"Hosting major sporting events create more problems than benefits." Do you agree

With the recent upcoming of prestigious sports events, such as the World Cup, Asian Games, and the Olympics, one may easily notice news reports on what host countries do in order to prepare for these events. Often or not, to some people, hosting of such events may be equivalent to digging one’s own graves by creating more problems than benefits. My stand to the statement “Hosting major sporting events create more problems than benefits” is that I disagree with it to a certain extent. Indeed there are problems, but they do not undermine the benefits provided in some areas, as listed in the essay. In other instances, the whole case may prove otherwise.

By hosting major sporting events, one benefit that may arise for the host country is the economic boost. Indeed, some critics may have argued that large amount of money has to be spent before and during the hosting, for areas like construction of new stadiums and improvement of services etcetera, which in the profits gained may not be worth it. For example, China spent billions on renovating historical sites to prepare for the influx of visitors during the 2008 Olympics. However, from another perspective, in a long run, such a “problem” may become a benefit instead. This will attract more tourists, in turning boosting the tourism sector and the country’s economy. Rebuilding and renovation of tourist haunts signifies a better service and place for these tourists. Even though the sporting event may be over, there is no reason why tourists will not visit the host country anymore. The influx of tourists will still continue, and may even increase because of the sacrifices made by the host country. Hence, from an economic viewpoint, hosting major sporting events does not create more problems than benefits.

On a national level, hosting sporting events does not create more problems than benefits. As a country which gets to host prestigious international sporting events, it can be regarded as an honour. This is because one has to undergo strict selection in order to clinch such a deal. For example, countries which wish to host the Summer Olympic Games or the Winter Olympic Games must bid for the organisation with the (International Olympics committee) IOC, which has the ultimate authority of deciding where the Games will take place. IOC members will vote for the most suitable host country. By clinching the deal, this proves that the host country has the capability to organise such events. This boosts the morale of the country, and national pride is upheld. Hence from a national level, hosting major sporting events does not create more problems than benefits.

However, hosting of sporting events may have its fair share of problems, which is more than the benefits gained. This can be seen from the social perspective. There are instances where tourists made a din out of their country’s loss in sports matches, for example, wrecking public utilities in host countries. As a result, money has to be spent to employ the police to deter such incidents from occurring. Money spent here could have been wisely spent on other crucial aspects, such as education and defence. During the 2006 World Cup, Germany spent millions of Euros to employ 100.000 police officers to be stationed countrywide, to prevent unnecessary riots caused by England fans, probably well-known for being notorious “havoc-creators” for some. In this case, the given statement is true to a large extent.

From the environmental viewpoint, the statement may be seen as true to a large extent. Often in typical scenarios, after the ending of any sporting events, it is not difficult to spot litter left behind by inconsiderate tourists who finished watching matches, not only inside and outside stadiums, but also along the streets. As a result, cleaners have to be hired to clear the mess, which requires a considerable amount of money. Again, this further supports the stand of the given statement.

In conclusion, hosting major sporting events can be seen as a privilege. This is because such a chance is rare to come by, and one must have its capability recognised by other nations in order to clinch the once-in-a-blue-moon deal. For any major events, there are always bound to have problems and benefits. On closer scrutiny, it is noted that the given statement may not hold true for all aspects, hence it can only be agreeable to a certain extent. All in all, what matters most is that the hosting countries are willing to bear the consequences and enjoy the fruits of labour at the same time, without any regrets. To hosting countries, such an experience certainly proves to be rewarding, as there are always lessons to learn from.

'Young people today are fortunate.' Is this true of young people in your country?

'Young people today are so fortunate.' Is this true of young people in your country?

Singapore has managed to advance from a mere unknown fishing village to a global cosmopolitan hub over decades. with the rise in the standard of living, more and more Singaporeans are gettting affluent, especially for those born in the post-war era. As a result, it is understandable that young people experience lifestyles of better quality in Singapore. However, I feel that its is not true to a large extent that young people today in Singapore are so fortunate.

