TEXT A Zero Tolerance /{jt] 8/;7
{:VK} w
New York was once the murder capital of the world. But its urban canyons are no longer the killing fields that earned the city its unenviable title. The annual death, which soared to a record high of 2,245 in 1990,dropped to 760 in 1997. The last time the murder rate was as low as that was 30 years previously in 1967, the year of peace and love and the flowering ofhippiedom. With the decrease in killing has come a marked reduction in enthusiasm for other crime, such as burglaries, robberies and shootings. The old saying, crime doesn't pay, has taken on new life, thanks to hard-line policing introduced by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in 1994. Its success has been such that Giuliani, elected five years ago on a law and order platform, confidently says his city can now be seen as a leader in crime fighting. Such a claim would once have been unimaginable, but the zero-tolerance policing policy introduced by Giuliani and the two men he appointed to run the city's police force, former commissioner with Bratton and former deputy commissioner John Timoney, has turned the mean streets into clean streets. +F8K%.Q_
&Xh> w(u
New York's policing is based on a 1983 paper called "Broken Windows," written by American academics Janes Wison and George Kelling, which suggested a clamp-down on low-level crime as a way of lowering all crime, lfa broken window in an apartment block was not fixed, it was a sign that no one cared. Soon more windows would be broken and a sense of lawlessness engendered, encouraging others to commit more crime. Cleaning up minor crime on the streets was like fixing broken windows, it said, and the flow-on effect would curb more serious crime. m &D I2he
New Yorkers voted for a special tax to raise about US 1 billion to fight crime and another 7,000 officers were added to the force. The responsibility for ways of fighting crime devolved from a centralised bureaucracy to precinct commanders, and police used computers to track and target crime trends more easily. dT% eq7=
5#N< ~
This resulted in a much harder attitude against all crime, "zero tolerance" being the policy of not allowing or tolerating even the smallest crimes. These included begging, minor drug dealing, taggers, turnstile jumpers in the subways and all forms of anti-social behaviour on the streets. Timoney uses turnstile jumpers as an illustration of the broken windows theory at work. Police found that 22 percent of turnstile jumpers were wanted for other crimes or were able for arrest because they carried guns. "We arrested one man simply for jumping a turnstile and found that he was a drug dealer carrying cocaine and 50,000 in his pockets," says Timoney. `H>&d K|/
IGVq`Mx j
New York's transformation attracted global attention and cost Bratton and Timoney their jobs. They were both sacked by Giuliani, who felt they were stealing his glory. Timoney has since acted as a consultant to police throughout the world, preaching the benefits of zero-tolerance policing. Ironically, Bratton, the former Boston beat cop who rose to head Now York's finest, evidently doesn't like the term zero-tolerance because he thinks it implies a lack of tolerance for any deviation from social norms. Critics of New York policing say that intolerance is exactly what zero-tolerance policing encourages. They point out that urban crime has fallen right across the United States in the past five years not just in New York, and even in states where zero-tolerance policing is not practised, while the country's jail population has dramatically increased. Shifts in the nature of America's population ages and character have reduced the number of young men (aged 18-24) most likely to best involved in crime. Crime is also reduced when many more criminals are in jail. ] B3+& g
89GW!
