Q1a. Study Source A and B
How far do you think the government statistician would have agreed with Source
A? Explain your answer.
The statistician would largely not agree
with Source A.
As a government statistician, he would be
supportive of the government’s policies to promote a “pro-family” society
through campaigning and hence the statistician would disagree with Source A
which is calling for the government to not do “campaigning to improve family
values”. This is because he is a government employee and would definitely
support the government’s pro-family campaign policy and he may have even had a
role in crafting the pro-family campaign mentioned in Source A and hence he
would not support Source A’s call to reduce efforts in this.
Furthermore, the government statistician
would not have agreed with Source A because in Source B, he believes that
Singaporean couples do not want to have children irrespective of the support
given whereas Source A states that they do want to have children but need
support from the government. Source A states that Singapore is already a
“pro-family” society and that the younger people already have strong family
values. This means that young Singaporeans want to have children but for
practical reasons do not, however, in Source B, it is states that “more people
choose to stay single” because “lifestyle choices have changed” and so this
means that there is a need for more emphasis by the government to promote the
virtues of having children because the basic wish to have families is absent.
Nonetheless, the statistician in Source B
would have agreed with Source A that there is a need for state intervention to
help boost the birth-rate.
Source A states that “the state would do better to focus on making Singapore a
pro-child society”. This means the government needs to offer support to parents
to “get married and have children”. Similarly Source B states that
“influencing the birth rate will require
different methods.” This means that while previous efforts by the government
may no longer be working, new approaches by the government are needed and thus,
Source A would have agreed with Source B that there is a need for government
intervention.
Q1b. Study Source C
How useful is this source as evidence about attitudes towards the family in
Singapore? Explain your answer.
Hint:
Look for evidence about attitudes towards the family in Singapore.
Match
for cross-referencing for support and refute on “evidence about attitudes
towards family.”
Note:
Does Source C have a purpose/motive/is it biased? Why not?
Source C is useful as evidence about
attitudes towards the family in Singapore because Source C is supported by
Source E as both source states that Singaporeans do not wish to build their own
families and do not wish to get married or give birth to children. Source C
states that “It’s time to give up searching for a mate” and “it’s time to stop
giving birth”. This means that Singaporeans have no wish to get married or bear
children. Likewise, in Source E states that “Couples are having fewer or no
children” and “More people are also staying single”. This means that Singapore does
not view having their own families and having children is unimportant. Hence,
Source C is useful as it is reliable as it is supported by Source E.
However, Source C is not useful because it
is refuted by Source A. In source A, it is stated that the attitude towards
family life is positive. Source A states that “ Singapore is a pro-family society”
and “Younger Singaporeans already have fairly Strong pro-family values” as
opposed to Source C that states that the attitude towards family life is
negative. Source C states that “ It’s time to stop giving birth and follow the
downhill trend”. This means that overall, the Singaporeans attitude towards
family life is negative and Singaporeans do not feel they need to have their
own families and have children. Hence, Source C is not useful as it is not
reliable as it is refuted by Source A.
Source C is less useful as evidence to
about attitudes towards family values because it is biasness due to its exaggerated
tone. [ State type of tone]
The [State tone] exaggerated tone is
aimed at making Singaporeans [audience] to believe that……[Message]…….. they
should forget about getting married and having children since there is a trend
that is against having families in Singapore as most people prefer to be single
so that [the audience] Singaporeans will not have families of their own and
live out their lives as carefree singles just like the blogger[ state change in
behaviour of audience after understanding the message of the source] This is
made possible through the use of words/images in Source C such as “…….[ state
words/phrases/describe image]….” Doomsday” and statements like “my descendants
having agony trying to persuade his wife to bear children.” He uses the word
“doomsday” to explain that the whole of Singapore will go on to not have
children which is how the “doomsdays” of Singapore leading to its end will
occur. This is a gross exaggeration and likely to be a figment of the blogger’s
imagination because it is impossible for him to predict the decisions of
millions of people in Singapore in deciding whether to get married or have
children and hence his “doomsday” prediction for the future of Singapore
families and its values is too much of an exaggeration making what he says
unreliable and therefore less useful.
