Environment

Environment

 

We have been at it for years. Coming to the end of this course, it is rather apt that environment should be a concluding topic to it. Environmentalists, climatologists, social activists, politicians, the media (just to name a few) have been discussing the environmental problem for years now ever since industrialization seem to have brought imminent side effects to the place we all live in. Environmental problems and pollutions are inevitably an effect of human activities. Global warming and climate change are the hazards brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere caused by industrialization and car usage, for example. Pollution is also caused by the inability of the people to manage their waste problem, causing problem such as land pollution.

 

Essentially, I see the environmental problem arising out of 3 interlinked factors; economic, political and social. Nonetheless, ultimately, the overarching force that controls these factors is only one: the free market system.

 

The free market system has created a culture of mass consumerism. Having mass consumerism run the market system means increasing production of goods to be used by the society which demands those products. Industries are ran to meet these demands. From this demand-supply chain, we already see a few phenomena likely to happen. Firstly is the issue of mass production, which may lead to wastage arising out of needs versus wants. Consumers in the mass consumer culture today may want products which they may not necessarily need, and thus, may contribute to the wastage problem. Secondly is the running of these industries. While factories depend on the fuel power to run, they also emit carbon into the atmosphere, creating undesirable ozone effects.

 

Whilst we notice the role of economy and society in contributing to this effect, governments’ role in contributing to this phenomena should also be assessed. Economic forces have created capitalistic governments who prioritise economic profiteering above environmental hazards. While developed nations still contribute to global warming, they still want developing countries to adopt environmentally friendly approaches to development, setting a double-standards in approaching this issue. On top of that, it is also essentially a war between governments and NGOs as countries are not signing treaties after treaties made as a vow to reduce carbon emission from industries to generate economic profits.The Kyoto Protocol is a clear indication of governments’ commitment to the issue of global warming. While in 2008, 183 parties have ratified the protocol (source: http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/application/pdf/kp_ratification.pdf)  , it took years of convincing to ensure that governments are agreeable to the protocol. On top of that, there is no legally binding institution to monitor the commitment of countries to this protocol due to the issue of national sovereignty. Ultimately, it is an issue of individual countries’ integrity in commiting themselves to it.

 

At the end of it all, it all boils down to people in societies and governments to realise that ecological problems arise out of human activities and only us humans who have the means to fix this problem. Governments and societies have to work hand in hand to curb the issue of carbon emission into the atmosphere as well as waste management issues. In order for this to be possible, economic goals have to be subordinated to make way for the focus to be on solutions to solve this problem.

 

What governments need to realise that commitment to the terms of environmental solution practices does not mean that their economic objectives are being jeopardised. The equation is simple; the goals of the Kyoto Protocol is merely the preservation of the environment and NOT harping on the economic benefits. Thus, what governments need to realise is that as the free market economy operates in a culture of mass consumerism, which started the whole snowballing of effects, economies need to find alternative ways to operate and reap profits.

 

In my most earnest opinion, (In light of the recent change in American leadership), as countries often wait for one another to champion a cause, it all starts with an influential superpower to initiate the move. Obama, maybe it’s up to you now.

 

=)

Population & Health (Population Control)

Singapore has been at it for years. Beginning in 1949, family planning services were offered by the private Singapore Family Planning Association, and by 1960 was receiving some government fundings (www.photius.com). In 1970s, abortion and voluntary sterilization were legalized to react to the postwar baby boom. The government also embarked on a family planning campaign and was encouraging couples to “stop at two.”  By the late 1980s, as birth rates are falling, the government created incentives to encourage families to go for a third child, providing generous maternity leaves and child education subsidies. Now, in the era of the Y2K, the government is embarking on pro-family policies to encourage young couples to bear more children.

Population control policies as such are not new. In fact, it is rampant throughout the world. China is known for its “one-child policy” to curb its booming billion population number. The United States Public Health Service Act started a campaign in 1970s to encourage women to have access to contraceptives. Even in Iran, their family policies are strict in controlling the population. Being a country that has succeeded in having a steep population reduction graph, Iran is in fact surprisingly the only country where mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained despite being a strict religious regime (Larsen,read article:  http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update4ss.htm).

