Category: English

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.

In 100 countries around the world, women are barred from doing certain work solely because they are women. Over 150 countries have at least one law that is discriminatory towards women. And only 18 countries are free of any law disadvantaging women. This is just the tip of the iceberg of legal barriers for women to achieve their full economic potential. New World Bank Group research in the ‘Women, Business and the Law 2016’ report shows that in 32 countries women cannot apply for passports in the same way as men and in 18 countries they cannot get a job if their husbands feel it is not in the family’s interest. Jordan and Iran are among them. In 59 countries, there are no laws against sexual harassment at work. Myanmar, Uzbekistan and Armenia are among 46 countries where there is no legal protection against domestic violence. In a nutshell, the research makes for depressing reading when you care about inclusion and ending poverty. Countries whose laws discriminate against women and do not promote gender equalitydeteriorate economically. Previous research tells us that gender gaps in women’s entrepreneurship and labour force participation account for estimated income losses of 27 per cent in West Asia and North Africa; 19 per cent in South Asia; 14 per cent in Latin America and the Caribbean; and 10 per cent in Europe. These are losses that many countries can’t afford, particularly those facing high levels of poverty.

There is good news too: countries like Bangladesh are invigorating participation of women in the workforce. If they stay on track, their female workforce will grow from 34 to 82 per cent over the next decade, adding 1.8 percentage points to their GDP. In the 1990s very few countries had laws protecting women from violence; now 127 do partially because the world is more aware of the human and economic cost of mistreating women. When women are allowed to work in a profession of their choice, when they have access to financial services and when they are protected, by law, from domestic violence, they are not only economically empowered, they also live longer. The more say they have over the household income and the more they participate in the economy, the more girls are enrolled in secondary school, the larger the benefits for their children, their communities, and their countries. In fact, every additional year of primary school boosts girls’ eventual wages by 10 to 20 per cent, and an extra year of secondary school by 15 to 25 per cent. Critics will argue that in some countries where gender-specific laws endure, there is limited enforcement. While that is true, better rule of law is associated with having more gender-equal laws on the books. Specialised courts that tackle cases of acts of violence against women can help provide effective legal action. In Brazil, the Maria da Penha Law allowed for the creation of domestic and family violence courts. Several South Asian countries don’t afford women the same rights as men. But some countries have made important strides in addressing these issues, leading to great results. In India, inheritance law reform has provided greater economic freedom to women. Women used their increased savings to spend twice as much money on their daughters’ education. The private sector benefits too. A survey of 6,500 firms showed that where women had greater representation on boards, those organisations were less likely to be hit by scandals like bribery or fraud. Yet, surprisingly, only nine countries have laws where at least one woman has to be a board member of a publicly listed company. Policymakers have a choice. They can use the overwhelming evidence that shows the economic benefits of equality by ridding their system of discriminating laws that are holding women back. Or they can maintain the status quo and condemn whole societies to remain poorer then they need to be.

Q1) What is author’s main objective in writing the passage?

a) Policymakers can use the evidence that shows the economic benefits of equality by ridding their system of discriminating laws that are holding women back.

b) To make the world more aware of the human and economic cost of mistreating women.

c) To remove barriers for women to achieve their full economic potential.

d) To suggest making of laws allowed for the creation of domestic and family violence courts.

e) None of the above.

Q2) Which of the following best explain the meaning of the idiom ‘tip of the iceberg’ in context of the passage?

a) To be almost incredibly fortunate.

b) To show someone to be less good and important than they think they are.

c) To refer a situation in which you or someone else is seeing only a small part of what is really a bigger problem.

d) To make a scheme, arrangement etc ineffective.

e) None of the above.

Q3) Which of the following statement is/are not true in context of the passage?

i. If countries encourage participation of women in the workforce it can add 1.8 percentage points to their GDP.

ii. Countries whose laws discriminate against women and do not promote gender equality suffer economically.

iii. A survey showed that where women had greater representation on boards, those organizations were less likely to hit by scandals like bribery or fraud.

a) Both i and ii

b) Only iii

c) Only ii and iii

d) All i, ii and iii

e) None of the above.

