KS Bull 2021

Issue 2

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 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

CONTENTS

2021 Year 6 GP CT | Paper 1

‘It is harder than ever to be a journalist today.’ Comment.

1 Pay Tianna | 21S03O 4
2 Cuison Jacob Dimaano | 21S06H 8

Should environmental sustainability be given greater priority

in your society?
3 Lam Zhen Yi, | 21S06S 11
Matthew

Discuss the view that the world would be better off with more women
in leadership.
4 Megan Cheah Shi Qi | 21S03D 15

2021 Year 5 GP CT | Paper 1

'It's a woman's world today.' How far do you agree?

5 Jenica Tan Weizi | 22A13A 18
6 Bernice Chong Boon Yen | 22S06J 21
7 Chia Si Nuo Deborah | 22S06J 24

Is marriage still an attractive option in today's world?

8 Treruangrachada Anantaya Kylin | 22S06S 27

2
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

2021 Year 6 KI CT | Paper 2 – Section A

Critically evaluate the argument with reference to the nature and construction
of knowledge in ethics. Respond with your own critical comments to support
or challenge the author’s position.
9a Passage 30
9b Guan Yong En, Justinian | 21S03F 32

2021 Year 5 KI CT

Critically assess the view that sense experience alone is sufficient

in the construction of knowledge.
10 Cayden Ong Xiang Jun | 22A13A 35

‘When it comes to what we ordinarily call knowledge, belief is

the only undeniable condition.’ Critically assess the view.
11 Allyscia Clare Pereira | 22S03D 39
12 Chloe Neo Yi Ting | 22S03O 43
13 Gene Chong Kenqin | 22S06A 47

Editorial Team 51

3
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

1
2021 | Y6 | GP CT | Paper 1 Pay Tianna | 21S03O

‘It is harder than ever to be a journalist today.’ Comment.

“Freedom of the news is freedom of journalists to advance their own agenda.” A

statement that was consistently asserted by Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan
Yew, has ostensibly become the truth in the eyes of many. Many governments and
authorities around the world have begun to subscribe to this belief, and thus view
journalists and the potential power of their articles to create unfavourable outcomes
for society as a ticking time bomb. Consequently, policymakers have put in place a
slew of measures to regulate their reporting. With the rise in regulation of media, the
ever-dangerous political landscape that journalists must navigate, and the increasing
competition from non-traditional sources, I opine that it is harder than ever to be a
journalist today.

Optimists may argue that with the rise of new media platforms, journalists can reach
out to a large audience, and the articles they publish can be accessed easily by all,
therefore making their job in relaying information to the masses easier than ever.
Indeed, the Internet and the social media platforms it provides serve as an alternative
conduit for dissemination of news to the masses, at an unprecedented speed and ease
that could not have been imagined with physical newspapers or television broadcasts.
Many reputable, traditional news outlets such as The New York Times or The
Washington Post have established their online presence through websites or
Instagram, Facebook and Twitter accounts, allowing people to obtain up-to-date news
anytime, anywhere, without the need to deal with the physical distribution challenges
of the antiquated newspaper. This is particularly convenient for journalists, since they
can now reach out to their audience more rapidly, and publish truths that need to be
broadcast urgently. For example, in 2017, journalist Elena Milashina alerted the world
to a violent purge of men suspected to be gay in the Russian Republic of Chechnya.
With the speed that online platforms provide and the ease at which people could
access these platforms to read the news, she successfully warned many of the state-
sanctioned detention, torture of gay men, effectively saving their lives by prompting
them to go into hiding or flee from the area. Hence, the easy accessibility and speed
of new media platforms empowers journalists to relay news faster than ever, to more
people than was originally possible, thus enabling them to fulfil their jobs as truth-
seekers better than ever. This not only applies to journalists from traditional news

4
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

outlets, but also to those individual ones that work from non-traditional platforms
such as Substack. The newsletter-esque website enables journalists to publish articles,
without the need to be employed by an established news outlet. Already, famous
journalists such as Glenn Greenwald and Matthew Yglesias are among the most-
subscribed-to journalists on the platform, and they enjoy greater freedom in what
they publish, without regulation or censorship by news editors, allowing for more
reporting and discourse regarding current affairs. Thus, the growth of new media
platforms has indeed made it easier than ever to be a journalist today.

While the above point is irrefutable, I believe that the increase in regulatory laws, the
progressively dangerous and polarised landscape, and growing competition from
other platforms has made the journalist’s job today far more difficult than ever before.

The rise of autocratic government or even democracies of a less liberal nature has
led to greater regulation of the press, pressurising journalists to publish articles that
are favourable to those in power. With the growing power of journalists to reach out
to the masses and sway the opinions of the public, many politicians have become wary,
and thus have clamped down on them with iron fists. This is especially so with
repressive governments in places such as North Korea, Russia, China and,
increasingly, Turkey. In 2016, as part of Turkish President Erdogan’s personal war
against independent media, he shut down 131 new outlets. In particular, he replaced
the office of editors of popular newspaper, Zaman, with people of his own choosing,
which led to the newspaper’s complete reversal in stance from being very critical of
the government to glossing over any news that could be perceived as dissident. As of
today, 90% of traditional media outlets in Turkey are controlled by conglomerates
with close ties to the government, giving the authorities unchecked power over the
media landscape. Turkey is not an anomaly – similar situations are taking place all over
the world. With the Chinese government’s decision to shut down democratic
newspaper Apple Daily in Hong Kong, to Russia’s implementation of a new law that
threatens journalists with hefty fines or jail time for publishing news that ‘negatively
affects the public’, governments all over the world have, in different permutations,
established strict checks and balances on journalists, severely restricting the ability of
journalists to publish unbiased truths that may reflect badly on the government. Facing
fear of being fired by draconian employers or charged with lawsuits, many journalists
have no choice but to obey obediently and publish distorted truths or even
mendacious propaganda. Thus, it is more difficult than ever for them to be unbiased
and objective when reporting news due to heavy state regulation.

In addition, with the increasingly dangerous political landscape, journalists sometimes

face threats to their lives for publishing controversial truths. The landscape today is

5
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

similar to a minefield –: journalists ought to be wary of the danger of angering powerful

stakeholders, and must be keenly aware of lines that should not be crossed. An
example that epitomises this would be the murder of Slovakian journalists Ján Kuciak
and his fiancée in early 2018 by unknown assailants. The time of his death was
especially chilling, since it coincided with the publication of a draft, in which he
identified ties between highest echelons of Robert Fico’s administration and an Italian
mafia group. His death served as a warning to all journalists of truths that should not
be told, lines that should not be crossed. His case is not an exception, for similar
events have occurred in the past, but it can be argued that in recent years, the risk to
journalists’ lives has increased, with the entry of more dangerous stakeholders such
as organised crime groups, terrorist organisations, or rogue states, and the cutting-
edge technology they may possess that enables faster tracking down of individuals to
inflict harm on them or their families. While the journalist’s main role is to uncover
truths and shed light on them for the sake of public welfare, as fellow human beings,
we simply cannot disparage or denigrate them for omitting content or turning a blind
eye to truths in order to protect their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. The
role of journalists today has therefore become an increasingly dangerous one, making
it harder than ever for them to report accurate truths without facing threats to their
lives.

Lastly, and more insidiously, the growth of social media platforms has resulted in an
increase in competition in the journalism industry, making it more difficult for
journalists to survive financially. While social media has indeed expanded the reach of
journalists today, the ease at which users can upload content to a large audience has
enabled virtually anyone to be a ‘reporter’. This does not bode well for traditional
reporters since the deluge of content may overwhelm and inundate viewers, possibly
causing some important reporting to be missed out or neglected. In addition, the
architecture of social media platforms may even be disadvantageous to the traditional
reporter – algorithms that prioritise engagement over everything else have a
propensity for promoting misinformation or conspiracy theories. This not only takes
away advertising revenue from established news sources, but also puts junk news, and
misinformation on an equal footing with factual reporting by credible news outlets.
With the cut-throat competition for eyeballs, clicks and advertisement revenue,
journalists who publish sensible, factual articles may lose out compared to those who
employ dramatic headlines or embellish their articles with sensationalised, inaccurate
details. This is evident from how a 2016 Facebook post claiming that Pope Francis
endorsed Donald Trump as president was shared a million times, five times more than
an article on Trump’s tax returns by reputable newspaper, The New York Times, in
the same time frame. Despite the outright fallacious nature of the former, ignorant
users were more enticed by its controversial nature and thus shared it more widely.

6
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

In the end, facing such competition, traditional journalists may also succumb to
sensationalism to stay relevant in the industry and sustain themselves financially, which
leads to an overall decline in quality of news. Hence, journalists today have to contend
with increased competition who may steal their revenue and livelihoods, and have to
fight against the temptation to compromise their journalistic integrity and have to
persist in ensuring the veracity of their news.

In a nutshell, it is indeed harder than ever to be a journalist today. With growing

pressure from various stakeholders and regulation by the state, we simply cannot
expect journalists to be politically agnostic, nor can we expect them to give up their
lives to uncover dangerous truths for us. Non-traditional outlets also threaten the
position and role that traditional, established journalists play in our society, making it
increasingly difficult for them to navigate the media landscape, both financially and
socio-politically. Nevertheless, the core of journalism is a noble one as it aims to
uncover truths that may be withheld from the public. While we should be critical of
all news and not take whatever we read or consume at face value, it is vital that we
recognise, affirm and commend journalists who remain true to their roots and who
take great risks to deliver accurate, truthful reports of what is happening around the
world to us.

Marker’s comments:
Tianna, this is a really enjoyable and though-provoking read. There is a very good grasp of
profound shifts occurring in today’s world that exert severe impacts on how journalists can go
about doing their work. There are still a number of AFIs to consider, ranging from better
treatment of concessions and perhaps a more curatorial eye in selecting arguments. Still the
depth, thoughtfulness and skilful use of illustration shown easily places this in Band 2. Very
good range shown in expression. Instances of felicitous expression noted, and some personal
voice is also discernible. Well done.

7
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

2
2021 | Y6 | GP CT | Paper 1 Cuison Jacob Dimaano | 21S06H

‘It is harder than ever to be a journalist today.’ Comment.

“We exist to hold the state to account.” These were the words of Ali Velshi, a CNBC
correspondent, after he was met with a flurry of rubber pellets from the police on
live television as he was covering last year’s Black Lives Matter protests in America.
Over the years, the role of the journalist has not changed drastically: a journalist is
still expected to provide accurate, fair and objective news reporting in a timely
manner, and indeed must “hold the state to account”. In today’s world, seeing the
rise in digitalisation, many believe that such a role has become much easier to fulfil.
However, in the light of the growing tensions between the state and the media, as
well as the ever-changing socio-political landscape, it is apparent that a journalist’s
role has only become more complex in our current world.

Still, detractors of this line of reasoning cite the growing adoption of technology as a
key input that simplifies the entire news reporting process, enabling journalists to have
an easier time on the job. Today, technology is embedded in every stage of the
process. During the research phase, the vast repositories online, such as Wikipedia,
greatly streamline the data collection process. Even interviews that are in-person are
a thing of the past, as they can now be conducted over a quick and convenient Zoom
call – something that the news agency Vox often does, as evinced by countless
soundbites with experts that they sprinkle in their videos. During the writing stage,
artificial intelligence in the form of fact and grammar checkers can often be utilised.
Last but not least, the widespread use of social media has made such sites an optimal
platform for dissemination of their findings, allowing journalists to garner engagement
from individuals all over the world. In fact, particularly on Twitter, these journalists
have become celebrities in their own right. A salient example is Fabrizio Romano, a
sports journalist who covers rumours about football players’ potential transfers,
developing a cult following on the platform because of his accurate Tweets that often
are posted earlier than reports by other sports journalists. Clearly, there is no denying
the host of benefits arising from technological advancements that have facilitated the
entire news reporting process and made journalists’ lives much, much easier.

On the other hand, it would be myopic to solely focus on the myriad of ways social
media has streamlined the process of reporting, for it has had other, more insidious

8
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

effects on the industry. Firstly, it is precisely the adoption of social media that has
caused a permanent shift in the demands of what good journalism is, as news
corporations try to seek out the most viral and eye-catching headlines to pander to
the algorithm and, in so doing, enforce much higher demands on their journalists. It
is no secret that media conglomerates, with their profit motive, are driven by their
insatiable appetite for engagement. And on social media, only the most striking and
visceral posts draw the most attention. The corollary of this is that it has become all
the more critical for journalists to engage in on-the-ground reporting, in order to not
only report the news first, but also to get a first-hand and optimally more emotional
view of events. This means that the journalists are often put in the firing line (in
Velshi’s scenario, this literally was the case), where their well-being is second to the
story. In fact, during the Black Lives Matter protests, a black CNN reporter was
actually arrested on air, further highlighting how the welfare of reporters is often
compromised for the sake of a viral-worthy story. A video of the incident was even
posted onto YouTube by CNN and has been seen by millions across the globe, and
while it can be argued that this was done to raise awareness of systemic racism in
America, there may also be the ulterior motive of leveraging the unfortunate scenario
for views and engagement. Therefore, given the increasing need of sensational content
that can result in journalists finding themselves in dangerous and unsafe circumstances
just for a timely headline, it is safe to say that a journalist's life has become tougher in
today’s world.

