THE UGLY SINGAPOREAN – SAMPLE SCRIPTS
To what extent do you agree with the writer’s views on ‘The Ugly
Singaporean’? Refer closely to the arguments in the article as well as
your own opinions.
Sample A
I agree with the writer that on ‘The Ugly Singaporean’.
I disagree with the writer’s point that affluent, educated Singaporeans have
become too self-centred and insensitive to other people’s plights. In
Singapore’s education, there is a lot of focus on inculcating the right values
into the students. This can be seen in schools like Hwa Chong Institution.
Hwa Chong Institution constantly provides its students with opportunities to
help out needy people of the society, such opportunities include visiting and
helping out at an old folks home, helping out at fund-raising projects, doing
service-learning projects, etc. The school sets a minimum amount of 10 CIP
hours each year to be achieved by each student, this pushes students to
participate in such activities. The school also holds PCME sessions several
times a term to inculcate moral values into the students. After the Sichuan
and Myanmar disasters, schools like Hwa Chong Institution and Nanyang
Girls High School encourages its students to donate to help out, students
have also actively donated. Within two days, Hwa Chong Institution had
accumulated an amount of over $20000 for Sichuan and Myanmar. With such
a huge amount collected, in addition to the active participation in helping out
the needy, how can we still say that affluent, educated Singaporeans have
become too self-centred and insensitive to other people’s plights?
The writer also states that the whole generation of Singapore has grown up
believing that if Singaporeans get into trouble, they can expect no help from
anyone, hence they do not need to care for others. I agree with this point as
Singapore is a meritocracy society, hence people only help others for their
own interests, instead of expecting no return. In Singapore, equal
opportunities to merit are given to everyone but rewards are based on
ability and hard work and not on individual qualities, hence when you help
others, they might gain merit but you gain nothing, therefore the mentality
that to help others only for our own interests have been instilled into
1
Singaporeans. During school competitions like physics olympiad, only the top
elites of each school are sent to represent the school, hence students will
have to compete with each other for the few positions to represent the
school. If the students help each other, they will have a lesser possibility of
representing the school since everyone will have the equal abilities, but if
they do not help each other, the ones with better abilities will get the
representation. Therefore, naturally those with better abilities will not go
around helping the rest since that will decrease his possibilities of getting
the reward in the end.
The author also points out that the political elite, followed by and large by
the citizenry, takes after Minister Mentor Lee Kwan Yew’s generally nowelfare, harshly competitive and unsentimental leadership. I agree with the
writer’s point since the reason that Singaporeans only help others for the
merit is mainly because of the environment we grow up in. The way people
around us do things greatly influence how we do things, especially when the
successful people in Singapore like Minister Mentor Lee also do things in the
same way. As Singapore is a small country with little resources, there is a lot
of competition in this meritocracy society, especially now with the addition
of foreign talents. Although this helps out with Singapore’s growth, this has
caused Singaporeans to only be concerned about their own interests and not
about other people since this is the best way to survive in this harshly
competitive society. In schools, students learn under humanities what kind
of decisions politicians made and how they were successful, hence students
tend to follow the way these successful politicians do things.
In conclusion, although we are taught and provided with opportunities to help
others during our education, when we start working, under the influence of
how everyone does things due to the meritocracy society, we still care only
for our own interests and not about others who are needy.
Your Opinion:
Band
Reasons
2
Sample B
Have you wondered whether the high and mighty Singaporeans could
also have an ugly side? Or have you known that this so called characteristics
in the practical Singaporeans? However, most Singaporeans do possess
qualities that a world class society requires of its citizens but there is only a
handful of black sheep who tarnish Singapore’s image. Therefore, I do not
agree with the writer completely.
I agree fully with the writer’s claim “that a mature, developed country
isn’t defined only by wealth and education; it is also about humanity and
concern for others” Singaporeans pride on being a first-world country and a
garden city with high technological capabilities. Singaporeans would then
have to constantly remind themselves that their behaviors and must be
considerate enough to live up to the country’s reputation. A small minority of
Singaporeans are always tarnishing Singapore’s reputation with their
inconsiderate acts, making people generalize that Singaporeans are by and
large inconsiderate, selfish and self centered people by nature.