Q4) Which of the following can be the most suitable title of the passage?

a) Facts and Figures: Economic Empowerment of women

b) Statistical analysis of women position worldwide

c) Barriers to the empowerment of women

d) The bias against women keeps countries poorer

e) None of the above.

Q5) What is the author’s ‘tone or attitude’ in this passage?

a.) Skeptical

b.) Analytical

c.) Judgemental

d.) Informative

e.) Sarcastic

Directions (6 to 8): Choose the word which is most SIMILAR in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q6) Nutshell

a) Concisely

b) Redundant

c) Regularly

d) Verbose

e) Tedious

Q7) Invigorating

a) Instigating

b) Sanctioning

c) Emboldening

d) Dissuading

e) Dampening

Q8) Enforcement

a) Surveillance

b) Renunciation

c) Abandon

d) Execution

e) Spying

Directions (9 – 10): Choose the word which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q9) Endure

a) Cease

b) Prevail

c) Latent

d) Subsist

e) Coexist

Q10) Deteriorate

a) Assuage

b) Languish

c) Agonize

d) Writhe

e) Abide

Answers

In the meeting in Ufa, Russia, between the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers, Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif, held on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation conclave in July 2015, the leaders agreed to, among other things, talks being held in New Delhi between the National Security Advisers (NSA) of India and Pakistan, which was “billed” as the most important takeaway. However, no one in India — possibly no one in Pakistan as well — should mourn the demise of talks that were not held in the end. Strident rhetoric emanating from both capitals, which was further embellished by the media in both countries, had threatened to convert the talks into a “theatre of the absurd”. Hence, it was almost providential that Pakistan called off the talks.

Talks between India and Pakistan suffer from certain inbuilt defects. India, far more than Pakistan, has always been keen to engage in direct talks with the latter. Pakistan prefers instead to talk to the rest of the world, if only to accuse India of perfidy, especially when it comes to Kashmir.

Pressures and outcomes

India’s desire to periodically up the ante for talks stems from a combination of international and domestic pressures to which India succumbs from time to time. Much of the international pressure comes from lobbies in the West, including the United States. The domestic peace offensive tends to be equally persuasive in pushing the envelope regarding holding talks. Pakistan has far fewer stakes, or for that matter qualms, about the outcomes where talks are concerned. Hence, it has far greater latitude in this regard, including of sabotaging talks if and when they are held. Pakistan’s real problem is that it is the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Army that determine when to talk, and even on how to marshal arguments, often with little regard to the truth.

Of late, there has also been an unfortunate trend of the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan holding bilateral meetings on the sidelines of global meets or events — whether they relate to issues that are of economic and strategic importance or on any other aspect. This is accompanied by pressures for significant outcomes, irrespective of whether the times are propitious for such talks or the regional and geo-political situation lends itself to holding such talks. Preparations tend to be a casualty in these circumstances and, inevitably, such meetings result in less than favourable outcomes. Prime Ministerial meetings in recent years — Lahore (1999), Agra (2001) and Islamabad (2004), during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s time; Havana (2006) and Sharm el-Sheikh (2009), during Dr. Manmohan Singh’s time; and now Ufa (Narendra Modi), are best remembered for what they failed to achieve than for their results.

The reasons are fairly obvious. Operating under the glare of international observers and the world media, pressures are generated to come up with path-breaking initiatives. These result in ignoring reality and real concerns which can only be circumvented through careful and detailed groundwork, including preparation of position papers and the like. Without this, possibilities of forward movement are indeed limited and more likely doomed. Nevertheless, attempts do, and will continue. Intrinsic to this is an element of grandstanding that leaders indulge in — an essential concomitant of summit-level diplomacy.

With the announcement of the NSA-level talks, without due preparations being made, it might have been anticipated that it contained the seeds of its own failure. Furthermore, statements and agreements reached between the heads of government require careful vetting so as to leave no scope for differing interpretations, as has arisen in the present instance. This is especially important when the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan meet since only a very small window of opportunity exists.

