Is it fair for talented pupils get a bigger chance at direct entry to sec 1?


Under this year’s Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme, 9 more schools have been added to the existing 47 schools that are part of the scheme. About 3500 places, 7 per cent of the total sec 1 cohort can be admitted through DSA. This is 500 more places than last year. The idea is to promote holistic education and give schools more flexibility.

This could be seen as an incentive to the talented pupils, to be recognised for their talents. This gave students talented in fields like sports or the arts an advantage over ordinary students. They have what it takes to be in the school, be it academically or in any other ways. Hence, they deserve to be allowed to enter the school with a lower cut off point as they have taken effort of their studies to concentrate on the niche sports or arts.

It would then be a win-win situation for the pupil and the school. Schools can recruit pupils who are talented in its niche areas to maintain the school’s standard. The school is tapping on the student to keep up the school’s good work in a certain area. At the same time, the student is benefiting from the school’s good teachers, improving academically.

However, others may find it an unfair system. Students who are admitted through DSA are usually weaker academically. They deprive the better students of a place in the school. Is it fair? I would counter argue that it is the freedom of the school to choose whom it wants to admit. It is also not only a measure of how academically capable are you. As the government emphasizes, it should be a holistic development and obviously average pupils who are talented would be preferred to pupils with plain good results.

It can also be argued that this will only benefit the school, not the student, as he struggles to cope. His academic ability may be a problem in his four years stay in the school. Is this environment going to be healthy for the children? I would say this is going to be considering factor for the student and his parents even before applying for the programme. If the student is confident of coping with his studies and is prepared to work hard, it is not going to be a big problem. I am sure the school will also try its best to help the pupils.

Hence, I would say that it is fair for talented pupils to be admitted to better schools through DSA. It is a big step taken by the government towards encouraging a more holistic education system.

Having woman remain in or return to the workforce is something that has come under the spotlight recently. Discuss the considerations and challenges they face.

Only around 54 per cent of all females of working age were in the workforce, compared to 76 per cent for men. Women are now targeted in the current drive to beef up the Singapore workforce, now that the job market is tightening and unemployment rate is low. More jobs will also be created over the next five years.

Many women would sacrifice their careers for the family and their children. This could be quite a waste as young mothers usually find it hard to get back to the profession after a few years of break to take care of their children. True enough, it may be difficult to juggle between family and work.

It seems impossible to keep a balance, to give enough care and concern to the children and at the same time, remain high performance at work.To solve this problem, we need to first change the mindset that parenting and having a job cannot mix. All women have to do is to learn to prioritize. In both areas, commitment must be there. Women should plan her time for family and work, not confusing the two as one. Employers should also try to understand and see that for mums who want a short break to care for their children and return to work is a norm.

Middle aged women make up the majority of the untapped labour. They are women who have stopped working for several years to care for their children who are now grown ups. They have to upgrade their skills consistently and keep up with the developing industry to remain employable.

There are also various benefits on why women should work. First of all, having two salaries in a family means more income and hence, can boost the family finances. Especially to lower-income family, they will become more financially abled. And will be able to close the widening income gap. Secondly, due to the advancement in medical technologies, human have got a longer lifespan. More money is then needed to support ourselves in old age. So, by working, women can build up their CPF funds for retirement.

Singapore requires labour to sustain its development and women are the targeted group. Family and career should come hand in hand in the future years to come, as more jobs vacancies will have to be filled up.

“People need to learn how to respect IP.” Discuss.


I refer to an article on 26 April 2007. It is the World IP day and day 1 of Ipos’ new advertising campaign in the Straits Times to drive the message of the importance of respecting IP.

IP is intellectual property, and it is necessary for people to acknowledge it, as it credits the producers of the creative works. Especially, in a country’s growth as a knowledge-based economy, it is important to make sure people are rewarded for their production. If no regard was given to IP, people will not be motivated to create, since their work will be ripped off.

However, the problem with most people is that, they find it more “worthwhile” to get the same products free or at a lower cost, through many methods. These are easily available to people, through the internet, pirated copies, etc. When it is easier to steal it, people are reluctant to pay for the content. Particularly, the prices differ significantly. Few are willing to pay the difference.

It is the people’s wrong attitude. On a survey conducted on 650 people aged between 14 and 35, it has shown that only 22 percent were “bothered” by copyright infringement, 28 percent felt guilty when buying and using the pirated products; and 19 percent cited high prices. Education and the media power could be used to instill fear and a sense of responsibility in the citizens to protect the rights and benefits of the creator. This is a dangerous mindset of the mass public that has to be changed.

Nevertheless, we all know that piracy can never be eliminated completely. And, more and more people are agreeing that piracy is wrong and people who created intellectual property deserve to be rewarded. As the world gets more developed, the quality of life improves, and people will hence have more spare cash to purchase the originals. Also, as time passes, people will learn the importance of respecting IP via the various ways to educate the public.

Should retailers charge us for the use of plastic bags?

Ikea has started to charge its customers in Singapore for plastic bags on 22 April 2007. NTUC had also introduced the “Bring Your Bag Day” every first Wednesday of the month. These are efforts made to conserve our resources, in response to the over consumption of plastic bags last year. Some had protested to the act, thinking that it’s unjustifiable for us to pay for the plastic bags that advertise for them. However, some feel that this is very meaningful and cooperate fully, buying reusable bags.

