Braineochurn's Weblog

Technology: Venturing into the Machinised world

Ang Jinghui — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:18:05 +0000

Watching Sarah Connor Chronicles of Terminator 3 makes one shudder at the thought of humanity crushed by the very cyborgs or technology that we have created. That seems impossible in reality. Yet taking a good look at the society we currently live in, it appears we are already on our way to such a future. A future where humanity faces warfare with technology.

First, there is a fascination with cyborg companions. With billions in world population, we are definitely not short of human companionship. Yet, ‘pets’ like Aibo and iDog, in my opinion, just a piece of technology, have been created to give the illusion of real pets and marketed as entertainment and companionship. The popularity of these ‘dogs’ reflects how well artificial companionship are accepted and it does tells us something about society. Japan is one country that have been spending the recent years venturing into exploration and development of robots and androids. In fact, Japan is leading in some of the major projects on Androids where out of the current 94 major projects, 42 are in Japan, followed by 10 in the US, 10 in Korea etc. Ventures into Robotics have been positive yielding results such as ‘Asimo’ that has achieved groundbreaking efforts of being able to run, walk and perform various human tasks. Therefore, it is possible that in near future, Japan’s dream of having robots taking care of its aging population would be fulfilled as we see robots becoming more capable, gaining more abilities, given more responsibilities and even possessing a ‘will’.

However, we do not have to be in the future to experience the social implications of the above phenomena. Nowadays, many manufacturers use machines to sort out and pack their products. Even retail work, which involve human interaction have been taken over by vending machines selling objects from drinks to toys to food to even underwear. Thus, humans have been relieved by machines to do something else. Like a double-edge sword, it could mean that humans have more time to do other things, yet it could also mean unemployment. With the above situation where machines and robots are increasingly relieving humans of their manual work and taking on more responsibilities, would there be a day where all labor is replaced by robots? What would humans do then, what can humans work as then, if they are not needed for labour?

Some countries already have the answer to that. One of them is Singapore that has shifted its workforce from one of labour to knowledge based. According to the Ministry of Manpower, ‘Singapore’s workforce is highly skilled and productive’ and have strong ‘managerial talent’. Does this mean that in order for a human to survive in this kind of world and the future, being highly skilled is crucial? This seems to be the answer. To be highly skilled means having higher education and and education in IT which the Singapore government have been emphasizing. Nowadays, IT classes are even taught as young as in primary schools. There has been increasing number of education instituitions incorporating the use of IT into education, where IT could be a medium for learning or even the subject of education. This appears like a good solution to counter the effects of a world where human labour is being replaced by machines. But what happens to people who are unable to fit into this solution? People who have no access to such an education and have no means of becoming part of the ‘highly skilled and productive’ workforce? Does it mean that they are the ones who would truly be replaced by machines and feel the impact the most?

References

“Asimo” retrieved from on 26th October 2008.

“World’s Greatest Android Projects” retrieved from on 26th October 2008.

“More retail jobs being replaced by machine” retrieved from on 26th October 2008.

“Ministry of Manpower: Developing a Globally Competitive Workforce” retrieved from on 26th October 2008.

“Population indicators” retrieved from on 20th October 2008.