The timing of the initiative was again rather unfortunate. By its constant shelling across the Line of Control, Pakistan had already demonstrated that it was in no mood for talks. Subsequent to the announcement of NSA-level talks came the terror attacks in India — in Gurdaspur (July 2015) and Udhampur (August 2015) — which only seemed to reinforce Pakistan’s intentions. The Pakistani High Commissioner’s “high jinks” later, and the Pakistan NSA Sartaj Aziz’s insistence on holding talks with the Hurriyat prior to the NSA-level talks, further confirmed Pakistan’s disinclination for holding talks.

Terror strikes and Kashmir

Hence, India, as the prime mover of the talks, should have taken particular care to deny Pakistan an opportunity or excuse to derail the talks. The very fact that Pakistan agreed to “talk about terror” at the NSA level, which would have given India an opportunity to put on the table factual details of Pakistan’s failure to deal with terrorists on its soil — including not taking action against those responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, such as its mastermind Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi — should have alerted India about Pakistan’s possible perfidy.

Presuming that India wanted the NSA-level talks to succeed, then India’s logic of trading charges even before the talks were held — which was carried out through the medium of “leaks” from voluminous dossiers prepared by India to confront Pakistan — was a flawed one. It was also clearly futile to try and pit India’s carefully prepared documents against Pakistan’s “tissue of lies”, as there could be no winners. Rather than confront Pakistan with these facts, India would have done well to put forward ideas and concepts that would try and help narrow the differences and keep the door open for another round of talks at a more propitious moment.

Again, India must have been extremely naive to believe that there could be an India-Pakistan dialogue without Pakistan making Kashmir its centerpiece, even if it did not form part of the Ufa agreement, as stated by the Union Minister of External Affairs and Overseas Indian Affairs, Sushma Swaraj. The “K” word is a part of Pakistan’s DNA, and anyone who has dealt with that country over the past half a century, would know that Kashmir is always the “400 pound gorilla” in the meeting room. India should have anticipated this and resorted to some flanking moves of its own to ensure that the talks did not get derailed. This smacks of a “suspension of belief” about the nature and record of the Pakistani state, and a case of gross amnesia on India’s part.

India had more to lose by the talks not being held. In the short term, Pakistan has obtained a fair idea of how much India knew about developments in Pakistan, including the whereabouts of India’s No.1 fugitive, Dawood Ibrahim. India’s hope that the talks would pave the way for a conducive climate in which some of the critical aspects of terror could be addressed, has, meanwhile, proved to be a non-starter. It has left Pakistan laughing all the way to the Arabian Sea. The more serious casualty is the setback to any such future problem-solving approach. In all this, India seemed to come out second best.

Gains for the ‘sword-arms’

There are several other negative fallouts as well from the aborted NSA-level talks. Both factions of the Hurriyat — Pakistan’s acknowledged “fifth column” — have gained a degree of prominence when their fortunes were almost at their nadir. This constitutes a setback to India’s efforts over the years to marginalise them. It will give Hurriyat supporters fresh grist to indulge in violent demonstrations in places like Srinagar and Baramulla. The recent spurt in Islamist radicalisation in the Valley is also likely to get a fillip and become infused with new vigour.

Pakistan-based terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) can also be expected to exploit the so-called breakdown in relations, and India should brace itself to confront a fresh wave of terror attacks. As it is, the graph of militancy in Jammu and Kashmir has been going up of late, and the latest events should aggravate matters. The LeT, being the recognised “sword-arm” of the ISI and the Pakistani state, will be the main gainer.

Meanwhile, there are several lessons to be learnt from the latest “mishap”. Negotiations with Pakistan, especially at senior levels, clearly demand more careful thought and planning. Talks should not be launched on the basis of pressure exerted by those on the periphery, and from those who constantly “applaud” India’s determination to “talk on terror” despite Pakistan’s belligerence. Detailed planning for the success of any such talks should include measures to minimise the fallout if talks fail. Every opportunity should be provided, if talks fail, to revive or restart them at an appropriate time. Most important, talks at this level need to be held when the regional and geo-political situation is suitable for negotiations, and Pakistan demonstrates some inclination to resort to negotiations, rather than engage in provocations.

