Granted, not all intervention has been bad per se, as we can see how the introduction of the military might of the United States stopped more lives being lost by the Axis of Evil (though ironically, the atomic bombs and shelling of civilian cities has resulted in human lives being lost as well). In World War one and two, the world saw direct intervention from the world renowned superpowers like The United States for example, although that intervention did not come immediately.  In other cases however when intervention was perceived by many to be a solution, the help needed never got the attention it warranted. For example, the whole Rwandan Genocide in 1994 was plagued with incessant inaction from the international community, as a result for a lack of unanimous votes for the UN to decide on any conclusive action. Many labeled the horrific event an event the local government should solve. Even The US government was reluctant to involve itself in the “local conflict” in Rwanda, and refused to even refer to it as “Genocide”, even as the death tolls continued to raise sky high. The French government had its own agendas when it landed its troops, and it is known that their intentions were far stretched from wanting to sincerely solve the heated conflict. Conclusively we can see the state interest differs and so if there is any negativity plaguing a country, sometimes intervention does not come, even if the issues are out right blatant and is in my opinion legitimately warranted.

                If intervention is so inconsistent, even when human lives are at stake, how so are issues on pollution and environmental degradation treated globally then? The serious and perhaps colossal threat rapid industrialization has posed on our environment has been lethal. We see massive pollution in the forms of improper industrial sewage disposal, emission of poisonous gases, killing of wildlife and flora and fauna.

Whaling has always been one form of hunting, and now it has been a business, catered towards the mass consumption of the populace. In Japan however, there has been much controversies and heated debates on its whaling. Anti-whaling governments and groups have strongly opposed Japan’s research program, with Greenpeace arguing the whales poached are endangered and must be protected. However, the government has argued that the whale populations are strong enough to sustain a managed hunt. As such, there has been much doubt on the part of the state, with their research whaling being under close scrutiny. This argument rests on their belief that Japan’s research program is actually a commercial program in disguise. Japan categorically denies this allegation, stating that their primary goal is the sustainable use of all marine resources and that the lethal methods used are permitted under article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, an NGO based in the United States and with branches extended worldwide, condemns the event as a breach of International Whaling Community moratorium on all commercial whaling. Several countries, including the United States and Australia condemned the event. The presence of NGOs can be seen as a pressuring effect for the State to introduce change; however, much is still needed if proper change can be exacted as the whaling activities still persists in some parts of Japan. The adage “action speaks louder than words “rings true in confirmation when considering the aforementioned circumstance.

The haze situation in South East Asia was another event in 1997-98 that warranted international action. Schools and kindergartens closed their doors in Indonesia after the local air pollution index, which usually peaks at 50, soared above 900. A local hospital has reported more than 300 cases of haze-related illnesses, such as asthma and bronchitis in less than a fortnight, many of them affecting children younger than five. The local government was unable to stop farmers from burning their rainforests, and the haze spread and caused many financial ails as well region wide. Wealthy and well-connected plantation owners were being allowed to raze the forests in order to plant lucrative crops, paying villagers to burn down forests for money. Lacking financial aid, villagers did it out of desperation for a source of income. Despite the presence of treaties and a regional pact in 1997 signed at an ASEAN meeting, the haze reoccurred again after 1998.

One wonders if the presence of NGOs can be a driving force in exacting the necessary change and enabling intervention, or is it up to the State to decide? Given the pushing convincing power it possesses, it can be concluded that it does play a part in forcing needed intervention. However, if the basic problems within, namely the presence of an income inequality gap in Indonesia, is not arrested, perhaps all the intervention in the world is never enough, consistent or not. The environmental degradation and ails are can be possibly just symptoms of a larger disease, and if the international body just treats that, the problems would never cease to exist.

Sources and References

 ”Asia-Pacific Indonesia faces haze disaster”. 14 Aug. 1999. BBC News. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1288230.stm>

“ASEAN action haze online. ” ASEAN Hazeonline

< http://haze.asean.org/>

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

<http://www.seashepherd.org/>

“Whaling”. Greenpeace Organization.