Secondly, the increasing censorship in certain countries has complicated journalists’

lives, as they struggle to balance fair and accurate reporting with the needs and wants
of the states. Whether it is to erase events from the national psyche such as the
Tiananmen incident, or simply maintain harmony in a conservative society amidst an
increasingly liberal world in Singapore’s case, the reasons for censorship are endless.
However, when such guidelines are not followed, it can lead to disastrous
consequences for journalists. In the most extreme cases, their lives can be upended
overnight. China is notorious for this, and with the newly implemented social credit
system, they are able to shape the lives of journalists who try to contradict the
national narrative. In particular, as reported by Al Jazeera, there have been
investigative journalists who have been blacklisted on the system – such that they
cannot travel around the country or enjoy leisure activities – for trying to expose
government corruption. Although this is definitely an extreme case as China has one
of the most censored press globally, it ostensibly underscores the ability of the state
to influence a ‘deviant’ individual’s life, thus deterring journalists from being
completely transparent and objective in their reporting, for it is not in their best
personal interests to run afoul of the law. Therefore, the power dynamic between the
state and the media has prevented the media from efficiently acting as the Fourth

9
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

Estate and interfered with the ability of a journalist to be unbiased and objective in
fear of repercussions, thereby making their lives more complex in today’s world.

Lastly, given the increasing education of the global population, readers have become
more critical thinkers and do not accept news bites at face value, thus making
journalists’ lives all the harder as they must put in the due diligence to ensure accurate
reporting. Today, the proliferation of fake news in recent years has undermined the
credibility of media outlets worldwide, suggesting that journalists have to work doubly
hard to fact-check their stories, lest they face severe consequences. Recently,
ChannelNewsAsia came under fire for reporting on Harsh Dalal, a 19 year old
Singaporean “CEO” who ran a company worth $25 million. The piece undoubtedly
was published due to its sensationalist nature, but the cadre of citizen journalists
locally were able to dissect it and expose Dalal as a fraud, tarnishing CNA’s reputation
in the process. This negative example brings to light the cutthroat nature of the
industry – with one wrong move, and one unchecked fact, the entire reputation of
the establishment can be permanently damaged. The onus is thus on the journalist to
be extra careful and stringent, and this heightened degree of meticulousness
necessitated by the global critique of news outlets amidst the industry’s very own fake
news “pandemic” has made it harder to be a journalist than ever before .

In conclusion, while digitalisation has indeed made the menial process of reporting
simpler and less time consuming, today’s world has indubitably altered the nature of
the role, and has inevitably placed our journalists in the line of fire, at the mercy of
the state, and under even more intense public scrutiny – all of which have made their
lives harder in our modern day and age. Sadly, the quest for fair and unbiased reporting
may ultimately result in unfair consequences.

Marker’s comments:
An insightful response offering sustained analysis of contemporary developments which impact
journalists such that their work of truth-seeking and fact-checking is overall made more
challenging. A cogent and well-controlled essay!

10
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

3
2021 | Y6 | GP CT | Paper 1 Lam Zhen Yi, Matthew | 21S06S

Should environmental sustainability be given

greater priority in your society?

Charles Kettering once said, “Problems are the price of progress”. Not many
aphorisms fit Singapore more aptly. We have developed from a third to first world
country in less than half a century, but with this inexorable progress comes a slew of
challenging issues. From inequality to discrimination, one global problem that has
presented itself to Singapore is preserving the environment. Some feel that Singapore
has given sufficient priority to environmental sustainability, given the large number of
nature groups that advocate for the protection of the environment as well as
government policies. Others feel that Singapore should do more, as we are a hub of
consumerism that contributes to pollution, an island nation vulnerable to
environmental issues and a “green city” with a reputation to uphold. With these in
mind, I agree that environmental sustainability should be given greater priority in my
society.

Those who feel Singapore has given sufficient priority to environmental sustainability
often cite the many ground-up and top-down initiatives proposed to ensure the
government, companies and consumers lead sustainable lifestyles that do not harm
the environment. One could say that there has been a shift in societal mindsets, a shift
away from apathy about the environment and towards genuine care for the world we
live in. From songs like “Save My World” to mascots like Water Wally, Singaporeans
are frequently exposed to the concept of saving the environment. In 2016, the
government signed and ratified the Paris agreement, designating Singapore’s first goal
as bringing greenhouse gas emissions down to 36% of emissions in the 2000s. Start-
ups like Project Terra, which encourages sustainable fashion through upcycling, also
plays a role in promoting environmental sustainability. Considering these initiatives,
and many others, it is fair to say that Singapore has definitely placed significant priority
on sustainability. Expanding further on this thought, some say that Singapore has thus
placed sufficient priority on sustainability and should focus on other domestic issues
like discrimination or inequality. Certainly, the impacts of climate change and the
benefits of the solutions we have implemented cannot be observed within a short
time frame, compared to issues like discrimination, where incidents of verbal and
physical abuse often make headlines, many would be inclined to believe Singapore

11
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

should be giving more priority to these issues, not just environmental sustainability.
Hence, taking into account our already extensive list of initiatives and other seemingly
more pressing issues, some feel that Singapore should not place more priority on
environmental sustainability.

On the flip side of this argument, many opine that Singapore, along with most of the
developed world, have not done nearly enough to advocate for environmental
sustainability. In around seven years, the world is expected to warm by 2.4 degrees,
0.9 degrees higher than the target of the Paris Agreement. Tuna populations in the
Pacific have dropped to 2.6% of 20th century levels. Climate change is a global
problem, but why should Singapore be worried enough to place more priority on
environmental sustainability?

Firstly, from an individual’s standpoint, we should place greater priority on

environmental sustainability as Singaporeans are guilty of polluting the environment
and sapping the Earth of its natural resources. With rising affluence and globalisation,
the phenomenon of consumerism has reached our shores. From online shopping, to
bubble tea stores, Singaporeans and their consumerist habits have been detrimental
to our environment. Every year, 900 million kg of plastic waste is discarded. The
plastic is non-biodegradable and is incinerated and stored at landfills like Pulau
Semakau. The National Environment Agency also reported that we throw away a
whopping 744 million kg of food waste a year, the equivalent of more than 2 bowls of
rice per person each day. Without a doubt, Singaporeans could be more
environmentally sustainable. We could, and should, recycle our trash. We could stop
using our air conditioners so often, and we could even opt to use the public transport
system instead of driving polluting cars. The huge inertia that we have to change our
habits can be attributed to both the convenience of our modern lifestyles, and put
simply our lack of concern for the environment. With all that said and done, how can
we say that Singapore has given sufficient priority to environmental sustainability?
More has to be done. Awareness has to be spread in schools and online, and more
policies must be implemented to guide us toward a clean, sustainable lifestyle.
Singapore may produce only 0.11% of global greenhouse gas emissions but we cannot
afford to hide behind these numbers and be satisfied with what importance we have
placed on environmental sustainability. Hence environmental sustainability should be
given more priority in my society.

Secondly, Singapore must prioritise environmental sustainability as it is an island

nation, surrounded by water and dependent on seas trading routes to carry our
economy. First, considering that we are an island nation, rising sea levels mean not
only that our land is shrinking with each passing second, but also that the living spaces
of residents are at risk. More than 30% of the island is less than 5m above the

12
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

Singapore height datum. In other words, any rise in the sea level may jeopardise the
utility of these areas. Singapore’s sea levels have been rising at an increasing rate, from
1.2mm a year three decades ago, to 1.5mm a year in more recent times. We simply
cannot afford to let this issue go unnoticed, and it is fair to say we must do all we can
to stop sea levels from rising. Putting aside how small we are and thinking about our
limited impact, it is only reasonable that we as a nation devote more resources to
solving the issue that threatens livelihoods and living spaces. Additionally, knowing
that Singapore is dependent on our water for trade and our economy, it would be of
utmost importance for businesses and the government to ensure rising sea levels do
not destroy our ports and potential as a trading hub surrounded by water. Therefore,
Singapore should place more priority on environmental sustainability, as we will be
severely affected by the repercussions of being unsustainable. Behaviour like wasting
food and electricity all contribute to an unsustainable environment and a warmer
climate, which Singapore must avoid. More attention should be given to areas like
electricity usage, wastage of scarce resources and how polluting businesses are in the
country.

Lastly, Singapore has to uphold its reputation as a green city and should thus prioritise
environmental sustainability. Since our founding, the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan
Yew has emphasised the need for Singapore to be a city in nature, with trees and
green as far as the eye can see. That desire of Lee Kuan Yew has persisted till this
day. Amidst our sprawling urban landscape, what makes us stand out from other
concrete jungles across the world is our lush nature, which has perfectly encapsulated
the theme of a “Garden City”. From the Botanic Gardens to Gardens by the Bay, eco-
tourism has also crept its way into our daily lives. To keep these unique aspects of
Singapore alive and give them a space to thrive in, it is essential that all Singaporeans
promote environmental sustainability. On a global scale, the effects of climate change
must be mitigated, lest intense heat waves and droughts cause our gardens to wither
and die, and along with it part of our national identity. On an individual level, we must
care for the environment, ceasing our littering and opting for sustainable lifestyles.
The Singapore government certainly recognises this, but at the same time, current
measures are ineffective. Our recycling rate for plastics is at an all-time low of less
than 5%. Litter is seen all across parks and beaches. Recently, visitors to wetlands in
Singapore, such as Sungei Buloh, made headlines on Mothership for catching animals
and playing with them. Some even brought them home, instead of protecting them in
their natural habitat. Though many of these actions are small, they all stack up and
what results is clear gaps in our efforts to achieve environmental sustainability.
Singapore has done its part in prioritising environmental sustainability and is certainly
not apathetic to the problem. However, considering the gaps in solutions and the
reputation we have as a green city, we cannot be satisfied with the current state of

13
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

affairs. Hence, environmental sustainability must be given greater priority in my

society.

In conclusion, I feel that environmental sustainability should be given greater priority

in my society. This is so as we are an island nation, and a “green city” on top of that.
Our current way of living is far from sustainable for the environment and thus we
should place more priority on environmental sustainability. Wendell Berry once said,
“The Earth is what we all have in common”. This indisputable fact must be the
cornerstone of Singapore’s campaign to be more environmentally sustainable. We
must recognise we only have one planet, and that every action we take impacts our
communities, country, and the world. Encouraging environmental sustainability is not
just the role of the government, but also that of individuals and companies. Only
through cooperation can we do our best and live a sustainable lifestyle.

Marker’s comments:
Matthew, this is a good comprehensive answer that gives impressive and relevant details of
why more is needed in Singapore for sustainability. You clearly show why, despite other needs,
Singapore needs to look at sustainability, and you do so by referring to the global nature of
this problem. Good effort!

14
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

4
2021 | Y6 | GP CT | Paper 1 Megan Cheah Shi Qi | 21S03D

Discuss the view that the world would be better off

with more women in leadership.

In 2020, the number of female heads-of-state in the world declined from 15 to 13,
indicating a possible lack of support for – or supply of – women at the fore of
leadership. Could this be due to a disillusionment of society with the capabilities of
female leaders, and does such a view truly hold water? In my opinion, females are not
only equally capable leaders as their male counterparts but also display greater
competency in many areas. Hence, the world would be better off with more women
in leadership, especially in the trying times of today.

Firstly, female leaders have been shown to possess a decisiveness and calmness in the
face of a crisis that their male counterparts lack, enabling them to nip problems in the
bud rather than letting them fester. Mounting anecdotal evidence suggests that female
leaders are able to adeptly conduct crisis management by remaining calm and
objective, quickly taking the course of action most beneficial to their people. A
pertinent case in point: the performance of global leaders in the raging COVID-19
pandemic. While male leaders of countries such as India and America failed miserably
to contain the virus – and possible worsening the situation in the process –
exceptional female politicians such as Tsai Ing-wen and Jacinda Ardern swiftly
implemented lockdowns and travel restrictions long before the world recognised the
true severity of the pandemic. It is their flexibility and ability to make tough but
necessary decisions that enabled them to suppress death tolls to six and four
respectively, and ensure that schools stayed open. This efficiency and sense of
normalcy retained in their nations is indeed a stark contrast to the havoc and surging
death tolls in other male-led countries not unfamiliar to us on the news. Thus, as
noticed by media outlets such as Forbes (which even ranked Jacinda Ardern as the
top leader in the world today), female leaders have a better ability to keep their cool
during emergency situations, taking the necessary courses of action and effectively
mitigating the crisis. Clearly, the world today would benefit if more female leaders
with such qualities were in power.