An example is when a smartly dressed man with a Rolex watch on his
wrist fighting over a packet of rice at a grocery fair for the needy with a
poor old lady who only has $10.00 in her purse to get as much as she could. I
feel that these incidents are so news-worthy and attention-grabbing mostly
because these people are the elite, and we expect better behavior from
them. But if you think about it, such behavior can be seen in various parts of
society, regardless of whether or not they are elite. There are gangs of
school drop-outs who beat each other up on a regular basis. People making
racist remarks whom are not from NUS. So I think that yes, it's very sad
that we see such shameful incidents involving people who should well know
better, but I don't really think that elitism breeds lack of empathy. The
lack of empathy is a separate, society-wide problem that needs to be tackled.
Educational campaigns are not enough; everyone has to play a part in
making Singapore a gracious society.
I do not fully agree with the writer’s opinion that the Singaporean
tourist “reflects the overall selfishness and self-centeredness of middleclass Singaporeans". Indisputably we often can see Singaporeans’ ugly side
from ignoring or evening despising people from the less fortunate families to
3
snatching and fighting for seats from old people on the MRT or bus.
However, I emphasize that this handful of black sheep only represent a
mere minority of the Singapore population and the writer is generalizing the
case.
The tragedy and death toll of the massive Sichuan earthquake have
touched the hearts of many people both in China and elsewhere, including
Singaporeans. Countless Singaporeans donated generously to the donation
drive organized by schools, Red Cross, The Salvation Army etc. to render
monetary help to the victims of the disaster. Hawkers voluntarily put up
signs that they will donate their day's earnings to the victims. People queued
up at the Chinese Embassy to donate in thousands or tens of thousands of
dollars, in cash or by cheques. The Singapore government also made an
effort donate US$200,000 to the Chinese government and send in rescue
teams to the disaster zone in response to an appeal for foreign aid for the
Sichuan earthquake victims. These show that on the whole, the majority of
Singaporeans are caring and helpful people but not uncaring and uncharitable
as mentioned by the writer in the passage. As mentioned by the writer in the
passage, the case of the Singaporean traveler who was creating a din and
made a fuss out of the experience was surely an isolated case. He was the
only member in the group who was so agitated and selfish while the other
members of the group remained calm and helpful.
By condemning the whole nation for doings of certain individuals and
the minority, I believe that the writer is over generalizing the case.
In conclusion, I do not agree with the writer that Singaporeans are
ugly. It's inevitable there are some black sheep but this is not unique to our
society only. If you are ready with a smile, and ask if u need help, I think
you'll find that there's warmth in a typical Singaporean on the street, who's
forthcoming with their help. Even for those who display ugly and
inconsiderate behaviors, I believe their ugliness by and large is NOT
reflective of an ugly heart, but rather "each man for himself" mentality or
"there's no free lunch" mentality deep rooted in them. The examples the
writer discussed only represent a mere minority of Singaporeans. However,
it is definitely true that a mature and gracious society must have kind and
caring citizens.
4
Your Opinion:
Band
Reasons
Sample C
Throughout the article ‘The Ugly Singaporean’, the writer brings up many
points, all which revolve around the atrocious conduct of Singaporean.
Indeed, certain facts which are mentioned in the article do reflect badly on
Singaporean’s attitude. However, much of the arguments within the article is
simply speculation and only proven by over-generalized statements made by
the author. Therefore, I disagree to a large portion of the writer’s case.
