/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

All around the world, the new standard for measuring progress is the advancement of technology and that used in the society. It was also said in the previous lecture that Science and Technology allows the capitalist society to flourish. Thus, all in all, we have seen how America has evolved to be the world’s super leader not just in terms of military, economic strength, in my opinion; it is due mainly to their successful development of technology.  Technology in turn then requires the consumption of fuel in order to provide development for all.

One of the more prominent technology developed by the Americans is the Internet which was initially developed for military uses, and now, it is the information highway for the rest of the world. With the development of the Internet, the rest of the world saw the dot com boom which benefitted a lot of Americans. The point here is that with the development of technology which originated from one country of origin, benefits more the people of that country since they have the technology knowledge and the expertise which gives them the competitive edge over the other potential competitors. Microsoft, the leading operating system manufacturer is one of the most successful business in the world since they hold an almost monopoly in the software market, given their competitive edge over other operating systems. Moreover, since the people are used to the Microsoft interface, they are more likely to stick to Microsoft then to change to another one.

One of the more personal implications of technology is the use of chat rooms derived from the use of Internet, it allows one to log on and chat with people from all around the world. On the positive sides, it allows one to understand the cultures from another part of the world and promotes tolerance. People can also make friends and keep in contact with their friends via email or instant messenger in a faster pace unlike traditional snail mail. It allows people to keep in closer contact and interact more with people all around the globe. People especially teenagers have been logging onto chat rooms, seeking advice from their friends or friends that they have made online. In some cases, it could turn out disastrous since, no one really knows who is behind the façade that one has build up online and that there have been many reports of meet ups with online friends which turned nasty in the end. I am not saying that all online friends are bad and cannot be trusted but the point is that one has to practice caution when meeting up with online friend and exercise appropriate EQ and be street smart to prevent tragedies from happening. One of the more interesting notions about chat rooms is that the personalities built up are rather similar all across, even the described appearance, hobbies are similar. It prompts one to think why is there such homogeneity in the descriptions? Is it because that this is the ideal description that one must aspire to be.

What we face now in the world, is the shortage of cheap fuel. The consequences of lacking cheap fuel is very severe, since fuel gives us energy, without a cheap source of energy, how can manufacturing industry continue to produce goods at a competitive cost? Accompanying the steep rise in prices of fuel, we have seen inflation and also the demand for the increase in prices for rice. It is all a vicious cycle, in our relentless pursuit for the development of technology, not just to make our lives better but also to show the rest of the world how developed we are, we are held ransom by our desperate need for cheap fuel. The problem here is development, with development, you will need progress and definitely more and more fuel, and the world’s fuel resources cannot even last us for a few decades and the next alternative energy source is still in experimental stage. I can only hope that during my lifetime, I still have enough fuel to drive around and to sustain the world’s economy, I cannot imagine the direct and severe impact on the world’s economy when fuel is no longer available to drive our machines of production, maybe an even Greater Depression for all?

Singapore is known as the only city-state in the world, thus to me, it is easier to see the effects of urbanization here. One of the key points for urbanization is that the city is the site of globalisation process, especially so with the exchange of labour, goods and capital. And then I would like to link this to the prescribed article with regards to the ethnic enclaves formed from previously foreign workers.

Singapore started with a very small population way back in the past, after colonisation, the demand for labour went up due to trade and migrant workers came in from these 2 main countries, China and India. After which, ethnic enclaves belonging to various ethnic group soon surfaced and attracted newcomers of the same ethnic to live and reside there. This is not to say that no other people of different ethnic groups were residing here, but the vast majority are people of the same ethnic group. What was different in Singapore was that there was the clan association of various ethnic groups, they serve to help the immigrants to find a job, a place to stay and took care of them in this new foreign place. Chinatown in Singapore is not just a place where the Chinese immigrants congregate but it is then subdivided into various Chinese ethnic groups and the land that supposedly ‘belonged’ to them. This shows how the immigrants first identify themselves primarily as Chinese and then secondarily with regards to their ethnicity.