From the perspective of education, the statement is not true of young people in Singapore to a large extent. Although the quality of education has improved significantly over the years, young people in their schooling years are experiencing stress. According to a survey recently conducted by one of the local government bodies in 2004, students aged from six to sixteen are having less sleeping time. 80% of these students attributed it to stress from increasing workload in schools. In Singapore's education system, students are categorised according to their academic abilites, from as early as Primary Three. In a country that emphasises on meritocracy, it is understandable that young schooling people are subjected to stress by parents and teachers. Most of these parents and teachers want these students to do well academically and survive in the meritocratic society. Although their intentions are good, under such conditions to gain knowledge, are young people today so fortunate in terms of education? I doubt so.

Again, from a social viewpoint, young people today are not so fortunate to a large extent. In an open-minded and cosmopolitan society, like that in Singapore, there is a never-ending influx of foreign products and good. This is accompanied along with cultures, both good and bad, from other countries. As a result, there are more choices and temptations around for young people to cope. It is very crucial, especially for parents, to guide them along so as to prevent them from going astray. What makes it worse is that, with an increasing number of working parents in the recent years, parents are unable to supervise and guide their children, leaving them to fend on their own. This can be further supported by statistics. In Singapore, the number of crimes committed by junvenile delinquents in 2005 has significantly risen by 30%, as compared to that in 1995.

From a cultural viewpoint, the statement is not true of young people in Singapore. Indeed, young people have missed out first-hand experience with the authentic Singaporean culture. Accompanied with the exponential development in Singapore, some old buildings and artefacts may have to make way for future developments, take for example, the old National Library. Most of these buildings depict a part of Singapore's history, contributing to a certain degree of tinge to the Singaporean culture. Furthermore, as I have mentioned earlier, the rise of globalisation is everywhere in Singapore. With the influx of cultures from other countries, the genuine Singaporean culture is further diluted as a result. Although certain critics may argue that young people in Singapore can get to learn the history and culture of Singapore in textbooks and muesums, what actually matters more is the first-hand experience, in which I believe that young people in Singapore will learn more.

However, there are certain aspects that are able to show two sides of the argument. One of them is technology. Young people are fortunate, in a sense that they are able to have access to the Internet easily to look for desired information. Singapore is now well-known to be the 2nd most network-ready country globally, where more than 70% of the Singaporeans have access to the Internet. With such a great advantage,young people in Singapore are able to gather more information and be more well-informed about the current affairs around the world. Viewing from another perspective may prove otherwise though. With easy access to the Internet in Singapore, young people are more vulnerable to temptations lurking in the World Wide Web. With a click, young people may even be able to surf websites that promote unhealthy cultures, such as violence and pronography. This may be worsen by the fact that there is an increase in the number of Singaporean working parents in the recent years. This signifies that some of these young people may not even have their parents' guidance and assistance.

In terms of economy, young people today in Singapore are fortunate. With the economic advancement in Singapore, the standard of living of Singaporeans has risen. This is seen in the great rise of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Singapore, from $66.9 billion in 1990 to $159 billion in 2004. This certifies that more young people are able to afford basic necessities of higher quality, and also able to live in better environments. However, with the improvement in the standard of living of Singaporeans, more Singaporeans get affluent. This results in a trend whereby everyone, including young people in Singapore, compete each other in climbing up the economic ladder. Without doing so, young people are unable to keep up with Singapore's economic growth in future, and hence unable to thrive in the increasingly competitive society. As we can see from here, young people are not so fortunate, in a way that they will face tough competition in the future.

In conclusion, young people in Singapore are not so fortunate. It is understandable that young people are able to enjoy the luxury that can only be found in the dreams of the older generations. However, to claim that young people in Singapore are so fortunate just because of this is being myopic. As I have mentioned earlier, by viewing it thoroughly from different viewpoints, we can point out that the statement is not true of young people in Singapore to a large extent. Given the fact that Singapore is a country that lacks natural resources, global competition is inevitable in order for it to survive. It may not be very probable for young people in Singapore to escape from their own fate.

No nation should ever intervene in the affairs of another nation. Discuss.

No nation should ever intervene in the affairs of another nation. Discuss.

“No nation should ever intervene in the affairs of another nation.” From an objective perspective, the statement given above is considered one that is absolute and biased. This is because that there are other instances whereby nations should intervene in the affairs of another nation. In the subsequent parts of the essay, I will briefly elaborate on various scenarios whereby nations should and should not take part in the affairs of another nation, and why should nations not intervene in the affairs of another nation.

