Writing Feedback / Life now is better than it was 100 year ago. Agree or disagree? [3]

Over the last century, people's lives is better than before. While some people think that life now has brought them to robotic era since human are too relying on auto technology, I personally believe that nowadays era gives many benefits for people.

I would argue that life now is better than 100 years ago due to the enhancement in public facilities. For example, in Singapore, many schools are built so that children can get well educated. As the result, Singapore has changed to be one of the most developed countries in the world.

...

Writing Feedback / In order to avoid confusion of difference behaviour, many companies have developed a guideline [2]

Many cultures exist in the world, which more attention should be paid when people are going to do business internationally. In some countries, the cultural behaviour of doing business is different. First area of the difference is when people saying 'no'. For example, while Japanese businessperson rarely say no to each other or to business people from other countries, American are more likely say no quickly. As a result, negotiating with Japanese will take a long discussion even though the finally answer is negative, while American think that say straight to the point is more effective.

Secondly, another area of the difference is personal distance, which means how close business people to stand each other when they talk. For Japanese and Latin American, they tend to stand closely to show how friendly they are in business agreement. Otherwise, Americans are more likely make a distance due to avoid a suspicious to others.

Thirdly, the difference area when business people accept business cards. For Japanese, exchanging business cards is important. They could take 10 or 15 minutes to study and discuss each business card carefully to see the qualifications and experiences. However, Americans usually accept the cards quickly. They see it just for a glance and get it into pocket to be seen later.

Fourthly, ethical behaviour of accepting bribery in some countries is also distinctive. In the United States, bribery conducts to illegal business. Either people who offer or accept bribes can be judged as criminal activity and can be jailed. On the other hand, in some countries in Europe, business gifts are more acceptable. In Spain, bribes are regular part of doing business. It is not a big deal even though bribes are illegal. In Germany, bribes are free but it makes the tax revenue of people who receive it should be raised. While in Russia, bribes and personal connection are essential parts in dealing with most business organisation or government.

In order to avoid confusion of difference behaviour, many companies have developed a guideline to handle ethical issues, namely code of ethics. It helps employees to understand what type of behaviour that are and are not acceptable when doing business. In the United States, for example, they have 'whistle-blower' laws to prevent organisation from discriminating against employees who report misconduct ethical behaviour. More over, companies also can train the employees to give them knowledge about business ethics such as shaking hand or exchanging business card. Ultimately, it is also important to introduce an approach, called 'think global, act local', to the employees since the companies can be cooperate many of ideas and procedure of business.

Writing Feedback / Children, in accordance with their passion, understand better what jobs are more suitable for them. [2]

"Should young people choose their professions, or should their parents choose for them?"

More attention should be paid on children's future. While some people think that parents should help their children's future by choosing their profession, I personally believe that it is better for children to decide their own profession.

The first positive side of parents chooses profession for their children is they know exactly what suitable profession for their children. It is because parents are the closest people who know their children development since they were born. A children psychologist from Texas said that the decision, which parents made, could help children when they get lost about their future. As a result, not a few children get success on their career by following parents' decision.

In addition, children do not have to waste their time to find a job. For example, after they graduate from university, children can start working because their parents have already prepared a job for them. It is thus clear that children do not have to be unemployment and have an opportunity to make a faster career.

However, there are also some reasons why young people should choose their own profession. Firstly, children are more understand what jobs are suitable with their passion. An online survey held by Kompas online newspaper revealed that 75% young workers are easily getting stress because the profession is not as their expectations. Secondly, many young people tend to be independent person when they choose their own jobs. They learn how to be responsible such as making a report, maintaining their own finance, or making a presentation. Thirdly, young people will have a strong mental and tend to be mature. Mostly independent young people are not easy to give up to reach their target of life than children who usually are prepared a job by their parents.

In conclusion, it seems to me that although the parents' role are important to make sure their children get a better future, I strongly believe that it is much better for a children to decide what profession they want. Where possible, both parents and children should make two-ways communication so that they can have a same perception of profession.

Writing Feedback / IELTS: Should unemployed people be made to work for their benefit payments? [2]

Topic:
Some people believe that unemployed people should be made to work for their welfare/benefit payments. Others, however, see this as cheap labor.
Discuss the possible advantages and disadvantages of making unemployed people take any job.
Do you believe that making unemployed people work is a good idea?

Answer:

Unemployment is one of commonly problem in the developing countries. Some people think that several jobs should be provided for unemployed people even though others see this as the form of outsourcing labor. I would argue that making unemployed people to take any job will make them being productive inhabitants, who can contribute to increase the country's income, and also automatically will reduce the rate of unemployment.

It is true that making people who do not have a job will make them being cheap labor since their academic level cannot compete with professional workers. Result shows that mostly companies are looking for employees who have a degree certificate than they who are only high school graduates although they have an equal skill. It is thus clear that unemployed people who are given a job will be lower salary labor.

In addition, the high rate of unemployment triggers to an outsourcing system, which hires cheap labor with no social guarantee. The result of a research held by National University in Indonesia proved that many workers who are involved to this system do not get a health guarantee that has already regulated by the government. As a result, the outsourcing company often cut the workers' salary that is expensive under treatment. It is imperative that cheap labor occurs as a consequence of the high number of unemployed people.

