CJC 2026 Prelim P2

CATHOLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE JC2 Preliminary Examination 2026 General Certificate of Education Advanced Level Higher 1 GENERAL PAPER Paper 2 INSERT 8881/02 1 hour 30 minutes READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST This Insert contains the passages for comprehension. This document consists of 4 printed pages, including the cover page.

2 Passage 1. Sudarshan Ramabadran writes about sports diplomacy and its influence on international relations. [Turn over 1 2 3 4 5 Saudi Arabia’s state -run oil and gas conglomerate, Aramco, became FIFA ’s major worldwide partner under a deal until 2027. This will include sponsorship rights for the prestigious upcoming FIFA events, including the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2027 FIFA Women’s World Cup. Besides, Saudi also owns the English Premier League Clu b New Castle United and is in pole position to host FIFA World Cups in 2034 and 2035. They invested billions of dollars across a wide range of sports, including tennis, boxing, Formula 1, golf, and horse racing . This reflects the growing significance of sports diplomacy in the contemporary world while acknowledging its historical roots. Sports diplomacy has emerged as one of the subsets of cultural diplomacy that has undoubtedly blurred borders, contributing to countries coming together. Can sports diplomacy entail concrete policy gains? After the Chinese Cultural Revolution, in 1971, China invited table tennis players from the US, famously called the ‘ping pong diplomacy’ that paved the way for the visit of then US President Richard Nixon. The ensuing trip was a spectacle of benign curiosity. There were handshakes, friendly matches, and tours of the Great Wall, all under the watchful gaze of Zhou Enlai. The entire affair possessed an almost amateurish charm, a diplomatic icebreaker accomplished not with the thunder of treaties but with the gentle, hollow pop of a celluloid ball. It was a time when the trivial act of playing a game together was seen as a profound political statement, a simple bridge across a vast ideological chasm. The logic of early sports diplomacy was rooted in the ideal of cultural exchange and understanding. The athlete was an unwitting ambassador, the sporting arena a neutral space where common humanity could, for a fleeting ninety minutes or a few frantic sets , transcend political enmity. It was not a transactional deal; the Americans were not paid, and the Chinese were not seeking a specific concession. The goal was to thaw a relationship that had been frozen for two decades. It worked because, on the surface, the stakes were so low. Sport was the informal handshake that preceded the formal meeting, a gesture that cost little but signalled much. This was the model that persisted for years: a cricket match between India and Pakistan, a rugby tour of apartheid-era South Africa (albeit a deeply controversial one), and the Olympics as an ostensible festival of global unity. The power lay in the symbolism of participation itself. The idea of boycotting or banning countries from international sport is not new, of course; the exclusion of South Africa during apartheid is the landmark case. But the practice has become a central and highly contested tool of modern statecraft. In the wa ke of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russian and Belarusian teams and athletes were barred from a wide range of competitions. Today, a similar and ferocious debate surrounds Israel. Citing the conflict in Gaza, a coalition of governments, activist groups, and sporting federations is demanding the exclusion of Israeli athletes and teams from global competitions, including the upcoming Olympics and FIFA-sanctioned events. The argument posits that participation in the international sporting community is not an inalienable right but a privilege contingent upon adherence to international norms. Sports diplomacy has been a significant tool in international relations throughout history, enabling countries to showcase national prowess, enable policy gains, and foster collaboration among nations. Sport’s ability to convene and unite people across borders makes it a powerful enabler for diplomatic functions. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

3 Passage 2. The author argues that sports diplomacy has lost its innocence. [Turn over 1 2 3 4 The modern iteration of sports diplomacy is less about cultural exchange and more about strategic investment, a field now dominated by the term ‘sportswashing’. Countries now view hosting mega- events like the FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games not as a charming invitation to the world but as a multi-billion-pound exercise in nation-branding and the projection of soft power. The Qatar World Cup in 2022 and Saudi Arabia’s audacious investments in everything from its domestic football league to international golf are prime exhibits. The objective is no longer merely to build relations but to purchase a global reputation, to use the universal, apolitical appeal of sport to apply a glossy veneer over domestic political realities and human rights records. The athletic contest is a high-value asset in building the state’s public image, and its currency is influence. This influx of state capital into sport has produced an inevitable and powerful counterreaction. When a country spends lavishly to place itself at the centre of the world’s attention, it cannot control the direction of the gaze. The very act of hosting inv ites scrutiny. Consequently, the discourse surrounding major sporting events has become a de facto audit of the host nation’s values. We saw it with the protests over China’s human rights record ahead of the 2008 and 2022 Olympics, and it reached a fever p itch with the relentless focus on the rights of migrant workers in Qatar. The sports stadium is no longer just a venue for physical prowess; it is a courtroom for the court of public opinion. Journalists, activists, and fans now arrive not only with team c olours but with a checklist of concerns, turning every press conference into a potential grilling on geopolitics. The sporting world, having accepted the state’s money, finds it can no longer credibly claim to be above the state’s politics. Perhaps the most intense shift has occurred not in the state ministries or corporate boardrooms, but on the pitch itself. The modern athlete is a global brand, a media entity with a direct line to millions of followers, and a progressively potent political actor. From Colin Kaepernick kneeling to protest racial injustice in the United States to Marcus Rashford’s campaign against child food poverty in the UK, athletes are leveraging their platforms to force social and political conversations. They are no longer just pawns in a diplomatic game orchestrated by others; they are players in their own right. This individual activism complicates the state-led narrative, creating an unpredictable force of influence. A government might wish for its national team to pr oject an image of serene strength, only for its star player to tweet a message of dissent that reverberates across the globe. Sport is no longer a gentle introduction to diplomacy; it is a chaotic, high -stakes, and deeply politicised arena where the contest for influence is as fierce as any match. We may have lost the charming simplicity of the old game, but we have, perhaps, gained a more honest reflection of the world in which it is now played. 5 10 15 20 25 30

4 Passage 3. The journalist writes about e-sports diplomacy. 1