Q1. According to the passage, what would be the the title of it?
1) Getting the talk atmospherics wrong
2) Getting the talk atmospherics correct
3) Getting the talk atmospherics right
4) Talks which turned into futility
5) None of these.

Q2. Which of the following statements is/ are correct according to the passage?
A) The “K” word is a part of Pakistan’s DNA, and anyone who has dealt with that country over the past half a century
B) Pakistan’s real problem is that it is the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Army that determine when to talk, and even on how to marshal arguments, often with little regard to the truth.
C) While repeated coups and coup attempts have weakened the country’s democracy and governance structures.
1) Only A and C
2) Only B and C
3) Only A and B
4) All of these.
5) None of these.

Q3. Which of the following statements is/ are wrong according to the passage?
A) India, far more than Pakistan, has always been keen to engage in direct talks with the latter.
B) Pakistan has obtained a fair idea of how much India knew about developments in Pakistan, including the whereabouts of India’s No.1 fugitive, Dawood Ibrahim.
C) without due preparations being made, it might have been anticipated that it contained the seeds of its own failure.
1) Only A and B
2) Only A and C
3) Only B and C
4) All of these
5) None of these

Q4. What does the phrase “up the ante” mean which is used in the passage?
1) Raise the demand
2) Raise the expectation
3) Raise the exception
4) Raise the supply
5) None of these

Directions (Q.5-6); Choose the word which is most SIMILAR in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Directions (Q.1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.
Thailand is no stranger to political violence. The country, which has seen two military coups in less than 10 years, has been riven by street battles between protesters and security personnel in the past few years. Besides, in the so-called Deep South, the country is fighting armed Muslim separatists since 2004; this has claimed some 6,500 lives. Still, Monday’s blast outside a Hindu temple on a busy Bangkok street, which killed over 20 people, was unprecedented in terms of scale. This was the most devastating explosion ever in Bangkok. The location and the timing showed that the perpetrators wanted to wreak maximum damage. The Erawan shrine is a popular tourist destination, especially among Buddhists from Thailand and other East Asian nations, and the bomb went off during the evening rush hour. It is still not clear who did it. The investigators say a “network” is behind it, but stop short of pointing fingers at any particular group. Given Thailand’s recent turbulence, it could be anyone from the Muslim separatists to the political opponents of the military junta.

But whoever did it, the attack was aimed at weakening the country’s already fractured polity and stultified economy. Ever since the army took power in 2014 after toppling the civilian caretaker government, Thailand has suffered several violent incidents, including a grenade attack on a court house in Bangkok. The military’s claim that it captured power to bring stability to the country was far from the truth as the coup itself had sharpened the political divisions. The army is also accused of deliberately targeting supporters of the self-exiled former Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The Thai army is notorious for its highhandedness. Five years ago, an army crackdown on a public protest in Bangkok, close to the same Erawan shrine, left at least 80 people dead. Such use of violence has triggered violent responses from factions opposed to the army, while repeated coups and coup attempts have weakened the country’s democracy and governance structures. The tourism-dependent economy has also suffered from the recent political instability and protests. The latest blast will weaken the tourism industry further. The Thai authorities should realise that the country will be able to address the multiple challenges it faces only by sorting out the internal fissures first. And the best way to do it is to return a legitimate government to power. The generals have pledged to bring back democracy, but no one knows when elections would be held and whether they would be free and fair. There are also worries that the blast would be used as an excuse by the military to extend its hold over power and continue suppressing democracy. Such a move would only accelerate Thailand’s downhill slide.

Q1. According to the passage, what would be the the title of it?
1) Thailand’s Dilemma
2) Thailand’s Turbulence
3) Thailand’s Enigma
4) Thailand’s Gravitas
5) None of these.

Q2. Which of the following statements is/ are correct according to the passage?
1) Thailand has suffered several violent incidents, including a grenade attack on a court house in Bangkok.
2) The tourism-dependent economy has also suffered from the recent political instability and protests.
3) While repeated coups and coup attempts have weakened the country’s democracy and governance structures.
4) All of these.
5) None of these.