Population and Health:Singapore’s Baby Crisis

Ang Jinghui — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:51:56 +0000

Stop at Two campaigns in the 1960s

Birth and fertility issues holds immense importance to Singapore’s government who, from MM Lee’s time held the view that people are our most valuable resource and thus, a threat to this resource is a crisis. From 1970s to 2007, Singapore’s fertility rate drastically dropped from 3.07 to 1.28. This could be due to the effective birth control policies – ‘Stop at Two’ in the 1960s to early 1970s where citizens are discouraged in numerous ways when they have their 3rd, 4th or subsequent child. Despite the introduction of ‘Have three or more, if you can afford it’ the fertility rate was not significantly raised. Does it mean that Singaporeans already have the mindset that raising children is expensive and having many children threatens the livelihood of the family? It appears to be. The mindset where ‘children have traditionally been a source of pride’ was gone and replaced by one where ‘putting children through school was expensive’ which in fact, is something reflected in both the birth control programs mentioned above (Sernau, 259). And as shown in Cairo, ‘improved contraception, improved education, or an improved standard of living’ is ‘the best route to lowered fertility’ (Sernau, 269) also points out that our current environment is pro-’lowered fertility’. Fortunately, the Singapore government does not reverse such conditions in order to promote birth rates yet, is the government tackling the key mindsets and root causes of this problem?

One way the government solves this is by dangling incentives called ‘Baby Bonus’ introduced in 2001 to attract Singaporeans to procreate. So far, this has not received enthusiastic response from Singaporeans as the fertility rate showed no improvements. However, the newly revised Baby Bonus released this 17th August 2008 promises attractive cash gifts or 4K and cash incentives. This might attract some parents who are worried about the finances of having a child but does it really work on those who think that having children would compromise their current lifestyle? Does it really work considering the coldness such Bonuses have received previously? When I was in secondary school, my girlfriend once told me ‘I don’t want to have children, they are “extras” in my marriage’ which I was shocked to hear but later, in Junior college hear it coming from more of my girlfriends who tells me things like ‘it is narcissistic to have children’ and that ‘Adoption is better as you get a child minus the labour pain and you are saving a life’. Then there are also the career woman that places more emphasis on career advancement rather than motherhood as shown in local drama ‘La Femme’ aired on 2nd June 2008.

Therefore, it is apparent that the government needs more than a re-packaging of the dulled Baby Bonus to solve its baby crisis. The increasingly allowance of expatriates and foreigners into Singapore society as P.Rs might help as STs pointed out the artificial growth of Singapore’s population growth to 5.5% in countering the problem of Singapore’s low birth rate. However, can the government continue to import people to fill in the population and give birth in the place of Singaporeans without actually hitting the issue at its root? Should the government learn from the Icelandic people and remodel its society such that social environment and policies are more family and baby-friendly? Perhaps it is time Singapore’s society learn from our Iceland counterparts where it is possible to be pregnant without worries and be happy.

Reference and Citations

“Population indicators” retrieved from on 20th October 2008.

“Singapore population control policies” retrieved from retrieved on 20th October 2008.

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

“Baby Bonus” retrieved from on 20th October 2008.

“Channel 8 La Femme” retrieved from on 20th October 2008.

“John Carlin on Why Iceland has the happiest people on Earth” retrieved from on 20th October 2008.

“Singapore Population Boosted by Foreign Influx” retrieved from on 20th October 2008.

Urbanisation: The Dangerous yet Alluring Malaysian Lifestyle

Ang Jinghui — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:16:52 +0000

Throughout history, a bond between Singapore and her neighbour-Johor Bahru- have been forged. On top of the water pact, which is fulfilled by the state of Johor for decades, Urbanisation is another bonding point.

Just as how Singapore see Malaysia as a huge hinterland, Malaysia saw gains to be made from Singapore’s economic climb to success through the years. In this current time manifested itself in the huge Urban development projects undertaken in Johor Bahru. According to Singapore’s Ministry of Trade and Industry under the article “SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA-CREATING A WIN-WIN PARTNERSHIP”, ‘companies are already looking at ways to create a win-win partnership in SJER (South Johor Economic Region) projects’. In this same article, it is mentioned that ‘more than half of Singapore’s S$1.3billion investments in Malaysia in 2005 are located in Johor’ and ‘One notable example is the Tanah Sutera Development Sdn Bhd, a consortium of prominent Malaysian and Singaporean companies including Lee Rubber Co Pte Ltd, Pelangi Bhd, Keppel LandLtd and CapitaLand, which is developing the 323-acre Taman Sutera and 1000-acre Taman Sutera Utama.’ (1) This reveals the impact Singapore has on the urbanisation of Malaysia as there is nothing small scale about developmental projects with the size of ’323-acre’ and ’1000-acre’. The same could be said of Singapore, which have always relied and used Johor as a means to increase its economic prowess and development, especially the crucial issue of water supply where more than 40% comes from Johor.

