Technology is as old as man himself. From stone axes and animal skins to laptops and refrigerators, man has armed himself with the necessary tools to survive and make his stay on earth comfortable. Should any tool be found wanting, it is quickly discarded and a better one invented. And it keeps getting better and better, and it comes faster and faster.

Technology comes in only one way: exponentially. Only with the basic technologies under the belt can the more advanced ones be realized. So, it is with no surprise that at a certain point in time will the ideas and inventions climax in such a way to bring civilization forward like never before. That is exactly what happened in the Renaissance period. Crazy ideas were conceived and crazy efforts to birth them were attempted. Not all succeeded of course, but those were crazy times, and enough succeeded for the period to be known as the “re-enlightened” times.

In more recent times, IT and communication technologies have been advancing rapidly. The personal computer, the Internet and the mobile phone were inconceivable a few decades ago. And now, it is impossible to think of a single day without any of them.

The Internet has been credited with the sharing of information across the world. The barriers of entry are almost negligible in most countries. Almost anyone can put up information on the Internet, and almost anyone can access and learn from the Internet. So much so that even in education in Singapore, the slogan now is “Teach less, learn more”. The emphasis of the information source has shifted from the teachers. They are no longer the guardians of the bastion of knowledge. They are more like tour guides now. They point you in the direction you need to go, and bring you there if need be, but they leave it to you to learn what you will and can. Such proliferation of information has caused learning and the spread of knowledge to be more widespread than ever.

But with every type of coin there is, there is always the flip side. Pornography spreads through the Internet too. When previously, you could safeguard the kids at home by restricting import of sleazy and unsavory magazines and videos, now the pornography enters the house directly via the Internet. It is almost impossible to even keep it out. Even with “Adult Filters” on, innocuous searches for “girls playing” results in content you might not expect to have. And with the electronic mail services, porn-adverts get into the inbox, sometimes with unsuspecting titles.

With the advent of the mobile phone, communication has never been easier and more convenient. We can stay in touch with friends through phone calls or SMSes. And it is so convenient. We all have our own mobile phones. There is no need to queue for public phones or to wait for the mailman to deliver our letters and to bring our replies. Our friends and relatives are literally at the touch of a few buttons. And the latest in communication technology is the video call, where you can actually see the person you are talking to. With such technology, you’ll be forgiven for thinking we would become more sociable and have more of a personal touch. But yet the contrary is true. Surveys have shown that people are becoming less sociable, finding face-to-face talks awkward, inconvenient and even time consuming. They prefer ‘talking’ over SMSes, and online chat programs. Studies have also shown that with the next generation who grew up  with such technologies, they are actually unsociable, and find it extremely uncomfortable to talk face-to-face, finding confidence only when facing a screen.

Perhaps one that is more relevant to us is the usage of laptops during classes. Wireless networks have been set up covering the whole campus, and power points made readily available for the convenience of laptop wielders. But one can almost expect the student behind the laptop to be doing something entirely irrelevant to the class at hand. The advantages the laptop offers to students are sometimes more than a hindrance than anything else. So much so, that more students are actually swearing off bringing laptops to school, reverting to the old pen and paper way of taking notes.

Like coins, you can’t choose to have one side without the other. So it is with technology. Some times, advancements for the sake of advancement itself are not worth it. Some times, older, less advanced ways seem the better deal.

Remarkable advances in science, especially biomedical sciences, have resulted in greater quality of healthcare and medicinal treatment. An individual’s lifespan has been progressively increasing over the years. People are now living longer and healthier. 90-plus year olds, and century year olds, though still uncommon, are less of a miracle now than it was a couple of decades ago. Soon, people may yet live to the biblical seven-score and ten years (150 years).

With these surges in biomedical advances, birth rates are perhaps going the other way, in the developed and first world states and cities anyway. Malthus’ Principle of Population suggests that natural checks on population growth keep the number of people on earth sustainable, like famine, war and natural disasters. Add longer life spans and contraception to the list. With people living longer and longer, they are choosing to have lesser and lesser kids. Perhaps also in-part due to the increasing hectic career commitments of both man and woman, the lessening stigmatization of childlessness, and the increasing survival rates of infants, people in the first world countries are definitely having lesser kids.

With more people having lesser kids, the result will be an ageing population in the first world cities. Meanwhile, in the third world countries, where advanced and expensive medical treatment is not available, or even basic medical care is difficult to find, the baby factories are still working hard day and night.