< http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling>

“Rwanda: How the Genocide Happened”. 1 Apr. 2004. BBC News. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1288230.stm>

Sernau, Scott. Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace, and Sustainability. Boston: Pearson, 2006

How many times have you felt absolutely naked and stranded when you left your hand phone at home, being unable to communicate with your friends and inform them about your whereabouts or change of plans? How many depressing and agonizing instances have we experienced for ourselves when we found our computer has crashed because of a small but potent virus, or when our local internet service provider conveniently cuts off our internet connection? In a larger sense, businesses are intricately involved as well. A study reports that a company that experiences a computer outage lasting for more than 10 days will never fully recover financially and that 50 percent of companies suffering such a predicament will be out of business within 5 years. Anyhow, The pain of such incidents are indeed traumatizing as they are common especially in the local context; research shows 74% of households in Singapore own a computer (laptop or desktop) and out of that 74%, 60% have access to the Internet.

The advent of technology has indeed galvanized the world into a smaller entity, a mere mouse-click takes users to locations far away and our friends are always readily available to talk to; simply put the physical boundaries of time and space have melted away with the meteoric rise of the Internet since it was first put into notion in 1964. Rightly so, the positives are there for obvious consideration. Information flow has never been so readily available; as such the education children receive in this century is no longer confined to the four walls of a classroom. If a child is unable to attend a lesson, the lesson would be broadcasted via webcam, or self automated slides and lesson plans with voiceovers done can be posted. In universities across the world this practice is a common and accepted one; undergraduates constantly log on to portals to download information and assignment plans posted up by their teachers. E-lectures are available as well for the ease of students to learn, and it solves the problem of a lack of seats in crowded lecture theaters. Self-help has never been so easy and readily available as well, streaming video providers like Youtube and Metacafe enables user uploaded videos that can promote better knowledge flow. Cooking and music lessons for example are a common search topic, all in all contributing to the ease of the individual. However with such positive impacts there are the negatives to consider as well.

The echoes opining the vice like grip of the Internet have been around since the commercialization in the 1990s. Undeniably the addiction is prevalent, and a worrying aspect of it would be the availability of pornography online. 12% of the total number of websites on the Internet are pornography sites, and with it, every second there are 28,258 Net users who are viewing pornography. This worrying number is perhaps even more worrying when huge bulks of viewers are below the legal age of viewing such explicit material. Even with the various confirmations on several pornography websites, a simple and dishonest selection of age would easily bypass this dispensable check. The result of online pornography addiction has shown a relationship with sex crime rates. A review of controlled studies has found that extensive, extremely prolonged viewing of the type of pornographic material commonly sold at adult bookstores was positively correlated with leniency in the sentencing of a person convicted of rape in a mock trial setting, decreased satisfaction of participants with their sex lives and partners, and an increased self-reported willingness to commit rape or other forced sexual acts. That said, internet social addiction is another problem rising. With the emergence of online social network services such as Friendster, MySpace and most notably Facebook, the social culture online has been a playing a big and vital role in today’s society.

Considering the ease of interaction, individuals may find it easier to interact behind a computer screen, leading to overt lack of face to face interaction skills. The dependence of such a medium can lead to alienation as well, as there is a sense of emotional isolation and in being deeply intertwined in an online persona, the true sense of an identity is lost.

Rightly so, given the ample care the state garnishes out whenever some form of retrenchment or conflict ensues, the people are treated in higher regard because they are deemed more precious and important. Policies are seen as privileges and rewards, incentives to pursue a stern but hardworking and largely unbiased work ethic towards our respective occupations.  However, this has in fact consumed the identity of the common people and transfigured a horse-brand on everybody; we are seen as commodities embodying economical value. We are judged and valued according to wealth rather than pure self-worth, but these sentiments are cleverly disguised under propaganda and careful state policies. The many examples I am about to pen out are from my local context. In so doing, I personally opine they clearly reinforce the notion of objectification onto the common populace, perhaps highlighting the salient disregard for the sense of selfhood in our society.