Now, let’s fast forward to the present. It is obvious that Singapore is a globalised city, with our aggressive pursuit of international talents and capital. Previously, during the 1960s, we do not see that much of foreign workers around but now, not only are we importing international talents, we are also importing workers to fill in the for the jobs that we, Singaporeans do not want to take up. This is especially evident in the domestic help industry, the construction industry. And along with this brings the threat of foreign workers who can replace us with a smaller fraction of the salary demanded. These are problems that we see in globalised city and it becomes even more evident in an urbanised city where people are cramped into a much smaller area than what we were previously used to, with such intense concentration of humans, conflicts are bound to happen.

One point to note, when Singaporeans talk about foreign workers, what we are talking about are the stereotypes of the foreign workers. We perceive them as a threat to our security; we think that just because some of them committed crimes, all of them are in it as well. But the problem is, do we fear them just because of that or is it because of some other reasons too? There was a recent poll done on the internet, which asked if we think that we should allow foreign workers, especially those from construction industry, to be housed in the heartland areas and not just the dormitories built for them, which keeps them isolated and segregated from the rest. It was then shocking to see that only 20-30% of the people polled think that they should, and the rest think not, one of the main reasons cited was the all popular they all commit crimes ideology. But what I think is that it is a combination of various factors, xenophobia, the fear of losing their replaceable jobs, and the invasion of spaces. Xenophobia, in theory should not have such an impact on Singaporeans since we are used to our multicultural society, given that there is no obvious physical differences between the new imports and us. But, to me, I believe that it is because of how we choose to differentiate ourselves from them, how we choose to identify ourselves as Singaporeans and thus alienated ourselves from them. Moreover, we expect that as a citizen, we should be protected from the forces of globalisation and not be displaced from our jobs due to competition from the foreign workers. For the part about the invasion of space, it is known that on weekends, Little India will definitely be clogged up with the foreign workers who are not just from India but also from Bangladesh and other countries too. When you see such a huge congregation of people, and especially if you perceive them to be different, it’s only natural to be scared. Some of us then shun these areas as they are overcrowded, and thus feel that the foreigners are encroaching on our space.

To me, I feel that urbanisation happened in response to the Industrial Revolution and globalisation, and that as an urbanised global city, not only are citizens of the country feeling alienated, the foreign workers are as well. And that the focus is always on how we feel, how we view and it should be time for us to think from other’s point of view and not be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Social Implications for SARS

The first obvious implication for SARS is the creation of social fear and panic which affect interaction between people. Interaction can be broadly classified into two categories, positive and negative interactions. For positive interaction, we have seen the kindness and helpfulness of strangers who are willing to go that extra mile to deliver meals to those people who are quarantined due to suspected or confirmed exposure to the disease. Moreover, we have seen the dedication of healthcare workers, who are not only willing to risk their lives to cure and take care of us but also the time apart from their family, which I can only imagine must be so hard on them. However, for negative interaction, we have seen irrational acts from people who stopped bus drivers from picking up the medical staffs in the Tan Tock Seng area as they did not want to risk exposure. And at the end of the whole SARS saga, we then saw the celebration of their heroic acts and the ‘thank you’ message on advertisements. What kind of message are we sending out as a society to our fellow members of the society, that we are so selfish that our universe is centred on ourselves, which is coincidentally what we only care about? Are those ‘thank you’ messages mere public relations (PR) stunts, a façade or do we actually mean it? Moreover, we saw the crazed and fanatic stocking up of possible cures for SARS, which in this case was Tamiflu which is derived from the Chinese spice, star anise which contains the active ingredient, shikimic acid. This is a result of the inequality between people, whereby the rich can afford to buy more of Tamiflu and thus prevent themselves from infection and increase their chances of survival.

The second implication for SARS, is the generation of paranoia in people, I remembered this rather vividly as my mum grounded me from running around in shopping centres and the constant nagging to avoid crowded areas. The idea of an invisible enemy who is everywhere and everyone is a potential candidate to be affected is more terrifying than the actual disease itself. For youngsters, I guess, at that point of time, it was more of a happy break from school work until the death rates came in, and the constant temperature taking was a perfect excuse to skip classes.