With the first world cities losing local population due to low birth rates, and the need to remain competitive, they turn to importing population from other places. Drawing an example from Singapore, when faced with dipping birth rates and an exodus in emigration, Lee Kuan Yew simply remarked that we would just have to replace them with skilled people from India, Mainland China and elsewhere (Bell, 1997). With much of Singapore’s local population becoming educated, menial jobs are being shunned. No one will take them up. ‘Guest workers’ from Bangladesh and similar countries have to be brought in to fill these jobs.

But now, even Mainland China is facing population issues. After so many years of one-child policy, current reports show that up to 6 adults are caring for one baby now: the infant’s parents and all four of his/her paternal as well as maternal grandparents. The ratio is staggering. Perhaps in time to come, as China progresses to a true first world country, her population will also dwindle just as so many other first world cities have. Will they then implement similar immigration policies, to attract people from ‘third world’ countries? Will then, their progress towards a First World country and cities, result in them being populated with people from the Third World instead?

Bell, Daniel A. (1997). “A Communitarian Critique of Authoritarianism: The Case of Singapore”. In Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 6-32. SAGE Publication, Inc.

Cities provide hope for the people, especially the poor. The lure of jobs and the promise of freedom from backbreaking farming are often found in cities. Cities are also often seen as the bastions of knowledge and fortune. To get to any of these, you have to get inside. It’s a privilege for the “insiders”. There is a saying, slightly different depending on where you come from, ‘If you’re willing to work, you won’t starve in the city.’ Cities are for everyone, where the poor go to be rich, and the rich, richer.

Cities grow and flourish because they are central places (Jacobs, 1970, 1984). It’s where trade, religion and royalty converge. People go there to sell goods; people go there to buy goods; and people who have neither goods to sell, nor money to buy go there too, hoping to get goods to sell, or money to buy. The cities are where the money is, so the rural areas are neglected by the government. (Lipton, 1977). That’s why many of the rural poor flock to the cities, seeking fortune and a future.

With so many of the poor having to leave their rural homes behind, they are often lost in the urban jungle. They had to leave their families and ties behind, causing them to feel lost and un-belonged (Durkheim, 1897). Not contented in feeling lonely, they seek out others of their kind, and forge similar ties to those they left behind. (Gans, 1962). They practically import a community, from the rural areas right smack into the cities. This challenges the people who were there already (Park, 1914) and creates tension within the cities.

Not everyone who goes to the cities find jobs. A significant minority remain jobless, or become jobless often enough, that crime becomes a more viable option to them. These, too, gather together in their ethnical groups. Ethnical criminal organisations also ‘part-time’ in protecting the turfs of their community.

With such a constant influx of new (and sometimes unsavory) members, the city dwellers also feel displaced within their own territories. Tensions soar and city safety can no longer be guaranteed.

With so many people within the city, the number of vehicles increase exponentially. And it degrades the air. Factories, cars and human fumes all contribute to making fresh air a rare commodity.

With globalization, and the constant need to compress everything to fit in everyone and to accommodate their preferences, the buildings in the cities bear no difference from one another. They all look the same – international style.

With advances in communication technologies, office folks are increasingly not required to work in their offices. More and more corporations offer their higher end employees to work from home, over the internet. With this, there is now no difference whether you work at home 3 miles from office, or 300 miles.

This is a new phenomena occurring. Facing all these, the richer city folks are abandoning ship. The city no longer hold any attraction for them. City lifestyle is nothing but negative for them. They want to pursue a more wholesome life, where they can breathe fresh air, have their own space and not worry about the increasing crime rates. For those who can afford to leave, they’re finding cheaper estate prices, and less congestion of the sub-urban areas more attractive. Not to say, lower crime rates as well.

But for the poor, they have no such options. The city still holds the hope of fortune and fame. They have to be ‘inside’ to enjoy the proximity of medical and educational services, where they have no access to in the rural areas. They still need the city. For a hope, if not anything.

The rich are leaving, but the poor continues to flock in. But without the rich, the job-makers, can the city still hold any viable hope for the poor? Without the rich, the city can only turn out to be slums for the poor. With enough passage of time, the situation will be reversed. The rich will be out in the countryside, while the poor all huddle in the city. The city will, in time to come, be where the poor, the down and the destitute converge.