 How much is it in the interest of the state to control its population, and to what purpose? Maybe Malthus’ population theory might be the factor that influenced them. Thomas Malthus might have suggested that the exponential population growth would mean the scarcity of resources, and proponents of his view might even push this by suggesting that the world would collapse with the ever-increasing population increase. In 1968, Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich wrote a well publicized book entitled The Population Bomb*. Ehrlich predicted widespread famine and disaster unless population growth was reduced to zero in America and throughout the world by compulsory methods if necessary (Jessop, read article: http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200712/20071210_Bomb_America.htm). Some theorists even suggest that uncontrolled population growth results in poverty, and thus the need to control it.

But honestly, how very true is Malthus’ theory in our society today. Firstly, the world has gone past the 6 billion population mark, and it has not yet collapsed as what Ehrlich might have suggested (Sernau). The supply of food is ultimately able to feed the world population. What I feel may be the problem, however, is the distribution of these resources. Poverty comes about not because of the increasing numbers which equates to higher demand and food supply which may not be adequate for consumption, but rather the poor distribution of wheat, grain and other staple food supplies. Ultimately, nature comes to work in such that when there are new additions to the world population, at some point the existing number will drop.

Secondly, how relevant is Malthus’ theory in a world divided into the First World and the Third World, where First World cosmopolitan societies seem to have declining birth rates and the Third World is where the number is increasing. With one society having a declining rate and the other with a steady growth, population growth will reach an equilibrium. The worry of government is perhaps curbing poverty, thus, once again, this drives me to my point that population is not so much the problem, but rather distribution amongst the world population.

Thirdly, is the question of the effectiveness of population control policies. How much can the state really have an ironfist control over something that is natural to human beings? Sure, perhaps that might come off as pretty much a moralist statement, but even in sociological perspectives, population control policies have been notorious for being infamous among societies and in some instances, may even generate social grievances. China’s one-child policy have been infamous for leading to infanticide of female babies among Chinese families. Even in Singapore, which swings from having ‘controlled policies’ to ‘pro-child policy’ erratically today, the effectiveness of encouraging young couples to bear children is questionable.

Nonetheless, it all boils down to good management and governance. Governments, while need justification to their population control policies, should also ultimately display capability to manage those policies and react to the repercussions that would later unfold. Even by having a policy to a good cause, with poor planning and management, the policy may be weak and useless in their attempt to control the people. On top of that, grievances might even arise. Thus, while governments attempt to justify their move, they should also prove their ability at bringing the desired impact to the population.

 

Politics of identity & globalisation

Between us and them…and who am I?

When an overseas friend of mine was in town recently, we caught up over sushi and tried to learn about each other better.  I was pleased to learn that besides being an Australian, he’s also got a mix of English, Irish, Scottish, Egyptian and Greek cultural background in him. Pretty interesting. And then he asked me the same question in my direction. “So what are you?” I was somewhat stunned.

What does it mean to be me? I am a Malay, a Muslim, and a Singaporean. My ethnicity and cultural background gives me a sense of belonging to a particular community, and strengthens my sense of self.

While ethnicity creates cohesion amongst people of the same heritage and background, it also divides the human race. Ethnicity creates a boundary, as Sernau said it, a “divider between us and them.” Who are the Whites? Who are the Blacks? So are we merely recognized for the colour of our skin now?

Increasingly, ethnic variations have been blurred over time with globalization and urbanization shaping human interactions. Inter-marriages too may cause the diluting of ethnic variations. Humans are only recognized based on a major ethnic group which they belong too. To put it simply, I am a Malay. But my background is much more diverse than that. I made up of the Johore-Rhio, Bugis and Javanese heritage. Many don’t see the need to know where they come from or who they are. It irks me that while some people bother finding out their cultural backgrounds, there are others who might be nonchalant about it.

