galleries, it is more likely that these works would have been
forgotten, abandoned and lost to the sands of time; not placed in a tailor-

56
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

made space that allows Singaporeans to appreciate the rich cultural and
historical background of our nation. Art is an integral part of not just
Singapore but every nation in reminding the citizens of their culture and
history, and it should primarily be the government’s prerogative to
support that.

Furthermore, support from the arts should come mainly from the
government as the arts are integral in building national identity and a
sense of belonging, and identity building or a sense of national identity is
something the government should be supporting. Extending from the
previous paragraph, the remainder of a common history and culture to
the citizens that art can bring can also act as a unifier, giving individuals
something that they can see themselves in and relate themselves to,
nurturing a sense of belonging. With advocacy and encouragement on the
government’s part, a sense of national identity can be found through the
arts - and since national identity can be found through the arts - and since
national identity concerns the whole nation, an individualistic, bottom-up
approach to supporting art would be less efficient than top-down,
governmental support at building a communal sense of belonging. The
best example locally is the way the government supports and funds
National Day celebrations. In each national day celebration or parade,
there are art pieces like choreographed dance and videos that emphasise
the history of Singapore and Singapore’s journey to reinforce a sense of
national pride. And even in the government-supported and approved
National Day Songs, we can see exhortations to action (Stand Up For
Singapore), the encouragement of social cohesion (One People, One
Nation, One Singapore), and the reinforcement of Singapore as home
(Home) - all of which foster communal cohesion and pride in our identity.
If events like these were not primarily supported by the government, their
reach and impact would be severely limited in comparison, and the
cultivation of a sense of belonging and national identity would be less
effective. Thus, support from the arts should come mainly from the
government for the purpose of constructing national identity, as they are
the best equipped to do it to the extent needed to have effective results.

57
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

However, it is necessary to acknowledge that sometimes, support for the

arts should not come from the government in excess. Firstly, the support
for the arts mainly coming from the government could lead to an
increased potential for censorship. Since the government has such a large
role in supporting art forms and artists, both financially and in advocacy,
they have a vested interest in the artworks produced and might want the
artistic content to reflect with or be aligned with their values; or not to be
overly critical of the ruling body. Thus, censorship could occur. Singapore,
being a fairly conservative country with many out-of-bound markers, has
had many instances of funding and support being cut in response to
artists not wanting to self-censor their own work. For example, in 2015,
The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, a historical revisionist graphic novel
written by Sonny Liew had its funding withdrawn by the National Arts
Council as he refused to censor or remove content that the NAC
determined as “having the potential to de-legitimise the government.”
The same situation happened in 2018 to Jeremy Tiang’s book “State of
Emergency - a fictional account addressing the repression of leftist
movements in Singapore. In the realm of theatre, theatre production
company W!LD RICE had their funding cut by the government for refusing
to censor events in their plays that incited distrust in the government,
instead continuing to show the plays to Singaporeans. From these
examples, it can be seen that significant government funding of the arts
and freedom of expression are at diametric opposites. Notable
Singaporean playwright Tan Tarn How even wrote a play about this
phenomenon and the fierce government intervention and censoring in
Singaporean art called “Fear of Writing”. Thus, we can see a potential
danger in having support for the arts coming mainly from the government.

Another point is that the government should not have to bear the brunt
when supporting the arts - other parties are responsible for keeping the
arts scene in a given nation flourishing. And it could be very easily argued
that the population of a nation, as consumers of art, have just as much of
an important role in supporting the arts as governments do. For what is
the point in pouring money and advocacy into the arts if people simply
do not go and see it? Support as patronage is still a form of support, and

58
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

if the purpose of art is to elicit an aesthetic reaction from the viewer,

support as patronage is the main factor that helps fully realise the whole
purpose of the arts in the first place. Fundamentally, it is the consumer’s
demand for goods and services that encourages the increase in
production and supply - similarly, it is the support for art by individuals of
a given nation that results in the support for art by individuals of a given
nation that results in the primary support of art by the government. If there
weren’t over 2 million tickets sold for art-related concerts, the government
would not have supported and organised over a thousand concerts in
2015. If there wasn’t such a high demand for museums and galleries, the
SG government would not have built so many in the past 5 years. Thus
from this perspective, it is the consumers who should primarily be
supporting the arts; as their support begets more support for the arts from
the government.