An identity is important to an individual. It tells him what he is and what he’s not. It used to be the area you were born in that was most important. People from the same ‘hometown’ become closer than blood even if they had just met for five minutes. This is because the particular area that you come from identifies you and gives you a particular characteristic. For example, Hakka families have to have soup for dinner every night. A meal without soup is never complete. And it also differentiates you. Italians never open presents when they receive them, whereas Egyptians never fail to do so.

Ethnicity used to be the way people were grouped and separated. When the Raffles and company took over control of Singapore and the migrants poured in, they divided the island into little territories so that every group has its own place to have. The Government, of course, had its own land around Fort Canning area. The Europeans had the southwest bank of the Singapore River. The Chinese was southwest of the European area. The Malays was given land near Panglima Prang, which grew to form Kampong Glam. The Indians, too, had their share along the Singapore River. (Tan, Bonny (2002) Raffles Town Plan, http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_658_2005-01-07.html). Clear lines of demarcation were drawn, and infringements were unacceptable. Not only were they separated into the different countries that they came from, the Chinese were even more particular. They further divided themselves into their dialect groups, with the Hokkien and Teochew clan becoming rather powerful. They enforced this unwritten demarcation with gangs.

After achieving independence, the ruling party PAP had different ideas. Rioting had turned Singapore into a warfront for different ideologies, racial unhappiness and regional instability. The Indians and Malays got along rather well generally, but the Malays didn’t like the Europeans and this escalated and erupted in the Maria Hertogh Riots in 1950 and 1951. The Chinese, on the other hand, had quarrels with everyone and even among themselves, over racial, religious and political issues. These, PAP claimed, were instigated by pro-Malay UMNO in Malaysia, the European-hating Indonesians, and the communist Chinese trying to take over this part of the world.

PAP couldn’t allow this to carry on. And if they could not reconcile the racial and religious differences, they had to create another identity for the people to be united. Thus, nation-building exercises became priority. Nationalism was a tough thing to do. Singapore, as a nation, had only recently achieved independence. A newborn compared to the millennia-lasting China and India, and the Malays from Malaysia. They uprooted everyone from their little territories and made them share everything, in their HDB flat policies. Every incident of note became a chance for a nation-building exercise. The age-old, and some say aging, mantra that Singaporeans have to stay united, regardless of race or religion, was repeated throughout, even till now, in the recent cases of SARS and terrorism.

Nationalism had to replace ethnicity as the unifying cause, because Singapore was birthed out of nowhere. A little red dot in a sea of green, as a Minister said. And also, the differences Malaysia had with Singapore meant that Singapore could not allow the local Malays to side with the other Malays on the other side. The same goes for the Chinese who might identify with their Communist motherland.

But now, things are changing again. In the face of globalization, nationalism is running thin. ‘Rent-a-citizen’ policies have become rather popular. This is most evident in the sporting world. Brazilian soccer players were offered citizenships to play in and for Singapore. But as they grew older and retired from playing, they chose to renounce their citizenship and return to where they came from. Singaporeans Li Jiawei and her fellow paddlers received a mixed reaction when they won the silver medal in the recent Beijing Olympics, where every other national table-tennis team sported a China-born player. Some derided the paddlers, saying they are not Singaporeans, and it’s a shame to have to depend on ‘outsiders’ to win. Others ‘protected’ them, saying they won us a medal, so we should be proud of them.

To me, the two seems the same. They were recruited because of their talents, nothing else. And they chose to be recruited because of the monetary gains, nothing else. It smacks more of a business deal rather than national pride. Citizenship is freely granted to ‘deserving’ individuals who bring value to the country. As time goes by, these ‘citizens’ might decide to bring their value to other countries, which offer a more deserving pay for their talents. Citizenship seems nothing more than a perk or benefit from a corporation.

Nationalism seems to be going the way of ethnicity, with something else coming on to replace it. I’m not too sure what it is. But one thing is for sure, not even a citizenship can ensure a person’s loyalty anymore.

Democracy is championed as the best political system there is. Not perfect, mind you, but one that defends the rights of the people better than any other. After all, demos means people, and kratos means rule. Together, democracy means people power – power is given to the people. Simply put, democracy is “the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” (Abraham Lincoln)

Authoritarian rule, on the other hand, has been criticized by many. Very quickly, the quote comes to mind: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Any individual who holds great power in his hands is feared across the world. Qin Shi Huang, Roman Emperor Commodus, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussien are but a few of them. All of those listed have been removed forcibly, both by internal and external factions. Their actions and rule have shaped the word tyranny into meaning oppressive rule.