I would like to digress a bit, in a multi-player online game, World of Warcraft (WOW), there was a period in time whereby a technical glitch caused the death of virtual characters and it could be spreaded via close proximity with other virtual characters. Sociologists then studied the effects of this technical glitch and the behaviors of the players who controlled their virtual characters. It was seen that high level players were able to survive due to their higher lifespan and the ability to afford to purchase potion which restores their health and also, these players had the social capital and connections to the high level priests who were to restore their health back as well. This clearly shows the play of inequality between high level and low level players and their resulting fates. In addition, it was also observed that players tend to move their virtual characters from crowded areas like town centres, capitals towards more rural and deserted peripheral areas. While it is true that it is human nature to run away from trouble, the question is where we can run to in Singapore when we have such a high density of people living in one small plot of land. And in WOW, the virtual characters do not need to eat or drink unlike in real life where access to food and water is paramount to survival. It is a scientific tidbit that regardless of the epidemic, there will always be survivors who are able to survive such harsh conditions and carry on with the propagation of the human race.

Identity allows us to define ourselves; it gives labels for people to describe and to be more knowledgeable about ourselves. It is obvious that certain description will induce feelings in people be it positive or negative, the mentality of people are also subjected to the norms of the society. For example, promiscuity in a Western and an Asian context, in the West, it is no big deal for the majority, it is the norm there instead to sleep around which is tied to the idea of sexual liberation after the hippie revolution unlike their Asian counterpart which is although more conservative, there still exists some differences in the viewing of promiscuity. In more liberal Asian society, promiscuity is frowned upon but tolerated however, in more conservative Asian society, promiscuity can be punishable by death. It is all about the mentality of the people in the society, how they have been indoctrinated, and the societal environment present which allows people to justify their actions.

Identity is a social construction; it is an idea that has been accorded certain meaning in major agreement of the society to which it belongs. For example, money is but a piece of paper which is printed with fancy designs and with a lot of anit-counterfeiting measures present on it. Money is accorded with a value by the society, and its main purpose is to allow its’ owner to purchase services, to receive payments from clients, though without it trade can still carry on but in a much more tedious way. Why do people in the society then choose to accord such a value to the paper? I believe that it is to adapt and evolve to suit one’s needs, values and interests.

The all time favourite identity that separates is gender, we have all seen how the identity of gender has been used to create a division between the genders, how it has been constructed to make people believe that as a female, we have to fulfill our gender roles, which are determined by our society. To make matters worse, the original intention for dowry in India is to protect their daughters by giving them a second route should anything happens, but now, dowry is compulsory and because of this, at least 5000 Indian brides are murdered when their mother-in-law or husband feels that it is too little, after all they can marry another woman and receive another set of dowry. Here, the identity at play is the gender; it shows how it influences and affects the interaction and behavior of the people involved. By using the concept of identity here, it allows people to justify their actions, because to them, it is the norm, in the Indian culture, the woman must pay the dowry for the man to marry her, and it could be that the man attaches his self-worth to the price that he is getting. All in all, due to the previous agriculture period, men are favoured due to their strength and are thus prized over women, which then lead to the patriarchal society where men dominate and control, it is only natural that they extend their realm of control towards their female counterparts and propagate ideas that further their own interests. And thus, we can see the social structures in place which favours the males, and the mentality of the people is controlled for example by social institutions like schools, this then further allows the domination of the males. Again, this is in context of the Indian society, this is true of the more conservative states while having a fraction of truth in more liberal states because society is constantly evolving and changing, even more so now with globalization which allows the exchange of ideas and goods at such a rapid pace. We have seen how the concept of human rights is exchanged throughout the world, the steps taken to implement this idea which is accorded with a value, the why is not always clear because sometimes, the cry of human rights infringement is but a mask for others to extend control over another country. And because of this idea of human rights, some sciences are not allowed to be researched which could yield enormous medical advances and benefits for the entire human population, for example, embryo research, the use of embryos in genetic engineering and such researches, if successful, we no longer have to wait endlessly on the organ donation waitlist but instead can just clone our organs and we no longer have to worry about it being rejected by our body because it is viewed as foreign object or be on immune-suppressor drugs for the rest of our lives. The idea of being a human, an identity, is then used to prevent advances beneficial to other humans. The mere definition that justifies our course of action, this cruelly points out to us that, we are just tools to be manipulated in this game of words with our upbringing which is in accordance with the societal environments. So, the next time you glance upon a part of our Education slogan, moulding the minds of the next generation, maybe it will spark a realization in you that, education is the main source of influence and it allows good control over the population of the educated and that it may not be that harmless after all since, the people who decide on our educational policy and curriculum are the state and if I am in power, it is obvious that I will support and propagate ideas that are in tandem with my ideologies.