On a more micro level, the level of the people, the significance is huge. From a Singaporean and personal perspective, the above urbanisation project gave me my home as I am a resident of the Sutera Utama Skudai (2) neighbourhood where there is a significant number of Singaporeans in its population. Majority of the neighbours, Singaporeans and Malaysians would travel to Singapore for work in the morning and return to Malaysia at night. A car-ride to the Malaysian custom takes a mere 15mins illustrating its close proximity from Singapore. Travelling to Singapore in the morning rush-hour, you would be shocked to count (easily) thousands of vehicles, mostly motorcycles entering Singapore. Many are Malaysians, but there is a portion of Singaporeans too. And they are Singaporeans that (1) find the cost of living in Singapore too high, (2) are practical and wants to stretch their dollar. In areas of housing, a beautiful two story terrace from Sutera Utama offering car porch, garden, park facilities, 24 hr security patrol etc cost around 477K RM (~201K SGD)(3)(4) is impossible to get in Singapore. And a cylinder of gas costing 26.50RM and in Singapore, 37.50SGD (~88.85RM) is a huge difference. This stark difference in quality of life for Singaporeans is definitely alluring. Months back, Taman Sutera built a Vivo-like mega shopping mall just for Sutera Utama residents. Advertisement for the Sutera Mall on buses would reach as far as the Malaysian customs.

However ironically, despite the project being participated by Singaporean companies itself, the media in Singapore seems to jeopardise it with its negative portrayal of Johor almost like Crime Haven and on the TV new resport of the price hike in Johor, many users interviewed by the reporters said they do not find topping up fuel in Malaysia attractive/workable anymore. This is backed by laws where Singapore cars are not allowed to enter Malaysia unless their oil tank is 3/4 filled. Other problematic issues include, Singaporeans living in Malaysia driving Malaysian cars into Singapore. It seems Singapore is not ready and encouraging of Singaporean residing in Malaysia despite them participating in projects that build infrastructure that make Malaysia more attractive and comfortable for Singaporeans. Then could the ‘Singapore-Malaysia Partnership’ be merely on the official, level where the ‘win-win’ situation is out of the common Singaporean’s grasp?

Citations

(1) “Singapore and Malaysia-Creating a Win-Win Partnership”, retrieved from http://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=4461 on 13th October 2008.

(2) “Tanah Sutera”, retrieved from http://www.tanahsutera.com/ on 13th October 2008.

(3) “1.00 SGD to MYR”, retrieved from http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi on 13th October 2008.

(4) “Casania, 2-sty terrance”, retrieved from http://www.iproperty.com.my/property/development.asp?pid=1227 on 13th October 2008.

Week 8, Politics of Identity and Globalisation

Ang Jinghui — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:02:11 +0000

The Great Walls between Chinese

Since centuries, Chinese, mainly from Fujian, Guangdong and Hainan have been migrating out to the world i.e. Chinese Diaspora, whereby they form a significant number in almost every continent but more focused in Asia, with 28millions as of 2001. In south-east Asia, there are about 3.4 million Singaporean Chinese, 7.5 million Indonesian Chinese, 7.1milion Thai Chinese, 7 million Malaysian Chinese. Many of these Chinese migrated out of China for centuries and some are well-assimilated into their new countries as they are already the 3rd of 4th generation of Chinese to be born outside of China. The assimilation process itself however, is long and difficult as proven by bloody clashes between races e.g. 1964 Race Riots in Singapore where Malays and Chinese kill each other and the killing of Indonesian Chinese in Indonesia few years back.

