TMJC GP Bulletin Aug 2019 (JC 2)

1 General Paper Bulletin Aug 2019 (JC 2) Welcome to the second issue of TMJC’s GP Bulletin for 2019! Following the previous edition, we bring you yet another selection of the essays written by your schoolmates during the recent M id-Year Examinations. Once again, thanks to the students wh o have contributed their essays, who have proven that good writing is very possible despite the exam conditions! Just a reminder, these essays are not perfect or model essays, and while reading these essays, you may find some of the examples and points useful for application to other questions. Please exercise judgment and discretion in using such information in a manner that is relevant to the question you are answering. Lastly, you should not attempt to copy and hand them in as your own! All the best for the upcoming Preliminary Exams! Editorial Team ___________________ Mdm Sukhvinder Kaur Mrs Annie Clayton Mr Teddy Tan Mr Max Cheong Contents Q2: In light of the increasing threat of terrorism, are governments justified in restricting people’s rights? 2 Q3: In the world today, is equality for all an attainable goal? … ………………………..………………………………….. 4 Q5: ‘Too little, too late.’ Is this true of environmental conservation efforts today? ………………………………. 6 Q5: ‘‘Too little, too late.’ Is this true of environmental conservation efforts today? ................................. 8 Q8: Consider the claim that science fiction is nothing more than trivial entertainment............................. 11

2 Q2. In light of the increasing threat of terrorism, are governments justified in restricting people’s rights? (TMJCJ2MYE2019) Benjamin Franklin, that renowned American p olitician, once famously said, ‘ Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. ’ Certainly, in the light of the American Revolution, with democracy and freedom from British tyr anny an important part of politics, this was an apt statement. However, the world has changed since Franklin’s era, and terrorism, alien to him, is very much familiar to us. In light of the threatening global situation, where threats lurk around every corner, some claim that it is high time for public and national security to take precedence over any admirable, but unrealistic sentiment of human rights. In my opinion, while we should never adopt dictators for the sake of security, it is also foolhardy to as sume that adherence to every one of the UNHCR’s rights is realistic. Pragmatism, not idealism, will see us through. From physical security, social harmony and political unity, some rights must be compromised, lest the spread of radicalism endanger all. Across the world, liberal, democratic supporters decry the expansion of state agencies aimed at protecting national sovereignty. Most pointedly, they argue for the right to life, and lambast these organisations, who so often have to employ deadly force to control extremist violence. From Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to the reintroduction of capital punishment, they argue that summary execution is futile and illegal. Indeed, to be used on a law- abiding, peaceful citizen would be both tragic and detestable. Howeve r, many of the extremists would harm these very same people, taking life wantonly. Humanity operates under the social contract, where a man is safe from harm, provided he does not hurt others. By willingly and knowingly inflicting suffering on others, terrorists concede their part in the social contract and become anathema to civilisation. While undesirable, when a person fails to demonstrate respect for the lives of his fellow man, then it is unfortunately desirable that his own right to life be forfeited. In that regard, governments have some prerogative to deny such privileges to those who prove too irresponsible to uphold them for their counterparts. One major global concern today is the growing danger of militant attacks on foreign countries, far from the nations where such ideologies took root. From 9/11 to the truck attacks in Marseille, globalisation has brought threats to our doorstep. To prevent the movement of these dangerous materials and men, governments implement measures aimed at curbing thei r ability to plan and execute attacks. Such stringent measures include restrictions of when and where a person can travel to, or in- depth background checks aimed at weeding out the bad apples. For example, post 9/11, the U.S. No -Fly List was established, prohibiting certain individuals deemed a threat to national security from flying. Full body scanners and baggage checks became widespread, and the laissez -faire days of flying were over. Most importantly, it contradicted the right to free movement, a core part of democratic freedom, and was seen as governments overstepping their jurisdiction. However, 9/11 was possible because federal systems failed to detain the already flagged suspects, and it was the free movement of incendiaries that allowed for Indones ia’s Bali bombing. If such checks and controls had existed, 9/11 may not have happened, thousands would live on, and the world would be very different without all the bloodshed that followed. In that regard, if restricting mobility can prevent the organisa tion of another pointless attack, then it is certainly justifiable for governments to do so. After all, we would rather return home eventually, compared to never making it home. Another key international concern is the proliferation of radical ideologies, and the speed at which they promulgate through the media and the internet. In response, governments have cracked down on these abusers of free speech, who incite hate and violence. From supremacists to ultra- conservative Sunni preachers, their transmission of such systems that demand the exclusion and

3 silencing of opinions contrary to theirs is an affront to the very free speech they rely on for protection. As such, regulations aimed at tackling and controlling these ideologies from spreading now abound. From Singapore denying access to American preachers to proselytise an ultra - conservative version of Christianity in Singapore, to India’s closure of mobile networks when faced with communal intersect violence in 2019, such tactics aim to stem the tide of destabilizing opinions. Indeed, social media has been blamed for allowing ISIS to spread gory propaganda of beheadings online, creating new converts who flock as soldiers to join their perverted version of Islam, enacting a reign of terror in the Middle Ea st. Where such virulent viewpoints abound, governments ought to act, and target and contain viewpoints that could potentially harm the social fabric by marginalising and discriminating against their communities. Ironically, by regulating freedom of opinion , governments may save it, as by preserving moderate voices from the depredations of restrictive systems, compromise and consensus - vital to politics without alienation - may be preserved. Ultimately, administrations may be imperfect judges, but compared to raw, unfiltered falsehoods and lies dividing the population, it is justifiable to impose some restrictions on what should be considered free speech, and what ought to be viewed as hate speech. Finally, governments now face the contentious issue of gro wing political instability. Populist extremists, terrorists by any other name, tap on the sentiments of the disaffected, goading them to demonstrate violently and excessively against the state. This has serious ramifications for politics, as the rule of the mob supplants the rule of law. Institutions and division of power collapse under the ‘will of the people’, and it leads to the government increasingly facing political deadlock, hostage to every rabble rouser that leads the next march on Parliam