[Note: You can also answer using Missing Information cross-referencing]
Q1c.Study source D and E. How similar are these 2 sources? Explain your answer.
Sources D and E
are similar in telling us that having strong family ties is valuable and
important. Source D tell us that when the family is close, there is joy and
fulfilment. I say so because in Source D the poster shows 3 pictures of 3
different families enjoy family time together – having a picnic, having a
stroll and having a meal together with the words “family togetherness , the key
to happiness.” This means that strong family ties offer family members joy and
are a source of support. Likewise, Source E tells us that families provide
essential support for family members in times of need and hence having strong
family ties is valuable and important. I say so because Source E states that
Singaporeans “look towards the family as a strong source of emotional and
financial support.” This means that strong and united families are important as
families assist family members to cope with difficulties in various aspects.
However, Source
D and E are different in telling us the experience of family life. Source D is
telling us that being in a Singapore family is joyous as its shows different Singaporean
families spending quality time together and enjoying a picnic, stroll and a
meal together. This means that the family unit is strong and united and family
life is an enjoyable and stress-free experience. However, Source E is telling
us that family life is stressful and challenging. I say so because Source E states
that Singapore families are “having to shoulder the increasing heavy demands of
daily life.” and many Singaporean couples see their “Marriage ending on the
rocks” and Singaporean families that have to care for both the young and the
elderly are “facing difficulties”. This means that family life is not enjoyable
and is fact filled with challenges, heartbreak and hardship. Hence, Source D and E differ in their message
about the experience of family life.
Source D and E also differ in their tone. Source
D’s tone is positive about Singapore family life while Source E has a negative
tone. The positive tone is created by the way the pictures are drawn. One
picture shows the actions of the family at the beach and the children are
playing with their parents and their hands are raised in excitement as they are
playing with a beach ball together. Likewise, another family is shown holding
hands amongst their members and this indicates a sense of closeness in the
family. Overall the tone of the poster is positive and joyous as it depicts
family life in Singapore. However, Source E has a bleak tone regarding family
life. Source E uses the words “more disturbing” to describe the problems facing
the family unit and the phrase “ending on the rocks” to describe the state of
marriages in Singapore. These words create a sense of dread and doom &
gloom regarding challenges facing the families in Singapore and life in a
Singapore family. The phrase “ending on the rocks” creates a strong imagery of
marriage being like a ship that is wrecked after it runs aground. This image
creates in the reader’s minds an image of destruction and doom. Furthermore,
the word “disturbing” greatly emphasizes and magnifies the nature of challenge
facing the Singapore family and this adds to the negative tone generated by the
source regarding the state of Singapore family life. Hence, Source D and E are
different in their tone used to describe the nature of
family life.
Q1d.
Are you surprised by this source? Explain
your answer.
No, I am not surprised by this source
because Source F states that the “stop at 2 policy” that was meant to control
the population has the “lasting consequence” is the reduction of the Singapore
population by Singaporeans really following the “Two is enough” policy and
having fewer children or even any at all by staying single for instance. This
message that the population reduction policy
has had this effect of reducing the birth and marriage rate is supported
by Source E, B and C as these sources also state that Singaporeans are either
not getting married or not having many children, if any children at all. Source
E states that “ “Singaporeans continue to delay marriage and parenthood” and
“Couples are having fewer or no children.” And Source B also states that “more
people are choosing to be single. And couples choose to have one or no kids.”
In addition, Source C also states that the “birth rate is dropping”. All these
sources indicate that the “two is enough” policy indeed led to the “lasting
consequence” of changing the thinking of Singaporeans to have fewer children.
Hence, I am not at all surprised by what Source F is saying as its message is
supported by 3 sources.
However, I am surprised to a small extent
because Source A refutes Source F’s message that Singaporeans want to have
fewer children or no children at all. Source A states that “ People would like
to get married and have children” and are actually “pro-family” as opposed to
Source F’s message that the “two is enough” policy has led to a permanent
change in the attitude of Singaporeans to have fewer or no children. However,
given that Sources B, C and E all support Source F’s message, I am surprised to
only a small extent by Source F.