Secondly, females in positions of authority also have a tendency to be more humane

and kind, unlike male leaders who may have a lower capacity for empathy. This could
possibly be attributed to the nurturing role females take on throughout their lives as
daughters, sisters, wives, and mothers. It is these traits that make female leaders so
desirable in the cutthroat, dog-eat-dog nature of our society today – one
characterised by selfishness, frivolity and apathy towards those in need. While other
countries slammed their doors shut on refugees fleeing their war-torn and poverty-

15
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

stricken homes, even placing spikes and barbed wire at their borders to keep them
out, German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed thousands of Syrian refugees into
Germany, providing them with a safe haven and a new life. Despite this earning some
voter backlash, Merkel stayed true to her values of kindness and charity. This enabled
her to be a leader who saw past the votes and approval ratings, instead using her
position to benefit the lives of many in need. Another excellent example of empathy
uniquely displayed by a woman in leadership would be Norway’s Prime Minister, Erna
Solberg. During the COVID-19 pandemic, while other countries rushed to do the
bare minimum of implementing restrictions and enforcing cold, hard regulations in a
draconian manner, Solberg organised a ‘kids-only’ press conference to alleviate the
fears children had regarding the pandemic. This novel but yet painfully obvious
approach gained international approval due to Solberg’s concern for all individuals in
society, and her care served to ensure a sense of security for all during times of
uncertainty. Evidently, it cannot be denied that compared to men in power, who are
more inclined to take on a “strongman” role – as seen in Trump, Bolsonaro, Duterte,
and the like – women are better able to attend to the needs of all, especially the
vulnerable in society, making sure that they are well- protected and heard. Clearly, as
our society becomes ever-more self-centred and competitive, it is only paramount
that there are more of such female leaders to remind us of the importance of kindness
and maintaining a balance between pursuing our own interests and caring for those
around us.

Finally, female leaders in all spheres are catalysts for change and equality, acting as
role models for all to emulate and inspiring others to improve as professionals or
simply as humans. There is no doubt that fields such as politics, science, law and even
business are traditionally male-dominated. However, while these areas may have once
been said to be a “man’s world”, women rising in their respective fields are
revolutionising them, catalysing immense breakthroughs and pushing society towards
progress. Home-grown success stories include Professor Jackie Ying, a prominent and
highly decorated research leader at A*STAR, who has led breakthroughs in several
areas such as dengue and cancer research. Justice Judith Prakash has also served as a
cornerstone figure of Singapore's judicial system for years, acting as an inspiration to
other aspiring girls who wish to join the legal profession. Even Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez, who won over the hearts of Americans due to her forward-looking policies
and progressive stance on representation and equality, has used her position to reach
out to youths and minorities. By connecting with teenagers through online platforms
such as Twitch and social media sites, she was able to expand her reach and inspire
the next generation of Americans and leaders. A final example of how females are
best able to overturn outdated practices and inspire change would be the evolving
image of the Victoria’s Secret brand, which was previously noted as the “pinnacle of
sexualisation” and appealing to male desires. However, a massive overhaul of the
brand is transforming it into “VS Collective”, where inspirational females such as
Priyanka Chopra have been recruited as ambassadors to debunk these long-
perpetuated stereotypes, empowering a new generation of girls to pursue their
ambitions. Thus, it is only through female leaders that other future generations of girls

16
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

have a role model to look up to, promoting further progress and change in a world
that is desperately in need of new ideas and mindsets to revolutionise growth.

On the other hand, while females may certainly seem to possess more of some traits
than men which may lend them an advantage of being better leaders, it must be
conceded that gender alone is too myopic a lens through which to view what makes
a “good” leader for the world. The world would not necessarily be better off with
just “women” in power, but instead women who use their unique characteristics to
carry out their responsibilities. The same applies to men who may also possess these
same traits or even others that confer on them better leadership skills. Sanna Marin
has claimed that what is surprising about her position as Finnish Prime Minister is not
her gender, but her age. This suggests that other criteria may be more important in
determining whether a leader is beneficial or not, such as wisdom, rationality and
communication skills. Take the cases of Park Geun-hye and Najib Razak. Female or
male, both had scandals of venality and were thus ousted from their positions of
power. This clearly indicates that gender itself should not be the key factor in
determining the competency of leaders, as males can prove to be equally as
competent, while females can prove to be just as incapable. It also cannot be denied
that there have been exemplary leadership figures who are indeed male, such as
Barack Obama, Lee Kuan Yew, and Nelson Mandela, all of whom were undoubtedly
prominent figures who shaped the world today to be a better place for all. So, the
view that female leaders would allow the world to be a better one, while true to
some extent, should be taken with a pinch of salt lest it be overly simplistic.

In conclusion, I agree that the world indeed would benefit from having more females
in power in all spheres, since the scales are still skewed in favour of men. Increasing
the number of female leaders would not only allow society to benefit from more
empathetic and humane policies typically enforced by women, but also increase the
diversity of views across all fields and thus catalyse changes. Most importantly, female
leaders can reach out to future aspiring leaders, nurturing the next generation to be
equally exceptional leaders themselves. However, we must keep in mind that there
are indeed other desirable qualities that may be characteristic of both male and female
leaders, and thus be careful not to discount our male counterparts from positions of
power or acknowledgement. With such a mindset and commitment to increasing
diversity of leadership, I am confident that our world will only grow to be a more
welcoming place for us to live, work and play in, and that our world is in good hands.

Marker’s comments:
Megan, excellent range of knowledge of current female leaders. Concise and incisive
arguments developed throughout each paragraph. Strong awareness of the issue especially in
noting that traits found in women are not exclusive to them. Overall, comprehensive treatment.
Fluent with a wide range of transitional devices, vocabulary, and felicitous expression.

17
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

5
2021 | Y5 | GP CT | Paper 1 Jenica Tan Weizi | 22A13A

'It's a woman's world today.' How far do you agree?

The notable words of Jane Eyre, “I am no caged bird”, represent the freedom, success
and autonomy that women can possess. Centuries have passed since then, with our
current global context bringing numerous opportunities to women to showcase their
potential and reach for their dreams through forging their own paths. Indubitably,
progress has been made in multiple aspects of gender equality for women to lead
enriching lives, yield more power and display their valuable voices. However, I am of
the opinion that due to the discrimination against women and gender stereotypes
entrenched too deeply in the roots of our societies, women continue to be oppressed
in many areas, notably in political leadership and their socio-economic environments.
Therefore, I do not agree that ‘it’s a woman’s world today’, as women still possess
neither sufficient freedom to achieve their successes nor the relevant platforms to do
so.

Proponents of the claim that it is a woman’s world today may purport that in the 21st
century, numerous efforts have been made to grant women a voice, a pathway and a
stage to shine in their well-deserved spotlight. In the arts and entertainment industry,
women, more now than ever, are having their narratives told and are producing
various forms of widely-acclaimed art, achieving success in a stereotypically male-
driven industry. Notably, the movie Hidden Figures illustrates how three black female
engineers greatly aided NASA’s first rocket launch, while Wonder Woman depicts
strong independent women who utilise their talents for the betterment of society.
Additionally, Wonder Woman was written and directed by females, and it was the
first female-directed film to reach the list of top ten highest-grossing films. This
conveys how women’s narratives are being brought to light in our current world, with
the help of other females whose abilities have achieved notable success. In this sphere,
progress in equality of the sexes has been accompanied by a change in perception of
global audiences, who hold less prejudice against women and look beyond gender
stereotypes. For example, the majority of those who enjoyed and analysed Jane
Austen’s magnum opus Pride and Prejudice in the past centuries mainly focused on
the caricatures of women falling in love, or the romantic relationships between Darcy
and Elizabeth, as well as between Jane and Bingley. On the contrary, many literature
enthusiasts in more recent decades have shifted their focus to how Elizabeth Bennet
is a symbol of going against her patriarchal society’s expectations, as well as bridging
the gap between both genders. In the non-fictional realm, notable female activists such
as Malala Yousafzai and Greta Thunberg have been able to advocate their causes
without facing much oppression as a result of their gender. This is a significant marker

18
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

of progress to suggest that it is a woman’s world today, as female suffragettes in the

early 1900s who advocated for women’s rights to vote were widely persecuted and
largely ignored, which highlights how women today have been able to speak out in
safer and larger platforms to champion their causes. These examples show how
women are treated with more respect and reverence, as icons of strength and
leadership whose characteristics we, as a global audience, have learnt to appreciate
and value. Thus, it can be said that women today hold much more influence and
possess opportunities for success.

However, it is too simplistic to claim that it is a woman’s world today. Such a

statement suggests that all women have unlimited liberties and platforms to engage
their potential and be the writers of their own fates. Unfortunately, this statement
harbours many underlying issues that illustrate how many women have yet been
granted sufficient opportunities for their voices to be heard and for the enablement
of their well-being.

Politically, there has certainly been an increase in female leadership, notably in New
Zealand, Finland and Germany. Women have been given more opportunities in
parliaments to be heard and to lead concrete change for their societies. Yet, such
progress cannot be lauded too quickly when we view the cold, hard statistics: out of
over 200 countries globally, there are only 10 heads of state and 14 national leaders
who are female. Such a disproportionate gender ratio in both global leadership and
national governments signifies a dangerous reality: women have yet to reach an era
where they are in leadership positions that possess control and power that not only
equal but surpass those of men. While it can be understood that for it to be a woman’s
world today, women do not need to surpass men but simply be able to possess
platforms for their own successes, unfortunately, neither interpretation rings true
today. A lack of female involvement in political leadership on a global scale can be
attributed to numerous policies that decrease accessibility of ministerial positions for
women, as well as societal expectations of them. In Germany, over 47% of males
expressed their reservations against a female national leader, even despite Angela
Merkel’s long-standing chancellorship. This conveys an underlying distrust of females
with political power or lack of confidence in their ability to lead nations. Such
prejudice against females dismally represents the difficulties they still face at present,
where a lack of opportunity is combined with societal rejection towards females
achieving their potential. Thus, it cannot be said that women today are accorded the
privilege of being able to write the narratives of their lives or achieve what they want
without societal oppression and prejudice.

Furthermore, even in today’s climate of greater progress for women’s rights, women
are continually restricted in a socio-economic manner, leading them to possess less
autonomy and power over their own paths. In Singapore, the average female earns
$640,000 less than their male counterpart over a 40-year career, due to the gender

19
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

wage gap. This restricts many women to lower economic standing, financial ability and
purchasing power, even relegating them to feel like “second-class citizens” in a
working environment that neither values their hard work nor pays fairly for it. More
now than ever, women are faced with dual duties of managing their household or
family in addition to achieving growth and success in their careers. As any working
woman would agree, this Herculean task has put women under closer scrutiny and
even resulted in prejudice against them by their employers. Despite corporate policies
such as paternal leave to encourage balance of parental duties between working
couples, statistics continue to display women taking on larger roles with regard to
childcare and household management. Certainly, societal expectations continue to
dictate how women are restricted by gender stereotypes, which limits their ability to
progress in their careers or spend more time at work. This illustrates how women
are still held back by social norms and carry a heavier burden when desiring to chase
their ambitions, as compared to men. Additionally, iconic female characters in movies
such as The Devil Wears Prada and The Intern spotlight the enhanced stress of
working women, whose divorce and marriage troubles are scrutinised as a lack of
ability to manage their duties. Notably, research studies on gender have shown that
while male employees are commonly described as “confident”, “driven”, and
“determined”, adjectives such as “assertive”, “forceful” and “overconfident” are more
widely used for female employees in annual progress reports. This showcases how
similar temperaments or characteristics between the genders can be interpreted in
vastly different manners, which are indicative of gender stereotypes that much of
society continues to hold today. This conveys that even when women try to pursue
their goals, their approaches can also be judged more harshly due to gender
expectations. Clearly, the continued burdens faced by women socially and
economically refute the claim that, at present, women are able to chase their dreams
in a fair, equitable and empowering manner.

In summary, it can be argued that women today have been granted greater
opportunities to be in positions of influence and to achieve successes in a world that
is more accepting and free. However, to languish in the illusion that “it’s a woman’s
world today” is to harbour a narrow-minded outlook on the real oppressions and
restrictions women continue to face, in areas of leadership, society and the economy,
where gender stereotypes and entrenched prejudice continue to prevent women
from reaching their potential, with respect, empowerment and well-deserved
validation.