First of all, nations should intervene in the affairs of another nation, when the security or sovereignty of the intervening nation is at stake. It is every nation’s responsibility to be fully in charge of its own defence. When another aggressor nation has the idea of invading its own nation or increasing its own military power inconsiderately, one should stand up and retaliate, instead of sitting back and allowing the aggressor to do things at its own will. By intervening the aggressor’s motives and evil intentions, peace may be ensured, and the sovereignty of the intervening nation will be protected. One solution to intervene in the aggressor nation’s intentions is to impose economic sanctions on it. One such typical example is the ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) launch by North Korea in 1998. This has actually resulted in economic sanctions by Japan, since the missile trespasses Japan’s territories, in which Japan has regarded as a form of insult. However, critics may argue that such a move may force the aggressor nation to push forward its invasion plans for resources, as seen in World War II.

Secondly, nations should take part and be involved in the affairs of another nation, when the intervened nation, especially neighbouring ones, affect their neighbours environmentally, for example, pollution. As the saying goes, “pollution knows no boundaries”, since humans live together on Earth, all the more we should put in effort in protecting our own planet. By allowing neighbouring nations to pollute at their own will, the surrounding nations will suffer, especially those dependent on agriculture and tourism, as pollution affects these two aspects greatly. One example is the 1997 South East Asia Haze. About 70% of the tourism industry has been badly affected as a result, worsening the economies of tourism-based countries. One way to intervene such affairs of other nations is to provide aid and technologies, to curb pollution from spreading. And also, nations can also send educators across the borders to educate the neighbouring citizens about the harmful effects of pollution.

Thirdly, nations should be involved in the affairs of another nation, when the intervened nation is in trouble. By intervening in terms of sending financial aid and manpower to the troubled nations, relationships may be maintained, or even improved among countries in need and aiding countries. Moreover, from a more altruistic perspective, more lives will be saved since most of them will benefit from the help given. One instance is the 2004 South Asia Tsunami Attack. Most unaffected and well-to-do countries sent financial aid and machinery to badly-hit nations, such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka. By doing so, help has managed to arrive for those who have to live in fear and agony after the disaster.

However, there are cases whereby nations should not intervene in the affairs of another nation. Sometimes only nations know themselves what is right for the growth of their own nations. From their point of view, by intervening into the affairs of other nations, the involving nations are undermining the sovereignty of the nations whose matters are being intervened. This actually sours the relationships among these nations, which may lead to conflicts and unrest, affecting the lives of civilians.

One instance whereby nations should not intervene in the affairs of other nations is when the security or sovereignty of the intervening nation will be threatened if it intervenes. It is often the best not to take sides in sovereignty issues of other nations, because the involved nations may view those taking opposing sides as their enemies. As a result, relations among these countries will deteriorate, resulting in conflicts, or even social unrest, on a greater scale. One typical example will be the Israeli- Palestinian territorial issue. Most nations actually took a rather neutral stand over this, due to the fact that they do not want to be dragged into the conflict.

Another case whereby nations should not intervene in the affairs of another nation is education. Every nation has their own viewpoints and plans in educating people of its own country, according to each of their needs. By intervening in education systems of other countries, it may be seen as a form of insult by the intervened country, whose government may feel that the intervening nation has the impression that it is more “able” to guide the intervened country. As a result, souring of relationships among these countries occur. This will affect the economic and social ties among them in the long run as well.

Overall, nations can intervene in the affairs of other nations, based on the condition that the nations involved are treated with due respect. As the saying goes, “no man is an island”, diplomatic ties, to some extent, is essential to every country. By respecting other countries, one has already achieved the basic building block in establishing good relationships among countries. If every country is able to do so, peace will be ensured in the long run. However, as what I have mentioned above, there are instances where nations have to step in to take control of the affairs of other nations. Ironically, this will also ensure peace, only if the matters are being taken care of in a sensitive and careful manner. All in all, I disagree to the given statement to a large extent.

Do you agree that it is the responsibility of richer nations to tackle global environmental problems?

Do you agree that it is the responsibility of richer nations to tackle global environmental problems?

