‘The key criterion for good government is how well the economy is managed.’ Is this a fair assessment ? ('12)

As our society advances with increasing prosperity, it is commonplace to see one concluding that the economic success of a country is a direct reflection of the efficacy of the government. With every country in the world embroiled in the rat race for economic gains, many economists and government officials alike are using the economic standing of a country as a yardstick of good governance. While it is incontrovertible that how well an economy is managed serves as a good criterion for good government, it is in my opinion that other factors such as the corruption rate, social stability and the satisfaction of the people are equally good, if not better, criterion for a good government.

With reference to the many governments in the world, one can safely conclude that there is a direct causal link between the economy and the government. A good government would have talented individuals in office fully capable of introducing policies that would benefit the general populace, leading to higher productivity and hence greater economic gains. Countries such as Singapore and Brunei have prospered in the past decades under good governance. Even economic powerhouses such as Britain, China, India and the United States of America have attained their economic status under the successful leadership of their predecessors. Indeed, good governments have the foresight and expertise to fuel the economic growth of a nation. That being said, a good economy is not the be-all and end-all to a good government. Thailand, while basking in all the glory of being an economic powerhouse in Southeast Asia, is facing an unprecedented crisis as its capital city is flooded with protests. People in Thailand are extremely unhappy with the running of the government and the outright corrupt practices of Thaksin, the former Prime Minister of Thailand, and this has seen Thailand declaring a 60-day emergency as violence escalates. Evidently, the unhappiness of the people despite a booming economy shows that economic prosperity is not the only definition of a competent government. This leads to my next point that the rate of corruption in a country is an equally important criterion of a good government.

A good government should be corrupt-free, as corruption is an erogenous practice that only serves to erode the trust of its people and fuels unhappiness and disgruntlement. A corrupt government is basically pocketing the hard-earned money of its people for its own personal gains, and such practice reeking of immorality should not be condoned. As published in the Corruption Perceptions Index 2013 by Transparency International, a non-governmental organization that serves as a watchdog for corporate and political corruption, countries such as Somalia, North Korea and Afghanistan are ranked as the most corrupt countries in the world. Closer inspection into these countries reveals defunct government: Public funds of up to $130 million and $70 million in donor funds from Arab were largely unaccounted for by the coalition government in Somalia; the autocratic rule in North Korean has seen bribery, deviation of materials, securing funds and squandering money for private use; while the infamous Kabul Bank Scandal in Afghanistan saw government officials such as Sherkhan Farnood and Khalilullah Fruzi spending the bank's $1 billion for their own personal lavish style of living. These corrupt practices are a stark reflection of poor government oppressing the people and depriving them of a better life. On the contrary, corrupt-free government such as Denmark, New Zealand And Finland have capable governments that work for the people, sharing the economic gains of the country with the nation. A corrupt-free government is one that cares for its people and not for itself, and such a government can be described as a good government.

While ensuring economic prosperity and corrupt-free practices, a good government will also ensure the social stability of a country. This includes sustainable and efficient policies in the areas of employment, education and healthcare, while taking measured steps to ensure a low crime rate. There is little use to the people if the country is rich and yet the citizens are unable to gain access to basic healthcare services, or are fraught with fears due to the high crime rate in the country. Conversely, this only goes to show the incapability of the government as they are unable to utilize the funds on hand to benefit the citizens. China may be one of the most economically powerful country in Asia, but its lands are still strewn with slums and poor villages in the rural areas. The economic inequality and the disparity between people living in the cities and the countryside reflects the incompetency of the government to ensure that the country progresses as a whole. The United States of America is the largest economy is the world, yet it is facing a pressing social issue of high unemployment rate of 7.3%. Similar problems are seen in highly developed nations such as Germany and Spain where college graduates are unable to find matching jobs upon graduation. The onus lies upon the government to ensure that its people gain access to the basic necessities of life. Should the government be unable to do so, it will only uproot the social stability of a country, and such a government cannot measure up to the ranks of good governance.

Mostly importantly, what determines a good government is the happiness and satisfaction of the people. A government is brought into office to serve the people, and how the people respond to it is a testament of the success of the government. Singapore has met all the criterion as aforementioned, with a positive GDP growth yearly, a near-corrupt free government by ranking as the fifth most corrupt-free government in the world, and having one of the best education, healthcare, transport and housing systems in the world. Yet it is ranked as one of the unhappiest country in the world on the worldwide Legatum Happiness Index. While the happiness of the people is not directly impacted by the government, it is the government who has the power to implement policies which may increase the overall happiness of the country. In Singapore, the rigid education system and the lack of work-life balance have induced a high level of stress within this small nation. Attempts by the government to reduce the stress, such as introducing an education system that focuses less on academic achievements have yielded little results. On the contrary, Norway and Finland may not be the most prosperous countries, but an easy-going and stress-free life have made them very happy citizens and their government are widely regarded as the best in the world. In this sense, a good government should be one that can ensure the happiness of its people, as serving the people is the ultimately the purpose of governance.