The 2003 SARS outbreak in Singapore caused much distress and wide spread panic, and again, rightly so, who isn’t scared for their lives? Commonly known would be the harsh measures meted out by the government; fever screenings, routine thermometer checks, isolation wards and confinement laws etc. Schools were closed for a week and for some up to 3 weeks, all for the sake of safeguarding the kids to affect one another in clusters and congregations. People with fevers were given additional checks and for those diagnosed with the lethal virus, there were orders commanding them not to leave their houses and not go to work. Certainly it was apparent the health for the people was its utmost concerns. The care and concern runs deeper than just feelings, however, as the intentions behind the increased scrutiny and protection signify the economic value on the people. If a pandemic ensues, the chaos and loss of lives leads to a huge loss in productivity, and this ensuing loss impacts the country as the means of productions are decapitated. The loss of foreign investors as well is hugely devastating, starving another source of income. Amid all these negatives, lays the loss of a decent foothold on the country and thus destabilizes the states authority on the people. The economical deprivation remains chief in the eyes of the state, thus its concerns with regards to health and security. The loss of basic human rights are diluted, as even a poor soul who unknowingly possessed the virus in his body could be charged and jailed at that time; without the slightest hint of consideration in relation to his/her personal reasons.

The states policies largely are mechanical and ignore the fundamentals of individual rights and voice. Population laws determine how big our families (like the “stop at 2″ campaign in 1969) should be and we are nagged at to foster a family bond whenever possible. The encouraging policies of taking care of the elderly certain feels like a sincere hand of help, with Medisave and other programmes largely catered to old folks. That said however, the nucleus of the family is at the cold manipulative hands of an upper entity based not on authentic feelings of care and love, but on economical reasons. The outlook of birth, death rates and indexes largely impacts the country’s financial growth, and arguably, this drives a nation to do so much for its people, at least for Singapore anyway.

The viewpoint that people are just mere commodities towards the state and nothing more is indeed a pessimistic outlook, but harshly so, it is the truth.

          Singapore can be said to be recognized as one of the most urbanized countries in the world. The huge flux of urbanization is also commonly linked with rapid industrialization, the building of a consumer society, and great openness to the influences of both East and West. These processes in turn are taking place against the backdrop of one of the world’s most pluralistic societies in terms of ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity. The entire of Singapore’s landscape is urbanized; buildings and the like, save for the zones of small forested areas that occupy the different reservoirs. The 620 sq. km. area is inhabited by a population of 2.6 million at a density of 4,207 per sq. km.

          The possibly negative aspects of this very high concentration of people are offset to a considerable degree by careful city planning, the provision of numerous public parks, gardens, and beaches, and the development of a series of “new towns” or satellite settlements of high-rise dwellings currently inhabited by over 80 percent of the population. This extensive provision of relatively cheap, government-built and administered housing is one of the most interesting features of the Singapore urban, social, and physical landscape. Personally, the concept of the HDB (Housing and Development Board) has been a successful one. To its credit, it had a big role to fill, with clearing up the squatters and slums of the 1960s and resettling residents into low-cost government-built housing.

          The policies of the HDB were largely in line of the policies set out by the Singapore government at that time. The government was promoting social cohesion and patriotism within the country, while keeping the balance between the different races. In 1968, citizens were allowed to use the CPF government run pension scheme (Central Provident Fund) to purchase and own the homes they were renting to give them a stake of the country and as an incentive to work hard. In 1980, a quota was introduced to ensure that no particular racial group concentrated together to prevent sectarianism. The housing of different income groups were largely mixed together in estates and new towns, thinking this would prevent any form of social stratification that could lead to potential conflicts. Although largely triumphant, perhaps there is still a sense of alienation within the community, in regards to the lack of proper aesthetic places to appreciate and relax. Urbanization has changed and notably develops on the capatalistic and money-driven society of ours now.

          The notion of an urban jungle is constantly preached by the government, with flora and fauna planted throughout, and a carefully constructed Hort Park.  However, with the building of high cultured places like the Esplanade and the ongoing International Resorts cum Casinos, perhaps, the individual has become slightly more entrapped in a cold, gridded veneer of enjoyment. Already flooded with buildings, the urban landscape may be unforgiving and constricting to some.

