Social Studies

1 (a)

This cartoon was drawn to show that medisave, medifund and medishield is insufficient in Singapore. It is shown in the picture that a broken boat representing healthcare in Singapore was overload with things such as the increase of hospitalization cost, limited use of medisave and the increase in GST with 7% and three workers which reprint medisave, medifund and medishield that claims that they had fixed the broken boat. This shows that the medisave, medifund and medishield is insufficient to cover the healthcare costs and it has limited usage. Singapore government is spending too little on healthcare.

1 (b)

No, that does not mean of them is wrong. Both political leaders differ in their accounts of the issues in healthcare in Singapore because both are different parties in Singapore. In Source B, it was our Health Minister who was giving his speech in Sembawang GRC. He was trying to say healthcare in Singapore is affordable but it is also not cheap. It might be quite costly but it's worth it. In this source, the evidence is " While he is empathetic towards residents' concerns on rising costs, Mr Khaw said his aim is for healthcare to be affordable, not cheap, adding that any promise of cheap care would only be "kidding the people". "How do you achieve world-class healthcare which is also cheap? You know that's not possible”. This shows that healthcare is affordable. But for Source C, it was opposition part in Singapore. He was trying to show the negative side of healthcare being affordable.In this source the evident is "Medical costs are ever-increasing. Despite all the top-ups in the Medisave account, it is insufficient for a lower or even middle income worker to manage the health cost. Not enough beds in the hospital, long waiting time for appointments and walk in are some of the common problem the public are faced with on a day-to-day basis." This shows that they only care about the money and healthcare being affordable and not the citizens whose having problem to find money for healthcare.

1c

Ministry of health post this article on its website to show the US of what Singapore's healthcare being affordable and what is it all about. It says that Singapore is well organized in healthcare to make payments than US. In this source, the evidence is " In health circles it's always conservatives who bring up Singapore, because of the primacy it places on personal responsibility. In Singapore, roughly one-third of health spending in Singapore is paid directly by individuals (who typically buy insurance coverage as well); in the United States, by contrast, nearly 90 percent is picked up by third-party insurers, employers and governments. Singaporeans make these payments out of earnings as well as from health savings accounts. The system is chock-full of incentives for thrift. If you want a private hospital room, for example, you pay through the nose; most people choose less expensive wards." This shows that healthcare in Singapore is really affordable and its aim is to promote healthcare in Singapore in the US.

1 (d)

Yes, I do accept what Source E says about the healthcare system in Singapore. Source E was trying to say how lucky our healthcare is than other country, having healthcare free and they always want more even if they are not sick. In this source the evidence is, " Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong raised these examples to show the generosity of Libya's socialist government, fattened by the country's massive oil wealth, but said the biggest lesson from his four-day visit was that its leaders were realizing that heavy subsidies were unsustainable in the long run. 'This is affirmation of what we know, that the welfare state and subsidy will lead Singapore to ruin,' But the leader (Colonel Gadaffi) told me himself that it is not working - the people are not happy, they want more and more. They gave themselves so much but they want more. Cross referencing with Source D, Source D accept about the healthcare system in Singapore. It says that healthcare, everyone can pay . They also care about the systems if they had disease. It also shows about how Singaporeans having responsibility by making the healthcare affordable. In this source, the evidence is "In health circles it's always conservatives who bring up Singapore, because of the primacy it places on personal responsibility. In Singapore, roughly one-third of health spending in Singapore is paid directly by individuals (who typically buy insurance coverage as well); in the United States, by contrast, nearly 90 percent is picked up by third-party insurers, employers and governments. Singaporeans make these payments out of earnings as well as from health savings accounts. The system is chock-full of incentives for thrift. If you want a private hospital room, for example, you pay through the nose; most people choose less expensive wards.
… Singaporeans have the kind of system that promotes prudence. " This shows how affordable healthcare system in Singapore is. Therefore, Source E accept about the healthcare system in Singapore.

2 (a)

I agree that the lack of social interaction is the most important reason for the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. However there is also other two reasons for the sectarian conflict in Nothern Ireland which is declining economy and foreign intervention.

Social interaction is one of the reason for the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. The civilian lives that were disrupted by the violence and social segregation. Many Protestants and Catholics had their lives disrupted by the violence that took place. Bomb attacks launched by the IRA destroyed many homes. The conflict also prolonged the mutual hatred between the Protestants and Catholics. Also, Protestants and Catholics grew up in praise of their own actions and condemning those of the other party for causing the conflict. Such attitudes led to the division of education systems for each religious group as well. It was not possible for both groups to interact with each other and foster mutual understanding, which only left room for the violence foster mutual understanding, which only left room for the violence to escalate.