In a nutshell, it is undeniable that how well an economy is managed serves as a good criterion for good governance, and countries have been indefatigable in the pursuit for economic prosperity. However, it would be myopic to overlook the other factors that work hand in hand to determine a good government. Only when a government fulfills all criterion could it gain the trust of its people. As Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services of America aptly puts it, "The essence of good government is trust.". With trust from its people, a government can go about its daily duties with ease and implement policies that resonates well with the people. Such is the key of a good government.

A-levels general Paper GP Essay Outlines

Hello everyone! I was looking through my blog and I saw these essay outlines saved in my drafts. I forgot where I got them from but I will just post them here again for everyone's references. These are all essay plans from past year A-level questions. If you are reading this and you know the source, do drop a comment so that I can credit it. And let your friends who are taking GP know of this blog. Thanks!!! Let me know if you all need any more help, and all comments are sincerely welcomed!

ESSAY PRACTICE (A levels):

 

1. ‘Instead of speeding up the pace of life, we should be slowing it down.’ What do you think? (2005)

context: which / what kind of country?

Def: What does “speeding up” therefore imply?

YES we should slow down:

· Increasing stress level & health-related deaths /mental illness (long-term effect)

· Widening income gap

· Losing our values, soul, identity to materialism

NO we should continue in the same pace / speed up:

· In developed nations, competition necessary for progress and to drive the economy

· In developing nations, the need to catch up with the rest of the globalised world

· Complacency and laziness hinders innovation and progress

 

2. ‘Hosting major sporting events creates more

problems than benefits.’ Do you agree? (2005)

context: any globally recognised event (World Cup, Olympics, F1)

def: problems = demerits, disadvantages

Pros:

· Puts host in international spotlight, exposure could help tourism and trade

· Creates potential revenue and future investment opportunities, increasing job opportunities, develop infrastructure further

· Cultural and technological exchange between host and visiting countries

Cons:

· Increase in security risks, terrorist threats, highlighting possible political tensions between host and other countries

· Economic waste or costs at the expense of domestic problems in the long-term, especially if the sporting event brings only temporary gains

· Environmental damage and sacrifice to natural landscapes to make way for extensive infrastructure, in order to accommodate space for the sporting event

 

3. Does the modern world place too much reliance on technology? (2003)

context: modern world – 21^st century,

def: over-dependence, without any other options?

YES:

· Compared to the past (20 years ago), technology has improved tremendously, making it near impossible to survive in an urban environment without it (eg PCs, mobile phones)

· Mechanisation of manual labour reflects an improvement in the quality of modern life

· Replacement of humans in labour market by machines is also a sign of over-reliance

NO:

· In developed nations, it is imperative to rely on technology because it cannot regress to any primitive alternatives to maintain the pace of progress

· In developing nations, technology serves as a vehicle to catch up or even as a means of income in the production of such technology

· Ironically, there are many societies which have given up such reliance on technology, retreating to simple pursuits which place emphasis on a spiritual lifestyle or health 

4. Have multi-national businesses had a positive or negative impact on your society? (2004)

context: your society can range from anywhere within the past 40 years (have had = so far, up till today, and still happening)

Positive:

· Economic impact – promoted significant economic growth in developing naitons

· Cultural impact – multi-cultural cosmopolitan society (in dressing, tastes, i.e consumer behaviour)

· Technological impact – introduced high-end technologies to the less developed nations, spreading technical know-how on advanced forms of technology

Negative

· Economic – widening income gap in the global economic scale, which favours capitalism and free-enterprise, putting SMEs out of business, exploiting cheap labour from 3^rd world nations, mass hunger/poverty

· Cultural – erosion of traditional values, as a result of materialistic consumerism culture promoted by the mass media

· Environmental – many natural landscapes have been sacrificed as a result of massive industrialization, pollution and depletion

 

5. Examine the claim that the world is too dependent

on oil. (2005)

context: nations which use oil for survival, micro-level (consumer), macro-level (world governments, namely the G8)

def: over-reliant, with no other alternative sources of energy

YES:

· Evidence of rising oil-prices worldwide (US$200/barrel) and consequent inflation rate of other related products

· The increase in production of technology which relies on oil (vehicles with larger engine capacity, constant reliance on electrically-powered devices)