Yet, democracy is not as fair and just as it is portrayed. The impression is that if the people hold the power, then how can the people’s rights be violated? But it can and it has. And it can all be seen on the local scene, in Singapore itself.

Singapore is self-proclaimed a democracy. It has both presidential as well as parliamentary elections every four to five years. Every citizen of age has the constitutional right to vote. But this is where it ends. The average citizen has no say in national policies. Even the people’s representatives, the MPs and grassroots leaders, have limited say. The situation is compounded by the fact that the political opposition is but a façade. Held down by the various legislation, such as the Internal Security Act and defamations lawsuits, opposition presence in the Parliament is negligible. Policy-makers are essentially from the ruling party, as are those who approve or critic of such policies. The people’s power extents only as far as to vote for the ruling party or not. And having a majority of the constituencies uncontested, the ruling party is essentially re-elected even before the elections begin. As such, even the choice of the people is negligible, given that they only have one choice.  With this, Singapore’s system can hardly be considered democratic.

But we have to consider one thing. If the people were unhappy with the government, or felt highly subjected, they can choose to abstain from voting altogether, which is their constitutional right. But they chose not to. In other words, they have chosen this government and have cast their vote to have this government remain in power. This government, which has largely denied the people’s voice to be heard; the very same government which has used the ISA to detain her own citizens without trial over the years; as well as the same government which has sued more than a few of her people to bankruptcy for being outspoken in opposition.

It all started right at independence, when the charismatic then-opposition leader Mr Lee Kuan Yew won over the hearts of the people by pledging them economic prosperity, social stability and security, if only they would support him whole-heartedly, and trust his policies. Facing racial riots, communism, and the lack of resources and work, the people then signed a social contract with him, exchanging their silent vote for all that he promised. And delivered he did. Singapore was built from scratch, from one facing oblivion at the separation from Malaysia, to an economical regional power. Singapore is considered one of the safest cities in the world, one where people of many races and religions can live side b side. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his successors in PAP has continually delivered what he promised at the start, and they have continually expected the people to keep their end of the bargain: to give their silent vote.

In the United States, it is happening as well. Days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act, that gives wide, undefined discretionary powers to US law enforcement agencies to fight terrorism. In the emotional forest-fires in the days after the attacks, both houses of the Congress greeted the Act with overwhelming approval and the Act was passed into law. The Act consists of many sections that can be considered to be very authoritarian and very un-democratic indeed.

Under the Patriot Act, any form of communication can be taped and recorded and used as evidence. Searches and arrests can be made without warrants. Citizens can be detained indefinitely without trial or rights to legal representation. Non-citizens can also be detained without trial and rights, but with a definite timeframe. Law enforcement agencies cannot be forced to divulge the whereabouts or happenings of the detainees. Gag orders can be imposed on the press and judicial courts without explanation. The definition of terrorism has been expanded to include activities that are “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State”. And this is in relation to the expansion of death penalty to include acts of or support of acts of terrorism.

Despite many sections of the Act infringing on the rights of the individual, especially the citizen of US, the Act was passed with overwhelming support. This reflects a phenomena similar to that of Singapore: that the people, giving their vote to support and give up their individual rights in exchange for something, in this case it would be the promise of protection from terrorism.

Both in Singapore and United States, many of the laws actually are quite similar to that in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Yet the two countries are democracies, with the people surrendering their vote to turn the country more than two shades of authoritarian. Nazi Germany is the polar opposite of democratic Singapore and United States, yet they have much in common, including their beginnings. Nazi Germany was a democracy. Hitler was voted into power. So now, what is democratic and what is authoritarian? Now, that’s a scary thought.

Much of the countries in the world are capitalist in nature. Even supposedly communist countries, like China, are running on a trade system more capitalist than socialist. The capitalist system is based on the efficiency of division of labour as described by Adam Smith.

In a nutshell, the capitalist system divides up the work that needs to be done, so that each worker becomes a specialist in his own area of work, using his expertise and efficiency to produce products in greater efficiency and quality. But also, it lowers the importance of the individual worker in the line production. Because the work for the individual worker is divided in such small pieces that the worker is easily replaceable. This gives rise to the search for the cheapest labour around. Aided by the increasingly rapid global transportation network, and international trade agreements, this has resulted in multi-national companies basing their factories and production lines in third-world countries where workers can easily be trained and wages are a fraction of what it would cost in first-world countries. This is also the basis of the efficiency model of the capitalist system: get the lowest production costs (including workers’ wages and materials) and sell it at the highest price.