Firstly, I feel that this brave decision of Ikea is commendable. It is the first shops in Singapore to charge for the plastic bags. I hope other companies will follow suit. This way, Singaporeans will get used to bringing their own bag around and hence reduce the plastic bag consumption rate. This is going to be beneficial to the environment as time goes by, it will soon become a habit for people to shop without expecting plastic bags.

Secondly, there can also be an alternative way; that is to use bio-degradable plastic bags. It will then save our environment too, at the same time, consumers will not complain. However, I feel that there may be a problem to this. It will not address the problem of wasting resources. Many grab plastic bags not because they need it, but because they feel that it should come along with the products they’ve bought. People will continue to take it for granted and waste it like nobody’s business.

Well, people can object n say, “Why should we pay to advertise for the company?” Good question. So what can the company do? For example, Ikea had responded by donating all the money collected to the World Wide Fund for Nature. They are not profiteering. People have to understand that this is an action done to conserve our resources and save the Earth. We cannot take this kind of minor things for granted.

In a nutshell, I would say that it is justifiable for retailers to charge people for their plastic bags, in the interest of the environment.

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in the two articles and substantiate your ideas with examples of your own.



The use of torture in dealing with criminals and terrorists seems justifiable and crucial in getting information in certain circumstances. In the first article, it mentioned that in democracies, we work hard to push the idea of justice. For example, before you pity any terrorist who scream and yelp in torment, think of 9/11, of the horrifying bloodshed. Everything will then sound like justice. It is only right to return the evil with a taste of their own medicine. They deserve to be tortured, if not worse than what they did to the victims.

Torturing criminals are acceptable, in gathering information fast, under pressing conditions. For example, when a cold-blooded criminal tries to stall time with the police when his victim is struggling in an enclosed container, it is important that the police get hold of the whereabouts of the victim in the shortest possible time, to save his life. In this case, torture may become imperative to force the criminal into telling where he kept his victim. A life is at stake. So, do we still insist that it is against the human rights to torture him when one may be slowly dying? It can aid the police’s investigations and increase their efficiency in rescuing the victims, saving more lives.

However, as stated in the second article, there should be a limit to the torture used. Not to the extent of any vicious acts, that may cause harm to the criminal’s loved ones who are innocent. If one is insistent on not cooperating, nothing could be done, if a level of torture is used, but proved ineffective. Further torture should not be continued as it is not going to work. Also, the police should only incorporate torture into their investigations when they are certain of the crimes committed by the criminal.

Hence, I feel that torture is justified when directed at hard-nosed inhumane criminals.

I think that the new media is a form of power to the people. The people have the rights to proclaim their opinions, in this context, through internet blogging. Besides the government controlled media, the people can then analyse the situation better with different sources of information and other people’s point of views. It promotes the freedom of speech in a country, with popular blogs criticizing and challenging ideas established by the mainstream press. Blogging is one form of way to express one’s ideas and include factual information to assist readers in judging for themselves whether the government is right. Also, the politicians can take this opportunity to understand how the people feels and what they can improve on, taking it as a form of positive feedback and thus take the people’s opinions into account.

However, when carried too far, this may also be a sort of problem, with the people misusing the new media, leading to media wars, for example as stated in the text. Terrorists can attack and stir up mixed feelings among people to create discord. This may be a damaging consequence if not handled properly. The new media poses a threat as it allows them to freely spam, corrupting the public’s mind.

Hence, some countries have adopted the “censorship” approach to omit any offensive and untrue articles, to uphold political stability. Many continents are doing this, by censoring websites, blocking emails and persecuting and imprisoning bloggers. They try to filter the internet, and go through any extreme measures to deter bloggers who blog irresponsibly and criticise the government openly.

I do not agree to this, as the new media is a tool, of the new age, for the people to effectively offer their opinions and truthfully express how they feel, be it a positive or negative output. On and all, the government should respect and not disregard the public’s viewpoint.

Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth? Discuss this in the light of the arguments raised in this article and substantiate your arguments with your own examples.



The article questioned the reliability of the media, on their definition of "quality news". As the public relies too much on the media to produce reliable information, they usually forget to ask themself about how true is it. Hence, most of the time, they will be fooled into believing whatever news fed to them by the media, accepting the media's credibility and recognising their ability to produce quality news.

The article suggests that the government or large companies can easily manipulate the media to their own benefit, in fooling the viewers. The news the media publish is actually under the control of the market. The author claims that the factors are mainly popularity, prejudice and profit. The media will only convey quality news, which in this case is not defined as the truth but defined by the popularity of it. This would also link to the profit achieved by the high viewership rate. Some how, in one way or another, prejudice is directly proportional to popularity.The media reserve the rights to censor "controversial" news.

I think that this is a case of viewers choose what they want to see. The media works in such a way that popularity plays an influential role in the information they cover. They are often afraid to "offend" viewers and hence reduce the popularity of the source of media. This will reduce their profits and hence, not lucrative enough for them to continue. The truth may not be what the public want to know. The media works on the mind of the viewers and effectively trick them into believing whatever news that is made available to them by the media.