Democracy is supposed to mean the rule of people, or better elaborated as the government for the people and by the people. As such, it is only natural that the government in power takes the opinion of the people who they are representing into consideration. But how many times have we seen the government ask for our opinions and then make their own decisions without consideration of our concerns and objections? The recent Integrated Resort (IR) issue is a fine example of the above statement. I am personally not against the government or any of the sort, this is merely my two cents worth of opinions so please do not take any legal actions against me. In the IR issue, the government consulted the religious bodies in Singapore who if I remembered correctly are against the idea of constructing an IR here, moreover, tens of thousands of signatures were gathered on a petition which is against the IR was also collected and submitted. Even when faced with such if I may say intense objections, the government gave the green light for the IR. Does this mean that when faced with economic advantages or development, one will be willing to sacrifice one’s ideology or religion for it?

One important thing to note would be that PAP came into power during turbulent times and also when Singapore split from the Federation of Malaysia which allowed the ruling party to govern with an iron fist. The ruling party implemented policies like “Stop at Two”, “Graduate Mothers Scheme” and also outlawed strikes, riots. As such, with prior conditioning, her citizens no longer question or challenge the ruling party’s decision. Yes, we citizens do make lots of noise like ’complain session’ with our friends, neighbours, family members about the implementations of certain rules and action for example Electronic Road Pricing (ERP). But, how do we actually voice our opinions back to the government in power? In Singapore, we have Meet the Members of Parliament (MP) sessions, grassroots leaders and of course did I forget to mention the ‘famous’ Speakers’ Corner? So, it seems that we do have a lot of avenue for us to voice our opinions and for the government to receive them. But, why do we not provide such feedbacks? As said earlier, it is due to the prior conditioning provided during the turbulent times, and the majority of the age eligible voters have been through the hard times with the party and have witness and benefitted from the economic transformation in Singapore. Moreover, the influence of Western ideologies like Freedom of Speech has not reached them yet at that point of time. Now with the upcoming of Generation X, with increased education, awareness of the world and the influence and infusion of different ideologies, and the availability of an all important platform, the Internet, which allows us to voice and share our opinions with others, maybe we the younger folks of Singapore will pay closer attention to our own political arena instead of being so apathetic about it. But, with the threat of being sued to ‘nothingness’ as evident in treatment of political dissent views, who would then dare to oppose or voice out loud to all about their political dissent views? Maybe, if our big brother finally embrace the idea of Freedom of Speech, and that there can and should be opposition parties present, will we actually experience democracy the way it is meant for and not worry about our choice in voting since our NRIC numbers are printed on it.

It has been said that war is legitimate violence, the usual rules with regards to violence does not apply to it. But why is war a form of legitimate violence, is it because there is no other way to resolve the issue and that it is a self defensive mechanism? It is understood that violence is an action, its intention can be varied, and that its intention can be perceived to be otherwise in terms of the environment in which violence took place and the definition of violence in its context.

The society defines violence as actions or words which are intended to hurt people, and in war, violence is understood. In the society that goes to war, how do its members view the others who took part in the war? Are they indignant that the others are so cruel and ruthless that they kill and maim other human beings? No, instead, the people who took part in the war are viewed as heroes. This shows how violence, the same action can trigger different responses in people, due to environment and the definition in its context. It also reinforces the societal need for those people to take part in the war; it showcases those people in a positive light, as martyrs who are to willing to lay down their lives to protect their members of the society. Martyrs because wars normally start with differences in political and religious differences, we have seen so many instances of it, the crusades and etc.