· untapped alternative energy resource (solar, wind) because it is more costly and inconvenient to maintain or produce

NO:

Since the ’97 Bali summit which highlighted the energy as well as climate crises related to pollution, many countries seek alternative energy sources (bio-fuels)

Not all nations rely on oil for survival as their lifestyle does not require it (poorer nations do not have developed infrastructure nor utilities)

The natural cycle of demand and depletion is the cause of the oil crisis / price hikes, leading to oil cartels controlling or exploiting its supply. This has been happening since the 1960s

6. Discuss the appeal and value of fantasy stories and films. (2004)

def: both positive and negative sources of values

context: any form of fiction or movies depicting this genre (must cite specific examples, from medieval to modern)

PROS:

· Promotes creativity

· Forms of escapism from stress

· Provides emotional / mental solace

· Often depicts moral lessons / cautionary tales (good triumphs over evil)

CONS:

· May lead to delusional behaviour, esp from young children without adult supervision

· Even those who are weak-minded and indulge excessively in it may lose sight of reality

· Often gory / violent in content and stretches the limits of acceptable behaviour only because it is labeled as ‘fantasy’

· At other times, it may promote sexist values, depicting females in an exploitative manner as mere objects of fantasy & lust.

"The environmental movement has lost its focus." Do you agree?

The degradation of the environment has seen an unprecedented wave of environmental movements aimed at mitigating the ecological hazards confronting the very planet we live in. From individuals to the international community, efforts to raise awareness and save the Earth have been indefatigable. Yet fervent environmentalists argue that these actions are perfunctory in nature and have not been effective in ameliorating damage done to the environment. While conspicuous improvements in the environment are not yet felt on a global scale, it is in my opinion that the focus of the green movement is to slowly but steadily reduce our exploitation of the Earth, which is indeed an increasing global phenomenon. The environmental movement has clearly not lost its focus.

One major component of the environmental movement is to raise awareness and educate the public about the ecological hazards we face today. With the rise in new media, environmental issues have taken on an increased profile. There have been global events such as Earth Hour and Live Earth concerts which purport to raise awareness and actions for environmental causes. Critics bemoan the effectiveness of saving electricity for an hour, and are skeptical about whether concerts can induce actions to save the Earth. However, they miss the point of the environmental movement completely. The aim of such events is to raise awareness about the environment in the general public, which helps to awaken the long-dormant environmental conscience in them which would serve as a precursor to active environmental conservation, rendering the cause less of a futility. Part of the environmental movement is to educate the public, and this can be seen through the release of documentaries such as "An Inconvenient Truth", "How many people can live on Planet Earth?" and "Dark Secrets". These documentaries educate the public about the scientific basis of climate change and people are more aware of the pernicious threats confronting the environment. A survey done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2008 showed that there are now 4 billion people worldwide aware of climate change, a significant increase from only 1 billion people a decade ago. This clearly proves that the environmental movement is far from losing its focus; rather, efforts to raise awareness have been successful.

Another component of the environmental movement is the harnessing of science and technology to reduce our reliance on oil and fossil fuels. Critics argue that such efforts have lost its focus because the results are minimal and not widespread. However, as aforementioned, the real focus of the green movement is to slowly reduce our exploitation of the Earth, which is greatly aided by science and technology. The advent of science and technology has led to unprecedented improvements in environmentally friendly science, rendering the cause more robust and feasible. Researchers in a company called LS9 have created genes which allow bacteria to produce diesel fuels. They have also engineered micro-organisms which can convert sunlight and water into diesel. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), on the other hand, has manufactured highly-efficient solar panels with increased energy output of up to 30% or more. Such is the promise of technology, poised to resolve the environmental problems and carry the environmental cause well into the twenty-first century. The focus of slowly saving the environment is clearly not lost.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) are also part of the green movement, and play a significant role in reducing greenhouse emissions. In recent years, many MNCs have started aligning their commercial goals with that of environmentalism. Many MNCs realize that going green might be more cost-effective and efficient in the long run, and are able to use it to garner a positive business reputation at the same time. However, critics lament that these corporations are simply capitalizing on the green movement to increase their revenue and have no real intention of saving the environment. Slapping green labels on their products are just means to increase their sales. While this may be true, it is myopic to overlook contributions by many major companies who have genuine intentions to save the environment. General Electric (GE), a large American engineering firm, already has a thriving wind-turbine business and is investing in solar-energy businesses too. Shell and BP, two of the world's largest oil companies, are sponsoring academic researchers as well as new firms with bright ideas, as is DuPoint, one of the world's largest chemical company. Concomitantly, Wal-Mart is demanding greener practices from its Chinese suppliers and is advising them on greener alternatives. More recently, GM and Nissan have released their long-awaited green electric cars, the plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt and the all-electric Nissan Leaf. All these MNCs mentioned have the moral calling to play their part in saving the environment. Similarly, their focus is to reduce ecological damages slowly but gradually, and it is laudable that they have been successful in keeping to this focus amid plans to increase their business revenue.