But then again, perhaps I should emphatise. “Why should we care when ultimately we come from the same background, somewhere along our lineage?” Somewhere down our history, we might discover we share a common heritage somewhere. Recognising ourselves as a belonging to a particular ethnic group does not do justice to uniting the human race, but only further divides it. True? I don’t think so. Ethnicity should never be a problem unless we make it one.

In my most earnest opinion, the concept of ethnicity strengthens one’s sense of self, and put one’s place in the society (not necessarily negatively) in order to make him belong to a “something”. Sernau might have mentioned that ethnicity may potentially create a dangerous concept of race. A potentially dangerous concept? Sure, with race comes prejudices such as racism and ethnocentrism. But does this automatically mean that ethnicity is problematic?

Ethinicty is only a problem when it gets in the way of human interactions and dealings with each other. When colour or backgrounds become a hindrance, it already constitutes as racism. The emphasis on race is especially strong in the Middle Eastern countries that the region sees plenty of conflicts based on ethnic differences. When ethnic variations become politicized, it creates a whole lot of conflict in a country or region. Even in Indonesia, a country of many tribes and ethnic groups, when the difference between the Irian Jayans is emphasized, it pulls the country away from the central government that triggered a series of political turmoil in the country.

Many countries in the world today are multi racial due to the influx of immigrants due to globalization. The differences in race and religion should not affect the rights one get in the country he lives in. Various aspects of administration should not let race be a criteria in their dealings, especially in businesses, trade, employment and public policies.

In fact, application forms which require one to state his race should eliminate this portion as it serves no purpose, unless to further divide and differentiate potential candidates to a particular position in an organization. For what is worth, only one’s merits, academic or professional qualifications should be a measure to entry to these things.

Democracy & Human Rights

Democracy, the people and media

Very often when talking about democracy, the question at the top of my head will be “what is democracy in the truest sense?” There are afterall various types of democracy in the world today. The concept seems to be really fluid. Different countries practice democracy in different ways, thus I perceive the concept to be diluted from its theoretical sense. The most common kind of democracy we hear today is “constitutional democracy” which is practiced in most countries. And then there are of course other types like representative democracy and participatory democracy, and even going back to the medieval time there were the Athenian democracy.

In Beckman’s ‘Explaining democratisation: notes on the concept of civil society’  (1997), he relates democracy to the civil society. Although according to him, the notion of civil society has a history of ambiguity in Western political theory, it is generally accepted that the civil society consist of shared interests, purposes and values. Although democracy is practised differently in various nation-states, it is nonetheless generally accepted to be the ability of the people to choose their leaders. While Cunnigham defined democracy as “rule by the people”, alluding to the commonly used notion of “government of the people FOR the people”, Schumpeter argued that democracy is nothing but the ability of the people to vote for or against their leaders and political parties.

This then brings me to the prerequisites of a democracy in a society. In order for the society to practice their voting rights intelligently, there is a need for the masses to be educated and informed of the political agendas of the personalities they are supporting. An educated society is imperative for democracy to work ideally. Nonetheless, an educated society is also a derivative from the practice of democracy. Much like the “chicken and egg” equation, education and democracy coexists.

As a media student, democracy has a special place in my heart. The issue of media democracy has long been debated. As the mass media has a adverse influence in the society, governments all over are wary of the media, and media autonomy is practised differently in different countries. Why the difference? Beckman argues that the concept of civil society has been incorporated into a liberal political agenda that ultimately makes it redundant and overshadowed by the political agendas.

A free press system is an element of the civil society. Yet how true is it that the press gets 100% freedom, and is entirely free from the state? Perhaps in the United States, the First Amendment protects the autonomy of the civil society. Even Scandinavian countries are known for the level of freedom their media has. Yet in Singapore, the issue of media democracy is questionable. In fact, it has been a hotly discussed issue among Western democracies. Does this mean that human rights have been infringed? How much liberty do we want in order to consider ourselves considerately “media democratic”?

And that, I personally feel, is a tricky question to resolve. Democracy is inevitably linked to freedom, and very often the issue of freedom is questioned to as whether there is such thing as a “total freedom”. Of course there is, yet the only problem is total freedom might mean chaos as interests collide and principles are conflicting.