Marker’s comments:
Strong interpretation of the arguments supporting your stand, with well-illustrated use of
evidence from quite a wide range. You may however want to examine the situations of women
in developing countries to assess their plight for an added dimension of how it is not a woman’s
world in these countries for reasons such as honour killings, female genital mutilation, lack of
basic human rights, etc.

20
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

6
2021 | Y5 | GP CT | Paper 1 Bernice Chong Boon Yen | 22S06J

'It's a woman's world today.' How far do you agree?

When Monica Baey took to social media to express her frustration when her
perpetrator, Nicholas Lim, escaped with relative impunity after filming her in the
shower, it culminated in widespread discontent amongst the online community. The
online uproar that ensued forced this oft-overlooked issue of sexual harassment and
assault into the local mainstream political discourse, and led to universities imposing
harsher regulations against male-on-female crimes, to ensure that offenders no longer
escape with merely a slap on their wrists, but face punishments commensurate with
their egregious acts. Internationally, the same cause that Monica Baey championed has
ricocheted across the globe, in the forms of hashtag activism and protests. It is
undeniable that the issue of gender inequality and women’s rights have come to light
more significantly in recent years. Some critics have even argued that contemporary
society accords women more rights than men, calling today a “women’s world”.
However, while it may be true that recent movements have managed to secure rights
for women, perhaps more than men, in certain aspects, I believe, to a large extent,
that women today still face gender discrimination due to the traditional norms and
cultures that persist, as well as a lack of sufficient change at the legislative level. As
such, I am of the opinion that it is too optimistic to claim that “it is a women’s world”
today.

Still, detractors argue that the playing field is now tipped towards women and accords
more rights to them than males to make up for past atrocities, as the world gravitates
towards a more egalitarian one, hence it is warranted to argue that the modern
society is a “woman’s world”. This is evidenced by the formation of male advocacy
groups, such as ‘Men’s Rights Activist’, campaigning for more equal treatment for the
males. They argue that in the legal sphere, this can be clearly illustrated in how female
rape victims are taken far more seriously than their male rape victims, and mothers
are overwhelmingly accorded custody of the child. Coupled with the recent rise of
the international #MeToo hashtag movement, critics argue that the widespread
attention garnered to advocate for female emancipation and to bring to account the
countless men who have committed transgressions against women has led to male
rape victims’ plight being overlooked. Additionally, in the education sector, BBC has
reported that schools have “failed” boys, as they now overemphasise “feminine traits”
such as organisation and attentiveness. Moreover, more females than males continue
to earn undergraduate degrees, with the disparity being as wide as 35% in the United
Kingdom. This may be attributed to the rise in educational levels on a global scale, in
which many people are increasingly welcoming of the Westernised ideals of equality
and justice. The wider significance, however, is that in a country’s attempt to “right”
this wrong against women, they may have undermined men’s rights in the process. As

21
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

such, on the surface, it seems reasonable to claim that women receive preferential
treatments and more rights than their male counterparts, thus are enjoying a higher
quality of life in a “woman’s world”.

While there may be some semblance of truth in the aforementioned argument, it fails
to consider that this may only be the case in selected developed countries. Upon
further scrutiny, one would realise that women today continue to be disenfranchised
and discriminated against because of their gender, much less having achieved the
pinnacle of equality they have been fighting for since the first wave of feminism. As
such, one can dispel the myth that the 21st century is a “woman’s world”.

Many contend that deep-seated cultural conservatism and misogynistic mindsets

continue to underpin gender discrimination, hence it is too absolute to posit that
women have it better today. Ironically, it is precisely because of the increasingly
progressive nature of our modern society that conservative forces exist – they seek
to preserve the status quo and prefer stability over anarchy – and are the ones
benefitting from the current system. A pertinent example would be Africa, where the
practice of female genital mutilation has been made illegal. Despite the practice being
criminalised, it continues to be carried out in secret to continue the tradition. To
date, about one hundred and third million girls have been subject to this practice, with
many suffering deaths due to this. Similarly, in Nepal, menstruation stigma against
women continues to persist, with women being chased out of their houses into animal
huts because they are considered “impure”. In light of such happenings that persist in
our seemingly progressive world, it appears ludicrous to claim that women’s rights
have been respected. In addition, this phenomenon of conservatism can be witnessed
in Asian conservative nations such as Korea and Japan. They are the examples par
excellence here. Despite their highly-acclaimed titles of being first-world countries,
conservative and misogynistic mindsets continue to remain omnipresent in their
societies. Regardless of the fact that women receive equal opportunities in education,
they face immense obstacles in climbing up the corporate ladder, as upper echelons
of society mostly comprised of men repeatedly deny their entrances. Arguably, one
has to be cognisant of the fact that an increasingly progressive and democratic world
is not tantamount to weakening conservative forces, but rather fuel such anti-women
sentiments and cause them to further manifest in society in most cases. For this
reason, it is a blanket assumption to content that it is a “woman’s world” today.

Lastly, supporters of the stand that it is not a “woman’s world” today postulate that
the political landscape is still sorely lacking female representation to implement
policies to ameliorate the plight of women. While recent news headlines are often
inundated with the now well-known names of “Jacinda Ardern”, “Sanna Marin”, and
“Kamala Harris”, we must be critical enough to be aware that such instances are still
the exception rather than the norm. Furthermore, even if females are given the
chance to enter the political sphere, it may be too naïve to believe this translates into
a greater voice for women. Because the current political positions are still mainly held
by men, they are often incentivised or see no qualms in promoting women who are
for their cause, under the guise of gender equality. The prevalent ease of allowing

22
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

more women into politics to simply further their vested interests makes this
phenomenon a common one. A salient example would be Japan’s Liberal Democratic
Party’s lawmaker Mio Sugita, who openly accused women of lying about instances of
sexual assault, during a 2021 budget Parliamentary meeting on advancing women’s
rights. She even called out Japan’s #MeToo icon, journalist Shiori Ito, for committing
clear “errors on her part as a woman” which led to her rape incident. A flower
demonstration was held to protest against Mio Sugita for failing to capitalise on her
role as a political leader to champion human rights, but rather to perpetuate the toxic
culture of rape and victim-blaming. Another case in point would be Singapore, in
which despite renewed calls for gender parity in the political sphere, only a mere
three out of nineteen of our Cabinet Ministers – Mrs Josephine Teo, Ms Grace Fu,
and Ms Indranee Rajah – are women. This is also the greatest number of women we
have had in the Cabinet. Evidently, while recent developments may have allowed for
slightly more women to enter the political realm this has yet to show widespread
optimistic outcomes in legislative changes to alleviate women’s plight. Moreover,
societal mindsets have yet to shift enough to welcome an era of greater female
representation. According to the Reykjavik index, only forty one percent of Germany
citizens are very comfortable with a female leader, despite Angela Merkel’s long-term
chancellorship. It is worth casting doubts on whether or not the general populace is
willing to vote for more female leaders, especially in our increasingly democratic
society today. Thus, it is still justified to claim that the underrepresentation of women
in politics remain a stumbling block towards attaining gender parity and significant
advances for women’s rights, hence achieving a modern “woman’s world” is still a
pipe dream.

Ultimately, it is true that women have made unprecedented moves to champion their
causes, since the first waves of feminism to the present. Unfortunately, the fact that
movements fighting for women’s rights still constantly emerge is a clear testament of
the fact that we do not live in a “woman’s world”. If we account for the countless
instances where women’s rights are obviously infringed upon and continue to exist, it
is simply unjustified to argue that women have more rights than men, have it better
today and live in a “woman’s world”. However, that does not mean that we should
stop trying, but rather we have to continue taking steps in the right direction to be
ever closer to our elusive ideal of gender equality.

Marker’s comments:
Very good response that is fully relevant, covers many pertinent points – and with detailed
support and consistent effort at evaluation. The latter could be stronger at key points, but
overall this is a convincing, balanced and mature response. Language is excellent, with apt
and confident expression throughout. Ideas flow very well. Superb introduction and conclusion.

23
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

7
2021 | Y5 | GP CT | Paper 1 Chia Si Nuo Deborah | 22S06J

'It's a woman's world today.' How far do you agree?

As feminism continues to make waves in the world today, women’s empowerment

has seen encouraging progress. There are more female politicians and high-ranking
executives than in the past, and social movements like #MeToo have brought issues
women face to the spotlight and amplified women’s voices. The 2017 Women’s march
was attended by over a million people in the US, showing increasing support for
gender equality. Some go as far as to claim that ‘it’s a woman’s world today’, a far cry
from the blatantly male-dominated societies present in almost every part of the world
just a few decades back. This may be due to the far-left feminist ideologies that have
inadvertently demonised all men, yet faced little backlash due to the history of
women’s oppression. Is this statement, then, true? I largely disagree with this
statement as it appears to only focus on the noise-making far-left feminists, without
paying attention to the ongoing discrimination, whether institutional or in terms of
individual attitudes, that women still face on a day-to-day basis that tells of a society
where women have less autonomy and ability to fulfil their potential than men, as well
as have more expectations placed on them.

Nonetheless, I concede that those who claim it is a woman’s world today say so with
some justification. As mentioned before, far-left feminists have demonised men,
sometimes all men, which, if reversed, would scream sexism. Yet these people face
almost no repercussions, suggesting that women can get away with things men cannot,
and thus that this society is skewed in favour of women today. Indeed, there has been
a rising strand of thought to ‘hate all men’. Suzanne Moore wrote in the newspaper
New York that ‘it is logical to hate men’, and ‘every intelligent woman should hate
men’. If this was a singular incidence, one could dismiss it as a fringe point of view, yet
writings in Washington Post and Medium echo similar thoughts. To generalise such a
large group of people – half of the world’s population, young and old, poor and rich,
straight and gay – simply because they have a Y-chromosome seems unquestioningly
sexist, yet these women face little to no backlash. One mother of two young boys
who wrote in to Medium to say she ‘hates men’ and wants to throw them into the
sea was met with a response by the editor agreeing with her point of view and
empathising with her. The hashtag #AllMen has also been gaining traction on social
media, appearing to generalise all men as being sexist, discriminatory and enablers of
a terrible patriarchal system, intentionally or not. People, especially men who see

24
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

themselves being ruthlessly demonised, may understandably feel that women can get
away with anything simply because they are women, that the world today gives
women a free pass to do and say whatever, therefore elevating women’s status in
society, making the world a ‘woman’s world’.

However, I contend that it is not a woman’s world today as many countries in the
world, especially developing ones, still discriminate against women institutionally,
impeding their ability to fulfil their potential in society as much as men can and attain
autonomy in their lives, thus making the world not one that truly enables them to
pursue what they want in life. Around the world, women still face barriers towards
living a life with autonomy and respect to as great an extent as that of men. For
instance, females in countries in Africa are subject to genital mutilation as well as
intrusive procedures to determine if they are virgins. In some Arab countries, marital
rape is still seen as a domestic affair that does not require intervention. All in all,
women face tangible discrimination imbued in the law, whether they are subject to
violations of bodily rights with no protection, or are not able to seek help from sexual
abuse (whose victims are mostly females). In developing countries especially, men
continue to have the upper hand in society while women remain the oppressed group.
These violations of human rights necessarily affect women beyond the one-time event.
Victims of sexual abuse may suffer from emotional trauma and low self-esteem,
impeding their ability to function in society as well as they could have had they enjoyed
respect and autonomy. Particularly, women who suffer from marital rape would be
the weaker party in a power imbalance between the couple, forcing them to concede
to their husband’s demands of them, therefore making them unable to pursue what
they want in life. A world in which women are systematically oppressed and unable
to fulfil their potential is a far cry from a woman’s world, which suggests the world is
catered for women to thrive.

