Week 5 – Crime

Human Trafficking

” … (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.

Week 4 – Women and the Family

The Victorian Ideal, Carrots and the Dream Home

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.

Week 2 – Class and Inequalities

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.

Week 1 – Social Problems and Globalisation

Today’s globalization and generation gap

Ancient globalization, as in Ming Dynasty-ancient, relied on physical transportation of personnel, information and goods. Today’s world, however, has a vast array of electronic networks that span the globe. The most obvious difference between the two eras is definitely speed.

Information transfer took the ancients months and even years, but it can now be done in a matter of seconds. We can easily get information, pictures, and even converse with someone real-time on the opposite side of the world. We can access libraries in a remote town in Alaska as long as they have Internet connection. But this was never the case in ancient globalization. To have information about the place, you have to be physically there, or have someone from there to be physically with you.

This difference now causes cultures to be received and assimilated at speeds unimagined in ancient globalization. It took years and even generations for cultures to take root in a foreign place, but now, it’s a matter of months. When comparing the two, it’s like watching a movie in fast-forward mode.

The impact of such a difference is that the effect is sharply felt within the same generation. In ancient globalization, cultures, mindsets and lifestyles differ slightly from generation to generation, and changes only take place at a very slow speed. But now, parents can hardly recognize and identify with their children’s speech and dress sense, nor even their ideals and dreams. The world is changing within the same generation. The older ones can hardly keep up with the change. This causes what we commonly term as ‘generation gap’. I hardly believe that this generation gap would have existed in Ming Dynasty, when the sons and daughters lived almost the same way, if not identically, to their parents.

So, if we go along this line of thought, today’s globalization is actually a cause of the social problem of generation gap.

Globalization and apathy

Apathy has always been an oft-mentioned complaint of Singapore’s society, especially targeted at the youth. Guess what, on this issue, globalization stands on trial as a defendant in this court.

Apathy can be summed up in a phrase: ‘I/we/they just don’t care.’

Globalization stands guilty on two counts: first on the idea of global citizenship, the second on the idea of non-exclusivity.

With modern globalization, the world is much more available to the individual than before. The horizons are widened, the boundaries pushed back. Individuals are no longer confined to the physical or ideological boundaries of their countries. Nationalities can easily be changed. Individuals are able, even encouraged, to cross national boundaries to pursue commercial opportunities, ideal lifestyles, to have a cosmopolitan identity. Therefore, the birth of the global citizen.

Global citizens have a common mindset that the world is their home and they will not be restricted by something as petty as a country or government. And they do not want to be limited by allegiances to nationalities or attachments to a particular country, which run contrary to their identity as a cosmopolitan. They consider the national concerns of a country to be beneath them as the world is their stage, unless of course, these national concerns directly affect them. The nature of the global citizen causes them to not have any allegiances to any particular national cause. And globalization has played its part in playing up the perks of global citizenship, and has its role in the apathy that is so prevalent in Singapore.

Globalization also introduced the notion of non-exclusivity. With globalization, people with different backgrounds, ideologies, race, and religions come to work and live side by side. For the sake of easy cooperation and to prevent bloodshed every other day, the idea of non-exclusivity is introduced. Simply put, you live and let live and live with one eye closed to the many differences you might have with the guy next to you. You don’t exclude anyone at all; you include everyone. But because of the many differences that exists, we are forced to turn a blind eye and adopt a mindset of ‘you-do-your-thing-and-I’ll-do-mine’. We don’t cross people and they don’t cross us.

And gradually, this mindset pervades our lifestyle and goes beyond interaction with people that we are different to, into the way we view everyone. And that includes the person next to us or even towards national issues. And this degenerates into this malady of a social problem we call apathy.

I rest my case.

*Disclaimer: all of the above are my personal thoughts and reflections and I made no references to any article or author. If there be any gross untruths in what I wrote, it’s not meant to be deliberately misleading. But do let me know yeah?

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!