The writer states that the traits often attributed to affluent, educated
Singaporeans include self-centeredness and insensitivity. I wholly agree to
this view of Singaporeans as there are many examples within our society
which effectively substantiates this statement. Both the writer’s
description of the insensitive Singaporean tourist and his example of ugly
Singaporean behavior like people rushing for train seats and inconsiderate
driving are relevant and commonplace within Singaporean’s community. There
are many other cases which portray Singaporean’s self-centeredness, most
obviously are the results of many fund-raising charity programs like the
Starbuck’s event. Most people at the event, even white collar workers were
present to take advantage of the ‘free’ coffee and only a few had intentions
of donating. Eventually, Starbucks only collected $16,000 dollars for 14,000
cups of coffee, a clear loss in capital for Starbucks. This clearly illustrates
the selfishness of a large majority of Singaporeans. Therefore, this
collective mentality of self-centeredness and blatant portrayal of
insensitivity has indisputably marred the image of the supposedly affluent
and educated Singaporeans.
However, further down the article, The writer speculates that this selfcenteredness and insensitivity might be due to the each-man-for-himself
mentality present in Singapore’s environment. He claims that this is
5
reflected in the upper level of Singapore’s leadership, stating that Minister
Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has a no-welfare, harshly competitive and
unsentimental leadership and Singapore rarely gives charity to countries in
need. Evidence that this is false can be seen from the generous donations
made by Singapore to the victims of the recent Sichuan earthquake. The
charity show broadcasted on television raised $6.85 million just purely out
of donations done in goodwill. Singapore’s government also did not levy the
7% GST tax on this money. This proves Singapore’s society does not promote
an each-man-for-himself mentality and the government of Singapore does
have compassion towards countries in need.
Lastly, the writers said that Singapore’s government has a perception that a
class divide within Singapore between the elites and the rest of the
population is necessary to encourage people to strive harder in life. This is
simply over exaggeration of the idea in which Wee Shu Min and her father
was trying to explain. This argument is similar to that between a communist
thinking and a capitalist thinking. In order for a communist society to work,
everyone has to strive equally hard, however that is not often the case. Thus,
Singapore has adopted a system in which the hardworking and clever rise to
the top which the disadvantaged and lazy do not rise. However, the wroter
failed to mention the situation in reality, including the many policies which
Singapore has adopted so as not to leave these disadvantaged behind. For
example, the government has been stressing on re-training, skills upgrading
and re-adapt to aid workers deprived through structural unemployment and
workers in their old age. Many monetary subsidies are given to the poor to
help them get by, and alternative routes in education help weaker students
obtain equally useful skills in life. Hence, Singapore is a society that rewards
the hardworking and smart, but is in no way and elitist society which
despises the disadvantages.
Thus, in conclusion, I agree with the writer’s stand that Singaporeans
as individuals are indeed self-centered and insensitive. However, in my
opinion this is no implication on the morality and ideas of our society or
government as a whole. Consequently, it is my belief that the writer has
formed untrue ideas of his own about the Singaporean society simply by
extrapolating trends and exaggerating certain events that might simply be
isolated cases.
6
Your Opinion:
Band
Reasons
Sample D
I agree largely with the views of the writer on ‘The Ugly Singaporean’
that certain Singaporeans have become too self-centered and that a mature
country is also defined by its humanity.
Firstly, I do not agree with the writer’s opinion that the embarrassing
behaviour of the Singaporean tourist in China “reflects the overall
selfishness and self-centeredness of middle-class Singaporeans.” I feel that
it is not justified for that particular Singaporean tourist to be held
accountable and responsible for all the middle-class Singaporeans as it was
only that one individual who created such a furor. While he complained, many
other Singaporeans kept their cool and were sensitive enough to understand
what was appropriate at that time. Furthermore, when news of the Sichuan
earthquake got out, many Singaporeans, across the varied social strata,
immediately rallied together willingly, collecting money and donating aid for
the earthquake victims. Some even took it a step further and went over to
China personally, braving the dangers to help out in whatever way they can.
Their heartfelt and noble deeds were a far cry from the insensitive, selfcentered and apathetic reaction from the Singaporean tourist. This is a
clear indication that not all middle-class Singaporeans are like that
particular Singaporean black sheep.