In addition to war, we have war industry, the sole purpose of this industry is to come up with more advanced machines, in fact more accurate killing machines in terms of stealth and etc, to facilitate and help us to kill and thus deter the enemy. In this part of the century, we have seen how advancements in Science and Technology have enabled us to stop wars, like the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which stopped the World War II. Is it because of this, which allowed the proliferation of the war industry or is it because of the financial benefits that catalysed the war industry to what it is now? In my opinion, the first purpose in the Manhattan project was to end the war but after that, and it was showcased how important it is to have such advanced technology over the opponent, and the need to arm oneself after being through all the World Wars, that led to the formation of the war industry.

What is so wrong with the war industry then? They have come up with pin point accuracy missiles, which lock their targets and destroy only their targets as opposed to older technology which might not be that accurate. I believe that is because of the purpose of the war industry, instead of incapacitating their opponents, they are killing them. It is a human life we are talking about here, who are entitled to the same human rights as the one doing the killing. Why are people willing to bend their beliefs and kill others? Maybe, it is because of how the members in the society are indoctrinated with a set of beliefs that are so strong that they are willing to do whatever that is needed to protect. We have seen how nationalism works, how the Japanese soldiers i.e. Kamikaze are so willing to kill and die for their Emperor, this is how strong the indoctrination is. In the Cold War era, the increasing possibility of a nuclear war, the tension between all nations, what is the point of having such potent technology when it is intended only to kill and blow all into little pieces?

It is all about how the society defines war, it is a modernized and of course civilized society, so hopefully we can all behave like modern and civilized people and stop all these forms of cruelty. And bearing in mind, the hidden agenda of going to war i.e. for oil in the Iraq war, to look beyond what is said on the surface and to protect the sacredness of a human life for all.

Crime has always been a feature of society, but what propels people to commit crimes? In modern society, when we think about big magnificent cities like New York, London, Los Angeles, we now realize that beneath the glitzy surface, they are facing a rather serious crime problem. The reasons for committing crime are varied but most of them are centred on political, social and cultural disruption, growing inequality, unemployment and lack of opportunities.

It is rather obvious why these reasons would lead to crimes but what can the social institutions in place do anything about it? Social institutions like family, school, laws in fact exacerbate their member’s plight and push them towards crime. Why is that so then? Looking at the crimes committed in the major cities like Washington D.C., it is glaring to one that the ratio of white to black inmates is very disproportionate and among black men in their twenties, one of three is in jail, on probation, or on parole which will then lead to about half of all young black men are in prison or in the corrections system. I am not saying that all black men are potential perpetrators but rather they are position in an environment which does not allow them to compete with their peers on a level playing field.

Accordingly, the black in America represents about 12% of the population but only about 7% of them made it to college. This can be traced back to the unequal playing field, looking at the vast number of black men who are in prison and how this would affect their family. The obvious one would be the lack of income supplied from one parent and the mother would have to work in order to support the family. But with just one income, and not a high income for the majority of these people, how can they then afford to send their children to supplementary classes to enable them to compete with their fellow peers? The general difference between the white and the black students is the white student work for leisure and maybe their own pocket money whereas for the black student, they view it as a need to help supplement the income brought home by their parents. There are many temptations of a quick ‘buck’ along the way, with opportunities into drug trafficking and into gang, it could be viewed as an acceptance into a community, and they are united by their common frustrations and also if I may push it their ethnicity, against the society. Again, I would stress that it is a general picture and that there are many exceptions to it. There are many black people who are well represented in social institutions like law, and who hold power in politics and are fabulously rich, well educated but it is still a struggle for most of them in the grassroots’ level.