Q3. Which of the following statements is/ are wrong according to the passage?
1) The Thai authorities should realise that the country will be able to address the multiple challenges it faces only by sorting out the internal fissures first.
2) The generals have pledged to bring back democracy, but no one knows when elections would be held
3) The bomb went off during the morning rush hour.
4) All of these
5) None of these.

Q4. According to the author what was the motive behind the blast which went off at the temple?
1) because the location and the timing showed that the perpetrators wanted to wreak maximum damage.
2) because they wanted to create strife between protesters and security personnel.
3) because perpetrators wanted to target supporters of the self-exiled former Prime Minister.
4) All of these
5) None of these.

Q5. As per the passage what is/are true about Thailand?
1) The economy of Thailand is dependent on its tourism.
2) The economy of Thailand which is already suffering loss, the blast which took place at the shrine would deteriorate its situation more.
3) The shrine is a popular tourist destination, especially among Buddhists from Thailand and other East Asian nations
4) All of these.
5) None of these.

Directions (Q.6-8): Choose the word which is most OPPOSITE in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage.
Q6. Devastating
1) Desolated
2) Overpowered
3) Ravaging
4) Scourging
5) None of these.

Q7. Fissure  
1) Crevice
2) Cleft
3) Cranny
4) Rift
5) None of these.

Directions (Q.7- 8): Choose the word which is most SIMILAR in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage.
Q8. Faction
1) Tout
2) Concomitant
3) Bloc
4) Elusive
5) None of these.

Q9. Highhandedness
1) Haughtiness
2) Humility
3) Meekness
4) Modesty
5) None of these.

Q10. Stultified
1) Mitigated
2) Enfeeble
3) Robust
4) Crippled
5) None of these.

Answers

Directions (Q.1- 8): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.
 Iran has agreed to go so much out of its way in assuming the obligations under the JCPOA that the document has an explicit disclaimer clause to affirm that it would not be precedent-setting in any manner. (Source: AP photo)
The nuclear deal between Iran and the P5 plus Germany/the EU, as concluded on July 14, is a truly historic and landmark achievement, not only for non-proliferation but also for diplomacy and multilateralism. The joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA) is the first of its kind in the annals of non-proliferation and arms control. It is based on the non-proliferation treaty and Iran’s associated safeguards agreement. However, it is unique in the extraordinary sweep of Iran’s negotiated yet voluntary commitments on closing the pathways to nuclear-weapon capability, as also in the drastic scaling down and dismantling of its uranium enrichment programme under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) most intensive protocols for monitoring, verification and control. The text of the JCPOA and the five annexes can be likened to the extensive arms control treaties of the Cold War years in leaving virtually nothing to ambiguity.
In fact, Iran has agreed to go so much out of its way in assuming the obligations under the JCPOA that the document has an explicit disclaimer clause to affirm that it would not be precedent-setting in any manner. While due to diverse domestic pressures, the deal’s interlocutors might claim the breakthrough to be a vindication of a rigorous sanctions-driven approach, the immense diplomatic worth of the success of negotiations that lasted almost a decade far exceeds the detailed minutiae of the deal. At the same time, no matter how delicately the protagonists in the West, led by US President Barack Obama, might describe their achievement, it is bound to be seen as a trigger for a far-reaching diplomatic transformation. It will serve to dispel the stigma on a major power like Iran as it progressively and with dignity breaks through the haze of suspicion that surrounds it. Because IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano expects results by next December, it will give a bigger boost to the credibility and effectiveness of the IAEA than the Nobel prize of a decade ago. It also demonstrates the confluence of the vital interests of the P5+1, given that their top diplomats relentlessly strove through a hard process right until the end. It will add respectability to the UN Security Council, whose reputation, in the Middle East in particular, has suffered due to a chequered record. Even coming as it does at a time that is particularly bleak for arms control and non-proliferation, the deal is much more than a mere silver lining. Its annexes raise the standard for a cooperative process of non-proliferation in one of the more difficult regions in the world.
When the agreed parameters of the JCPOA came out last April, the US factsheets appeared to show a comprehensive plan that the sceptics dismissed as being at variance with Iran’s version. The final text now bears out those factsheets almost to their entirety and it is still acceptable to Iran. Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, in his address, went to considerable lengths to emphasise the commitments assumed, the timeframes of restraints and reductions, the durability of the IAEA’s role and even the duration of embargoes on arms and ballistic missiles. This also demonstrated Iran’s confidence in the process, which was formally launched after Rouhani’s victory in 2013.
Rouhani’s address was couched in the language of the deep value in Iranian culture of politeness, logic, patience and forbearance. But he gave the pride of place to his government’s success in securing the removal of sanctions under the accord. He conceded that sanctions, even though unsuccessful in stopping Iranian resolve, did adversely affect the people. This gives insight into an Iran that is ready to engage with the world but is maintaining its dignity — rather different from North Korea. His address was understated in detailing the limits imposed on the technological capability of his nation by the final accord. Iran has, no doubt, stuck to its right to qualified retention and development of capacity and research, which the JCPOA does not challenge. However, that Iran will voluntarily reduce its capacity considerably for a decade under strict inspections, as prescribed in the JCPOA, would have been inconceivable in the past for Majlis hardliners. Rouhani’s address acknowledged that the JCPOA paved the way for UNSC action as the first step, and visualised, in a few months, the beginning of the abrogation of sanctions. Does this show a softening in its stance towards UNSC resolutions which it earlier rejected, although a disclaimer in the JCPOA footnote weakly insists on it? Or, as Obama said he expected in his latest interview to Thomas Friedman, will the clarity in the text be respected by Iran?