The government of every country is an important component of the green movement today. Many countries today are making significant efforts to keep to the focus of the environmental movement, which is to reduce our reliance on oil and fossil fuels, which thus leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil has the world's second largest and most economically honest biofuel industry, which currently produces 40% of the energy consumed by its cars and will soon supply 15% of electricity through through the burning of sugarcane wastes. Many Scandinavian countries such as Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are adopting hydroelectricity as one of their main sources of energy. Notably, Norway has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2030. However, critics are skeptical about whether the focus of the green movement is kept because such initiatives are merely adopted by developed countries and not developing countries who lack the financial abilities to do so. While this is generally true today, we must not overlook help rendered by developed countries to help developing countries to develop in an environmentally friendly way. Singapore has collaborated with China to build an eco-city in the northern part of Tianjin. Similarly, there are also plans between Singapore and India to build a highly efficient city in the most environmentally friendly way. The key is that the environment movement has not lost its focus; developed nations have the expertise to be environmentally friendly and in time to come, help will be rendered to developing nations so as to progress economically while saving the environment.

Finally, the global community has an equally important role in saving the environment, through the passing of legislation and protocols to conform people to saving the environment. Critics have pointed out though, that international forums such as the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 are perfunctory without any real actions taken to save the Earth. They argue that government officials come together as a form of obligation and have no real intention of saving the environment. While this is generally true in the case of the Copenhagen Summit, it is myopic to overlook successful initiatives such as the Montreal Protocol in 1992 which has reduced CFC emissions drastically. More recently, President Barack Obama has called for an international forum involving the 17 member states emitting more than 80% of the world's greenhouse gases. Such efforts show that the focus of the environmental movement is still kept. Politicians have the true intent of saving the environment, albeit gradually.

To conclude, the focus of the green movement to raise awareness and save the environment in slow measured steps is prevalent in today's society. As a whole, we are aware of the ecological hazards and the possibility of an environmental apocalypse if we do not start taking actions to conserve our planet. It is incontrovertible that some green movements have other intentions, but on the whole, we realize that the real focus is to save the environment.

Note: This essay was written during the Mid-year examinations under timed conditions, and was awarded a distinction grade of 80%.

Are high salaries for government officials ever justifiable?

The government of any country plays an active role in managing the society and developing the economy, and is paid by the country through taxes collected from its people. Controversially, there have been debates contending whether high salaries for government officials, including heads of state, ministers, members of parliament, judges and civil servants, are ever justifiable. While political leaders such as Minister Mentor of Singapore Lee Kwan Yew are adamant that high salaries are necessary to attract top talent into politics and reduce the incentive for corruption, high ministerial salaries have been a perennial source of disgruntlement for the general populace. Granted, government officials should be rewarded for their good performance, but it is in my opinion that government officials should serve with their heart rather than for the monetary benefits, which leads to the conclusion that high salaries for government officials are unjustifiable.

Supporters for the high salaries for government officials argue that a high pay is justified given the intensity and rigor of the government service. Politicians have to endure late nights, cope with a lack of privacy and are oft-times under immense pressure to perform for the people. Unless high wages are offered, countries would not be able to attract the best and the most capable leaders to serve a nation. The common adage of "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" is a common argument; perhaps society will indeed be worse off if we trade a lower salary for less-than-capable politicians. As such, civil services around the world have pegged their salaries to the appropriate corresponding rungs in the private sector. In Singapore, for instance, ministers' salaries are currently pegged to two-third of the median salaries of the top 8 earners in the private sector. Basic economics apply here: in a free market economy, the government must compete with the private sector for talents and so official wages must be competitive or most of the top brains will prefer to work in the private sector.

Another strand of argument that is commonly used to support the high salaries of government officials is that it helps in establishing a corrupt-free government. A high salary provides less incentives for corrupt practices. This can be seen in Singapore, where politicians are the most highly paid in the world. The last publicly-available figures in 2009 showed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong earning $3.04 million, a staggering 5 times more than what runner-up Donald Tsang, Chief Executive of Hong Kong takes home. In fact, PM Lee's salary alone can fund the combined salaries of 8 of the world's highest paid politicians, including Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. Similarly, an entry-grade minister in Singapore earns much more than his counterparts in other countries, taking home a yearly income of $1.57 million. With the provision of high salaries, Singapore is one of the most corrupt-free countries in the world. High salaries are thus deemed to be justifiable as the money of the people are not pocketed. Rather, it is used to improve the welfare of its people.