This has resulted in many MNCs relocating their factories in places where labour is much cheaper and the workers skilled enough to handle the machinery. An example is China, where much of the world’s factories and world corporations have their production line there. The main reason is that workers there charge lesser.

The side effect of such a move is that the economy of the third-world country is that the workers will increase their skills and the economy of the country will improve, as a result of the factories relocating there. And the standard of living will rise, and with that, the wage demands of the workers.

What will happen is that with the wage demands and standard of living as well as the economy rising, the third-world country will become a first-world country eventually. Then, the MNCs will move on to the next third-world country where wages are again cheaper. But what will happen when there are no longer third-world countries? Will the mechanics of free trade make it fair for those at the production line? Because workers are demanding around the same pay, so the employers have to take care of the welfare of the workers, to attract them to work. Or will the capitalist and efficient system use the less first-world country workers to work?

Enforcements from the government could also do the trick, as recommended by Adam Smith. This is to ensure that employers do their part to not abuse the workers. Yet then, this is a compromise on the efficiency of the capitalist system, which will not sit well with the employers.

It will be a tough balancing act, to ensure that the capitalist MNCs do not go through the third-world countries to get the cheapest deals, and at the end of it all, to raise the standard of living so high, for nothing, because at the end of it, they’ll just take the cheapest labour again, plunging the world into a vicious cycle of cheap labour and ever rising cost of living.

The war on terror is a common term used to describe the various military, economical and political actions by United States in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Within less than a month of the bombing of the New York World Trade Centre, the war in Afghanistan, and days later, Operation Active Endeavour, an attempt to establish naval power in the Mediterranean Sea, commenced. The following year, Operation Enduring Freedom started in various places like Philippines and Africa. And in 2003, the war in Iraq started.

The official objectives of the 2001 War on Terrorism are to counter terrorist threats, prevent terrorist acts and curb the influence of terrorist organizations (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011007-8.html), specifically targeting the Al Qaeda based in Iraq. United States pumped in money and resources as well as supplying most of the troops in the UN-led military campaigns across the world, from Africa to Europe, Middle East and Asia.

NATO also declared the World Trade Centre bombing to be an attack on NATO itself, and therefore an attack against all 19 NATO member countries. And NATO committed troops and ships and planes to invade Afghanistan.

However, many doubts have been raised about the legitimacy of this War on Terror.

The state holds monopoly of the legitimate use of violence. War can only be held between nations. In other words, only a nation can declare war on other nation. International law recognizes only two cases for a legitimate war. The first being when one nation is attacked by an aggressor; and the second when the United Nations Security Council acts as a body against a certain nation.

This is because only when the commander-in-chief of either army surrenders or be defeated, then will the war be declared to be over. With this war on terror, war is declared on terrorism, on an extremist militant ideology held by certain people across the world. First there is no specific nation-state that war is declared on, thus violating international law that legitimate law can only be declared on a nation. Secondly, war seems to be declared on an extremist ideology, which is almost impossible to determine its success, and therefore the conclusion of the war. Thus UN and NATO seems to have plunge the world into an indefinite war that has no way of determining its success; a war that is ‘legitimate’ and allows them to invade countries on the pretext of fighting terrorism. Examples being Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia.

In this war against Terror, American President George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act that seems to give the US government free reign to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. (http://www.amnestyusa.org/War_on_Terror/Civil_Rights/page.do?id=1108209&n1=3&n2=821&n3=838). This seems to contradict the intentions of this War on Terror. The War on Terror was showcased to be a war to defend the rights of the people of the world to live free from ‘terror’ and ‘acts of terrorism’, but the means by which US undertakes to fight this war seems to violate the rights of people to live free. The private communications of citizens in US can be intercepted indiscriminately. In 2004, FBI agents used provisions on this Act to wrongfully jail a Brandon Mayfield and search his home. Thus this Act seems to cast doubt on the true purpose and intentions of the War on Terror and puts the legitimacy of the war in doubt as well.

Also, the war on Terror was passed within a month of the bombing of World Trade Centre. Criticisms have been leveled that the war was passed based on the high-riding emotions of sympathy towards US, and also a fear of what could happen next. This puts into question if this war was rationally considered and given sufficient thought. This seem to cast the legitimacy of the war in doubt and casts the war as one that was declared in fear and emotions.