Secondly, I agree with the writer’s opinion that “a mature, developed
country isn’t defined only by wealth and education; it is also about humanity
and concern for others” In reference to the article, I too believe that there
is more to a First World City and a mature country than just the standard of
infrastructure, education and economy. Yes – the standard of living has to be
maintained and Singapore’s only resource (our young minds) has to be refined
7
to truly shine in the future. However, what our government leaders cannot
forget is that no matter how intelligent, rich, revolutionary or innovative our
country is, the social attitudes of our people will always betray us, to invite
others to peer beyond the shiny veneer and realize, that Singapore, severely
falls up short in the social attitude area. The social attitudes of the people
show how a country is able to bestow its people with social consciousness,
sensitivity and to educate the virtues of a caring heart. In such a volatile
world where wars have been fought over the wrong words, such sensitivity
and social consciousness can be of utmost importance. The social attitudes
of Singapore not only affects the way other countries view us and
consequently interact with us through trade, diplomacy or agreements but it
also has great bearing on the dynamics of the country and whether it can be
called a mature, developed one. To be truly a mature, developed country,
Singaporeans have to be concerned for others and not insensitive to the
plight of others, only then can we start caring for the person next to us
enough to start caring for other countries. By this, only then would we be
fulfilling our role as part of the international community as a mature and
developed country.
In conclusion, I disagree with the writer that most middle-class
Singaporeans are self-centered and insensitive while I agree that a mature
developed country has to have good social attitudes and social conciousness.
Your Opinion:
Band
Reasons
8
Sample E
The Singaporean citizens are notorious for many ugly traits — one of them
being their selfishness. While most Singaporeans possess all the wonderful
qualities that a mature society requires of its citizens, there are always a
handful of black sheep who tarnish Singaporeans’ image. As such, I do not
completely agree with the writer’s views.
I do not fully subscribe the writer’s opinion that the incident of the
Singaporean tourist ‘reflects the overall selfishness and self-centeredness
of middle-class Singaporeans’. Though we can often observe some
Singaporeans’ ugly behaviors which range from fighting for seats on MRT to
ignoring of the plight of the less fortunate, this group only represents a
minority of the population. Take the case of the Singaporean tourist who
made a fuss about his experience in Sichuan. He was the only member in the
group who was so agitated and selfish. Other Singaporeans remained
relatively calm and complained little. Furthermore, following the earthquake,
many Singaporeans contributed selflessly to the donation drive to support
the victims of the disaster. The Singapore government was also one of the
few in the world which made an effort to send rescue teams to the disaster
zone. All these show that, by and large, Singaporeans are helpful and
compassionate souls rather than the uncaring and uncharitable lot described
by the writer. The incident of the scholar-daughter of a MP making
inappropriate remarks is, again, an isolated one. The very fact that a
‘nationwide condemnation ensued’ proves that most Singaporeans have a
strong sense of justice and that they do empathize with the needy. By
criticizing the entire population for the vice of one (or a few) individual(s),
the writer is generalizing the issue at hand.
Moving on, the writer claims that a ‘mature, developed country isn’t
defined only by wealth and education; it is also about humanity and concern
for others’. I cannot agree more with this. The more Singaporeans pride on
being a clean and green first-world country with advanced technological
infrastructures, the more Singaporeans have to constantly remind
themselves that their behaviors must be appropriate and considerate. As
aforementioned, a minority of Singaporeans are always marring Singapore’s
name with their acts of disgrace, giving rise to the “Ugly Singaporean”
phenomenon which, sadly though, transcends all genders, ages, races or
9
religions. In view of this, I feel it is the responsibility of the government as
well as the society as a whole to reduce such instances of ugly episodes.
Educational campaigns organized by the government alone are not enough,
what we really need is for everyone to be a social watchdog — to seize out
those uncaring individuals and publicly humiliate them for their selfcenteredness. I do know that the reprehensible attitude of some can never
be eradicated entirely. But if everyone bothers to be just a little more
gracious, a little more conscious, a little more thoughtful — wouldn’t that
make Singapore a much more gracious society?
In conclusion, I do not agree with the writer that Singaporeans are all
egocentric gits as the examples he discussed only represent a minority of
Singaporeans. However, it is true that a mature and gracious society should
have kind and humane citizens.
Your Opinion:
Band
Reasons
Lokelf/Aug2008
10