Criminologist Greg Newbold says that crime rates spiral up and down in unexplained cycles and they are no easy solutions to reducing crime. Together sentences and more police mean an increasing drain on tax-payers and there is no certainty that they will continue to lower crime levels. Criminals will learn to live with those methods and find ways around them. <nG}]Smd7
k \;D;e{
Charles Pollard, the chief constable of Thames Valley in Britain, calls zero-tolerance policing a short-term care that works well in urban areas with large amounts of petty crime. Once petty crime is brought under control, he told the Economist, sharp drops in crime will diminish. Observers say the drop in New York crime had to come with the introduction of almost any new tough police policy, because the crime rate was so high. s J^Ff
rw3t U0j
Police Association president Greg O'Connor agrees. "You can talk all the theories you like but, at the end of the day, what will stop criminals from committing crime is the belief that they will be caught. With only 18 percent of burglaries are being solved, and most of them don't believe they will be caught, burglary becomes something of a risk-free occupation." y7CO%SA
[ OUV!o
However, criminologist Newbold argues that zero-tolerance policing is a dangerous fad that risks creating an arrogant police force because it gives police extraordinary powers. Accusations that New York police harassed minorities were heightened last year when two white New York policemen were charged with the beating and sexual torture of Asian immigrant Abner Louima,and two other white officers were charged with assaulting him in a police car. One policeman allegedly told Louima, "It's Giuliani time." But police president O'Connor says that the broken windows approach doesn't necessarily lead to police harassment. He calls zero-tolerance policing a "win-win solution". Other factors must be considered for long-term solutions, "but, if you don't catch criminals, you can't rehabilitate them. All the initiatives have to work but you have to ask, 'will they impact on crime?' and you have to bargain from a position of strength. If you're talking to kids who don't think they are going to get caught and who think the police are a joke, then forget it." Vn:v{-i
=T26vu
Highlighting New York's success provides a subtle message to police and the communities themselves that crime can be stopped. dY0W=,X$7T
8v8- 5N
66. "Zero Tolerance," a new police policy, derives from Kelling. 9
xq3>(
A. James Wison and George B. Rudolph Giuliani qxAh8RR;/
C. William Bratton and John Timoney D. Charles Pollard IDw`k[k
E3[9!L8gb
67. The former commissioner and the former deputy commissioner were sacked because A. they committed crimes themselves. Z
:>3AJuS_
B. they did not obey the rules.
59SL
mj
C. they made the Mayor of New York feel envious. cZF|oZ6<
D. they went to the extremes when they carried out the policy bV2a2#kj
$ kHXt]fU
68. Criminologist Greg Newbold shares different ideas from police president O'Connor in the way I+.U.e^gx
A. emphasizing New York's success provides messages to criminals that crime can be stopped. ~,KrL(jC
B. zero-tolerance policy is just a short-term cure that works well in urban areas with large amounts of petty crimes. &Z!y>k%6
C. the drop in New York crime had to come with the introduction of almost any new tough police policy. V_m!<s r (
D. zero-tolerance policy is a dangerous fad that risks creating an arrogant police force because it gives police extraordinary powers. J(!=Dno
bx{njo1Mr
TEXT B v?6*n >R
Paula Jones' case against Bill Clinton is now, for all possible political consequences and capacity for media sensation, a fairy routine lawsuit of its kind. It does, however, have enormous social significance. For those of us who care about sexual harassment, the matter of Jones v. Clinton is a great conundrum. Consider: if Jones, the former Arkansas state employee, proves her claims, then we must face the fact that we helped to elect someone -- Bill Clinton -- who has betrayed us on this vital issue. But if she is proved to be lying, then we must accept that we pushed onto the public agenda an issue that is venerable to manipulation by alleged victims. The skeptics will use Jones' case to cast doubt on the whole cause. _unoDoB
;Gn>W+Ae
M
Still, Ms Jones deserves the chance to prove her case; she has a right to pursue this claim and have the process work. It will be difficult: these kinds of cases usually are, and Ms. Jones' task of suing a sitting president is harder than most. Pw]r&)I`y[
-z J V(`
She does have one thing sitting on her side: her case is in the courts. Sexual-harassment claims are really about violations of the alleged victims' civil rights, and there is no better forum for determining and assessing those violations -- and finding the truth -- than federal court. The.judicial system can put aside political to decide these complicated issues. That is a feat that neither the Senate Judicial nor ethics committees have been able to accomplish-- witness the Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood affairs. One lesson: the legal arena, not the political one, is the place to settle these sensitive problems. lDKyD`WKnZ
-} j(_] t
Some have argued that the people (the "feminists") who rallied around me have failed to support Jones. Our situations, however, are quite different. In 1991 the country was in the middle of a public debate over whether Clarence Thomas should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Throughout that summer, interest groups on both sides weighed in on his nomination. It was a public forum that invited a public conversation. But a pending civil action -- even one against the president -- does not generally invite that kind of public engagement. "K9[P :nw