          Arguably, thanks to the government’s implementation, we can consider ourselves lucky not to be  living in any favelas like the people in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, infamous for their size, poverty and crime. It is generally agreed upon that the first favela was created in November 1897 when 20,000 veteran soldiers were brought to Rio de Janeiro and left with no place to live. Subsequently, till today, one in every four cariocas (as Rio’s inhabitants are called) lives in a favela. The lack of a solid government backed plan can be said to be at fault to this ailing plight. The explosive growth of favelas triggered countless government removal campaigns. A program in the 1940s called Parque Proletário destroyed many people’s original homes in Rio and relocated them to temporary housing as they waited for the building of public housing. Eventually little public housing was built and the land that was cleared for it just became reoccupied with new settlements of favelas. The favela eradication program became paralyzed eventually because of the resistance of those who were supposed to benefit from the program (as a result of their reliance on the criminal nature of favelas, i.e drug trafficking and abuse) and a poor distribution of income did not permit the poor to assume the economic burden of public housing that was placed on them.

So perhaps I should not be complaining about the lack of aesthetic space myself, if I consider the trepidation of others.

References and Citations

“Favelas in Brazil”, retrieved from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela#cite_note-3]

 Sernau, Scott. Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace, and Sustainability. Boston: Pearson 2006

“Singapore”, retrieved from [https://www.strategicnetwork.org/index.php?loc=kb&view=v&id=15692&fto=1563]

“Housing Development Board, Singapore” retrieved from [http://www.hdb.gov.sg/]

“The content of the identity remained somewhat ill-defined, and it often appeared easier to say what Singaporean identity was not than what it was. The ideal seemed to combine, somewhat uneasily, a self-consciously tough minded meritocratic individualism, in which individual Singaporeans cultivated their talents and successfully competed in the international economy, with an equally self-conscious identification with “Asian roots” and “traditional values,” which referred to pre-colonial India, China, and the Malay world. Singaporeans were to be modern and cosmopolitan while retaining their distinctively Asian traditions.”

                Today, Singapore can be seen as a vivid multi-cultural society. We see many races co-existing with one another, and banners promoting racial harmony everywhere. Even in the parliaments and government, we see largely a mix of races.

In a Straits Times article on the 9^th of August 2008, Chan Wai Teik mentions simply how the previous racial harmony policies since 1965 have worked out for Singapore.

“When I tell foreigners that my best friend is Malay, they sometimes say: ‘Oh! He is from Malaysia.’ I have to explain that Malay is a race and Malaysian is a nationality. We Singaporeans generally identify ourselves as ‘Singaporean-Chinese’, ‘Indian-Singaporean’ and so on. No matter in which order we describe our race, as an adjective or noun, we are keen to emphasise our hyphenated identities. We have assimilated the idea of Singapore as a multiracial society.”

                Till this day, we have not had any major outspoken racial riots of any kind. The strict laws implemented by the government can be said to be instrumental to maintaining status quo. For example, in September 2005, three bloggers were convicted of sedition for posting racist remarks targeting minorities. The stability of the country is crucial, and by forging an identity that binds, it not only ensures no room for violent conflicts, but allows room for businesses and foreign investment to grow. In the long run, a country’s economic well being is largely related to how an identity is fostered.

                The integration of many races into a national identity is indeed important. Why do I say that? If we contrast the situation with countries like Rwanda for instance, I’d say we are in a much better environment.  In Rwanda, the Tutsis and the Hutus are the two main races. Both have been constantly at war with one another, which infamously led to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. The talk about the lack of foreign intervention is not the issue here however, but rather the identity issue that has not been handled rightly. As history shows, the colonists from Germany and Belgium played a large part in creating the division present between the two races. By granting power to the Tutsis, Hutus were left in unfavorable situations that led to many years of oppression. When Rwanda was granted independence in July 1, 1962, the Belgians shifted the balance of power to the Hutus, largely because of their disappointment with the Tutsis, whom had been pushing for independence earlier. Many in the newfound Hutu government turned their frustrations of the past to the Tutsis, instead of trying to bridge together a common bond as Rwandans.  