As for reactions, Israel arguably loathes Iran’s emergence from its long isolation more than it fears its residual nuclear capacity, while the Gulf states were slow to react. But their marked unease was reflected in their response in April to Obama’s Camp David invitation. In his latest interview, Obama duly heeds his Gulf allies’ concerns by eschewing any sugarcoating of Iran’s regional policies and the possibility of rapprochement with it, even as he contextualised this deal with the past historic initiatives of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan with China and the Soviet Union, respectively, with whom there was also little trust. China’s top leadership has not issued immediate comments, even though the Global Times and People’s Daily have given the deal a rousing welcome. Russian President Vladimir Putin, in contrast, has promptly conveyed strong support for the deal in a lengthy comment. Obama has also acknowledged Russia’s contribution during talks. An account of the penultimate hour of uncertainty revealed that the Russian foreign minister and the EU foreign policy chief were with the US secretary of state before Iran’s foreign minister joined them to take the final steps to sign the accord. In the end, it’s the US Congress that might pass or fail the deal. Obama’s vow of a veto is contingent on support from his own party. The annexes to the JCPOA, however, are carefully elaborated and allow few loopholes that can be held up to denounce them. American non-proliferation experts, too, support the deal.

Directions (Q.1-10): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The countries of South-East Asia have rarely controlled their own destinies. Asia’s three giants — China, Japan and India — loom over the region. Colonial armies have fought there. Even peace and unprecedented prosperity have not shaken the assumption that South-East Asia’s fate will be decided by outsiders. Westerners still often refer to the area as “Japan’s backyard” or part of the “yen block”. They speak about Asian capitalism and, love it or loathe it, they assume there is only one sort: that pioneered by Japan. Yet, to regard the booming economies of South-East Asia simply as pupils in a Japanese master class is to miss the point. The economic stars of the region — Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia — have followed a distinctive path to development. As a result, they are now exporting not just goods, but ideas. The economic strategies of China and India look much more like those followed in South-East Asia, rather than the North-East Asian model of Japan or South Korea.

There are three broad ways in which South-East Asian capitalism has differed from the Japanese and Korean varieties. It is much more open to foreign direct investment. It is much less prone to try to second-guess the market through a government directed industrial policy. And it has been much quicker to allow financial markets to develop. The distinction is clearest over attitudes to foreign direct investment. The Japanese and the South Koreans have been determined to build up national champions and have made it difficult for foreign-owned companies to set up shop. By contrast, the tigers of South-East Asia have built their booms by welcoming foreigners. Singapore, which practically invented this strategy, now has an economy dominated by multinational companies. The export industries of Thailand and Malaysia are also heavily reliant on foreign firms.