However, in my opinion, hiring jobless people will bring some benefits not only for the workers itself but also for the states. First, unemployed people will be productive. They will produce money to fulfil their daily essentials. Second, the rate of unemployment is going to decrease, which also means it will increase the rate of welfare people. Take Indonesia as an example, the government announced to public in 2010 that unemployment rate has been decreasing over the last 10 years due to many career opportunist which are provided by government. It is evident that there is a significant effect of making unemployed people work. Third, it cannot be denied that more people have a job and produce money, more tax revenue that the state can get.

In conclusion, it seems to me that although providing jobs for unemployed people will do not guarantee them get a good salary, I strongly believe that it is better for jobless people to have an occupation as they can produce income not only for themselves but also for the country. Where possible, the government should improve the controlling system to guarantee the social welfare of labor.

Writing Feedback / Increasing the petrol price as problem solving of traffic jam and pollution. Agree or disagree? [2]

Topic:
Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
What other measures do you think might be effective?

Traffic congestion and pollution are common problems in a city that are complicated to be solved. Whilst some people think that the best way to deal with these problems is by increasing the price of petrol, I personally believe that a total increase in petrol prices is not good for nation economy since it influences to the rise of goods prices. I also believe that there are other effective ways to tackle the traffic growth and pollution issues.

I would argue that increasing the price of petrol could stimulate people to change their daily travel from private to public transport. Take Singapore as an example, the Singaporean are more likely to use public transport since the government implemented policies such as rising the price of petrol and applying a high tax for owning private vehicles. As a result, the people of Singapore are leaving their own vehicles at home and starting to use public transport because it is much cheaper. It is thus clear that increasing the price of petrol has reduced the traffic jam and the amount of pollution.

Conversely, it is inevitable that, as a consequence of increasing petrol prices, the cost of goods will also increase as many goods are often transported by lorries. Since the government of Indonesia increased the petrol prices in 2014 due to the rising of world's oil price, it turned the food prices and travel costs into very expensive. Hence, the idea of getting petrol prices high does not help an economy, whereas it brings to a malady system. Moreover, the impacts of converted transport from private to public should be taken for account. A Malaysian study case shows that some people are less likely to use public transportation such as LRT, monorail, bus, taxi and so on since they know that public transportation gives more negative impacts. For example, Malaysian commuters are difficult to move from one place to another if they still use public transport. As a result, they tend to use private cars even though they should spend more money for petrol. Not only this, more people feel uncomfortable with this situation in public transport where crimes are frequently committed.

As far as I'm concerned, there are some other ways that could be more appropriate to tackle these issues. Firstly, the government should provide societies the best public transportation by making it as convenient as private vehicles, but still in affordable cost. This way is believed could attract them to use mass transport than the private ones. Secondly, the government should be brave to restrict the massively number of selling vehicles. When more people buy vehicles, more people will use it on the road that mean traffic congestion cannot be neglected anymore. Thirdly, the government should build a new traffic system that prevent all private transport to operate together in the same day so that the traffic flow will keep fluent. All of this point is that rather than increasing the petrol price, these ways could be more suitable due to the less of side effects to other sectors.

In brief, it is evident that although increasing the petrol price could reduce the traffic congestion and pollution problems, I personally argue that it much more effective when the government pay their attention to provide proper public transport and create strict policies particularly in traffic system. Where possible, people should be more aware that to solve these issues are not only the government responsibility, but also people as the citizens who live in.

Writing Feedback / The fixed punishment won't be as effective as a shock therapy to prevent a criminal actions [NEW]

Topic:
Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.

Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

In this modern age, the criminal rates have extremely increased in some countries. For this reason, some people think that fixed punishments for each type of crime should be applied as it can give people a fear effect. However, I personally believe that the motivation and conditions should be cogitated when it comes to deciding punishment since it must be distinguished for each offender.

I would argue that the fixed punishment might be an effective as a shock therapy to prevent more people from committing a criminal action. In Saudi Arabia, for example, there is a law for a suspect who kills someone will be punished by death penalty. In turn, this country has a lower rate of crime than other Arabic countries. It is thus clear that the fixed punishment has made people to be fear to commit a crime.

Conversely, the motivation and conditions of people committing crimes should be taken into account by the judges due to its differences. For instance, Aminah, a grandmother who lives only with her husband in Karanganyar village, Indonesia, had stolen some cassavas from a farming land belongs to a well-known company because she did not have money for meals. As such, the judges punished her previously for a year being jailed to only three months. It is clear that the reason behind someone against a law is not always be the same, which means that it must be an essential consideration for the judges.

As far as I'm concerned, the punishment for each kind of criminal should not be generalised because it seems unfair. Two suspects might be have the similar murdering cases, but it could be different when it comes to the motivation and condition behind it. The former has planned to kill another person for a long time as a revenge action, but the latter one commit a murder on behalf of self defence. It shows that both suspects definitely have a different reason which is why the punishment also needs to be proper.

In brief, it is evident that although the fixed punishment could affect people to rethink for doing crime, I personally argue that it will be more fair if the judges could consider the motivation and condition of people doing that. Where possible, when deciding a punishment for a criminal, the judges could ask public opinions in order to get a balance view.