Topic - Government, Policy

Some observers say that police officers should be recruited from the communities where they work, so that they have local knowledge. Other people say that this is unnecessary, or even undesirable. Where do you stand on this debate? Is local knowledge essential in modern policing?

đăng 23:35, 9 thg 8, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng

The need for effective, trustworthy police officers is paramount in society today, especially as criminals become more devious and creative. Regarding whether police should be locally hired, there is a case to be made on both sides of the debate.

Those who support local recruitment of officers point to the need for the police to understand the minutiae of the local community. For example, a community may have certain frictions or a history of a specific grievance, whether religious, political or otherwise. In such situations, the argument goes, the police need to show sensitivity, and also be able to anticipate the kinds ofcrimes that may be committed. Furthermore, local officers may find it easier to gain informants in the community, leading to stronger evidence at trials, higher conviction rates and a deterrent to crime through sentencing, imprisonment, fines or community service leading to the rehabilitation of the offender.

On the other hand, it seems likely that officers from the community may in fact share some of the tendencies of the people they grew up with. For example, in countries such as Mexico, we see a high incidence of corruption among the local business and government community which is equaled by bribery among the police. A second objection is that local sensitivity may lead to the police failing to enforce laws fully, and effectively making exceptions for some offenders, which is inequitable towards law-abiding citizens. Finally, we must remember that police officer should have transferable skills, such as lateral thinking and investigative ability, which should transcend their background or the environment they are working in.

Overall, it seems to me that local knowledge is not absolutely essential for the police, whose skills should be effective in any context. Indeed, I agree with those who say that the risks oflocal recruitment outweigh the benefits, because ofthe danger ofcorruption and over-familiarity with potential offenders

It is impossible to help all people in the world, so governments should only focus on people in their own countries. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

đăng 07:21, 22 thg 3, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng   [ đã cập nhật 07:21, 22 thg 3, 2017 ]

The role of one government to support citizens of other countries has been a major topic of concern in today’s society. From my perspective, this practice is feasible and there are compelling reasons why governments should help people in the global community rather than
only focusing on the citizens of their own countries.

In this context of globalisation and international integration, the provision of assistance for peoples of all countries in the world is not an impossible task anymore. One explanation for this is that modern means of transport have transformed the way that international assistance could be given, and now assistance could reach even the most remote places on Earth. For example, thousands of victims of a deadly earthquake in a mountainous city in Nepal were rescued by US and German military helicopters in 2014. One further explanation is that thanks to international banking, the international community could offer a helping hand to any country where the financial system is on the verge of collapse. An excellent example of this is that the saving money of millions of taxpayers and pensioners in Greece was saved by a timely act of the
ropean Commission of injecting a huge amount of bailout money into Greek banks in 2009. 

I strongly believe any government must assume the responsibility of helping citizens in other countries. This is mainly because assisting inhabitants in other countries, to some extent, is synonymous to assisting people in the home country. In 2014, hundreds of US and UK doctorsand nurses were sent to African countries to cope with the outbreak of Ebola, a dreadful plague,which had killed many thousands by that time. This action prevented the plague from further spreading to other nations, including the US and the UK themselves, considering that there was a  free movement of people between countries and there were millions of African migrant workers in the US and the UK at that time. In addition, the act of supporting people all around the world may promote a sense of humanity, which is essential to the sustainable development of the world, because humanity is the foundation of peace and stability.

To conclude, governments must provide assistance for citizens of other countries for a clear reason that this feasible act could simultaneously enhance a global sense of humanity and assure their own nationals of a proper living environment.

(395 words – written by Tu Pham)

The government and individuals are spending too much money on national celebrations like new year or festivals. Do you agree or disagree?

đăng 20:51, 20 thg 3, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng   [ đã cập nhật 20:51, 20 thg 3, 2017 ]

People have different views about whether public expenditure on national occasions such as new year  or  festivals  is  too  much  nowadays.  While  I  agree  that  governments  and  individuals  are spending a significant amount of money on those celebrations, I would argue that this activity is necessary and therefore can be considered acceptable.

It is true  that a large amount of money is currently spent on some important celebrations of a country.  Firstly,  governments  are  spending  a  proportion  of  their  budget  on  holding  events  to celebrate these occasions. For example, much money is being paid for fireworks on New Year's eve  in  many  countries  around  the  world.  Secondly,  individuals  also  spend  money  to  have celebrations and parties with their families, which is a common habit in many areas. For instance, my parents and I often have a special dinner on the final day of every year.

However,  I  believe  there  are  great  benefits  of  public  spending  on  national  celebrations,  and therefore it is completely justifiable. The first advantage is that this is a great way to preserve the culture of a nation. To illustrate, Lunar New Year is an important part of the Vietnamese culture, and holding celebrations for this occasion is necessary to remind younger generations of this tradition. Additionally, since these occasions are usually the only times for family members to have  time and enjoy together, it is understandable that people would want to spend money on something that makes them happy. Finally, as there are only a few national celebrations in a year, the amount of money spent on those days is unlikely to be too much.