Yet the issue with democracy is such that it represents the sovereignty of the people. It is a symbolic representation, and inevitably an important aspect of human rights. There is no true blue formula so as to how democracy should function and what should work for countries. Afterall, societies vary based on their history of formation and environments. For the fact that democracy is practised differently in different parts of the world, I have nothing against it. Yet states should always respect the fundamental idea behind it.

Democracy is to vest the people with the rights they have in the workings of the society. Although the government is selected by the people, the state should not exclude the people from policy-making processes and give them the rights to input in such activities. True, the government is given the mandate to rule, yet transparency should exist in order for trust and rapport to exist between the state and society. And this transparency should be allowed in the way the media functions. Ideally, the media SHOULD be free of the state as they have an ethical responsibility to inform the society of nothing but the truth.

War & Terrorism

War & Terrorism

“War on terrorism”. That was the phrase most commonly used by the Bush Administration to justify the Iraq War immediately after the dark September 11^th attack. Soon, the world was talking about terrorism. The episode which saw the crumbling of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers soon became the talk of the world, and the Al-Qaeda became the most infamous terrorist network overnight.

Whether or not the American motivation to launch the Iraq War is justified is another issue. Here, I would like to focus on whether the entire notion of “war against terrorism” is justified. Before I came to such conclusion myself, I questioned if terrorism as an act is justified in the first place.

Of course, to me, violence is never acceptable. The act of jeopardising other people’s lives and safety in the pursuit of a personal motivation is flawed. Nonetheless, accepting the notion of terrorism as an expression of political violence, whether it is justified or not is debatable.

While the post-September 11 world often associates the word “terrorist” to the Islamic extremist fundamentalists, here I would like to draw the concept back to the bigger picture. A terrorist can be right about anyone who terrorises the state, one with the motivation to instill fear in the society, whether driven by personal or a political reason, for example the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or even the Irish Republican Army (IRA) of Northern Ireland.

In order to battle terrorism, it is imperative for policy makers to understand the motives driving terrorist groups. It is no use waging the war against terrorism if the root cause of the matter is not resolved. Turk stated the point that ignoring or belittling the terrorist efforts would only further incense them and provoke them into establishing a more brutal act. So what drives terrorist to act the way they do?

Hollywood director James McTeigue captured this idea vividly in V for Vendetta where the purpose and drive of the terrorist, named V, is clearly understood and empathised. As Turk has mentioned, terrorism is communication, an expression to draw attention to what is problematic, and a sort of cry for help. At the same time, it is also a form of political violence, an attempt to crumble the state to reflect its incompetence at stopping such violence and protecting its people. And a closer observation of terrorist organisations around the world reflects such a trend. The Al-Qaeda network for example, is a retaliative movement in reaction to American occupation of the Islamic world in the Middle East. The Liberation Tigers of Sri Lanka is a protest against the Sri Lankan government to probe them into creating a separate Tamil state.

Very often, terrorist movements are a response to a sense of oppression and exploitation. They call upon the attention of the specific governments through their violent activities, because prior negotiations or call for attention to their cause has been dismissed so conveniently by those governments. So does this make their acts justifiable?

In today’s world, the war against terrorism is still on-going. The American war against terrorism is obviously a lost cause, because their agenda fails to understand the basic principle of these terrorist movements.

Of course, the easiest solution I can ever conclude is to give in to the demands of the terrorists. And what I mean by that is not to push them into pursuing their violent cause, but rather giving in to their political needs and cry for help. Leave the Middle East alone and appease the Al-Qaeda; liberate the Muslims in Phillipines and the Abu Sayyaf will back down. For real?

Yet at the end of the day, political factions will always be in conflict over dominance and territorial conquests as such. It is never too easy for colonial powers to give up their colonies.

Nonetheless, what I am trying to suggest here is the need for Western powers to ease off from the countries which have been under their oppression for so long. The US need to formulate their foreign policy in consideration to the terrorist demands. In my strongest believe, they will only back down if the Western powers do.