In addition, despite some countries not institutionally discriminating against women,

patriarchal attitudes remain rampant with its citizens still dictating how women should
be like, thus clearly showing a world that tramples on women’s freedom and does not
allow them to be themselves. Countries like Singapore appear to have achieved some
degree of gender equality – women and men are granted the same rights, and there
are a decent number of female politicians and businesswomen. However, there are
undeniably undercurrents in society that discriminate against women, albeit in a more
sinister, unnoticeable manner. For instance, when rape cases are surfaced (of which
the large majority are committed against women), a common question to ask the
victim is ‘What were you wearing?’ This question, though simple, betrays the
underlying assumption that it is in some way a women’s fault that she was raped. This
form of victim-blaming disproportionately impacts women. It adds to their emotional

25
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

distress of recounting their rape incident and possibly discourages them from coming
forward to seek the justice they deserve. From this, we can see that Singapore society
indirectly tells women to dress conservatively, for if they do not, they may get raped
and it is their fault. The act of drawing attention away from the perpetrator (normally
male), who was the one committing this evil, and putting it on the female, makes one
wonder whether women really enjoy full autonomy in this seemingly gender-equal
country. Another instance is the United States of America’s ex-president Donald
Trump, who told a female reporter to ‘dress like a woman’, sparking many tweets on
Twitter of women posting their non-feminine outfits with captions along the line of
‘Yes, this is how I dress’. This anger and frustration shown by the US female population
suggest their clothing, which is no one’s business, has long been under scrutiny and at
the receiving end of uncalled-for comments. People, mostly men, take it upon
themselves to comment upon females’ clothing, wrongly assuming they have the
authority to do so. Yet another example is the attitudes people have when their
colleagues speak their mind, differing based on the gender of their colleagues. Women
who assert themselves are seen as ‘bossy’ and ‘domineering’, while men who do the
same are viewed as ‘capable’ and ‘possessing leadership qualities’. The disparity
between these two views yet again exposes the underlying expectations many place
on women – that they should be soft-spoken and demure. This differing attitude has
been shown to cost women promotions and career advancements. In light of such
evidence, will women still be willing to speak their mind, or will they bend under the
pressure of these expectations and be content with being a supporting – never leader
– figure? No matter what the choices of individual women are, it is undeniable that
women face undue expectations from the world and are at times dictated by it. A
world that tells one how to act, to dress, to speak – in essence, to live – shows this
world is not yet one where women can be who they are, and therefore not a woman’s
world.

In conclusion, despite the progress women’s rights have made over the years, the
world is far from a gender-equal world, let alone a woman’s world. Besides continuing
to fight for women’s legal rights, the invisible but all the same suffocating expectations
put on women must also be addressed – not for a women’s world, but for an equal
world where everyone, regardless of gender, can have autonomy in their lives, fulfil
their potential, and live how they want.

Marker’s comments:
Very good response that shows full awareness of question requirements and provides
consistently sound and apt illustration coupled with some insightful evaluation. There are some
critical points where the evaluation needs to be shaper, but overall this is a mature, balanced
and convincing essay. Language is excellent, with controlled and confident expression. A strong
personal voice comes through too. Organisation of paragraphs and flow of ideas is very strong.
26
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

8
2021 | Y5 | GP CT | Paper 1 Treruangrachada Anantaya Kylin | 22S06S

Is marriage still an attractive option in today's world?

Match-making corners are prevalent in China and, surprisingly, these spaces located
in public parks, neighbourhood centres and even local coffee shops have become a
hotspot not for youths, but for their aged parents desperate to help their older
unmarried children find a potential spouse. Success rates are low, and parents are
often ashamed of resorting to such measures, but they continue visiting these corners
regularly, hearts set on matching their children with a partner. This obsessive
emphasis on marriage and the great lengths to which parents go to push their children
to settle down and form their own families hides a greater, more disturbing
phenomenon: – the willingness amongst youths to marry is silently dwindling. Some
may firmly believe that marriage continues to be attractive today due to the very
nature of humans to seek happiness and companionship with a partner. But I believe
that this is an oversimplification of the modern world and its brewing challenges, as
the attractiveness of marriage is now contingent on a larger slew of factors – from
entrenched societal values to the increasing emphasis on economic growth – that
make marriage an undesirable option in today’s modern world.

Nevertheless, let us first venture to consider why some are persuaded to believe that
marriage continues to be an attractive choice along the life continuum. Proponents of
the stand would promptly point to the fundamental nature of humans as social animals,
who involuntarily seek companionship to share the joys, sorrows, enjoyments, and
experiences of life. Even according to the widely-accepted scientific reasoning behind
Darwin’s theory of the origins of humans, evolution would not have been possible if
our greatest ancestors had not found mates and reproduced. In religion, the tale of
Adam and Eve, as introduced by Christianity, also promotes the idea of two individuals
coming together and seeking happiness in the comfort of each other’s presence. In
more modern times, marriage brings happiness to a couple as both individuals support
each other amidst the rough winds, storms, and turbulence of modern life. When
they face stress at work, when they encounter unhappiness arising from disagreement
with loved ones, when they suffer from the demise of a close friend or relative – there
is always someone at home to guide them through their difficulties and offer a listening
ear or a hug to make them feel better. Friends can also provide companionship, but
they may only prove to be temporary handrails in life as friends come and go according
to circumstances. Marriage partners, on the other hand, are for “life, “till death does

27
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

[they] part”. Understandably, some may believe marriage is an attractive option in

today’s world due to the long-term companionship and support it brings to the
individual.

However, this line of argument has been met with growing opposition in recent years,
and with valid reasons too. Modern marriage also comes with its own slew of
challenges, and to base its desirability on merely the emotional comfort it brings is an
oversimplification of the evolving needs and priorities of people, and in particular, the
modern day city dweller. In an age that prizes productivity and economic efficiency
above all, marriage may prove to be as demanding as it is unfeasible. In developed
countries around the world, both men and women enjoy high levels of employment,
and to the married couple, the pressures of work and the family may become too
heavy a burden to bear. In Japan, for example, their intense work culture mandates at
least 100 hours of work at the office per week, which points to working overtime and
even reporting to the workplace on weekends. The stress faced by Japanese workers
pushes them to the brink of mental and physical exhaustion, and to expect these
working adults to also prioritise marriage and settle down with children on top of
their already stress-laden work lives is indeed too much to ask. For women, in
particular, marriage entails a career shift, or even resignation from their job because
of pressure from other underlying social factors. In Asian countries like Japan, China,
Korea, and even Thailand, society is still deeply-rooted in traditional values arising
from Confucian patriarchy that promotes the idea that the main role of women is to
marry and bear children to continue the family lineage. It is nearly impossible to
balance work and also take care of the family without a significant amount of external
familial support, and many women are compelled to sacrifice their careers for a future
in marriage. To many independent women with liberal attitudes and modern
aspirations, the option of marriage is hence undesirable as it dictates a loss of
independence, free will, and decades of hard work in their career. Therefore, the
demands of working life and social factors for both men and women make it
undesirable to get married.

Lastly, what marriage entails may vary from country to country. For married women,
in particular, what the future holds may spark even greater fear and repulsion than
the very idea of marriage itself. Domestic violence is a growing problem that has
received some attention in recent years. In 2020, a woman from China died after her
ex-husband set her alight while she was live-streaming at home. In places like China,
where one in four women suffer from domestic violence, there is no escape from this
harsh reality when one commits to marriage. Other Middle-Eastern countries like
Pakistan show similar horrifying trends of family violence and domestic abuse that
have become so pervasive they are effectively normalised in society. If marriage is

28
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

forever, then so is the suffering inflicted on victims of domestic abuse. The promise
of eternal companionship simply traps women in abusive relationships for longer
periods of time. Coupled with the lack of societal support and patriarchal family values
that promote women’s obedience and compliance to men even in the face of abuse
makes it a herculean task for them to seek help and speak out against physical,
emotional, and sexual violence. For sure, marriage can prove to be a highly repulsive
path that entails horrifying consequences, especially for women in less developed,
patriarchal societies that still exist today.

Modern life and its brewing slew of challenges – from its obsession with economic
efficiency and work productivity, to the stubborn, entrenched societal views that
promote patriarchy and quash any dissent in support of women’s rights and equality
– continue to plague individuals’ choices in regard to marriage in this modern age.
Traditional values of happiness and emotional companionship associated with
marriage still continue to play a role in decision-making, albeit a less important one as
modern-day individuals may have alternative priorities and reservations.

Marker’s comments:
You drive a powerful argument, although you could be more nuanced when painting an
idealised picture of marriage. Anyone who expects a marriage to solve their ills are in for a
reality check, and you could have given it a more realistic spin on why societies and families
maintain their identities in a construct (context?) of the marriage bond. It was a nice read,
with a clear personal voice that integrated seamlessly with the reference to trends/phenomena
across the world.

29
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

9a
2021 | Y6 | KI CT | Paper 2 | Section A

Passage

What happens in cancel culture is that those offended by the comments of another
party become denounced online by those who object to the behaviour. It is a form
of social and cultural boycott driven by ‘groupthink’ meaning the intolerance of
others with a point of view that diverges from group norms. Taken to an extreme,
it is like excommunicating someone from the community. But is it right to target a
person with whom you disagree and use the Internet to express your outrage, get
people fired, or pushed out of certain circles?

Some argue that it is good practice, since taking others to task is part of the
democratic process and simply a manifestation of free speech. It also enables those
who are of low social status to challenge provocateurs who are traditionally
powerful beyond reach, like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, who were considered
untouchable in Hollywood before the #MeToo movement. However, others argue
that cancelling someone is an attempt to stifle another person’s free speech rights,
and the very thing you might be calling him out for (bullying someone else, for
example) is the very thing you are doing. There seems to be no way to decide who
is right.

In fact, cancel culture shows us that ethical discourse is problematic. On the one
hand, it seems subjective. Should we cancel everyone with whom we disagree?
Where do we draw the line? Is it even possible to do so? If you go down this path,
and if you succeed, the only person left at the end of the path will be you, since
there is nobody else who is exactly like you in outlook or worldview. If you were
the sole arbiter of all moral and non-moral conflict, morality would be reduced to
something totally relative to you. Yet, that is contradictory to the starting position
you took when you started cancelling others, since you would have had to assume
that you are fully right and others wrong. But, if everyone took the same position,
everyone’s position would be equally right, and nobody would be wrong.

On the other hand, ethical discourse seems to be empty. With cancel culture, moral
debate is won by the side that shouts the loudest or is able to achieve the intended
outcome (like the resignation of high profile individuals, for example). The only
reason why we intuitively think that cancel culture is a legitimate response is that
those who participate in it or argue for it are extremely vocal and get their way, but
this in no way guarantees that the majority are in favour. In the end, ethical discourse
simply resembles a shouting match between people who shout, in the words of AJ
Ayer, “Boo ya!”

If either of these two analyses are right, then we will not be able to answer the
question of what right and wrong really are. The best way forward, then, is to look
30
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

at consequences. Examining cancel culture more closely, the negative consequences

outweigh the positive when we take into account long-term, not just short-term
effects. Cancel culture has divided whole countries into factions, and social media
has become the new virtual war zone. People have abandoned civility for hatred, for
those who engage in cancel culture seek to criticise without listening or
understanding why someone said or did something. As it is, many people have joined
cancelling groups for fear of being cancelled themselves; at this rate, all-out civil war
is imminent, and we surely do not want that.

Adapted from “Ethics and the Cancel Culture” by Steve Mintz

31
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

9b
2021 | Y6 | KI CT | Paper 2 | Section A Guan Yong En, Justinian | 21S03F

Critically evaluate the argument with reference to the nature and

construction of knowledge in ethics. Respond with your own critical
comments to support or challenge the author’s position.

In this passage, the author concludes that, since we cannot conclude what is right or
wrong in general, cancel culture is undesirable based on an analysis of its
consequences. The author first begins by outlining various arguments for and against
cancel culture to raise the necessity of arbitration between what is right and wrong –
and the seeming impossibility of doing so. From there, the author argues that ethical
discourse is problematic on two counts: firstly, that it is subjective, and then that it is
empty. If ethical discourse is so problematic, then we cannot know what is right or
wrong and so must look at the consequences of cancel culture, according to the
author, which forces us to reject cancel culture on these premises. While I think the
author raises some valid concerns about the nature of ethical discourse, I contend
that his conclusions about ethical discourse – and then about cancel culture – are not
sufficiently justified.

I want to begin by analysing the author's account of problems intrinsic to ethical

discourse: the ideas that ethical discourse is subjective and that it is empty. In general,
I think the author's arguments here raise what could be valid challenges to ethical
discourse, but which are not yet sufficiently justified based on the premises provided.

Beginning with subjectivity, the author makes this point by highlighting the difficulties
in drawing the line about who we ought to cancel and the impossibility in ultimately
doing so. The author provides the following contrast: it seems that if we cancel
everyone with which we disagree, we must be using ourselves as a benchmark for
what is right and wrong (a relativist view), but, at the same time, if this is so, we cannot
really cancel anyone because doing so must assume the presence of objective
standards.

It is true that, to an extent, ethical discourse is subjective, insofar as we must

subjectively decide what values to apply in negotiating an ethical dilemma. In deciding
if, for example, one ought (morally or not) to abolish the death penalty – or any similar
case – there must be a subjective choice of whether one is to prioritise the overall
happiness of a people (pure utilitarianism) or a set of divine rules. There is hence little
objectivity in this sense in ethical discourse.