p< 0=. ~
Most of the public seems content to let the process move forward. And given the conundrum created by the claim, it is no wonder that many ("feminists" included) have been slow to jump into the Jones-Clinton fray. But people from all works of life remain open to her suit. We don't yet know which outcome we must confront: the president who betrayed the issue or the woman who used it. Whichever it is, we should continue to pursue sexual harassment with the same kind of energy and interest in eliminating the problem that we have in the past, regardless of who is the accused or the accuser. The statistics show that about 40 percent of women in the work force will encounter some form of harassment. We can't afford to abandon this issue now. ik)u/r DW
According to the passage, the Paula Jones' case was nothing important. very significant. doubtful. I9aiAD0s
vulnerable. L
aA<`
GhcH"D%-
70. The federal courts are much better than the Senate Judicial or ethics committees in determining and assessing those violations because __ eg?p )|
A. the federal courts have much bigger power. !T:7xEr
B. the federal courts are forum for determining and assessing those violations. xh
ho{
C. the federal courts are more impartial. j1->w 8
D. the federal courts are political arena. n{~&^Nby*I
j r .{M
71. According to the passage, the issue of sexual harassment must be dealt with seriously because Eul3 {+]
A. the outcome is not known. {E)tzBI;^
B. most of the public is not content. LX&O"YY
C. many have been slow to jump into the Jones-Clinton fray. cp~6\F;c
D. as many as 40% of women in the work force will encounter it. !blG c$kC
zPHx\ z"
72. According to the passage, sexual harassment is to ______ hS AI G
A.violate politics. B.violate the Supreme Court. Pj g#
C. cast doubt on the whole issue D. violate civil rights. r oG<2 i F
'x? | tKzd
Text C P Gxv 4(%
In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into super systems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounted for under 70 percent of the total ton-miles moved by rails. Next year, after a series of mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over 90 percent of all the freight moved by major rail carriers. 5\}Y=Pa
?5lO1(
Supporters of the new super systems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordinated service. Any threat of monopoly, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat.
&,Loq r
Ygg(qB1q
The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one rail company. Railroads typically charge such "captive" shippers 20 to 30 percent more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal to the federal government's Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases. ?aBAmyxm
#wvGS%
Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone's cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It's theory to which many economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail. "Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace?" asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shipper. ? ;5/"/i
1g,gilc
Many captive shippers also worry they will soon be his with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortuning fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the 2 billion bid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail's net railway operating income in 1996 was just million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction. Who's going to pay for the rest of the bill? Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market. 2Z<S^9O9
3^q9ll7Op
73. According to those who support mergers railway monopoly is unlikely because N ~`r;E
A. cost reduction is based on competition. C9k"QPE
B. services call for cross-trade coordination. {IBbN05 ;
C. outside competitors will continue to exist. j1K~zG
D. shippers will have the railway by the throat. ]0% { IgB
^: f)XZ
74. What is many captive shippers' attitude towards the consolidation in the rail industry? 8<Yv:8%B6
A. Indifferent. B. Supportive. >nK (
C. Indignant. D. Apprehensive. RCK* ?\m5
9T`YHA'g
75. It can be inferred from paragraph 3 that L y
v" 2P
A. shippers will be charged less without a rival railroad. \fUVWXv
B. there will soon be only one railroad company nationwide. r,vSDHb` j
C. overcharged shippers are unlikely to appeal for rate relief. N5cC!K
D. a government board ensures fair play in railway business. -(%Xq{
0s}gg[lj
76. The word "arbiters" (line 7, paragraph 4) most probably refers to those Dp} $q`F[
A. who work as coordinators. B. who function as judges. !@ AnwV]
C. who supervise transactions. D. who determine the price. ^y|`\oyqwN
V!+ <
77. According to the text, the cost increase in the rail industry is mainly caused by |
ObA=[j
A. the continuing acquisition. B. the growing traffic. MfFmJ7>Bg
C. the cheering Wall Street. D. the shrinking market. >k/
rJ[Sc
>w\3.6A
Text D Family Matters @_W
ZZ
This month Singapore passed a bill that would give legal teeth to the moral obligation to support one's parents. Called the Maintenance of Parents Bill, it received the backing of the Singapore Government. 'Q*lp !2>
n4+ ^f~Y
That does not mean it hasn't generated discussion. Several members of the Parliament opposed the measure as un-Asian. Others who acknowledged the problem o f the elderly poor believed it a disproportionate response. Still others believe it will subvert relations within the family: cynics dubbed it the "Sue Your Son" law. ({C|(v9 C7