It does look like a rather grim picture for the black population, but there has been actions taken by

the government, part of social institution to create a more level playing field for the black through

affirmative actions. As just one example of these affirmative action’s policies, the proportion of blacks and Hispanics in the entering freshman class at U.C. Berkeley rose from about 11% in 1983 to about 29% in 1990, more than doubling their proportions. The percentages of Asians in entering classes remained roughly constant at 29%, while the proportion of white enrollees fell from 58% to about 37%. 13 This was accomplished by applying quite different criteria for admissions to students in these different racial and ethnic groups. Similar policies are in place in almost every American college and university; the numbers in many are not as dramatic as at Berkeley only because they have fewer minority applicants. But is this all that the government can do, and to do this, is not this going against the policy of meritocracy and now instead of discriminating against the black, it is now the white who are discriminated against? I personally feel that instead of implementing such rules, the government should understand the plight of the black people, what they need in order to advance in their education, standards of living in order for more to be able to compete as opposed to such affirmative action which will only in time lead to more social division and to an increase in crime rates.

I remembered seeing this question in my General Paper, basically, it was asking us to argue if the women rights movement has been too successful, such that it is now the men who are discriminated against. The first thought that went past my mind was a resounding no, because it was apparent to me that more have to be done.  One classic example would be the barrier to higher education, even though in Singapore, our educational advancement is based on meritocracy, it was rather appalling that for highly sought after courses like medicine, there is a quota for the enrollment of female students even if they are equally qualified for it.

Instead of going on in the old fashion way, talking about the invisible glass ceiling for women’s salary and the preferential treatment for promotion for the men, I would prefer to talk about the expectations of a women because, I feel that with the rising educational qualification of the women, it will put them on par with the men, assuming of course that they are equally qualified and that they have the same working capabilities. Since, there is a continuous struggle to retain and acquire new talents at work; the playing field might be shifted to a more equal one.  The expectations of modern women have gone beyond that of our mothers and grandmothers; we are no longer just expected to be a mother and a wife but also as an employee who will contribute to her company and also to her family not just emotionally but also financially.  These expectations are, to me, unrealistic because it assumes that we are able to juggle both work and family simultaneously but who honestly can say that they are utterly comfortable with it, and they do not feel the pinch when they need to sacrifice one for another at any one time when the situation arises.

These unrealistic expectations will tend to make women feel worn out and stretched as they need to juggle all these roles simultaneously, all these will then affect her family, her children and also her husband. It is rather interesting to note that when everyone thinks about a working mother and the help that she may require, quite often, it is centralized on her young children and the need to provide childcare services. But, to me, it is not just the young children who are affected but also her teenage children who may be undergoing a rebellious stage in their lives. People tend to place more emphasis on the younger children because they believe that they do not have the capability to take care of themselves unlike their older siblings. This then tend to make the older children feel neglected because they do not require help as obviously as their younger siblings. One must always bear in mind that during one’s teenage years, one will be exposed to a whole new world; with new things to learn and the need to adapt and excel, not just in their studies, but also their interaction with their friends and families and the blossoming romance which holds the allure for most teenagers. Teenage years can be considered one of the most turbulent years in a person’s life, as their bodies are physically changing, their mindsets are too and the perception of themselves in their peers is all important to them. Here, is actually where they are vulnerable at and may need guidance in, I am not saying that parents should continue to maintain an autocratic rule over them, on the contrary, I believe that they should start to give them more freedom when appropriate and give them the trust that they need and to let their teenagers know that they are always there when they need them.

Men are now expected to take on as many roles as a modern women, although, I concede that eventually, when push comes to shove, it is almost always the women who sacrifice their jobs and career. They are now expected to play a more active role in nurturing their children and also to participate in the household chores as compared to them being a breadwinner only. This can change and impact not just them but also their families as women have an equal say in household matters now.

I will sidetrack a little, in Singapore, it is getting increasingly more difficult to have a single income family, and both parents are more likely to work in order to support the family in order to have a better material life. Unlike their other female counterparts, with money, women in Singapore can hire domestic maids to clean the house and take care of their children. This option is sadly not available for other women in the other countries, even more so for the women who choose to leave their families behind in those developing countries in order to make a living.