However, the above two arguments can be debunked in a few ways. High salaries would attract the best talents into the government, but these talents might not have the innate passion to serve the people. Political office is simply seen as yet another career choice. Without the drive to do the best for its people, politicians would find it a chore to remain in office and this is detrimental to any country's progress. On the other hand, while there is a strong correlation between the salary rates of government and the level of corruption in a country, it does not suggest a causal relation between the two. The world's least corrupt countries, Iceland, Finland and New Zealand, do not provide their government officials with high salaries. It is believed that anti-corruption should be a trait that is embedded in government leaders. Even if the risk of corruption still exists, it can be prevented with the establishment of anti-corruption bureau. In Singapore, a powerful and non-compromising Corrupt Practices and Investigation Bureau is a strong deterrent to politicians who want to have their palms greased. Evidently, the presence of the bureau is more than enough to prevent corruption, and high salaries are thus redundant and unnecessary.

High salaries are unjustifiable because they often result in public dissent. In the United States, a bill legislating the rise of pay for politicians by 33% met vociferous dissent in the House of Representatives, and strong protests were registered across the nation in all mediums, be it in newspaper editorials, web blogs or talk shows like The Daily Show. Catholic Church bishops in France railed against the Government officials' high salaries, which in some cases exceeded one million pesos monthly. In Singapore, the dissatisfaction towards the government is evident in the recent May 7 election, in which the People's Action Party (PAP) only obtained 60.1% of the votes, its lowest mandate since independence in 1965. A pre-election survey conducted by Australian company UMR Research showed that 68% of Singapore's voters are dissatisfied with the overwhelmingly high ministerial pay. Evidently, high salaries of government comes at the expense of alienation from the masses. As such, leaders of a country may face problems in marshaling people to make sacrifices for the country. Citizens should be able to look up to leaders for moral leadership and inspiration. If what they perceive are mercenaries at the helm, then asking them to make sacrifices will be met with cynicism and indifference. This will not bode well for Singapore's future.

Public service must remain a noble undertaking for which people are prepared to make sacrifices in exchange for the benevolent power to improve the lives of others. If we corrupt this by money, we can be efficient but never a country of high ideals. Many countries, including Singapore have acknowledged that salaries must reflect the values and ethos of public service. On May 21, it was announced that NKF chairman Gerard Ee will be the head of a committee to review the basis and level of government salaries. The PAP is aware that the unhappiness over high ministerial pay must be addressed if they are to renew the compact between the government and the people.

In conclusion, high salaries are unjustifiable because we need leaders who serve out of love and patriotism, not workers who simply work for a high pay. The high salaries should neither be used as an incentive to recruit talents nor as a deterrent to corruption. Instead, we need to cultivate a strong sense of nationalism so that talented individuals serve the people on their own accord, while having the moral conscience to handle the public funds with proper care. Only then can we truly progress as a united nation.

"To save the environment, the only way forward is a complete lifestyle change." Discuss.

Against the backdrop of increasingly cosmopolitan societies, the issue of environmental protection is becoming more pertinent and relevant. Each day, 90 million tons of pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere, as if it were an open sewer. The ramifications of climate change are conspicuous: the past ten years have been the hottest years in history; ice glaciers are melting at twice the rate a decade ago; and sea levels are predicted to rise by 40cm in 2050, threatening the existence of low-lying coastal areas. In the face of an imminent ecological disaster, fervent environmentalists are arguing that the only way to conserve the environment for ourselves and our posterity is to alter our lifestyles, in particular, our consumption patterns. However, it is in my opinion that a complete lifestyle change would be impossible given the desire of many countries for economic progress. The best way would be compromises made by individuals, corporations and the government to mitigate and reduce the pernicious effects of environmental degradation.

Incontrovertibly, a complete lifestyle change would be the surest and fastest way to saving the environment. Deforestation, burning of fossil fuels, overfishing and animal poaching are a few of the many causes of the environmental degradation we see today. The total energy consumption of the world stands at an astonishing 15 terawatts, and is expected to shoot up to 40 terrawatts by 2050. In addition, with the emergence of burgeoning economies like China and India, the oil extraction rate has reached 1,016 barrels per second, amounting to a whopping 1 billion barrels per year. If humans change their lifestyles, for example, by adopting cycling as a means of transport, using candles instead of lights, and eliminating the use of all electrical appliances, there would be no need to burn fossil fuels at all. However, this is not feasible and impractical because we need energy to progress. We are at where we are today because of the harnessing of cheap energy sources. While it is important to save the environment, we cannot impede economic growth and deprive ourselves the chance of attaining a higher standard of living. We cannot change our lifestyles completely and live as if we were in the pre-historic era. Instead, we should take small steps to ameliorate the damages done to the environment. With a collective effort from the individuals, the harnessing of science, the corporate world, the government and the global community, we would be able to see conspicuous improvements in our environment in the near future.