/B{c L`<
Those who say that the bill does not promote filial responsibility, of course, are right. It has nothing to do with filial responsibility. It kicks in where filial responsibility fails. The law cannot legislate filial responsibility any more than it can legislate love. All the law can do is to provide a safety net where this morality proves insufficient. Singapore needs this bill not to replace morality, but to provide incentives to shore it up. j zZEP4
AVc|(~V
Like many other developed nations, Singapore faces the problems of an increasing proportion of people over 60 years of age. hrfSe $8
=`V9{$i
Demography is inexorable. In 19 80, 7.2% of the population was in this bracket. By the end of the century that figure will grow to 11%. By 2030, the proportion is projected to be 26%. The problem is not old age per se. It is that the ratio of economically active people to economically inactive people that will decline. H}1XK|K3#H
k)9
pkPl
But no amount of government exhortation or paternalism will completely eliminate the problem of old people who have insufficient means to make ends meet. Some people will fall through the holes in any safety net. }:b) =fs
:pP l|"
Traditionally, a person's insurance against poverty in his old age was his family, lifts is not a revolutionary concept. Nor is it uniquely Asian. Care an d support for one's parents is a universal value shared by all civilized societies. 2>Kn' p
u H)v\Js
The problem in Singapore is that the moral obligation to look after one's parents is unenforceable. A father can be compelled by law to maintain his children. A husband can be forced to support his wife. But, until now, a son or daughter had no legal obligation to support his or her parents. >+ Im:fD
7zXX&
S
In 1989, an Advisory Council was set up to look into the problems of the aged. Its report stated with a tinge of complacency that 95% of those who did not have their own income were receiving cash contributions from relations. But what about the 5% who aren't getting relatives' support? They have several options: (a) get a job and work until they die; (b) apply for public assistance(you have to be destitute to apply); or(c) starve quietly. None of these options is socially acceptable. And what if this 5% figure grows, as it is likely to do, as society ages? pr1>:0dg
anUH'mcK*
The Maintenance of Parents Bill was put forth to encourage the traditional virtues that have so far kept Asian nations from some of the breakdowns encountered in other affluent societies. This legislation will allow a person to apply t o the court for maintenance from any or all of his children. The court would have the discretion to refuse to make an order if it is unjust. Those who deride the proposal for opening up the courts to family lawsuits miss the point. Only in extreme cases would any parent take his child to court. If it does indeed become law, the bill's effect would be far more subtle. 0'` #I
%#lJn.o
First, it will reaffirm the notion that it is each individual's - not society's - responsibility to look after his parents. Singapore is still conservative enough that most people will not object to this idea. It reinforces the traditional values and it doesn't hurt a society now and then to remind itself of its core values. G\r>3Ys
c 9zMI
Second, and more important, it will make those who are inclined to shirk their responsibilities think twice. Until now, if a person asked family elders, clergymen or the Ministry of Community Development to help get financial support from his children, the most they could do was to mediate. But mediators have no teeth, and a child could simply ignore their pleas. 'd< 1;Ayw
=l}XKl->
But to be sued by one's parents would be a massive loss of face. It would be a public disgrace. Few people would be so thick-skinned as to say, "Sue and be damned". The hand of the conciliator would be immeasurably strengthened. It is far more likely that some sort of amicable settlement would be reached if the recalcitrant son or daughter knows that the alternative is a public trial. )TkXdA?.
<\\,L@
It would be nice to think Singapore doesn't need this kind of law. But that belief ignores the clear demographic trends and the effect of affluence itself on traditional bends. Those of us who pushed for the bill will consider ourselves most successful if it acts as an incentive not to have it invoked in the first place. +~EFR
iP]
i o4/M<6<
78. The Maintenance of Parents Bill 7{ u1ynt
A. received unanimous support in the Singapore Parliament ~5_>$7L>
B. was believed to solve all the problems of the elderly poor zCp XF< _C
C. was intended to substitute for traditional values in Singapore
W}> wRy
D. was passed to make the young more responsible to the old )Yw m_f-N
?_G?SQ
79. By quoting the growing percentage points of the aged in the population, the author seems to imply that __ Cn8w}) B
A. the country will face mounting problems of the old in future 0tah$;c
e
B. the social welfare system would be under great pressure >l0D,-O]m
C. young people should be given more moral education @:G#[>nKe
D. the old should be provided with means of livelihood ZS?4< lXF
X!/
80. Which of the following statements is CORRECT? Qj/.x#T
A. Filial responsibility in Singapore is enforced by law. v.e~m2u_F
B. Fathers have legal obligations to look after their children. ;,jms~ik
C. It is an acceptable practice for the old to continue working. H7R6Ljd?&S
D. The Advisory Council was dissatisfied with the problems of the old