Crime

How much can we blame the society for one’s delinquency? To what extent is the society as an institution responsible over the crimes that people do? Ultimately, isn’t it the choice of the individuals to commit such wrongs?

The problem with understanding criminality is distinguishing where to draw the line in understanding the causes behind it. Sure, these are acts committed by individuals who deviate from the norm. I often see criminality as a problem of the individuals; maybe with a psychological reason. This apparently is too microscopic a perspective to take. Criminality, according to Findlay, is a result of social pressures coming from modernisation, urbanisation and capitalism.

Nonetheless, to me, it is not fair to account the 3 factors above for the result of criminality in the society. The three factors above are ultimately phenomena that would eventually take over the forces of change in society inevitably. There is only so much we can resist, yet modernisation, urbanisation and capitalism are bound to shape society today.

But rather, crime is an effect of human’s failure to react to these changes. I do not regard the three factors above to be forces pushing the society into a state of anarchy. Nevertheless, the nature of these changes and the failure of society as a whole conflict one another to produce an undesirable effect of the human condition, leading some of them to be probed into committing crime in order to survive.

The fundamental idea so as to why people commit crime is basic; they are probed by circumstances due to the desperate need to survive in an era of social change. Sernau has a point; criminality saw an influx in the age of urbanisation and Findlay too stated that the city becomes an impetus for criminality. This alludes to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s idea that the city is the real birthplace of criminality. Why do people steal in big cities? Why would people rob banks despite knowing that it is unlawful?

As Sernau had observed, the rapid modernisation of society brings along with it the materialisation of socio-cultural life on top of the mass consumption mode which forces everyone to be part of this system. Human beings, by nature, are threatened by competition, and they are in constant need to compete in order to survive (much like Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest). Inevitably, with the forces of change and increase in material needs, disadvantaged groups who did not have much access to capital resources in the first place would be pushed into a situation where they find the need to establish themselves by means of crime in order to survive.

One such group is the Mara Salvatrucha (MS13) which is made up of Latin and Central Americans and started in L.A. The history behind the formation of this gang is fundamentally a movement to protect the Salvadoran immigrants in the West Coast due to poor working and living conditions of the immigrants in the city. Ultimately, the movement evolved into a violent one.

Similarly, the ghetto community in The Bronx is seen to be occupied by the Black or Latin community who settled in that area as they had no way in residing in the heart of urban New York. The occurrence of crime happening in these places is more frequent than anywhere else.

1980s Bronx

Here, we see a pattern of backgrounds upon noticing how crime may take place. Very often, marginalised communities are the main contributor to the crime rate. They are often troubled by constricted living condition, and the environment around them is rapidly changing and moving along with the forces of modernization. They contribute to gang violence and vandalism, sometimes riots and organise other modes of protests.

As such, criminality is in fact a resistance to the changes above. The inability to keep up with the changes, failure to fully understand modernisation and its demands led them into not being able to progress with time, and as such, they resorted to expression of their unhappiness through crime.

Understanding the very fundamental idea behind criminality is ultimately crucial in instituting policies to eradicate crime, or at least, tackle the crime rate. In my believe, Singapore has a very good policing institution that governs the crime rate here.

So is modernisation still to blame for the occurrence of crime? Singapore is a very modernised and developed society, and crime is no longer so much a major problem here. I think it proves a point.

Women and The Family

A conversation on this week’s topic led to an argument with a guy friend. From women’s role to gender equality to the family institution, it might seem that men and women are divided in their views on these issues.

Being a female (and no less, a feminist) I am proud to discover that the concept of “working women” is not restricted to contemporary society. What we know today as the “career women” had in fact resonated societies ever since the Victorian era. Although, admittedly, the idea of working women conflicted the Victorian ideal of womanhood, which was a devotion of the women’s life to the household, of maintaining the home and nurturing the kids (and restricted to these, boringly so). The concept of working women was often associated to the lower hierarchy of the society. Yet it is amazing to note that women had always been actively involved in socio-economic activities as so do the men. Yet patriarchal societies often overshadowed women’s potentials in the society, and their efforts in building the society would often be overlooked.