In  conclusion,  I  disagree  with  the  idea  that  people  and  governments  are  spending  too  much money on national occasions.

(288 words, by IELTS Quang Thắng)

Some people say taxes should be spent on health care. Other people say that there are more important priorities for tax-payers' money. Discus both these views and give your own opinion.

đăng 18:02, 20 thg 3, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng   [ đã cập nhật 18:02, 20 thg 3, 2017 ]

People hold different views about how taxes should be spent. Although I agree that medical care is a field that requires huge investments, I believe that the government should also allocate the money for other priorities, such as education and transport.

On the one hand, a certain amount of tax money has to go to healthcare services. Today, a number of particular diseases are on the rise in terms of popularity, and it would be costly to supply vaccines, medicines or treatments. For example, a large proportion of the population is now suffering from respiratory diseases or lung cancer due to exhaust fumes from vehicles and gas  emissions  from  industrial  factories.  The  remedies  for  those  patients  and  the  treatment facilities are often expensive, and the hospitals may find themselves in the struggle with financial problems without the assistance from the tax system.

On the other hand, healthcare is not the only industry that needs money to be kept running. Take education as an example. The quality of the schooling system is proportional to the competence of the future workforce. Therefore, a country can benefit from such skillful human resources in the long-term if they invest the tax budget to build schools, provide lecturers with training courses or hire native speakers to teach foreign language. In addition, the government should also spend money  solving  transport  problems.  Traffic  congestion  is  a  global  issue  these  days,  and  the scenario can be handled only if new highways are opened, and narrow public roads are expanded.

In conclusion, I believe that the government should use  tax-payers’ money to improve not only the healthcare services, but also the education and transportation system.

(276 words - by thanhnguyen)

Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given in the protection of wild animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree about this opinion?

đăng 01:35, 20 thg 3, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng   [ đã cập nhật 02:08, 20 thg 3, 2017 ]

The protection of wildlife has become a frequent subject of debate with strong arguments for and against. Personally, I believe that humans are paying too much attention and allocating too many resources to this issue, as will now be explained.

Firstly, if we allow any species to disappear, this is actually not a disaster. Some people may argue that the biology will be seriously affected if birds and wild animals are on the verge of extinction, but this is an exaggeration. Fossil evidence suggests that the mass disappearance of the dinosaur did not cause any harm to other species on the Earth but merely triggered the emergence of others such as the mammal. Therefore, we should not devote too much attention to the protection of wildlife.

Secondly, public money is limited. This means that the national budget should be allocated to more urgent issues rather than expending too much in the conservation of wild animals and birds. For example, more resources should be diverted to medical research to find out remedies for fatal diseases such as HIV and cancer, which may help to save thousands of lives in society.

Finally, the government can simply protect wildlife by continuing campaigns to raise public awareness of the protection of wildlife habitats, or impose stricter punishments on activities that may harm wild animals. Any individual who hunts wildlife for food or for pleasure should be givena heavy fine, and this may discourage them from threatening the life of wild animals.

In conclusion, while I do not refute the argument for the conservation of wildlife, I believe that it should attract less attention and fewer resources from the public.

(276 words – written by ielts.vinh)

Some people think that there should be some strict controls about noise. Others think that they could just make as much noise as they want. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

đăng 01:32, 20 thg 3, 2017 bởi Nam Đỗ Hoàng   [ đã cập nhật 02:08, 20 thg 3, 2017 ]

People have different views about whether noise should be limited. While some individuals believe the level of noise being created should be strictly controlled, I would argue that people should have the right to produce noise if they want to.

On the one hand, there are several reasons why the government should control the amount of noise produced. The first reason is that too much noise can significantly affect people's health. Living in a place that is too noisy can cause problems such as headaches, which can decrease the health levels of people, especially old ones. Additionally, noise can disturb people's work or study. For example, a university student will not be able to concentrate on his preparation for exams if his neighbours keep singing too loud.

However, I believe people should be allowed make as much noise as they want because of some reasons. Firstly, producing noise is sometimes considered a type of recreational activities. For instance, singing or cheering for a football club can be relaxing, and everyone has the right to do those things. Secondly, as the world is becoming more modern, people have found ways to deal with the problem of noise. Scientists have invented walls and windows that can block out the noise, which allows individuals to focus on their work without being disturbed. Therefore, the problem of noise can be reduced and there is no need for people to keep quiet.

In conclusion, while many people believe there should be controls about noise, I believe we have the right to create noise when we want to.

(262 words – by Quang Thắng)

1-6 of 6