The distinction between North-East and South-East Asia is more blurred when it comes to industrial policy. There is much admiration in South-East Asia for the Japanese and South Korean government’s sponsorship of steel, shipbuilding and other heavy industries. The Japanese are trying to persuade Vietnam of the virtues of their style of economic planning. Both Indonesia and Malaysia have tried nurturing winners, in aerospace and cars respectively. But such efforts remain peripheral. In Indonesia, the framework for growth has been established by a determinedly orthodox group of economists who have concentrated on macroeconomic stability and opposed subsidies. Malaysia’s state-backed car industry has yet to prove itself commercially viable. By contrast, Thailand, which has followed the standard South-East Asian strategy of luring in foreign direct investment, seems likely to become the regional hub for motor manufacturing.

South-East Asian countries have also been much quicker to let financial markets flourish. In the early stages of South Korean and Japanese industrialisation, businesses in search of credit, had little option but to go to the banks, whose lending decisions were, in turn, heavily influenced by government. By contrast, the stock markets of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia were cleared for take-off early on the path to economic development, allowing companies to raise more money without heavy borrowing. South-East Asians have also been more willing to let foreigners invest in their stock markets.

If Asia’s two underdeveloped giants — China and India — manage the kind of economic miracles achieved in other parts of Asia, they seem likely to do it the South-East Asian way. Both countries have set out to court foreign direct investment. China took in 35 billion-worth in 1994 alone. India got into the game much later. But even its nominally Communist politicians are now eagerly scouting the world for foreign investors. Both countries still have large state sectors. But both now see their nationalised industries primarily as a burden that must be reformed, rather than as the fulcrum of an economic strategy. Finally, both China and India, like the South-East Asians, have encouraged companies to raise capital through their frenetic stock markets.

Such emulation of the South-East Asian strategy stems partly from choice and partly from circumstance. In the inward looking economies of China and India in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, directed lending and industrial planning were a disaster. Elements of those methods may have worked in the export-oriented economies of Japan and South Korea, which rose to economic power when stable Asian allies seemed more important to western politicians than closed Asian markets. Western priorities have now changed. More positively, the current generation of emerging Asian tigers can take advantage of the increasing sophistication of international capital markets and investors. Japanese critics of South-East Asian capitalism have argued that Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia have created a “crony capitalism”, which rewards connections rather than entrepreneurial flair. The criticism has a grain of truth, but misses the much wider story. With Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore rattling along with economic growth rates of over 8% a year, the days when South-East Asia could simply be dismissed as Japan’s backyard are over.

Q1. Which of the following has not been referred to as a star of South-East Asia?
(1) Malaysia
(2) Singapore
(3) South Korea
(4) Indonesia
(5) None of these

Q2. Which of the following statements is true?
(1) India and China follow the economic policies of South-East Asian nations entirely out of choice.
(2) The communist politicians of India are against foreign investment in India.
(3) Indonesia tried to nurture its auto mobile industry.
(4) All of the above
(5) None of these

Q3. What is the meaning of the word “frenetic” as used in the passage?
(1) active
(2) volatile
(3) unpredictable
(4) mature
(5) None of these

Q4. What is Japan’s main complaint against the South-East Asian economies?
(1) They are capitalistic societies and hence do not have social equity.
(2) The American have now become more favourable to the South-East Asian nations.
(3) Entrepreneurial ability is not rewarded as much as connections are.
(4) All of the above.
(5) None of these

Q5. Which of the following statements cannot be inferred from the passage?
(1) All South-East Asian economies are galloping along at an annual economic growth rate of 8%.
(2) South Korea is a North-East Asian country.
(3) The Indian economy follows the South-East Asian model more closely than it follows the North-East Asian model.
(4) All of the above
(5) None of these

Q6. Which of the following is not the Synonym of Frenetic?
1) Frenzied
2) Frantic
3) Phrenetic
4) Fanatic
5) None of these.

Q7. Which of the following is the Synonym of Emulation?
1) Imitation
2) Humility
3) Carelessness
4) Satisfaction
5) None of these.

Q8. Which of the following is the Antonym of Dominated?
1) Eclipsed
2) Prevailed
3) Overshadowed
4) Surmounted
5) None of these.

Answers