2019 RI KI Y5 CT

2 Answer any two questions. These days, leaders among health professional bodies, the government, employers and employes speak witha shared message - for most people, work is good for their health and well-being. that the loss of work, whether because of impaired health or for other reasons, is generally hamful The results of worklessness are plain to see: the loss of self-esteem, standing and identity within the community, all of which leads to a halt to material progress, social participation and ful fi llment Health, both physical and mental, soon becomes compromised. The image of the all-too-idle retirge wasting his life away is unfortunately all too common. yees ang On the other hand, work may yield many bene fi ts. It ensures that some physical activity i undertaken on work days, thereby helping enhance physical health. It provides a sense of socal inclusion, thereby encouraging stronger attachments to the wider working community. It allowS workers to feel that they are making a contribution to society and their family, for example, in the provision of fi nancial security to the latter, thereby improving self esteem. It also decreases the likelihood of individuals engaging in risky behaviour, such as excessive drinking, thereby improving the social fabric. It is true, of course, that too much work can be bad for one's physical and mentl health, but the solution is not no work at all but simply less work or, rather, a better work-life balance Hence, what we need is a rethinking of the idea of retirement as simply no work at all but one where there is merely enough work for the individual to reap its bene fi ts, but not so much that he or she cannot take the time to be idle, smell the rOses and travel the world. Critically assess the reasoning in this argument, explaining why you do or do not accept is conclusion(s). [15] 2 A recent forum letter pointed out that our primary school children do not have suf fi cient time for lunch on school days and calls for a longer break of 45 minutes (as opposed to the current 5 minutes). Yet such a view fails to consider the trade-offs. With classes having to end at about 1.30pm, it is dif fi cult to factor in time for lunch unless parents do not mind school hours being extended. Given the entitlement mentality that is rife in Singapore today, parents are sure to complain of such a change, arguing that they have had to painstakingly schedule their lives around their children's school hours and any changes in these hours mean a seismic change for them, such as cancelling their weekly high-tea sessions with their fellow mother-friends. And since school activities have to continue, one cannot simply cut school hours without consequences. The result could be a faster pace of teaching or more self-directed learning, or there could be less teaching and students may suffer later as the content to be covered snowballs with each passing level. If proper lunchtime is a concern, students can choose to have their meal in th