Even studies on the employment scene have shown how women have driven economic progress over the years. (see: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6800723)

Events at the turn of the century proved women to be capable of men’s jobs too. The World War II saw women taking over the role of men in industries while the men were busy fighting in war. Women became aware of their potentials, got more educated and literate, and were on their way to being emancipated. This was the period when the world saw women infiltrating the workforce. Over time the number of women in the employment scene increased, sometimes outnumbering the male counterparts in various industries.

And here was where my friend and I started arguing. He started accusing women of stealing the mine from men. He strongly believes in the “strong mother figure”, in the need for women to spend more time at home to take care of the kids. Sure, working is not a problem, he said, but we all need to realise that there are so many problems out there because kids these days are not getting enough attention at home because their mothers are busy working.

It deeply disheartens me to note that there are still guys out there with this sort of mentality. “Women’s role is to cook, clean and take care of the kids.” It’s about time they wake up to the reality. Women are contributing to the economy too. Women are generating economic benefits for the society too. Women are helping them bring the bread back home.

The only difference? Women are taking care of the families too. Women are still responsible over the domestic chores. Women are overburdened.

To me, it is no longer a moral question of whether or not women should be working to take care of the family. Indeed, my friend has a point. The age of women emancipation seem to be followed by the wave of the collapse of the family institutions. Then again, do we necessarily need to overhaul the system to go back to the Victorian age in order to bring our family institution back to its ideal state?

The world we live in today is of a capitalist economy, and unfortunately too, a capitalistic society. It is the age of the Knowledge-based economy. Eventually, working is part of our survival. Very often too, in a society such as Singapore or the US, 2 people working in the family is not enough. Bringing back SGD$2000 every month may not be sufficient.

As such inevitably, both fathers and mothers need to work. The question right now is, how family-oriented is the labour workforce in achieving the society’s aim to balance work and family?

In First World nations, governments are able to provide the labour workforce with practical family-oriented public policies. We see these in most developed countries. In Singapore, the government provides its civil servants with good benefits such as 4-months maternity leave and 6 days worth of child sick leave. European nations have also implemented policies to make it possible for working parents to spend more time with the children, by providing generous maternity leave and heavily subsidized childcare (Sernau).

Yet in developing nations, the problem of gender inequality and overburdening of the women’s roles in society still exists.

What I see here is the flaw of the basic infrastructure of policies to make the society balance the roles of work and family among the individuals. Poverty often make the individuals get stuck in the rut of ‘cashlessness’; a situation when their income is never enough. They have the bills to pay for, mortgages at the back of their mind, children’s education fees among other basic amenities.

Here, government intervention is crucial in providing welfare help for the children in these families. In order to prevent the collapse of the family institution, while parents inevitably have to work, more attention need to be given for the development of these kids. Not only would education subsidies be of very excellent help to these families (and take the load of the burden in funding their education from the parents), daycare services would also be a way to provide attention to these kids as their parents are off to work.

In all, while women bear the responsibility of working too, household responsibilities should also be shared equally between men and women. Men should realise the need for them to contribute equally in the household. This change is crucial in the society’s move towards gender equality. Overhaul the old system, bring in the new!

 

Work & Trade

Division of Labour: Making it work

I looked at the bottom of my notebook and here’s what it said: “Product of China.” Still curious, I did a Google search on the Hewlett-Packard company, only to find out it is an American company. So I wondered why it does not make this notebook a “Product of the United States” since it is of a HP brand. And then I realised that most things around me are made from all parts of the world. My CPU is assembled in Singapore when it is an Acer product, a Taiwanese brand. My Nokia handphone is assembled in China when it is apparently a Finnish brand. Sure, globalisation is at its best. But I still pondered over what is happening here. The answer: International division of labour.