32
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

However, I am not sure if this is the sort of the subjectivity that the author has in
mind. Instead, the author seems – in raising the ideas that morality is totally relative
to people – to entertain a sort of subjectivity that is akin to an ethical subjectivism;
roughly, the idea that morality itself is determined by people. It is if we assume such
a moral ontology that people can solely arbitrate moral conflicts, in the author's sense.
But this position does not seem adequately justified by the facts at hand. It may be
true, and we can grant, that we do not know when to cancel people – but that need
not arise from morality being relative to people, but merely from the idea that
different people may subscribe to different (established, non-relative) moral codes.

If it is true that the author's implication of a subjectivist or relativist view is unjustified,

then the conclusion – that everybody is equally right and nobody wrong – must also
be unjustified. The author does not provide here enough reasoning to show that
ethical discourse is ontologically relativist in the way he claims it is – because the cases
he presents are adequately accounted for by an absolutist view, if we simply do not
know what the nature of absolutism is. Ethics may be subjective, but I think we must
doubt the author's account of subjectivity.

As for the idea that moral discourse is empty, the author supports this point by
arguing that it seems that discourse related to cancel culture is merely directed by
who shouts the loudest – by rhetoric, and not by content. If this is true, then ethical
discourse bears no content and is just an expression of different opinions or attitudes.

This account of the semantics of ethical discourse is plausible, but I do not think that
it is quite justified. Saying that moral discourse is empty is a strong claim that implies
that a statement like "killing is wrong" is null in its truth-value. However, all the author
raises here is a single example of one sort of ethical discourse where it seems that
truth is irrelevant and only how vocal one is matters. This single example is not
sufficient, I believe, to undermine the nature of what we intuitively think ethical
statements are like – normative with truth-values. Indeed, the example itself cannot
establish even the weaker claim that ethical discourse does not usually appeal to facts
– that a debate is won by those who shout the loudest does not mean that the facts
brought up by such individuals are empty or irrelevant.

Hence, I think that the author's account of ethical discourse requires much more
evidence if we are to accept either of his strong claims. But the author proceeds from
this account to further argue that, not knowing what right and wrong are, we ought
to examine cancel culture from its consequences and thereby reject it on that basis.

Let us grant for now the idea that what is right and wrong is determinate and
indeterminable. If we grant this, I am not sure if the argument, firstly that we must
have recourse to an analysis of the consequences of cancel culture and then that this
analysis compels a rejection of said culture, is fully coherent.

33
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

The author raises a number of negative consequences like the division of nations and
the abandonment of civility for hatred, leading to the threat of civil war. He then
concludes that since we would not want all these, and since the negative
consequences outweigh the positive, we must reject cancel culture.

The problem is this: if this argument is to be made under the assumption that what is
right and wrong is not knowable, then talk of negative and positive consequences must
be in some sense problematised by this. It does not stand to reason that, right and
wrong being unknown, negative and positive can be ascribed as easily, and in the same
way that is done in regular discourse assuming some idea of what is right and what is
wrong. This is not to say that there is no value without a distinction between right
and wrong – we can still ascribe such value judgments based on, for example,
prudential bases that refer purely to self-interest. But it does not seem that the author
is using such prudential bases – rather, he uses value-laden terms like “hatred” and
“fear” that seem still to make reference to what is right and wrong to make a
normative judgment that, based on all this, we ought to reject cancel culture.

In other words, the author's argument related to the negative consequences, and our
needing to reject cancel culture as a result, seems normatively and ethically laden,
with reference to some assumed idea of what we should or should not do. For
example, for the author, it seems we should not criticise without understanding, and
we should avoid hatred and prefer civility. But taking the author's criticisms about the
subjectivity and emptiness of ethical discourse at face value, all these ethical
preferences that assume a normative role must either be fully relative or empty, and
we do not seem to be able to ascribe positive or negative consequences in the way
the author does. If all this is true, then the author's final conclusion that we ought to
reject cancel culture seems undermined, if not made impossible, by some claims he
wishes to make about ethical discourse.

Hence, I believe the author's conclusion is not fully justified insofar as his claims about
the nature of ethical discourse require much more support and his same claims seem
to display a final incoherence with his ultimate conclusion that we should reject cancel
culture based on an appraisal of its consequences.

Marker’s comments:
Excellent piece! You clearly have a good grasp of the author’s argument and have been able
to evaluate the main positions the author raised in a comprehensive manner. However, you
can be more charitable in your reading of the argument; the author only contradicts himself
if you read him that way. Your analysis is not necessarily wrong; it just is a little harsh. Overall,
there is sound understanding of the nature and construction of knowledge in ethics and very
good awareness of the issues involved. Well done!

34
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

10
2021 | Y5 | KI CT Cayden Ong Xiang Jun | 22A13A

Critically assess the view that sense experience alone

is sufficient in the construction of knowledge.

Sense experience comprises raw sense data that we acquire through our senses –
touch, taste, sight, smell, and hearing. It is opposed to reason, which are thoughts in
our mind. Intuitively, it may seem like our senses are all we need to obtain knowledge
of the world around us in our daily lives – that is, sense experience is sufficient in the
construction of knowledge. However, in many cases, sense experience alone is
insufficient as it must be complemented by reason. Nonetheless, in cases where we
only demand certain types of knowledge, sense experience alone may be sufficient.

Sense experience seems like an intuitive way to construct knowledge about the world
around us. For example, if one were to ask Jimmy how he knows he is alive, he would
likely point to his hands that can be felt and seen, or he might jump around to show
he is not an inanimate object. Similarly, if asked what colour a particular table is or
what species a certain animal is, Jimmy would likely employ his sense of sight to tell
us that the table is blue, and he would point to the furriness of the animal, the sound
of its bark, and the shape of its head and ears to tell us it is a dog. In this sense, sense
experience (SE) is certainly a common part of knowledge construction – in attempting
to understand the world, we often employ the senses through which we perceive it.

However, using the senses alone opens us up to the risk of sense deception. If the
senses cannot be trusted to give us accurate information about the world, then surely
they cannot be sufficient in constructing all knowledge about it. For example, I might
take a straight straw, place it in water, and observe the straw suddenly seem to bend
as it enters the water. My sense of sight alone would tell me that the straw is now
bent. In reality, the straw is still straight; using my knowledge of physics, I know the
straw appears to bend because of the refraction of light: water is denser than air,
leading light rays to bend upon striking water, such that my view of objects placed in
water is distorted. Here, my senses are telling me one thing but reason is telling me
another, and reason seems to be correct – upon taking the straw out of water, I once
again observe that it remains straight. This example illustrates how SE alone
sometimes gives us false knowledge, so it cannot be sufficient in knowledge
construction.

35
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

Furthermore, in some cases, SE is not only insufficient but unnecessary in constructing

knowledge. While SE gives us knowledge of the ever-changing world around us,
certain ideas are innate and unchanging, and these can be discovered through reason
alone. Such ideas are termed ‘a priori propositions’ – ideas that can be known prior
to experience. For example, many ideas in math and geometry are known a priori.
One does not need to find a triangle in real life and observe it to know a triangle has
three sides. Rather, one need only contemplate the definition of a triangle – three
lines connected to enclose a space – to know that a triangle does indeed have exactly
three sides. Furthermore, given the axiom-theorem structure of mathematics, one
can derive a wealth of further knowledge about triangles given a basic understanding
of what a triangle is – we know that the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees,
that two triangles adjoined by a side form a tetrahedral, and so on. None of this
knowledge requires the aid of SE, nor can SE alone conclusively construct such
mathematical truths – even if I were to measure the angles in a hundred triangles or
place pairs of triangles together, I could only assert that I observe a hundred triangles
that have internal angles summing to 180 degrees, or that those particular triangles
form tetrahedrals when adjoined. Thus, in discovering a priori truths, SE is insufficient
in giving us the certain and innate knowledge that reason helps us obtain.

Similarly, SE is insufficient in helping us obtain knowledge in fields such as ethics and

aesthetics, which deal with intangible concepts that are not easily observed through
the senses. One can hardly touch or taste the notions of justice, honesty, and dignity
or ascribe the entire definition of beauty to the sight of one piece of art. Defenders
of SE might argue that in arriving at a definition for justice or beauty, we would surely
bring to mind examples of just acts or beautiful things we observed through our
senses. Nonetheless, this only shows that SE may be helpful in the process of
constructing knowledge about such intangible concepts; just because I can imagine
one, ten, or even a thousand just acts does not mean I am able to articulate a universal
notion of justice. To do so, I would need to employ reason to contemplate whether
justice is, say, about restoring an equitable balance of power, or perhaps about
enforcing a societally agreed set of laws. Thus, SE is insufficient in giving us knowledge
of intangible concepts.

Perhaps the strongest grounds for the sufficiency of SE in constructing knowledge is

that of knowledge about the physical world. However, even here, reason is necessary
for us to obtain factual or propositional knowledge, as opposed to knowledge by
acquaintance. Factual knowledge is knowledge that can be articulated in language such
that it can be shared, debated, and acted upon by others. Knowledge by acquaintance
is knowledge that we obtain through the simple act of experiencing and in a sense
recognising a particular thing, place, person, or even sense experience – for example,

36
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

we would say “I know Chris” or “I know that taste”. In our daily lives, when we
observe “that table is blue”, it appears that we are using SE to obtain the proposition
“The table is blue”. However, our senses can only give us the raw data of the rays of
light hitting our eyes or the touch of the table on our fingers. In order to obtain the
factual proposition “the table is blue”, we must use reason to interpret the data given
to us by our senses – we must have the concept of a table in our minds and an
understanding of what the colour blue looks like. This is a process of concept-
formation that happens in our minds, not through our senses; hence, we obtain the
proposition “the table is blue” not through SE alone, but by combining our senses
with reason in order to articulate that what we see is a “table”, and that it is “blue”.
Therefore, SE is not sufficient even in constructing ordinary statements of knowledge
in our daily lives about the physical world.

Where we must concede to the sufficiency of SE is in its ability to give us knowledge

by acquaintance. In the above example, one might argue that we only employ reason
in the leap from raw sense data to the formulation of a factual proposition. Thus, by
staying at the stage of raw sense data, we can eliminate the need for reason in
knowledge construction – instead of saying “the table is blue”, we can simply know
that we are experiencing a certain sight, smell, or touch without attempting to
categorise such senses under concepts. Another example might be the smell of coffee.
While we require reason to give us the concept of “coffee” and that it smells of, say,
earthiness, smokiness, and nuttiness, we only require the senses to know we are
experiencing a certain wonderful aroma, even though we are unable to know that it
is the smell of “coffee”. We know this aroma by acquaintance – we may be unable to
articulate it, but we certainly ‘know’ what the smell is like. This is a compelling way of
knowledge construction as we often do not demand someone to articulate or explain
a specific sensation that is unique and knowable primarily by experiencing it yourself.
For instance, no matter how detailed a description of the smell of coffee someone
recites, we would be reluctant to say they know what coffee smells like unless they
have smelt it themselves. Thus, sense experience is sufficient in obtaining knowledge
by acquaintance about the particular sense itself.

Nonetheless, it is important to understand that SE alone cannot give us factual

knowledge even about our internal mental state. It is tempting to argue that reason
is unnecessary in obtaining knowledge about, say, a headache I am experiencing. Surely
it cannot be doubted that my senses tell me I am actually experiencing a pain that I
perceive to be a headache. Yet, even here, reason is instrumental in formulating the
concept of a headache. It is true that SE alone gives me knowledge about the pain I
am experiencing, but this is only knowledge by acquaintance of the pain itself, not

37
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

factual knowledge that the pain is a headache. Hence, SE alone cannot give us any
factual knowledge, whether it is about the physical world or our internal mental state.

Ultimately, in considering whether sense experience alone is sufficient in the

construction of knowledge, we must first decide what we admit as knowledge. In the
case of knowledge of intangible concepts such as in ethics or knowledge of a priori
truths such as in mathematics, it is clear that the senses alone are insufficient and may
even be unnecessary. Even in the intuitive case of everyday knowledge about the
physical world, we cannot admit knowledge given to us by the senses as certain
knowledge due to the possibility of sense deception – reason is needed to ensure the
senses are giving us accurate information, such as by recognising when we are using
our senses in poor or misleading conditions. In fact, even if we drop the demand for
certainty, we find that sense experience cannot give us any factual information at all
without the aid of reason in concept formation, both in obtaining knowledge about
the physical world and our mental state.