With all these problems, no wonder women now tend to push pregnancy to a later stage of their lives and even if they do give birth, I believe the limit is 2. I wonder if this is due to the overwhelming success of the Singapore government’s policy of stopping at 2 in the 1960s. The latest incentive to encourage procreation, to me, is more like that of the World Bank prescribing what they think is the cure when they have not surveyed and understand the concerns of the people they are serving. Money can indeed solve a lot of problems, but at the same time, it creates other problems as well, say the employment of maids can solve the need for the women to do household chores and to take care of their children, unless she is always at home, chances are, the children are likely to grow closer to the maid as seen in Singapore. I believe that more needs to be done before people will want to give birth and this links back to the need to create a more equal playing for the women and the men to take on their roles as a partner, an equal.

Blog part 2

Class and Inequality

Equality is an ideology that most people would subscribe to, be it gender equality, the equal rights of a human being, but we have all seen that despite the numerous efforts to create an equal ground for all, equality still eludes us. Maybe it is because the mere idea of equality is flawed in the first place as it does not take into consideration the nature of humans, which can be plainly translated into ‘Me, Myself and I’.  To put it simply, humans are after all a part of the animal kingdom, no matter how we try to distinguish ourselves apart from them, we still have the instinct to survive in built in us as it remains the survival of the fittest. However, there is still one thing that clearly differentiates us from the rest, the ability to think and reason and also the need to sympathise and lend a helping hand to the other people in society who need it.

The first and the most glaring difference in the world today, is the double divide between the rich and the poor nations, and between the rich and the poor people in their respective nations. One point that I would like to state clearly is that, there are still poor people in those rich nations and likewise, there are still rich people in those poor nations. The next question that springs to mind is why do the rich get richer while the poor get poorer? According to the Marxism and Dependency theory, the rich own the means of production and they are stuck in the continual crisis of profits as the market work against them and drive down the cost of their products due to the competition faced. They in turn then pass the pressure to their workers by reducing their wages to a bare subsistence level in order for them to remain competitive i.e. lower cost for their products. Such a scenario has been seen in the now developed nations a few decades back but now, the search for a lower cost of production has lead them to close down their factories back at home due to restrictions imposed on them such as minimum wages, employment benefits and from the pressure of the unions which seeks to protect the interest of the workers. This then results in the rich, especially the Multi-National Companies (MNCs) to move their means of production to the developing nations where cheap labour is in abundance. This represents the shift of exploitation from the developed to the developing world, as the workers in the developing world perform the same work or more for a much lower wage. Almost everyone in the developed world would lament about the shift of the place of manufacturing for the companies but will anyone pay more for a product made solely in the United States as compared to one that is assembled with parts made globally, assuming that they are of the same quality? The power of the unions in the developing nations is rather limited, and the minimum wage and other employment benefits are much lower and lesser as compared to the developed nations, thus it facilitates the exploitation of cheap labour and further encourages the shift of operation. The other point that I would like to point out is that although the shift of companies brings employment to the receipt nation, the bulk of the monetary gains are still channelled back into their home country and it does not stay in the receipt nation. Moreover, the employment created by the companies are mainly the lower paid jobs like machine operators and not those management level jobs and most likely, the management level jobs still go to the people from their own home country who still enjoy more wages and benefits unlike their counterparts. People normally tend to have the misconception that having companies relocating to their country is a good thing, as it creates employment opportunities for them. But have they actually sat down and ponder about the other impacts that the companies can bring with them and that they are the one being exploited in order to allow these companies to accumulate more wealth while they remain stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty?

As said earlier, Globalisation is a tool but the one wielding it is the one cross-examining it at all angles, the human race. The problem with the human race is that it is so full of differing views and of course there is no solution that will please all. Take for example, the AIDS situation in Africa, the basic differing views belong to 2 classes; to help or not to help. Which can then be subdivided into why should they be helped, or not. I would believe that generally, people would want to lend a helping hand towards them ideologically but when something is required from them, like money, some may then think otherwise.

However, Globalisation also has it strong points, along with advances in technology, it allows people to be aware of the situation in the other part of the world. For example, the Tsunami incident in Asia, has seen donations and help pouring in from all parts of the world.  Maybe, the human race is not as heartless as it seems even with all the problems it is facing from all over, with problems ranging from environmental to social. A wise man once said that the extent of progress that we have achieved can be measured by the way we treat the weaker members of our society and not by the fancy skyscapers that we have that is dominating our skyline.