Indeed, the concept of such division of labour is appealing given the efficiency of production it is able to supply. Division of labour means specialising in one’s one field of work, which means more attention is given to the production of the product, and thus it improves on the quality of the good produced. This is a Smithian theory such that labour division makes production more proficient. On top of improved quality of production, quantity is also raised as labor division enables mass production to take place more easily. Coupled with industrial technologies, division of labour sure sounds like an ideal concept.

Internationally too, the division of labour among countries is an ideal way to improve production in the free markets system. Ideally, both the old and new systems of international labour division are attractive collectively. In the old system of labor division, countries are divided into 2 types; industrialised nations and those with rich natural resources. In this system, countries complement each other in a supply-demand framework in the production of goods. Industrialised nations were often Developed Countries with the technological infrastructure to produce finished goods while Third World countries with rich natural resources would benefit from the sale of their resources for processing. However, the world doesn’t work that way in a capitalistic setting. The industrialised nations would end up exploiting the Third World Countries by colonising them and taking control over the distribution of their natural resources in their favour and benefiting from all the profits, leaving the TWC out of the picture entirely.

Very often countries with rich natural resources end up being poor due to bad management of their resources. Indonesia, for example, which was an OPEC nation before its withdrawal in May 2008 suffers from substantial inflation and poor economy. With proper control of the free market, every country should be able to benefit from their respective specialised functions in the world economy.

In order to avoid exploitations from more powerful nations, developing countries should be empowered, such that the World Bank should look into funding development and building of R&D infrastructures within these countries. As these countries benefit from their rich natural resources, they also should be made aware of how to manage and profit from what they have. This makes them more actively participative in the process of production, and not merely as suppliers of the raw materials. This is, however, still in light of the perception that post-industrial nations will still be far more technologically advanced to still be able to benefit from the overhaul of monopolies from the Developed Nations. While R&D infrastructures are still being developed in the TWC, post-industrial nations may still benefit by investing in these infrastructures and providing services to train and assist the TWC. What ‘m trying to suggest is an ideal situation where developing countries may enforce control on their own resources while at the same time, developed countries will still run the show as investors in the production process within the free market system.

Ultimately, being a capitalist myself, the system has to work for both parties as best as it possibly could. Although reaching real equality is hard, and highly impossible, empowering developing nations might be a stepping stone in helping bring these countries on par with their more developed counterparts.

Does globalisation bring more harm than good to social inequality?

Globalisation brings about a global economic integration which brings the economies of most countries together under the market-economic system. The debate on whether globalisation does more harm than good to the global poverty situation apparently has been very popular among critics and proponents of globalisation. Globalisation is of course, intended and hoped to be beneficial and be able to resolve the problem of global poverty. Yet, admittedly, it is difficult to control the outcome of global policies structured and aimed to solve poverty. Just as how Don Reeves put it, “globalisation has had mixed effects on employment, poverty, and income distribution.”

Globalisation has been observed to generate many positive outcomes, from increased trade relations between states to foreign investments, and even the exchanges of technologies and ideas. All these are directed towards increased economic activities between one another, and as such, they would supposedly be able to reap better economic gains for those involved. Globalisation had given rise to free-trade agreements (FTAs) between countries. Globalisation had given rise to the absence of trade restrictions, globalisation had lifted the barriers-to-entry into the global market, and not to mention liberalised capital markets. These are undeniably attractive outcomes of globalisation to the global economy, and they seem to give hope to the current global poverty situation.

Then again, the effect of globalisation also includes corporate globalisation. Transnational corporations are able to set up factories and offices overseas, expanding their economic prowess on top of providing employment for the locals in those countries. Sure, the poor are able to benefit from job opportunities which are made available to them. Nokia’s entrance to China, for example, had created over 25,000 jobs for the Chinese locals. In this effect, globalisation helps resolved the problem of unemployment, which is a subset of poverty.

But realistically speaking, do these outcomes necessarily translate to effective measures to exterminate poverty?