Thus, we are left with the question of whether knowledge by acquaintance should be
considered knowledge. On the one hand, it does not seem useful to have knowledge
if we are unable to articulate it in language, enabling discourse on the knowledge. For
instance, we would not say a baby knows very much before it is able to talk and
demonstrate its knowledge. Yet, at the same time, we would say that a baby knows
who its mother is or what milk tastes like even if it cannot describe the taste or
reason that the woman caring for him is likely his mother – rather, we point to how
the baby intuitively clings onto his mother, knowing her touch and scent, or smiles
when he smells and tastes milk. Hence, knowledge by acquaintance is indeed one form
of knowledge, and this can be given through sense experience alone.

Marker’s comments:
A good attempt. Generally correct content. Good attempt in elaborating and writing for the
tabula rasa reader in general – except for the part on concept formation. A flaw, though, is
the non-discussion of incorrigibility which links to sense deception and the categorisation issue.

38
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

11
2021 | Y5 | KI CT Allyscia Clare Pereira | 22S03D

‘When it comes to what we ordinarily call knowledge,

belief is the only undeniable condition.’ Critically assess the view.

We ordinarily call knowledge justified true belief. That means that to know that p, (i)
one has to believe that p, (ii) p must be true and (iii) one has to have justification for
his belief. However, some argue that belief is the only undeniable condition because
due to the infinite regress of justification, we can never have sufficient justification to
prove a belief’s truth. Also, they argue that justification is not an undeniable condition
because the theories of truth are very similar to theories of justification. However, I
disagree that belief is the only undeniable condition for knowledge because all three
conditions of justification, belief and truth are undeniably needed.

First, let us examine the traditional definition of knowledge, which is justified true
belief. To know that p, one must have belief (B), justification (J) and truth (T). For
example, to know that proposition p (“there is a cat on the mat”), (i) I must believe
there is a cat on the mat, (ii) there must actually be a cat on the mat and (iii) I must
have good reasons for my belief, such as I see a cat on the mat and I can trust my
senses.

I agree with the statement that belief is an undeniable condition for knowledge. This
is because to claim that I know p, but I do not believe that p is simply incoherent. For
instance, saying that “I know that it is raining but I do not believe that it is raining”
seems absurd. Thus, belief is a necessary condition for knowledge.

However, some may argue that belief is not an undeniable condition as belief is
incompatible with knowledge because belief is fallible while knowledge is infallible.
This argument seems fairly persuasive because in everyday life, we use “believe” to
express some sort of hesitancy and ambivalence while we use “know” to express
certainty. For example, a confident tennis player would say “I do not believe I will win,
I know that I will win”.

However, this is in fact a misunderstanding of language. What the confident tennis

player would have meant to say is “I do not just believe I will win, I know that I will
win”. Therefore, while I concede that belief is fallible, it is evident that belief plays an
integral role in knowledge. Hence, belief is an undeniably necessary condition.

39
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

Some may argue that belief is the only undeniable condition, hence justification and
truth which we include in what we ordinarily call knowledge are not required in the
definition of knowledge. Some argue that truth is not a necessary condition for
knowledge because truth is an unachievable condition as it is simply impossible to
prove the truth of a knowledge claim. This is due to the infinite regress of justification.
The infinite regress of justification states that a belief requires prior justification, which
itself requires prior justification, hence resulting in what seems like all our beliefs
having a lack of justification for their truth to be proven. For example, John claims to
know that “All Amazon crocodiles cannot stick out their tongues”. The sceptic will
then question how he knows this. John will then explain that he learnt about this piece
of information through a documentary called Nature Watch. The sceptic will then
question how John knows Nature Watch is a reliable source of information as it could
be the case that the producers of Nature Watch wish to spread disinformation. John
will then reply that Nature Watch won “Best Documentary” at award shows. The
sceptic will continue to question how John knows that these award shows prove that
Nature Watch is a reliable documentary as the producers of Nature Watch could
have bribed the award show producers in order to receive the award. Hence, this
process of requesting for further justification and producing evidence to prove the
truth of a belief is never-ending and results in an infinite regress of justification. This
results in what seems like all our beliefs lacking sufficient justification to be proven
true. Therefore, the truth of a belief simply cannot be achieved if the infinite regress
of justification cannot be stopped and hence truth cannot be a necessary condition
for knowledge because that would result in us possessing no knowledge.

However, rationalisation, which is a strain of foundationalism, has in fact beat the

sceptic and stopped the infinite regress of justification through providing self-justifying
truths. Self-justifying truths do not require further justification because their truth can
be recognised by merely examining the meanings of the terms involved. An example
of a self-justifying truth is “triangles have three sides”. By understanding the meanings
of the terms involved, one will already be able to recognise the truth of the statement
since “triangle” itself means a “three-sided shape”. Hence no further justification is
needed for the truth of self-justifying beliefs to be recognised. Therefore, truth is an
achievable condition and thus can be a criterion for knowledge.

Truth not only can be a criterion for knowledge but must be a criterion for knowledge
because to claim that one knows p, while p is false is simply absurd. Consider a cave
woman living in prehistoric times. She claims to know that the Earth is flat. Her
justification for her knowledge claim is that the Earth appears flat in all directions.
Even when she climbs on top of a tree, she still cannot see any curvature in the ground.

40
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

Thus she has some justification for her belief and she believes that the Earth is flat. If
truth was not a necessary criterion for knowledge, we would have to concede that
she has knowledge that the Earth is flat. However, that is simply untrue because the
Earth is in fact round. It would hence be unintuitive for us to concede that she
possesses knowledge. Accepting her knowledge claim would require us to alter our
entire understanding of knowledge as we would now need to accept contradicting
pieces of knowledge. For example, due to scientific findings, we now know that Earth
is round. However, conceding that the cave woman knows the Earth is flat at the
same time that we know it is round is impossible because the Earth cannot be
simultaneously round and flat, just as we cannot have contradicting pieces of
knowledge. The truth criterion fulfils the external criterion to ensure that our
knowledge claims about the physical world cohere with the physical world. Hence,
truth is undeniably a necessary criterion. Therefore, belief is not the only undeniable
condition.

Going back to how some may argue that belief is not the only undeniable condition,
while they may now concede that truth is an undeniable condition, they may still argue
that justification is not a necessary condition because three of the Theories of Truth
are very similar to three of the Theories of Justification. Hence, it might be the case
that having both justification and truth is redundant. The three Theories of Truth are
the correspondence theory of truth, the coherence theory of truth and the pragmatic
theory of truth. The Three Theories of Justification are foundationalism, coherentism
and reliabilism. Firstly, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth of a
belief depends on how it corresponds to the external world. The correspondence
theory of truth is very similar to empiricism, which is a strain of Foundationalism,
which states that a belief is justified based on what one’s senses tells him. For example,
I see a cat on the mat and therefore I know that there is a cat on the mat according
to the correspondence theory of truth and empiricism, which respectively prove that
the belief is true and justified. Secondly, the coherence theory of truth is very similar
to coherentism which states that a belief is true based on how it fits in with a host of
beliefs. For instance, John claims to know that the Earth is round because it coheres
to his other beliefs, such as “My science textbook states that the Earth is round” and
“My science textbook is a reliable source of information”. According to the coherence
theory of truth and coherentism, I can concede that John does possess knowledge as
the belief is both true and justified. Lastly, the pragmatic theory of truth states that p
is true if p “works”. It is very similar to reliabilism which states that p is justified if p
was obtained via a reliable method. A reliable method is defined as a process that is
likely to produce true beliefs. For instance, I use Google Maps to reach my intended
destination and the fact that I do reach my intended destination proves that my belief
(“I know how to reach my intended destination”) is true. The fact that I do reach my

41
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

intended destination also proves that Google Maps is a reliable method and that in
itself can provide justification for my belief. Therefore, it is evident that because each
of the 3 Theories of Truth stated are so similar to one of the 3 Theories of Justification
stated, the same piece of evidence can prove the truth of a belief and provide
justification for that same belief. Since it has been established that truth is a necessary
condition for knowledge, it can be concluded that justification should be the criterion
we can remove from our typical definition of knowledge. Thus, justification is not an
undeniable condition.

However, I disagree because justification, just like belief and truth, is an undeniable,
necessary criterion for knowledge. Justification provides a “tether” for our belief so
that we will not be easily dissuaded from our beliefs. Moreover, our beliefs will not
be true by chance because it is intuitive for us to require good reasons to believe in
our knowledge claims. For example, a gambler claims to know that the roulette wheel
will give a 9 on its next spin. One will most likely not be persuaded to concede that
the gambler has knowledge because he does not have justification for this claim.
However, if another gambler who somehow rigged the roulette wheel to always give
a 9 makes the same knowledge claim, one will be more persuaded to concede that he
has knowledge because this gambler has justification for his claim. Therefore,
justification is undeniably needed as a condition for knowledge so that our beliefs will
not be true by chance and we will not be easily dissuaded from our beliefs. Hence,
belief is not the only undeniable condition.

In conclusion, when it comes to what we ordinarily call knowledge, I disagree that

belief is the only undeniable condition because all three conditions, namely
justification, belief and truth are undeniable conductions that are necessary for
knowledge. Hence, I disagree with the statement.

Marker’s comments:
A good attempt. General concept correct (but a couple of instances of misunderstanding/
incomplete understanding). The part that truth is unattainable was not given enough credit
as your later points assume that truth for empirical statements have been shown to be
attainable when it has not.

42
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

12
2021 | Y5 | KI CT Chloe Neo Yi Ting | 22S03O

‘When it comes to what we ordinarily call knowledge,

belief is the only undeniable condition.’ Critically assess the view.

Ordinarily, knowledge is defined by the tripartite theory of knowledge to be “justified

true belief”. This means that the three conditions – belief, truth and justification –
are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for us to claim a proposition as
knowledge. There have been attempts to show that either justification or truth is not
necessary for knowledge, leading some to assert that belief is the only undeniable
condition. Nonetheless, I believe that the objections to the justification and truth
conditions have failed to prove that they are not necessary for knowledge. Hence,
belief is not the only undeniable condition as the justification and truth conditions are
equally indispensable.

First of all, let us establish why the belief condition is considered to be undeniable and
why it is necessary for knowledge. Intuitively, we would think that having knowledge
of a statement would require us to have a propensity to agree with the statement.
Any suggestion to the opposite effect would simply seem to be incoherent. For
example, it would seem incomprehensible for someone to say “I know that it is
raining, but I do not believe it”. Hence, it is clear that belief seems undeniable as a
condition for knowledge.

Even so, there have been detractors of the belief condition who would argue that
belief is incompatible with knowledge and, therefore, that the belief condition is
deniable. Notably, Plato holds such an incompatibilist view. He argued that since
knowledge is infallible while belief is fallible, they must be fundamentally different ways
of apprehending the world. Similarly, other philosophers who agree with this view
posit that to believe is to be ambivalent about a proposition and this may involve
mixed feelings, while knowledge involves no such hesitation. Therefore, knowledge
does not entail belief, but goes beyond mere belief. For example, a tennis player may
say “I don't believe I will win, I know I will.” This seems to imply that to know
something is to cease to believe it. Thus, knowledge and belief are separate, and belief
is not an undeniable condition for knowledge.

However, upon closer inspection, we would realise that in the above example, it was
simply a more emphatic way of saying “I don't just believe I will win, I know I will.”

43
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

Hence, it becomes clear that knowledge may indeed go a step further than belief, but
belief is still a necessary building block for us to acquire knowledge. Thus, the fact
that the belief condition is undeniable still holds true.

Another dispute over the necessity of the belief condition would be the argument
that knowledge is more about how one acts that what beliefs one might entertain.
For example, I might have learnt that the Japanese occupied Singapore on 15 February
1942, but forgot this particular fact. Nonetheless, when I am quizzed on it, I am able
to give the correct answer, even though I believe my answer to be a mere guess. At
this point, some would argue that since I am guessing, I seem not to have belief, but
the fact that I got the correct answer seems to suggest that I do have knowledge.
Thus, belief and knowledge seem to be distinct and it seems that belief cannot be said
to be an undeniable condition for knowledge.

However, for one to guess a proposition p would mean that one assents to the
possibility that p is true. Guessing an answer displays a tendency to agree with that
statement. This assent is sufficient to constitute belief, at least in a minimal sense. In
this way, then, we would arrive at the conclusion that belief is, indeed, an undeniable
condition for us to obtain knowledge.

Having established that belief is indeed necessary for knowledge, some would then
argue that the truth condition is not necessary for knowledge. This is because truth
is rarely attainable. They may argue that it is not always possible for us to verify the
truth of our knowledge claims, especially those of the external world. There may
always be new advances or discoveries that would disprove current knowledge claims
that may appear to be true at a certain point in time. This is because we are unable
to transcend our minds to obtain a God’s-eye view of the physical world and thus
discover truths of the world; rather, it is only possible for us to derive an explanation
to the best effect for our available evidence and consider this as knowledge of the
world. The fact that we are unable to verify the truth of our claims has been evidence
in numerous shifts in scientific paradigms, such as from the theory of Geocentrism,
where the Earth is the centre of the solar system, to that of Heliocentrism, the belief
that the Sun is the centre of the solar system. This shows that our knowledge of the
world is ever-changing and we cannot ever be certain if we have arrived at truth. In
this sense, then, it would make no difference if truth were removed from the
requirements for knowledge and thus, the truth condition is deniable.