” … (Girls and women) treated like objects that, unlike drugs, can be sold again and again” – Human Trafficking (2005)

The Human Trafficking industry is vast. It has a global annual market of US$42.5billion. An estimated 600,000 to 820,000 people are trafficked across borders internationally. About seventy percent are women and girls, and fifty percent are minors. Majority of these numbers quoted, are trafficked into commercial sexual exploitation.

Most of these trafficked women come from the former Soviet Union and members of the former Eastern Bloc, to the rest of the world.

Trafficking victims are usually coerced, deceived, or even abducted. Some are lured with promises of jobs, love, freedom and studies. It is lucrative business. As in the quote above, in the sex business, these women and girls are not considered goods that have to be replenished once sold. But rather, they are considered assets that can generate money on their own. Unlike drugs, or firearms, there’s no manufacturing cost, just an amount of expenses needed for maintainence, which the traffickers and later the prostitution ring leaders try to keep to a minimum by making the victims live in horrid conditions. These women and girls are so precious to the prostitution ring leaders that in the show Human Trafficking, when one of them had to make a run from the police, he brought his girls along.

One issue is the issue of punishment. When brothels are raided, the girls will be taken in, but not the ring leaders, traffickers or customers. Usually the girls will be charged for prostituting without license and illegal entry into the country or overstaying. And they will be deported back where they are again easy prey for trafficking to other countries. The traffickers nor customers are not implicated in some places, and not harsh enough in other places. The victims are the ones who get the brunt of the penalty. The punishment has to hit where it hurts. The consumers must pay. So much so that they will definitely check for licenses if and when they visit such services.

The Human Trafficking trade is aided along with globalization. The vistas of cheaper ‘labour’ from less developed countries are opened, along with cheaper international transportation, makes this trade very profitable. ‘Buying’ from a third world country, and ‘selling’ at a first world country. And the options to choose from are endless. Together with the human trafficking trade, the information supply must rise as well. Information sharing is prevalent now. But the awareness of what is going on in the human trafficking trade is low. To combat the liberal movement of the human trafficking rings, information and awareness must likewise be as if not more liberal. The ‘hot-spots’ where the victims usually come from must be educated and informed about what is going on, and made aware that many from their country have been trafficked into the slave trade. Awareness will make them more cautious and wary of deals that looks too good. On the other hand, awareness of the human trafficking rings will help people of the first-world countries where the victims are trafficked to, be more knowledgeable and aware if they see suspicious people or behaviour.

I believe, at the end of the day, the solution is a simple demand and supply. When the demand falls, supply will naturally follow suit. What is it that keeps men going for prostitutes? (And illegal ones at that.) Is it boredom? Or just a penchant for the thrill? Perhaps the day when we can find the answer to this question, the answer to the forced sex trade will be found as well.

This week’s lecture is on the effects of globalization on women and family. The core issue is that women having to take on a career to supplement a dual-income family, to survive in a society that is capitalist-driven. And the offside is that the family is often the sacrificial cow. Families are neglected, children grow up un-supported and turn into rebels, and marriages drift apart. As usual, the blame falls on globalization, for engineering the society and economy as such. Events like the two world wars, the Great Depression, and even the widespread ideal of the woman who is equal to man, all can be attributed to globalization.

First of all, lets trace back the ideals of the perfect woman. Right back up to the Victorian lady, family and home making have always supposedly been the primary domain of women. If the house is unkempt, it is the woman’s fault for not tidying it up. If the kids are unruly, it is the woman’s fault for not disciplining them. But this is not the Victorian ideal that I would like to discuss today.

I will want to talk about the other Victorian ideal. That Victorian gentlemen spent their days talking about politics, religion and important affairs of the world, spent their time wine tasting, galloping upon their finest stallions, and playing whatever it was that represented golf in that day. And Victorian ladies spent their time sipping the richest earl grey tea, gossiping over a table full of tasty pastries, and had all the time in the world to buy dresses that they could never finish wearing in all their lives.

This second Victorian ideal is actually what the people in the capitalist globalised metropolitan developed world desires and is working their arses off for. They fail to recognize that the above-mentioned Victorian gentlemen came from a special and very top-end group of people who had inheritance of such wealth that it would take generations of squandering to deplete. And similarly, the Victorian women had armies of maidservants, butlers and even governesses to see that their men’s castles do not fall apart while they went shopping.