Critics of globalisation have characterised is as a process through which “power is distilled upward and away from the poor toward the global elite.” (Aisbett, 2004) The global elites, of course, are the technocrats, politicians and transnational corporations. In the case of the FTAs for example, most of the time it benefits the more powerful country who possesses the economic might and the capital to invest in such trade agreements. Say, the richer country which is able to produce more goods and have more to export will benefit from the market of the other country, which, theoretically, would benefit from the absence of tariffs but has not much to export. While the framework of the FTA is well-intended to benefit both, ultimately it boils down to who has the capital means to make the best of this policy.

In the case of transnational corporations on the other hand, while the expansion of these rich corporations open up job opportunities for the unemployed, very often the nature of the jobs are exploitative. These corporations very often expand into Third World Countries, whose governments are more susceptible to capture and whose populations are far less empowered and educated than their home countries. Nike in Vietnam for example had been notorious for being abusive towards the employees, on top of the low-wages and long-working hours the workers had to withstand. Here, it is a clear illustration of how corporate globalisation takes advantage of the poor instead of benefiting them.

Yet ultimately, I am not saying that globalisation is bad. I am most definitely a proponent of globalisation. In the context of global poverty however, I feel that the phenomenon had not been fully understood to make it beneficial in our attempt to resolve poverty. Globalisation should been seen as an opportunity to bring together ideas and policies as best as possible to overhaul poverty. Especially in a free-market system we live in today, ultimately, globalisation is a force we have to live with, and has to be fully utilised to benefit us in closing the gap of social inequality.

 

 

“Social Problems are not solved because people do not want to solve them” (Waller)

Social problems have become a way of life. We see it everywhere; down the hidden corner of the street, on the brinks of the city, in the heart of the city, even within our very own neighbourhoods where it is closer to home. The types of social problems that exist today are also numerous. We perceive social problems to be right about anything that seem to contradict our very idea of social norm. In the Singaporean society for example, we define social problems to be right about anything that range from gangsterism to the trend of pre-marital sex, unemployment to poverty, and the list goes on from here.

But who is to define social problems? Maybe Waller might have questioned the definition of social problems, and to me, it is ultimately a social construct that is being left to the society to perceive what is problematic. Nonetheless, Nisbet have classified social facts to be problematic when they “represent interruptions in the expected or desired scheme of things; violations of the right or the proper, as a society defines these qualities; dislocations in the social patterns and relationships that a society cherishes.” In other words, it is only logical to define social problems as anything that is anarchic in nature, whatever that disrupts the utopian-type society from being what it is.

Yet Waller’s quote above seems to be rather blatant as he stated that social problems are not resolved because of people’s reluctance to solve them. He might have meant that the problems remain because people are willing to alter the basic conditions from which these problems arise. Then again, is it fair to blame the laymen for not being able to recognise and understand the root of the problem and tackle it from there? Sure, social scientists are able to discuss and recognise what might be the cause of those problems, but the society itself is susceptible to the forces which pull them into the problems.

Then again, Waller might have a point in what he said. Social problems might not be solved because people might be so accustomed to them that they see it as a part and parcel of life, that social problem is an inevitable way of life and that they think there is no end to the equation in their attempt to eliminate these problems. Being a member of a society, and especially the Malay community in Singapore where the community’s social problems are often magnified by the numbers which are ever –increasing, I see this as a dilemma too. What happens when people are so immune to all the problems that surround us? What happens when our debates on the increasing number of pre-marital sex and young parenting, or discussions about the number of school drop-outs in our community are all talk and lead to nowhere? Does that mean that we should stop trying and leave them as what they are?

This then maybe leads to people perceiving these social problems as inherent and chronic. It has become so much so a common phenomenon in our community that people might see them as inherent and chronic of the Malay community, and maybe, it might even be the cause of the social inertia.

Bringing this topic back to a more macro level, it then leads me to question who then is responsible for the extermination of these social problems? Can we blame the society per se for their inertia? Maybe the society is weak on its own, and does not have the means to resolve the problems on their own. At this moment, I believe that the authorities is responsible for coordinating all efforts directed to resolve the social problems and formulate domestic policies aimed to restructure the society in an attempt to achieve “utopia” as best as they can.