Global environmental problems have been a great concern among countries. In order to tackle such problems, countries have to cooperate and come up with solutions to tackle them. As the saying goes, “pollution knows no boundaries”. This shows that it is not only the responsibility of richer nations to tackle global environmental problems. In fact, all nations that exist on this planet are to be involved in this issue, as we have got only one planet, one home. However, it is to be noted that in some areas, richer nations are able to take the lead and curb global environmental problems, as seen in the subsequent paragraphs.

It is rather absolute and biased to state that it is the sole responsibility of richer nations to tackle global environmental problems. In this case, richer nations only take a major share of responsibility in dealing with such problems. Richer nations have better financial resources, and hence more able to spend a considerable amount of money in controlling pollution within countries. With better financial resources, nations tend to hold greater power, and therefore having more say in global environmental issues. Richer nations also have the capability to provide poorer nations with necessary resources to help curb pollution within poorer countries, especially neighbouring ones, since pollution knows no boundaries. However, certain richer nations may argue that such an initiative by richer nations may adversely affect their economy. For example, the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitting nation, USA, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to cut down the amount of greenhouse gases emitted globally. USA defends its stand by stating that such a move may have a negative impact on its economy.

Again in this paragraph, we are able to notice the need for richer nations to take a large share of responsibility in dealing with global environmental problems. Industrialisation and the rising affluence have seen the rapidly burgeoning rich and middle classes owned a large number of cars. Since the majority of cars still work on fossil fuels, the amount of greenhouse gases they emit altogether is considerable. Given that the fact that industrialisation takes place mainly in richer nations and requires the burning of fossil fuels, it can be said that richer nations do contribute most of the air pollution and greenhouse gases around the world. In order to reduce such forms of pollution, richer nations must do something to negate the problems. One of which is to cut down in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted, as seen in the Kyoto Protocol. Another solution is to introduce more electric cars or hydrogen-fueled cars, which are more environmental friendly. However, critics from richer nations may rebuke that poorer nations also contribute a great deal to pollution of other forms, such as deforestation in the Amazon forest. However, they have to note that deforestation for timber and space for crops will ultimately benefit the richer nations, since they are the main importers of timber and food-based products. Without consumers, will there be deforestation? I doubt so.

However, there are other factors whereby actually both the richer and poorer nations should come hand in hand in dealing with global environmental problems. About 50% of the food market is dominated by poorer nations, since most of the poorer nations depend on agriculture to boost their revenue. Global environmental problems such as air and water pollution occurring in poorer nations may result in a decrease in yield and quality of crops. As a result, the exports of food-based products will be affected negatively, hence decreasing the revenue of agricultural-based nations, eventually seeing deterioration in their economy. In this case, both richer countries and poorer countries should do their parts to tackle pollution. Richer nations may introduce newer technology such as purification of water for crops, and also educate farmers in the importance of ensuring a clean environment for crops growth. At the same time, poorer nations should devise a system whereby food-based products are tested thoroughly for pollutants and toxins, before being exported overseas. And also, poorer nations should educate its own civilians on the importance of a pollution-free environment.

Poorer nations must also do its rightful part in tackling global environmental problems, since pollution knows no boundaries. Most of the poorer nations, in fact, are using conservative ways of energy production, such as burning of fossil fuels. This actually contributes to air pollution and greenhouse effect. What can be done actually is to learn from certain richer nations, such as Japan and Russia, whereby they use cleaner sources of energy, such as biogas, and nuclear energy. Here, critics may rebut that poorer nations do not have the resources and knowledge in importing technology and making use of them. Again, richer nations come in to play a role by imparting knowledge to them, and probably providing them with the necessary technology, with some trade incentives in return.

From above, we can see that both the richer and poorer nations should own the responsibility in tackling global problems. It is necessary to note that everyone must do his or her part, regardless of nationality, race or language, since we share a common home, Earth. Richer nations can introduce newer energy-saving technologies to poorer countries, along with the knowledge required. Education of the importance of saving our environment is crucial, especially in poorer nations, where illiteracy rate is high. Punishments can be meted out to those who damage the environment, and at the same time, incentives may be given to those who protect the environment. However, with all these, we are not really able to tackle global environmental problems, unless all the nations work hand in hand and consider the seriousness of the problems.