However, I believe that truth is necessary and an undeniable condition for knowledge
as claiming to know something that turns out to be false cannot be considered as
having knowledge. Even if we do not know the truth of our knowledge, it does not
then mean that the truth condition is dispensable. This is because belief and

44
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

justification are merely internal criteria, which means that they are within our minds
and can be fulfilled by introspection alone. However, for us to consider a proposition
as knowledge, it has to fulfil the external criterion of truth, meaning that it has to
correspond with external reality, or cohere with our current justified, true beliefs.
Crucially, we do not need to know if our knowledge claims at any point in time are
true. If they are true, then they can be considered knowledge. For instance, assuming
that it is true that the Earth is round, we would not say that a caveman who believes
that the Earth is flat has knowledge. He may have excellent justification for his belief,
such as “the Earth looks flat” and “if it were round, then objects would roll towards
the edges and fall off”. However, this can only be considered a well-justified true
belief and we would be reluctant to consider this to have the same epistemic status
as knowledge. Therefore, the truth condition is also an undeniable condition for
knowledge.

Another way to approach the question of the necessity of the truth condition would
be to consider the consequences of discarding the truth condition. Without the
truth condition, we would have to accept an infinite number of contradicting
statements as knowledge. As in the above example, the “flat Earth” and “round Earth”
theories would both have to be admitted as knowledge if the truth condition were to
be disregarded as they both possess reasonable justification. This would lead to an
unintuitive and confusing result of there being contradictory pieces of knowledge,
with no way for us to decide which to adopt. Therefore, this illustrates the necessity
of the truth condition and the fact that it, too, is undeniable.

The last condition to be discussed in the tripartite theory of knowledge is justification,

which I would argue is equally indispensable and undeniable as the belief and truth
conditions. This is because we would be reluctant to grant someone knowledge if he
had obtained a true belief simply by luck or bias, with insufficient evidence for his
belief. To illustrate this with an example, consider a racist juror who has come to the
conclusion that the defendant is guilty on the sole basis of the colour of his skin. Even
if it is, in fact, true that the defendant is guilty, the juror cannot be said to have
knowledge as his belief was based on irrational prejudice, rather than the objective
evidence presented in court. Thus, it is clear that reasons or evidence for a belief is
required for us to consider it knowledge. I would therefore argue that justification is
an undeniable condition for knowledge, besides belief and truth.

However, detractors may argue that true belief is as good a guide to action as justified
true belief, or what we would traditionally consider knowledge and so justification is
deniable as a condition for knowledge. Consider the example of two tour guides –
one with mere true beliefs and the other with actual knowledge. The former would
have correct beliefs on the route to take to reach a destination and would thus be

45
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

able to guide us just as well as the latter, who has actual knowledge of the correct
route. Thus, it seems that true belief is as useful to us and to others as justified true
belief and the justification condition thus seems dispensable.

While this may be true, it is important to note that the flightiness of belief as compared
to the stability of knowledge is what leads us to value knowledge more than belief.
Using the above example, we would think that the tour guide with mere true beliefs
would be easily persuaded to go down another incorrect route, precisely because he
has no good reason for following the correct path. On the other hand, the tour guide
with actual knowledge would likely be more persistent in his beliefs as he has
justification for them. In this sense, then, justification acts as the epistemic glue for
our beliefs, tethering them to our minds such that we would not be easily dissuaded
from them. Hence, it is clear that justification is also an essential and undeniable
condition for knowledge and so belief is not the only undeniable condition.

In conclusion, belief is not the only undeniable condition for knowledge as the other
two conditions in the tripartite theory of knowledge, justification and truth, are
equally crucial and indispensable in our definition of knowledge. While there has been
arguably more controversy over the justification and truth conditions, they have
ultimately failed to prove that these conditions are unnecessary for knowledge.
Hence, the view that belief is the only undeniable condition for knowledge cannot be
accepted.

Marker’s comments:
Very good attempt! Quite comprehensive. Generally consistent in providing elaboration and
example, though sometimes this was not the case (some narration). Consistently argued for
(with a few exceptions). Could have considered justification vs truth.

46
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

13
2021 | Y5 | KI CT Gene Chong Kenqin | 22S06A

‘When it comes to what we ordinarily call knowledge,

belief is the only undeniable condition.’ Critically assess the view.

Our ordinary definition of knowledge is that knowledge is justified true belief. This
means that to know a proposition, one must fulfil three conditions. One must believe
the proposition, have good reason to believe it, and the proposition must be true. I
disagree with the view that belief is the only undeniable condition out of the three
because the justification and truth conditions are undeniable as well.

Firstly, belief is a necessary condition for knowledge because it would seem

incoherent otherwise. Consider the sentence, “I know that it is raining but I do not
believe it.” This sentence seems intuitively absurd because we do seem to think that
if we know something we believe it. Asserting that you know something but you do
not believe it thus gives you an incoherent sentence. Therefore, to know something
you must believe that it is the case, so belief is a condition for knowledge.

However, some may deny that belief is a necessary condition for knowledge by
claiming that to believe is to be ambivalent but to know is to be certain, and thus that
belief and knowledge are incompatible. For example, consider an athlete claiming that
“I do not believe that I will win, I know that I will win”. Here, the athlete is claiming
that he is certain about winning and not ambivalent about it. This shows that believing
and knowing are not compatible. If you know, then you do not believe because you
are certain rather than ambivalent. If you believe, then you do not know because you
are ambivalent rather than certain.

While this seems plausible at first, the objection does not work because even if to
believe is to be ambivalent and to know is to be certain, knowledge still entails belief.
Consider the earlier example of an athlete claiming that “I do not believe I will win, I
know I will win.” This can be seen as merely a more emphatic way of saying “I do not
just believe I will win, I know I will win.” Even if believing is ambivalent and knowing
is certain, it could be the case that knowing still entails belief and some other features
of knowledge make it certain rather than ambivalent.

Some may also deny that belief is necessary by saying that belief is more about one’s
state of mind but knowledge is more about how one acts, and thus one can have
knowledge without belief by acting in a way that suggests they have knowledge

47
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

without having belief. For example, consider a quiz where you have forgotten all the
answers to the questions. You guess all the answers and later find out that you have
guessed correctly. The fact that you guessed correctly seems to suggest you have
knowledge, since someone who knows the answers would answer the questions
correctly. However, the fact that you guessed the answers seems to suggest that you
did not believe the answers to be true. Thus, you can have knowledge without belief
by acting in such a way that someone with knowledge would act without having belief.

However, this fails to deny that belief is necessary because acting in such a way that
someone with knowledge would act entails assenting to a proposition, and this assent
counts as belief in a minimal sense. Consider the previous example. By answering the
questions correctly, even if it was by guessing, you had to assent to the correct
answers. Guessing is thus still a form of belief in a minimal sense, so belief is still
necessary for knowledge because to know something one must assent to it.

With this, it can be said that belief is an undeniable condition for knowledge, since
attempts to deny it have failed. However, the other conditions, truth and justification
also seem to be undeniable, so belief is not the only undeniable condition.

Let us examine the truth condition. Truth is necessary for knowledge because we
intuitively do not allow that someone who has a false belief has knowledge, even if
they have good reason to believe it. For example, consider a cave person living
thousands of years ago who believes that the Earth is flat. They have good reason to
think so given the available information, since the Earth looks flat and things do not
fall off the side of the Earth like they do with other round things. An egg placed on
top of another egg would roll off it and fall to the ground, but eggs do not roll off the
edge of the Earth. Despite the reasons for the caveperson to believe that the Earth is
flat, it still seems counterintuitive to grant that they know that the Earth is flat because
the Earth is in fact round. It is more intuitive to claim that the caveperson did not
have knowledge that the Earth is flat because they lacked the relevant information to
know that the Earth was round.

Moving on, justification is necessary because we tend to think that we must have
reasons for believing that something is the case to know that it is the case, and it is
unintuitive to grant that we have knowledge if we come to a true conclusion by sheer
luck or coincidence. For example, consider a racist juror who comes to the conclusion
that a defendant is guilty simply because of the defendant’s skin colour. The defendant
is in fact guilty of the crime, but nonetheless, it seems odd to grant that the racist
juror knew that the defendant committed the crime since the racist juror come to
their conclusion via unjustified prejudices rather than actual evidence presented in
court. Therefore, justification is necessary for knowledge since a true belief without

48
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

justification is not knowledge, rather it is an unsubstantiated assertion which happens

to be true by luck or coincidence.

However, some may deny that truth and justification have to both be there to have
knowledge by claiming that truth and justification serve the same functional role, and
thus we only need one or the other. This is since we determine whether a statement
is true or justified by similar methods. This is shown by the similarities between the
theories of justification and the theories of truth. Empiricism, which claims that all
knowledge is justified by a bedrock of incorrigible sense data, suggests that we justify
our knowledge using our senses. Similarly, the correspondence theory of truth states
that a proposition is true if it corresponds with a fact, situation, or state-of-affairs.
This also suggests that a proposition is true if we can verify that it corresponds to a
fact via our senses. For example, I see a cat on the mat and thus believe that there is
a cat on the mat. Using sight to see the cat on the mat means that the proposition is
both true and justified under empiricism and the correspondence theory of truth.
Next, coherentism suggests that our beliefs are justified if they cohere with other
beliefs, and the coherence theory of truth suggests that a proposition is true if it
coheres with other beliefs. This means that coherence with other beliefs establishes
both truth and justification. For example, it is both true and justified that the Earth is
round since this coheres with other beliefs like that my science textbook and science
teacher tell me that the Earth is round. Lastly, reliabilism states that beliefs are justified
if they are produced by a reliable method and the pragmatic theory of truth states
that a proposition is true if it works and we can successfully put it into practice. This
suggests that my ability to achieve any practical goals establishes both the truth and
justification for the proposition I use to achieve the goal. For example, I believe that
there is a restaurant six bus stops away. I managed to get food by riding the bus, and
I used a reliable method in Google Maps to get to the restaurant and get food. Thus,
the fact that I got food from the restaurant seems to suggest that it is both true and
justified. Given these similarities between the theories of justification and theories of
truth, some conclude that it is deniable that truth and justification are necessary for
knowledge since we only need one or the other.

However, this does not successfully deny that truth and justification are not necessary
because it is nonetheless possible to have justified false beliefs even with the
similarities between truth and justification, and it is nonetheless unintuitive to grant
that we have knowledge in these cases. Looking at the correspondence theory of
truth and empiricism, we could easily have a justified false belief if we view the world
in bad conditions. For example, I could think I am seeing a cat on the mat, but it could
just be a cardboard model of a cat made really well. This would mean that although
we use the same method to establish truth and justification a lot of the time, these
methods still could produce justified false beliefs. Coherentism and reliabilism and the
49
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

coherence and pragmatist theories of truth face the same problem. We could be
wrong in saying that the Earth is round even if this coheres with the science textbook
and teacher, since the science textbook and teacher could be wrong and the Earth
could be doughnut shaped with an imperceptibly small hole going through the middle.
Just because I got my food does not mean that there is a restaurant six bus stops
away. It could be the case that the restaurant I found was on a constantly moving
truck that just happened to be six bus stops away, so there was no restaurant at all.
Therefore, we need both truth and justification to have knowledge even if we establish
truth and justification in the same way because we need a way to reject these instances
of justified false beliefs and say that they are not knowledge.

In conclusion, the attempts to deny that belief, truth or justification are necessary for
knowledge have been unsuccessful and thus belief, truth and justification are all
undeniable conditions for knowledge, as far as I know. I thus disagree with the view
that when it comes to what we ordinarily call knowledge, belief is the only undeniable
condition.

Marker’s comments:
A good attempt. Generally correct content. Good attempt to bring in the whole justification
vs truth issue. But better if you had considered truth being unattainable for matters of fact
statements.

50
 KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2 © Raffles Institution
Unauthorised copying, sharing and distribution prohibited

KS Bull 2021 | Issue 2

Editorial Team

Ms Victoria Galvez
Ms Michelle Kwok
Mr Jarrod Lee
Mr Larry Lee
Mr Alvin Leong
Mr Damien Marie
Mr Adrian Tan
Mr Steffen Toh
Mr Patrick Wong
Ms Umarani

51