Globalization can be indeed held responsible. But not in spreading capitalism, and causing the two world wars. Instead, it is responsible in spreading this Victorian ideal without including the fine print. It dangles the carrot of freedom from responsibility and the ability to dive into your indulges. It is this carrot that causes people to go for bigger houses, bigger cars, flashier clothes and the latest designer ankle toe-socks. It is this whole culture of consumerism that is consuming the families from the inside out. They simply want more than they need.

As a result, both husband and wife spend most of their waking hours at work, wanting to earn enough for the dream home they’ve always wanted, and the fifth honeymoon to spend Christmas on Christmas Island. When they reach home, they’re dead beat that they do nothing but sleep and rest so they can go to work and earn money the next day again. At the end, they get a beautiful house, and wonderful pictures of their holidays, but an empty marriage. Simply because they do so much for the marriage, but spend so little time together. It’s no wonder divorce rates skyrocket. And the next thing you know, being a divorce lawyer is a sure-thing to get your dream house.

The same goes for children who grow up, raised and educated by the televisions, PSPs, day-care centres and an empty house. Simply because mommy and daddy have to work overtime so that little kiddo can have the best ever education to be a divorce lawyer. And have his dream home.

Sound familar? Perhaps we too have bought into this Victorian ideals, and have chased this carrot that we can never have. Sometimes, when all we want is all that we need, things might just turn out a little better.

]]> http://chuangbinghan.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/week-4-women-and-the-family/feed/ 0 chuangbinghan http://chuangbinghan.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/week-2-class-and-inequalities/ http://chuangbinghan.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/week-2-class-and-inequalities/#comments Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:09:53 +0000 chuangbinghan http://chuangbinghan.wordpress.com/?p=19 ]]> What makes society rich is different from what makes the individual rich.

The two main systems that were discussed in lecture are capitalism and socialism. Capitalism is seemingly a system that makes use of the devils within individuals to better the society. Socialism, however, is seemingly a system that makes use of the goodness within individuals to better other individuals.

Let me elaborate. Capitalism depends on the selfish greed of the individual to better himself, to gather and accumulate more, so that he can pour the accumulated resources back into the machinery that is the capitalist market, so that he can get even more of the same resources. Capitalism rewards those who have resources or talents to contribute. Those who are deviant enough to not contribute, or by natural selection that they are unable to contribute, will be left behind by the system of capitalism. It is each to his own, because the wealth that is accumulated at the end is distributed among the shareholders who had contributed in the first place. What about those who do not have resources or talents in the first place? What about those who are unable to contribute in anyway other than hard labour? These people will be used in the lowest rungs of the hierarchy. Capitalism is wealth built on the backs of those who can’t contribute for those who had contributed. Because of individuals’ greed, and some say need, for more wealth and resources, society is bettered. Technology will be advanced; more scientific breakthroughs recorded; the barriers on every frontier will be pushed back and eventually broken. All in the name of more for the individuals who contributed. If there were no incentive for the individual, there will be no spur for the individual to contribute and to better the society. Society is bettered at the expense of individuals, especially those at the lowest rungs.

Socialism, on the other hand, depends on the inherent good of the individual to contribute to the state, so that the state will redistribute the wealth equally to everyone in the society. Everyone works and gives what was earned to the state, regardless how much. All the wealth is pooled together, and redistributed to everyone equally. Anyone who is handicapped in terms of resources, talents, and can’t contribute much, will receive as much as those who had contributed more. Because each individual is concerned for his fellow man, and would work harder to help the society be bettered, for the sake of the fellow man and society. Ideally speaking. But this system is inherently flawed, for the donkey without a carrot dangling in front of it, will be a donkey that doesn’t work. And no matter how noble man is made out to be, the betterment of his fellow man will not be a big enough carrot to get him moving. The result will be that work will be slowed and delayed to the slowest man in the system, because no one will want to give more and take back less. At the end, all will be fair because all would have given equally, and taken back equally. Society is bettered, because the fellow man is cared for and all will stand equal, albeit at the lowest rung together.

And there is talk about the third way, a compromise between the two systems. A compromise between a system that takes advantage of the weaker man, and one that lowers man and productivity for the sake of equality. I can’t wait to see how that will work out.

*I realize that I haven’t offered any solution. But the main point of my discussion is to point out the inherent flaws of both systems and its inability to make both man and society rich, not to offer a solution. Just in case it wasn’t clear enough.