Another reason was declining economy. It led to a loss of revenue for the country due to the high costs of security, loss of foreign investments and tourism. It was estimated that nearly 1 billion have been spent every year on security services, putting on a strain on national resources. The conflict had resulted in several foreign investments being withdrawn from Northern Ireland, creating unemployment and slower economic growth for the country. In fact, upon the deceleration of a ceasefire in 1994, Northern Ireland reported at least 30 million worth of new investment ventures in the country. The conflict had also caused the decline of tourism in the country. Although tourism accounted for 7% of the Republic of Ireland's gross domestic product in 1994, it only amounted to a mere in 1.5% in Northern Ireland. This was linked to the loss of revenue and slower economic growth in the country.

Another reason was foreign intervention. In 1969, Britain send its army to Northern Ireland to keep the violence from getting out of hand. The Catholics initially believed the British Army would help to maintain peace and restore order. However, they were disappointed when the British Army turned out to be mostly Protestant and took their side with Protestant in Northern Ireland. With the internment laws introduced in 1971, British soldiers were granted the right to arrest, interrogate and detain anyone suspected of terrorist activities without trial. Naturally, they took laws out on Catholics who had their privacy invaded when the army began searching their homes and arresting Catholics under the suspicion of terrorist activities. The last thing came in the Bloody Sunday incident in 1972 when the army opened fire at Catholics who wee taking part in a peaceful civil right march. This caused Catholics to lose faith in the British Army and turn to the IRA for help.

In conclusion, social interaction is the most important reason for the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. It removed the possibility of resolving differences between the Protestants and Catholics. The two groups should be reconciled first before the economy could improve. Foreign intervention only occurred because of the social chaos brought about by the incessant fighting. There would be no cause for the British Army to remain in Northern Ireland if there was a social will to stop the conflict.

2 (b)

There are three consequences of the conflict in Sri Lanka. They are, foreign Intervention, armed conflict, displacement of people and refugees.

One consequences of the conflict in Sri Lanka is foreign Intervention. The conflict attracted the attention of India which tried to play as a mediator in response to the July 1983 riots. Its foreign minister was sent to mediate in an unsuccessful dialogue between the Sinhalese and the Tamils. In June 1987, the Indian Air Force violated the Sri Lankan Airspace by dropping food and medical supplies in Jaffna. Under pressure from India, Sri Lanka later agreed to sign a peace accord with India. There was to be a ceasefire and the Tamil Tigers were to surrender their arms to the Indian Peacekeeping troops. However, when the Tamil Tigers failed to fully surrender their weapons, the Indian troops took control of them by force, leading to clashes.This was a dire consequence for Sri Lanka because India's actions threatened Sri Lanka ability to be independent in controlling its internal and external affairs.

Another consequences of the conflict in Sri Lanka is armed conflict.The Sinhalese also showed their hostility towards the Tamils, sometimes through violence. The frequent use of violence between 1981 and 1984 sparked a long armed conflict between government forces and the Tamil Tigers. During the July 1983 riots, 13 Sinhalese soldiers were killed by the Tamil Tigers. The armed conflict escalated into a war between the LTTTE and the Sri Lankan government. It has troubled Sri Lanka for more than 20 years and has cost more than 60,000 lives. Furthermore, the children grew up in an environment where they learnt about hatred among different groups.

Another consequences of the conflict in Sri Lanka is displacement of people and refugees. Many places of work were destroyed and business could no longer operate on a daily basis. Foreign investors had to relocate elsewhere because of the political and social instability taking place in Sri Lanka, resulting in a dip in its foreign investments from US$66 million in 1982 to US$39 million and finally US$22 million in 1986. The fighting also prevented tourists from visiting the country, the number of tourists had steadily decreased after the Black July riots of 1983, causing a backlash in Sri Lanka's tourism industry.This created a breeding ground for increased crime and social insecurity. With decreased revenue from taxation and foreign investment, Sri Lanka's economy became stagnant and the government had not funds and resources to restore the country.

The most important consequences of conflict in Sri Lanka is armed conflict. If not for constant fighting from the Tamil Tigers and the Sinhalese community, there would not have been social and political instability in Sri Lanka, and foreign investors would not have to withdraw their investments from the country. As such, the economy would not have gone into stagnation with no funds or resources for the government to rebuild the country.