In conclusion, if support for the arts comes mainly from the government,
there are both pros (national identity construction, preservation of culture
and history on a large scale) and financial necessity) and cons (censorship).
However, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons.

Marker’s Comments:
This essay was well done. Good points and plenty of pertinent examples. Do be
careful in making snappy claims or being too dismissive.

59
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

2020 | Y6 | GP Timed Practice 1 Siddarth Venkateswaran | 20S03Q

‘Support for the arts should mainly come from the government.’
Discuss.

“It is art that makes life, makes interest, makes importance,” commented
19th century British-American linguist Henry James. Henry’s exuberance
for the arts and his strong passion about its pertinence is something not
limited to pursuers of the arts but rather that radiates throughout
mankind’s history. From aboriginal cave paintings in Australia to portraits
of French Monarchs by neoclassical French painter Anton Raphael Mengs,
the arts have served not only as pivotal milestones to the evolution of
human civilization but also as epitomes of the melting pot of cultures
present in our world. However, as the reverence for arts in contemporary
society has significantly dwindled giving way to the pursuit of more
practical disciplines, the question has now arisen of who should play this
fundamental and noble role of supporting and safeguarding the arts.
While some argue that this role should primarily fall on governments,
others advocating for radical contemporary reforms argue that
government involvement is obsolete, encouraging the public and the
ever-omnipresent titans of the private sector to take the initiative instead.
Despite the fact that these modernists' apprehension stems from their fear
of possible government influence in the arts, this essay argues that
support for the arts should still primarily come from the government due
to its lack of profit motive and its undisputed ability to stimulate the much
needed interest in the arts sector.

Dissidents in this discourse point out the pernicious influence that large
government support may yield in the arts sector. Indubitably there ought
to be some element of truth to this perspective. An arts sector which
receives most of its support, be it fiscal or not, from the government is

60
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

also inadvertently subject to the latter’s interests and influences. Take for
example Communist China. Though the arts scene in China is vibrant and
dynamic, international studies by the U.S. National Endowment for the
Arts has revealed that support for the arts community in China is
concentrated in the hands of the state government and the ruling party.
In fact, an estimated 83% of all funding for the arts is done so using public
money supplied by the government. The effect of this extreme influence
in the arts scene in China is no doubt omnipresent. From the prosecution
and denial of funds for popular novelist Ai Weiwei to the ever growing
eradication of the cultural art of its native Uyghur Muslim population, the
Chinese government has used the support it provides for the arts scene
as a double-edged sword to stifle artworks that undermine its interests
and ambitions, in turn shaping the arts scene to be one that favors itself.
Taking it home to Singapore, the government based National Arts Council
(NAC) has also used its overwhelming financial support for the arts
through schemes such as the creation grant to influence the art produced
such that it is in line with state interests. For example, the NAC immediately
revoked its funding for local artist Sonny Liew when his comic book “The
Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye” depicted alternative, so-called
“unfavorable” representations of Singapore’s history. Hence by allowing
the support of arts to come mainly from the government, creativity and
freedom in the arts scene could be severely hampered, instead becoming
subject to a political conformity set by the government.

However, in today’s world, such influence by the government can be

mitigated, allowing for support for the arts to still come mainly from the
government. There is no doubt that the advent of the internet and its
associated social media has allowed for social commentary to go beyond
the walls of an individual’s abode to the national or perhaps even
international stage. Simultaneously, this has allowed the general public to
function as a check and balance against acts of discrimination and injustice
in sectors such as the arts industry. In fact, when news of the withdrawal
of funds for Sonny and the suspension of his artwork broke rampant on
social media in Singapore, there was an overwhelming response by
netizens for the government’s National Arts Council to reverse its ruling,

61
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

citing the intolerable nature of creative suppression in a state proclaimed

to be liberal. The NAC has since continued to fund Sonny Liew for other
works of art, congratulating him on his Eisner award in 2017 in the face of
public pressure. Hence in an age where the common individual and thus
the public can serve as checks and balances to government rulings,
governments can still be allowed to support the arts to a large extent given
any unjust attempts to influence the arts sector can be rightfully called
into question.