The first step to saving the environment is through the individuals, by raising awareness and educating them about the ecological crisis we face today. With the rise in new media, environmental issues have taken on a greater profile. There have been global events such as Earth Hour and Live Earth concerts which purport to raise awareness and action for environmental causes. The influence of the mass media has resulted in a greater awareness about the environment in the general public, and this has helped to awaken a long-dormant environmental conscience which would serve as a precursor to active environmental conservation, rendering the environmental causes less of a futility. Documentaries such as "An Inconvenient Truth", "How many people can live on Planet Earth?" and "Dark Secrets" advocate environmental protection into the social priorities and political agenda of many. The public is thus more aware of the pernicious threats confronting the environment. More importantly, they realize that they have a moral calling to save the environment and this translates into an environmental conscience which would be pivotal in inducing action to save the environment. A change in mindset is a much better and expedient solution than a complete change in lifestyles as it allows individuals to slowly adopt green practices on their own accord, ultimately leading to improvements in the environment.

The advent of technology has also led to unprecedented developments in environmentally-friendly science, rendering the environmental causes more feasible. Researchers in a company called LS9 have created genes which allow bacteria to produce diesel fuels. In addition, they have also engineered micro-organisms which can convert sunlight and water into diesel. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), on the other hand, has manufactured highly-efficient solar panels with increased energy output of up to 30% or more. Such is the promise of technology, poised to resolve the major environmental issues we face today and carry us well into the twenty-first century. While advents in technology might not entirely solve the environmental problems we face today, they do reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and oil which mitigates some of the ecological damages we have done to the Earth.

Greener practices adopted by Multinational Corporations (MNCs) also play a significant role in saving the environment. Many MNCs exist solely to earn profits, but in recent years, they have begun aligning their commercial goals with that of environmentalism. Many MNCs realize that going green might be more cost-effective and efficient in the long run, generating more cost-savings and garnering a positive business reputation at the same time. General Electric (GE), a large American engineering firm, already has a thriving wind-turbine business and is investing in solar-energy businesses too. Shell and BP, two of the world's largest oil companies, are sponsoring academic researchers as well as new firms with bright ideas, as is DuPoint, one of the world's largest chemical company. Concomitantly, Wal-Mart is demanding greener practices from its Chinese suppliers and is advising them on greener alternatives. More recently, GM and Nissan have released their long-awaited green electric cars, plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf. These greener practices show that it is not necessary to completely change the lifestyle to save the environment; all we need is a conscious effort to reduce the harm to the environment. If all MNCs do the same, it is irrefutable that we would see significant improvements in our Eco-system.

The government also plays an important role in saving the environment, especially through the adoption of greener energies. It is thus important to note that even the government do not pursue a complete lifestyle change, but rather small changes which would still reduce the ramifications of environmental degradation. Brazil is the world's second largest and most economically honest bio-fuel industry, with 40% of the energy generated through the burning of sugarcane wastes. Many Scandinavian countries, such as Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are using hydroelectricity as a main source of energy. Some minor lifestyle changes can be seen in countries which are very conscious about saving the environment. Japan, for instance, has a strong recycling culture where all its wastes are sorted into different categories, while Danes recycle their beer bottles after consumption. Evidently, these small changes in their lifestyles will contribute to less waste generated, thus reducing the amount of wastes burnt and the amount of pollutants emitted. Such initiatives by the government to cultivate a culture of environmental consciousness would go a long way in saving the environment.

Finally, the global community has to work together to ensure that as we keep our current lifestyles, we make conscious efforts in protecting the environment. Critics argue that we should adhere to a complete lifestyle change because global efforts at saving the environment are limited, as exemplified by the United States' reluctance in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. However, it is myopic to overlook the many other environmental causes that are already in place and has been successful in saving the environment. The 1992 Rio De Janeiro earth Summit and the 2009 Copenhagen Summit show that the global community is conscious about the state of the environment. Such efforts need not be futile; one only needs to look at the Montreal Protocol a few decades ago to see that global efforts have been successful in reducing CFC production and saving the environment.

In conclusion, it is naive and impractical to totally change our lifestyles to protect the environment because we are all in a pursuit to improve our living standards. There must be a collective bid to raise consciousness and save the environment in other ways.