                Perhaps the onus is on the government to create a dominant identity for its people to follow through, and if that onus is corrupted and tainted by past resentments, a similarly corrupted and unwholesome identity would be superimposed on the people themselves, leading ultimately to a chaos plagued society.

Singaporean politics have been dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP) since the 1959 general election when Mr. Lee Kuan Yew became Singapore’s first prime minister (Singapore was then a self-governing state within the British Empire.)  The PAP has been in government ever since. Is our government democratic then? The Economist Intelligence Unit classes Singapore as a “hybrid” country, with authoritarian and democratic elements. Freedom House ranks Singapore as “partly free”. Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 140th out of 167 countries in its 2005 Worldwide Press Freedom Index.

It is this “hybrid” notion that has drawn a huge and heated debate amongst the political-savvy and many others alike till this very day. Why so?

Essentially, there are many ‘discrepancies’ in the local context. Firstly, it has also been alleged that the PAP employs censorship, gerrymandering and the filing of civil suits against the opposition for libel or slander to impede their success. Several former and present members of the opposition, including Francis Seow, J.B. Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan perceive the Singaporean courts as favourable towards the government and the PAP due to a lack of separation of powers. There are however three cases in which opposition leader Chiam See Tong sued PAP ministers for defamation and successfully obtained damages before trial. Most famously, Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party was sued in 2002 for defamation. He was ordered to pay $500,000 in damages. To note, former Prime Ministers Goh Chok Tong and Lee Kuan Yew took legal actions to declared Chee bankrupt. This declaration of bankruptcy can be seen as a preventive measure to stop the raise of an otherwise influential individual/opposition parties that threatened the balance of power from the PAP. These tactics surely can be seen as unfair and largely undemocratic; after all without any opposition parties to choose and vote for, is there a choice for people to choose?

The ISA (Internal Security Act) has also given the ruling government perhaps a very disproportionate slice of power as it has effectively clamps down on any openly outspoken individual. Most famously, Mr. Chia Thye Poh, of the Barisan Sosialis group in the 1960s was detained for 23 years without ever given a trial. The restriction of freedom of speech has always been a prevalent factor in discouraging oppositional views from being declared, as all spheres of communication, including the blogosphere, is being monitored and perhaps scrutinised intensely. Strikes and public demonstrations are prohibited under law. In another example, The Speakers Corner, a supposed official outlet to declare your view publically, is in fact a very restricted venue of articulation. Given its strict rules regarding registration, the slander and defamation regulations and a restriction on anything said religious or racial in nature, it could be seen as a farce when compared to London’s Hyde Park equivalent.

However, economically, it is not as bleak as it can be assumed. Singapore is the 6th wealthiest country in the world in terms of GDP per capita. This small nation has foreign exchange reserves of more than US$177 billion. We have clean and green streets, a high standard of living and education, and housing is almost readily provided. Unemployment stands at 2.3% against the entire population, and the homeless make up a relatively small percentage as well. The government has introduced many incentives, programs and schemes to cater to the welfare of the populace.

 We do not have a unstable political climate as compared to other countries like Thailand for example, making our streets a much safer place to walk in. In fact, the majority of Singaporeans are too used and perhaps enjoying the life we are leading in this nanny state of sorts. After all, who doesn’t like to be spoon fed in a safe, secure and comfortable environment? Has the way the government functioned made us largely apolitical, or do we even care what that means?

References and Sources

Worthington, Ross (2002). Governance in Singapore. Routledge/Curzon.

Worldwide Press Freedom Index, [http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554]

Resolution: Singapore Case N SIN/01 – Joshua Jeyaretnam, [http://www.ipu.org/hr-e/170/Sin01.htm]

“Singapore’s phoney democracy” [ http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy/singapore_3603.jsp]

“Singapore’s Q2 overall unemployment rate up at 2.3%” Channel NewsAsia.com , 15 September 2008

“List of GDP per capita by country”. International Monetary Fund.

 ”Official Foreign Reserves”. Statistics Singapore. Monetary Authority of Singapore.

