This question asks whether Singapore does enough to help and encourage people to live healthily, or whether more could and should be done.
Question type: To what extent
An ETG General Paper original study guide to the 2025 A-Level GP Paper 1 essay on society & culture. Not affiliated with, or endorsed by, UCLES, Cambridge Assessment or SEAB. A study aid, not an official answer.
The question assumes 'enough' can be judged by counting policies, when a society can do a great deal to encourage health and still fall short because encouragement is not the same as changed behaviour.
conditions: Singapore does more than almost any society on physical-health encouragement, but 'enough' depends on the measure, since effort is high, outcomes lag, and mental health and the social drivers of unhealthy living are under-addressed.
How to approach it. Calibrate whether Singapore does enough to encourage healthy living, defining 'enough' and 'encourage' and judging effort against outcomes and against the limits of the state's role.
Judged by effort, Singapore does more than almost any society to encourage a healthy lifestyle; judged by outcomes and by what it leaves out, it does not yet do enough, because encouragement has not closed the behaviour gap, mental health lags physical, and the social conditions that drive unhealthy living are barely touched, so the verdict is criterion-dependent.
The state has built the paths, graded the drinks, subsidised the screenings and enrolled people with doctors, so at some point a citizen who ignores all of it is exercising a freedom the word 'encourage' is meant to preserve, and blaming the society for individual choices misreads the question. But this defence works only if the encouragement reaches everyone equally and the conditions allow people to act on it, and neither holds: the schemes reach the motivated, mental health lags, and the social drivers go unaddressed, so 'we have done our part' is true of effort and false of effect.
Singapore does more to encourage a healthy lifestyle than almost any society, and on the measure of effort and design the answer is yes; but on outcomes, on mental health and on the social conditions that crowd out healthy living, it does not yet do enough, so I agree only to a limited extent, and the gap is not for want of campaigns but because encouragement reaches the willing and leaves the causes of unhealthy living in place.
Whether Singapore does enough depends on which lever you judge, because its approach is deliberately split: it nudges hard, compels selectively, and barely touches the social conditions, so it does more than enough in the nudge domain, exactly as much as it chooses in the compulsion domain, and not nearly enough in the domain that shapes behaviour most.
Asking a health ministry to fix work culture and cost of living stretches 'encourage a healthy lifestyle' well beyond nudges and bans, and a society could reasonably say it has done enough within the proper scope of health promotion. But the question asks what the society does, not what one ministry does, and the social conditions are precisely what determine whether the nudges land, so excluding them defines 'enough' down to the easy domains and quietly concedes that the hard one is left undone.
Whether enough is done depends entirely on the lever: Singapore does more than enough in the nudge domain and as much as it chooses in the compulsion domain, but not nearly enough in the domain of social conditions that shapes behaviour most, so I agree only within the easy domains, and the society does enough exactly where it costs little and falls short exactly where doing enough would cost it most.
Option A runs on conditions, judging 'enough' against effort, outcome, scope and root causes to reach a criterion-dependent verdict. Option B runs on domain, splitting the society's effort into nudge, compulsion and social conditions and showing it does enough only where it is easy. Both are defensible: A is the calibrated effort-versus-outcome 'your society' answer; B reframes by lever to reach a sharper 'enough where cheap, not where it counts' verdict.

These outlines are free to read. Book a trial lesson to have your own GP essays marked against the band descriptors, the way ETG teaches General Paper from the exam backwards.