(Note: This essay was written under examination conditions and was awarded an A-grade of 74%)

‘Conquest without conscience.’ To what extent would you agree with this assessment of our relationship to the environment?

Against the backdrop of an increasingly cosmopolitan global community, every country is embroiled in a rat race to grow its economy and augment the standard of living of its people. This led to the conquest of technology, medicine, and even nature. Oft-times, little considerations is given to the state of the environment and these nations, corporations and individuals pollute the environment without compunction. While it is heart-warming to note the presence of some countries and corporations which are environmentally-conscious, the global trend is still that of excessive consumerism with minimal attempts at environmental conservation.

In the pursuit for technological advancements and economic progress, many companies have no qualms about polluting the environment. In fact, 90 million tons of global-warming pollutants are dumped into the atmosphere each day, as if it were an open sewer. The ramifications of global warming are conspicuous: scientists have confirmed that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept; almost all of the ice-covered regions are melting- and see levels are rising at a dangerous rate; and droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions. Many companies, such as Exxon Mobile, does not adopt any green practices and have no compunction about polluting the environment. More heinous is how corporations try to shirk off all responsibilities by postulating that environmental change is a natural process, rather than a pernicious result of their relentless pursuit for economic progress. "The global warming swindle", for instance, has been met with many controversies and has been censured for trying to mislead the public into thinking that corporations are not responsible for the environmental degradation we see today.

Eco-tourism is an industry that is abused by profit-driven corporations. Under the veneer of promoting economic growth while protecting the environment, many corporations simply make use of Eco-tourism as a revenue-generating tool. In Eco-tourism, virgin lands are exposed to throngs of tourists for walk-throughs that strip these lands of their natural value. The development of infrastructure for Eco-tourism in Mexico, for instance, ruthlessly annihilated a whole species of native butterflies. After the island of Galapagos was announced as conservation site for Eco-tourism, migrants flocked to Galapagos in search of jobs, causing an over-swell in population number. What was once recognized as exotic areas of nature have now become pollution-generating spots. Evidently, Eco-tourism is a failed venture. Yet corporations are continuing this business because the potential benefits far outweigh the environment costs that they may have to bear. For the monetary benefits, these corporations often overlook their moral conscience and little consideration is given to the welfare of Mother nature.

Similarly, in the conquest for better living conditions, humans poach wildlife for their medicinal and commercial value and little consideration is given to the possible threat of their extinction. The rate of human-induced extinction is an unparalled catastrophe, and earth has not seen a spasm of extinctions like this for 65 million years. Killing of elephant for ivory is rampant in states like Orissa, Uttarancha l, Assam, UP and Karnataka. The proportion of sub -adult and adult tuskers has dropped drastically in the last 20 years. Rare rhinos, such as the one-horned Asiatic rhino are found in protected habitats in India such as Barida National Park in Nepal and Assam. Alarmingly, poachers kill them even in these protected habitats. The flagrant fact that poachers can still hunt animals despite knowing that they are protected shows that they have no conscience at all. In fact, profits is always of paramount importance to them and conservation of wildlife is oft-times a peripheral consideration. More often than not, in our quest for a higher quality of life, through merchandise made from animal tusks and skins, as well as their medicinal value, such as the treatment of cancer, fauna are abused by mankind. Only a small minority, such as animal conservationists and environmentalists are conscious about the survival of these animals.

Despite many countries, corporations and individuals who better themselves at the expense of the environment, there exist a minority who are conscious about the potential threats to the environment and are indefatigable in saving the environment. Many Scandinavian countries aim for economic progress but still maintain efforts in protecting the environment. Brazil has the second largest and most economically honest biofuel industry, which already provides 40% of the fuel consumed by its cars and will soon supply 15% of its electricity through the burning of sugarcane waste. Concomitantly, Norway earns a high spot for being first to the world's largest solar production plant, and has pledged to become carbon-neutral by 2030. Some corporations are also gearing up on their green initiatives to save the environment. General Electric (GE), a large American Engineering firm, already has a thriving wind-turbine business and is gearing up its solar-energy business. BP and Shell, 2 of the world's biggest oil companies, are also sponsoring research in green technology. Such proactive actions by various countries and corporations show that while they are on a conquest for a higher standard of living, they still have a conscience to keep the environment protected.

Incontrovertibly, the conquest for a better life has blinded the conscience of many resulting in the degradation of the environment. Managing the often-conflicting demands of fast economic growth and saving the environment is hard. While it is almost out of the question for us to stop this conquest, perhaps we should slow down and start searching our conscience and play our part in conserving the environment. This is not just for ourselves, but also for our posterity.