I’m sure every one of us is aware that the age of terror has never before been as prevalent as now. Even our small island isn’t spared the brunt of terrorist groups and radicals, most particularly in 1965 with the Macdonald house bombings and in 1991 when Singapore Airlines Flight 117 were hijacked. Most notably, however, the infamous September 11 World Trade Towers attack in 2001 comes immediately to mind with just the mention of terrorism. As expected, this in turned sparked a sequence of events, most famously to the Iraq War, when the Bush-led United States attacked Iraq in 2003. There are multitudes of opinions regarding this war, with people questioning from legal, humanitarian and ethical perspectives. The dispute on whether the declared war is justified was heated and endless. Anyhow, this topic is still very much a hotbed for discussion and debate till now, even though the issues once raised seems slightly forgotten in the local context, after it has been 8 years hasn’t it?  What is my take on this volatile yet pressing issue then? Personally I’ve been against the war since it was declared, although in no way am I condoning the actions of the terrorists responsible for the bombings.

Prior to the declared war, the Bush administration pushed for the war in Iraq claiming that Iraq’s possession and pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat to the security of the entire world. However, these claims from the respective intelligence groups came under intense scrutiny and sure enough after the invasion, the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) concluded on the fact that WMD production in Iraq had ended in 1991. Furthermore, there was no conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein and his regime had any direct or indirect relations and involvements with the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization. According to the Center for Public Integrity, President Bush’s administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s alleged threat to the United States. But this alarming lack of details and facts did not stop the U.S from finally convincing the U.N that military intervention was necessary.

To quote The Nation’s June 20, 2002 article on War on Iraq Is Wrong:

“Even if there were more evidence that Iraq possesses or is about to possess weapons of mass destruction, members of Congress should challenge the notion that pre-emptive force is the best way to deal with this problem or to bring about a change in the Iraqi regime. Given that Saddam’s first goal is self-preservation and his second is leadership in the Arab world, it is highly unlikely that he would use these weapons in a premeditated way. In fact, the real danger of the use of chemical or biological weapons arises not from a calculated Iraqi attack but from a US intervention that forces Saddam’s hand, as Pentagon officials acknowledge. Similarly, the greatest danger–that Iraqi materials would fall into the hands of terrorists–comes not from Saddam’s collusion with Islamic terrorists but from the chaos that would result from a US invasion. The Administration cannot guarantee that US forces will secure whatever nuclear or biological materials exist before some rogue Iraqi general whisks them away to secure his fortune on the black market. Thus, pre-emptive action against Iraq born of fear of its insubstantial weapons of mass destruction program may only hasten those weapons’ use and proliferation.”

I agree with the aforementioned quote that this legalized violence on Iraqi soil only begets more violence; we do not see an end to terrorist activity. In fact, it has been more prevalent. The civil groups in Iraq have been constantly attacking the new government put in place in Iraq now that Saddam Hussein’s iron grip has been melted away. The invasion has fueled many other terrorist groups and given it more justification for their radical and fanatical pursuits. The “doctrines” preached by Bin Laden may ring true to many more Jihad-minded terrorists, and in turn galvanize their support towards attacking innocent civilians.

The many incidents occurring during the post-invasion period also is counter-productive in the world’s fight against terror, taking for example the prisoner abuse cases. CNN’s terrorism analyst Peter Bergen’s article on Motherjones.com mentions “another shift in Internet traffic came this spring, when visits to websites with information about Iraq — such as Al Jazeera’s home page — skyrocketed during the standoff in Fallujah and the prison abuse scandal.” Bush’s vision on a pre-emptive strike and stamping down on terrorism has failed in my opinion, thanks to the invasion of Iraq.

One could wonder forever to whether there is any probable and viable solution to terrorism, however, one thing is for certain, similar violence and brute force does not. In actual fact, it just makes things worse.

The act of honour killings, for example is widely practiced and shockingly accepted in certain parts of the world. Personally, this is alarming for me because in Singapore, the taking of a human life in any way is deemed a criminal act.

To quote Yasmeen Hassan’s ‘The Fate of Pakistani Women’ article from the International Herald Tribune dated May 25, 1999: “Honour killings of women can be defined as acts of murder in which “a woman is killed for her actual or perceived immoral behavior.”