On the other hand, there are more tangible benefits to allowing the
support for the arts to come mainly from the government as opposed to,
for example, private corporations. One such benefit is the ability of the
government to stimulate much-needed interest in the arts. It is
indisputable that governments of nations throughout the world have large
spheres of influence which not only affect the overall functioning of the
country but also the very way that individuals lead their lives. Indeed, it is
this large sphere of influence that gives weight to the decisions the
government makes amongst its society. Hence, allowing support for the
arts to come mainly from the government sends a strong message to its
society about the pertinence of the arts. The very fact that the government
is allowed to spend hundreds of millions of public money on supporting
artists and constructing infrastructure to house the arts shows that the
function of the arts in society is beyond the superficial need for
entertainment - that it is integral to the functioning of the nation. Take for
example Finland. When faced with an arts scene that was becoming
increasingly dull, the Finnish government stepped in, contributing large
amounts of support to the arts both in terms of financial support and
legislation. In fact, when the Finish government injected a substantial $220
million into the country’s arts sector in 2014 it was able to generate and
reignite interest in the arts amongst its society. From more art pieces by
state-funded local artists to the set-up of numerous arts production
companies, the Finnish government through its large support for the arts
was able to substantially rejuvenate the once ailing arts sector - an effect
that corporations and individuals of our society can only imagine
mimicking. Hence, in a world where reverence for the arts is slowly

62
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

diminishing into nothingness, large government support is quintessential

to show the importance of arts to society and consequently generate
interest and passion amongst society to adopt it.

Secondly, the non-profit-oriented nature of government means receiving

main support from the government will guarantee that this support is
sustainable. Opposers of large government support for the arts such as
liberal media pundits like Susan Hans point to the availability of a large
pool of private corporations to lend the main support to the arts sector in
our society. Yet such individuals fail to understand that the underlying
motive of such corporations is far from altruistic: rather, it is one that is
significantly influenced by the need to turn a profit. Instead of recognizing
the need to preserve the arts and its unique features, such corporations
and individuals essentially view their support as just another coveted
investment. Ultimately, this gives rise to a circumstance where support for
the arts is largely determined by the ability of the arts sector to return the
investment made to their supporters, with failure to do so resulting in the
withdrawal of funds and hence support. Take for example the
Pinacotheque de Paris private museum in Singapore. Originally an avid
supporter of the local arts scene in Singapore, the museum eventually
closed its doors in 2017 when the artists it provided financial support and
funding for failed to bring the much-needed revenue, let alone profits.
However, transferring the role of mainly supporting the arts sector to the
government ameliorates this worrying concern as the need to turn a profit
is eliminated. Indeed, this provides a more sustainable and reliable source
of support for the arts industry which does not have to constantly worry
about the need for funding or support. Instead, the ensuing confidence
will help to stimulate the growth of the arts industry, fueling creative
expression devoid of the stresses brought about by the economic system.
Hence, receiving support for the arts mainly from the government is
essential to ensure that this support continues to remain intact and
sustainable, allowing for the development of a more robust arts sector.

Hence, the pivotal need for governments to mainly support the arts stems
from its ability to stimulate interest as well as ensure the sustainability and

63
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

stability for the support provided. Nevertheless, it still remains crucial that
other aspects of society, such as the public and private sectors, offer their
contribution to sustaining and supporting the arts. Indeed, the
preservation of the arts has always depended on collaboration and
moving forward continues the need to do so.

Marker’s Comments:
Very good points raised with a wealth of examples from around the world. Structure
of the essay is also very sound. However, there are a few instances where a more
comprehensive explanation to bridge the gap between illustration and evaluation
(such as in your last two content paragraphs) could have been provided.

64
KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited

KS Bull 2020 | Issue 1

Editorial Team

Ms Edlyn Ang
Ms Victoria Galvez
Mr Alvin Leong
Mr Adrian Tan
Mr Ashton Tan
Ms Umarani
Mr Augustine Wong
Mr Patrick Wong

65