KS Bull 2019 Issue 1

KS Bull 2019 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited 1 KS Bull 2019 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. No portion of this collection may be reproduced or shared for any reason and by any means whatsoever. Note: The comments that follow each student response include both markers’ and editors’ comments.

KS Bull 2019 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited 2 CONTENTS 2018 Year 6 GP Preliminary Examination 1 Assess the view that international organisations are mostly ineffective. Jeremy Xiao Zhenyang | 18A01B 4 2 Consider the view that the world would be a better place if people put their faith in science rather than religion. Lee Shu Hui | 18S03G 8 3 ‘Women have never had it better.” How true is this? Ashley Tan Yuyi | 18A13A 11 4 ‘Women have never had it better.” How true is this? Ella Tan Ray Ing | 18A01B 16 5 Paper 2 – Passage 20 6 Paper 2 – AQ Response Reuben Suherman | 18S03L 22 7 Paper 2 – AQ Response Shannon Tan Tze Ern | 18S03L 25 2018 Year 5 KI Promotional Examination Paper 1 – Section A 8 “Science is just a fancy word for trial and error; he who places his trust in it is a fool.” Discuss. Joshua Yong Zhi Hao | 19S06D 27 9 “The rise of quantitative methods has made the social sciences more rigorous.” Discuss. Xuan Zihan | 19A01A 30 2018 Year 5 GP Promotional Examination 10 “Consumerism is a curse on the environment.” Discuss. Gu Jiahao | 19S03D 34

KS Bull 2019 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited 3 11 Do monarchies still serve any purpose in today’s society? Eugene Chua Weiheng | 19A01B 38 12 “New media has made us more superficial than before.” Do you agree? Joshua Ong Yong Kiat | 19S02A 42 13 “The surge of global tourism is starting to feel overwhelming.” Is this reflective of tourism today? Ian Tay Rongde | 19S06H 46 2019 Year 6 GP Common Test 1 14 Consider the notion that reaching a consensus is an ideal way to govern. Goh Jing Han Cameron | 19S03D 51 15 “Science and business should never mix.” How far do you agree? Izavel Lee Shu Yih | 19S03D 55 16 “Talent matters most.” How far is this true of your society? Isaac Lai Yin Chung | 19S05B 59 2019 Year 6 KI Common Test 1 17 “We can’t make moral judgements because we don’t even know what is moral.” Discuss. Xuan Zi Han | 19A01A 63 Editorial Team 67

KS Bull 2019 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited 4 1 2018 | Y6 | GP Prelim | Paper 1 Jeremy Xiao Zhenyang | 18A01B Assess the view that international organisations are mostly ineffective. Brian Urquhart, a former UN official, once described the UN as a “quixotic, and fundamentally superfluous organisation.” It is tempting to extend this damning criticism of the UN to the vast range of international organisations who have been mired in ineffectiveness, and almost banished to irrelevance. The fact is, the aims of these organisations are fundamentally aspirational, to make the world a better place whether through political, economic, social, or environmental means. These organisations have constantly been limited either by the reckless agency of nations, or their lack of r esources and firepower. Yet despite this, organisations have occasionally defied the odds, and have not only impacted the world in tangible ways, but also intangible ones. Thus, while many organisations are fundamentally limite d, many have still borne fruit and have impacted the world for the better. International organisations have hence had mixed effectiveness, but their ability to do so despite being “fundamentally superfluous” is perhaps what makes these organisations intrinsically successful and effective. One of the overarching criticisms of interna tional organisations stems from Urquhart’s criticism: international organisations are intrinsically superfluous in a world run and governed by nations. Countries have the inherent ability to defy international organisations at will, often with little consequence. In the political sphere, the UN has been widely criticised for its ineffectiveness in intervening in inter-state conflicts and in restraining the aggressive impulses of states. Notably, the UN did l ittle to intervene in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia, and more recently Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine or China’s advances into the South China Sea. Similarly, ASEAN has been criticised for its lack of intervention in Myanmar’s Rohingya crisis, becoming mere bystanders to a humanitarian catastrophe. Such international organisations thus have no role to play and are highly ineffective when states choose to defy them, as countries’ sovereignty allows them to act indepe ndently from international intervention. Similarly, in the economic sphere, despite efforts by

KS Bull 2019 | Issue 1 © Raffles Institution Unauthorised copying, sharing & distribution prohibited 5 the WTO to promote an environment of economic cooperation and trade, countries have freely defied these directions and rendered such efforts futile, notably the US’ recent withdrawal from the Trans -Pacific Partnership, and the ongoing trade war between the US and China. In the social and environmental spheres, the US has dealt a significant blow to international organisations’ effectiveness in combating climate ch ange through withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. A common trend thus emerges: countries ultimately have the right to render international organisations ineffective and superfluous. These organisations have hence been limited in effectiveness because of t he defiance and agency of individual nations. Not only are the actions of organisations made ineffective due to the actions of individual nations, but these organisations are limited in their physical and even moral capacity to act in the first place. International organisations have struggled with garnering adequate resources or support, thus limiting their effectiveness in intervening in crises. The UN’s feeble attempt to maintain peace in Rwanda was defeated by a global reluctance to contribute peacekee pers for example. Environmental organisations such as the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) rely also on voluntary contributions, which have limited their effectiveness in going beyond advocacy to intervene in environmental crises such as the depletion of habitats or the loss of marine biodiversity. Hence, organisations are made ineffective and feeble as they lack the physical resources and capability to act. Moreover, some organisations lack the moral legitimacy and capacity to be able to intervene in cases. For instance, environmental organisations have to rely on advocacy and indirect forms of engagement as they lack the legitimacy to act against nations who are perpetuating environmental destruction, for instance with respect to the scale of deforestation in Australia with 3 million hectares of forest estimated to vanish by 2030. Similarly, ASEAN has been toothless in acting against Indonesia’s haze issue, rather limited to gentle suasions and often futile promises of collaboration. Hence, organisations are often ineffective as they lack physical resources and capability, as well as moral legitimacy and capacity, rendering them powerless in acting effectively. Evidently, the view that international organisations are mostly ineffective has merit and validity , evidenced by their outright