The exact, pin point “definition” of immoral behaviour however, is much dubious. According to Pelin Turgut’s ‘Honour Killings Still Plague Turkish Province’ in The Toronto Star dated May 14 1998,

“Such “immoral behaviour” may take the form of marital infidelity, refusing to submit to an arranged   marriage, demanding a divorce, flirting with or receiving phone calls from men, failing to serve a meal on time, or — grotesquely — “allowing herself” to be raped. In the Turkish province of Sanliurfa, one young woman’s “throat was slit in the town square because a love ballad was dedicated to her over the radio.”

According to Suzanne Goldenberg in ‘A Question of Honor ‘, published in The Guardian (UK), May 27, 1999:

“Those who kill for honour [in Pakistan] are almost never punished. In the rare instances [that] cases reach the courts, the killers are sentenced to just two or three years. Hana Jilani [a Jahore lawyer who witnessed an honour killing] has collected 150 case studies and in only eight did the judges reject the argument that the women were killed for honour. All the other [perpetrators] were let off, or given reduced sentences.”

Therefore we can see from the above mentioned quotes that crime is seen differently given different cultural and social contexts. What we see as immoral and wrong is however justifiable in countries deeply entrenched in religious and tribal values. This is indeed a very prevalent issue that is constantly being debated on. However the main issue I would like to drive down would be how the government has the absolute power to control the law and its punishments. The importance of maintaining status quo and meting out justice is just as important as how our figureheads perceive them to be. This is how policies and similarly shaped institutions play their large pervasive role in our society.

The differences in policies and punishments between developed countries have also been in huge debate. Singapore’s “no nonsense” stance has always been disputed about for years. The infamous Michael Peter Fay vandalism incident back in 1994 caused quite a stir in the international circle, where many from the American public and even U.S President Bill Clinton felt caning was a harsh sentence to mete, calling the punishment prescribed by Singapore as “extreme and mistaken”. Many felt the canings were too harsh and might cause long term emotional scars on the teenager. Similarly, countless traffickers were hung despite pleas for clemency by their respective countries.

I feel that Singapore has done a good job in not allowing the pressure of others to change its stance on laws, regulations and punishment, even if it means stepping on the toes of international superpowers.  Similarly, it is just as imperative for the arm of the law to be equal in every aspect and not be tainted by religious/tribalistic lenses.

Most recently, Tang Wee Sung was given a one day prison sentence for his part in illegal organ purchasing. Many argue that it may not be entirely fair. The grounds for his desperate search for an organ transplant might have been sincere, albeit naive. However to end of, my response would be Attorney-General Walter Woon’s recent comments that “everyone is equal before the law, [...] the Rule of Law means that compliance with Acts of Parliament is not a matter of choice. No one is above the law”.

The roles of woman have been changing in modern times. In the past, the traditional family unit would consist of the male being the sole breadwinner of the family, where as the woman would be deemed the natural homemaker and tasked with household chores and raising children. However, with education spread evenly between the sexes, there have been a rise of women that are educated. With more education, women strive to be on the same levels as their male peers in careers and pursuits. As such, the notion of the family structure has indeed been destabilized greatly. Women no longer see themselves as just being the homemaker or child raiser; they want to make their mark in the economy in society. In another case, the time spent together as a family unit has been greatly reduced in America as seen in the film “Juggling Work and Family,” by Henrick Smith. Is there a relation to this issue? Is this a concern we should take notice of?

The lack of family time in modern society is indeed important to some extent. The family unit is the very backbone of any nation, and if that unit is cracking in anyway, problems could unravel one by one. The apparent void felt with the lack of time could drive children to suffer academically in schools because they feel neglected. Similarly, their upbringings might be distorted with the lack of moral teachings and values imparted on them. With women climbing up the career ladders and more focused with material pursuits, they could be persuaded to leave the family as well. However that could be said for men as well. Anyhow, these are the potential dangers we could face from one perspective. On the other hand, women might be less persuaded to start a family because of the subjugation they face in the workplace.