Examine the claim that the world is too dependent on oil. ('05)

The rapidly industrializing world has seen an exponential increase in demands for oil in the past few decades. Often termed as the "black gold", oil is an essential component in the lives of individuals, corporations and the government. In the US alone, approximately $1 billion is spent each day on oil. With the emergence of other industrializing nations such as China and India, the oil extraction rate has reached an astonishing 1, 016 barrels per second, amounting to a whopping 1 billion barrels a year. Our over-reliance on oil and its various forms is manifested in its high price of $US 200 per barrel. A slight reduction in oil supply can result in severe economic downturns, disturbances in food production and distribution, as well as conflicts within countries. Although there do exist countries which are turning to alternative sources of energy to ease their over-reliance on oil, majority of the world is still largely dependent on oil- and this does not look set to change in the near future.

The availability of oil greatly determines the state of the economy of the world. Many newly industrializing economies (NIEs) are importing increasing amounts of oil from oil-rich stats to fuel their bustling industry and economy. China, for example, has had a 30% increase in oil imports from African states and Venezuela in the past two years. In addition, many Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and United Emirates have strong and rich economies because they have a lot of oil. As the demand for oil continues to skyrocket, these countries will be able to thrive by providing this natural resource. There are also countries that process raw materials from oil, and oil is a major source of their income. Situated at the crossroads of international sea and air roads, Singapore is particularly reliant on the processing and refining of crude oil at its offshore islands. If oil runs out, the economy of the world would be in a complete paralysis. This is most evidently seen in the 1973 oil crisis, when the world tumbled into a deep recession due to the low supply and thus, high prices of oil.

Our over-reliance on oil can also be seen through our food system. The many processes involved in food production before it is finally served and consumed requires the use of cheap crude oil. Vast amounts of oil are used as raw materials and energy in the manufacture of fertilizers and pesticides, and as cheap and available energy at all stages of production: from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, to processing, distribution and packaging. In addition, oil is essential in the construction and repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads. The industrial food supply system is one of the biggest consumers of oil. To transport 1 calorie of lettuce across the Atlantic, 127 calories of energy is required. Evidently, a reduction in oil would cause the processes of food production of food to come to a halt, and this would result in global hunger. It is alarming to note that even the most basic thing to keep our population alive is so heavily dependent on oil.

The need for oil in many countries has even translated into conflicts and violence between nation states. A casual glance at the last few decades of history suggests that oil exporting states such as Iraq, Venezuela and Iran have an unfortunate habit of getting involved in international conflicts. During the Iraq war, the United States justified their invasion of Iraq in 2003 and occupation of Iraq as an operation to find weapons of mass destruction and to stop the oppressive regime in Iraq. However, many experts believe that this was more of energy security, as Iraq is an oil rich nation and the US wants to keep the oil flowing into their economies. There are even speculations of a World War III in which the world would fight over the remaining limited supply of oil. Our willingness to kill our own kind for oil is more than enough to prove that we are over-reliant on oil.

While it is irrevocable that the world is heavily dependent on oil, we must not forget that there do exist countries that acknowledge their over-reliance on oil and are slowly but gradually reducing the need. Currently, there are alternative sources of energy, like hydroelectric energy and solar energy that are used by some countries to cut emission rates from the combustion of oil. In Canada and some parts of America, hydroelectric power is used as a source of electricity. Norway, on the other hand, earns a high spot for being first to the world's largest solar production plant, owned by REC Group. They have also pledged to become carbon neutral by 2030, mainly through funding green projects abroad and reducing driving and flying at home. All these technologies and the fact that countries are in the pursuit of alternative sources of energy goes to show that some parts of the world is trying to reduce their dependence on oil. However, such actions are only taken by a minority of the countries in the world, especially by developed countries which have the financial resources to undertake researches on alternative sources of energy. Oft-times, developing countries lack the technology to venture into such alternative resources and they continue to deplete the limited supply of oil.

Oil is becoming a universal commodity and it seems hard to reduce our dependence on oil. The oil supply is expected to peak in a few years' time before it starts to fall drastically. If we do not take any action to reduce our reliance on oil, the world would plunge into a perilous state of entropy. The threat is real, and we need to do something about it now, before the ticking time bomb is finally triggered off.

Special thanks to:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5045

http://seekingalpha.com/article/263639-oil-forecast-for-second-quarter-2011

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31925554/Examine-the-Claim-That-the-World-is-Too-Dependent-on-Oil

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1163516/oil_and_our_overdependence_on_it.html

http://www.oildependency.org/articles/index.htm