In a Channel News Asia report in 2007, “71 pregnant women complained to the Ministry of Manpower last year about losing their jobs. In a written reply to Parliament, Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said 36 of these cases have been concluded, 20 were withdrawn by the employees and the rest are pending investigation. The Manpower Ministry investigated the concluded cases. 33 of the pregnant women received payment from their employers, including six who were retrenched. But the ministry found that poor performance and misconduct were the grounds for dismissal in the other three cases.” Companies are weary of hiring women because of the possibility of a lengthy maternal leave, which results in lower productivity. Similarly, there may be less protective measures taken by the government to protect women in these scenarios.  Therefore, we could see a dip in birth rates which could result in severe demographical and economical consequences.

However, one must take to account that the rising costs of living in our age has driven many families to turn away from the patriarchal concept of the sole breadwinner. Instead, there is a rising trend to dual incomes with both spouses working because of this. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 60 percent of families with children under age 18 had both parents employed outside the home in 2005-2006.

Therefore it is impossible for us to return to the Victorian ideal of how a family and women should be. What lies ahead would be how to promote equality amongst both sexes and to provide a stable base for both to support their families.

That said Singapore has been trying to protect the rights of women, given how the role of women has changed over time. Under the Employment Act, it is an offence to dismiss or terminate the employment of an employee during her maternity leave. The Women’s Charter that was passed down in Singapore Parliament in 1961 and positively revised in 1996 has also attempted to increase equality. Furthermore with the baby bonus packages being introduced, the local government has indeed taken a pro-active approach to this issue.

However can more be done on this issue? We still see a lack of female participation in politics in Singapore, and in the workforce, discrimination is still prevalent. If the modern family structure is to work, more has to be done to ensure women have equal rights and incentives.

The advent of labor division, globalization and industrialization in general has changed the way the global economy functions in the modern day context. We see free trade agreements signed on the fly between countries. More often than not, the post-industrial nations or developed countries are the one encouraging this pact with glee. The answer is clear as the newly industrialized nations/developing countries serve as cheap labour.

What are the positive effects felt? We as the consumers at our end are guaranteed the positive effects; we get to purchase goods at cheaper prices. Agnes B products made in China, for example, sells way cheaper than opposed to the products directly made in France. Furthermore, we get to enjoy a wide range of products as a result of this outsourcing of labour. MNCs investing in these countries increase employment opportunities as well. By opening up once tightly shut borders, free open markets and trade encourage technological growth and gives rise to aspirations and dreams. The wheels of incentives would be made to move. However, this is just the surface of things.

Over at the developing countries, we see major exploitations, where the workers are constantly manipulated hours on end and are paid peanuts. Furthermore, with organizations like IMF and WTO controlling proceedings, with the cutting down of tariffs and forcing of prices down, farmers are forever trapped in a vicious cycle they cannot escape. For example, governments in developed countries give more rights to their local farmers; as a result, the farmers in developing countries struggle to compete with the global market prices. Furthermore with the openness of the market today, people would rather purchase imported goods and thus in general developing countries only smell a whiff of prosperity. Ultimately, the winners are those originally in power: the developed countries and their organizations.

This brings about another point; are the organizations like World Bank and IMF really concerned about the welfare of other developing countries? The answer till now is sadly no. After all, with the almost authoritarian stance they have adopted all these years, it’s indeed a living testimony of human greed and corruption at its peak. The clichéd adage: “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” rings awfully true here. The idea of allowing the number of votes for the decision process to be decided by the capital a country gives is utterly absurd. It allows very disproportionate wielding of power. Driven by a desire to keep their own countries running, the board’s decision making and policy enforcing is bound to be slanted in unfair favour.   Similarly, the WTO ruins any rights a nation has as well in regards to sovereignty.

So as individuals, is it morally right if we purchase goods that are tainted by moral injustice? Picture hundreds of child and woman workers in bleak, desolate conditions, sweating out every ounce of perspiration just to get basic pittance wages. If we do care as people and as humans, we should stop supporting these activities that are indeed ethically illegal. Without a doubt we are powerless in the face of big organizations. However if we do not play our own part in refusing to buy such goods, we might be the ultimate losers ourselves; living through life without morals and being ultimately impoverished in spirit.