However, in Singapore, Chinese immigrants that planted themselves centuries ago are pretty well assimilated into the Singapore society such that Singaporean Chinese form the largest racial group. Due to the urban and developmental program implemented where Chinese dialects like Hokkien are discouraged whereas Mandarin and English are encouraged and the removal of the Mandarin medium schools that focuses on Chinese values and tradition, it is now rare for the younger generation of Singaporeans to identify themselves as ‘I am a Hakka’ or ‘I am a teochew’ like how the older generations of Chinese Singaporeans do. Singaporean Chinese have stopped seeing themselves so much as their race too, such that when asked who they are, they would most likely answer ‘I am a Singaporean’ rather than ‘I’m a Chinese’. Such an identification of self along Nationalistic lines could be due to the efforts of the government in building up a National identity through means like teaching ‘Social studies’ and ‘National Education’ in public schools. Here, I am not saying that Singaporean Chinese do not see themselves as Chinese, but to identify themselves more along Nationalistic lines is stronger than along racial lines that the government has been trying for years and successfully shifted the focus away from.

This could explain the following phenomena in Singapore which is not as strikingly observed in Malaysia and Indonesia despite having a larger population of Chinese, that is of ‘Chinese Bashing’ as described by a Chinese National blogger in his blog -xiawubei.blogspot.com- who has completed his University studies in Singapore and experienced numerous unpleasant incidents of hostility and discrimination from Singaporean Chinese. Personally, I do know of a friend, also a Chinese, my age who viewed all Chinese Nationals as uncouth, rude and ‘greedy bastards’ according to him. Such negative sentiments are reflected in the article ‘China workers rude, so are we‘ and the Nationalistic divide between China Chinese and Singaporean Chinese are also seen in the following youtube(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSn9U4dYyP4) video where it is clear that Singaporean Chinese identify themselves with their China counterparts to the extent that a brawl could break out anytime. In NTU, within the engineering faculty where there’s large numbers of PRCs (as Chinese Nationals are called) and Indian students, Singaporeans would sit as a group in lectures, the PRCs as another separate group and the Indian students as another group. The divide between Chinese Singaporean and China Chinese is so great that they are like on two sides of a wall.

The media itself, plays a role in exaggerating this divide by portraying more negative sides of China than their positive. With China steadily rising to have more global influence and international recognition, would Singaporean Chinese learn to have more Chinese pride and identify themselves more kindly with their China counterparts under the praises that MM Lee showered on China recently.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Citations

“Distribution of Ethinic Chinese population around the world” , retrieved from http://cicdatabank.library.ohiou.edu/opac/population.php on 6th Oct 2008.

“Overseas Chinese”, retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese on 6th Oct 2008.

“Communal Riots of 1964″, retrieved from http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_45_2005-01-06.html on 6th Oct 2008.

On Democracy and Human rights

Ang Jinghui — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:41:55 +0000

Where the people recognise and grow their power

Many Singaporeans males resent the idea of National Service (NS), Jehovah Witnesses are jailed for gathering in public and in Detention Barracks for 3 years should they declare their religious status before entering army, there is a lack of choices in the parties we have in Singapore with a one party rule situation, the charging of ERP has risen and more charging gates are constructed against wishes of Singaporeans, bus fares hikes up against to the dismay of the citizens.These are just some issues that bothers Singaporeans. But why is it that despite being in a Democratic state where people supposely have the power to decide what they want to do, so many situations seem to be against the interests of Singaporeans?

One reason is that Singaporeans fail to recognise the power they possess. It is understandable that Singaporeans feel powerless against a government that has proven its prowess through its ability to bring about transformation to turn a kampung to a city and reach into all the nooks and crannies in our lives, where Singaporeans even begin to be aware that they have no privacy under the watchful eyes of the government as plentiful information about just about any Singapore citizen could be accessed via the government’s database.

Therefore, despite the resentment over these issues that trouble Singaporeans, PAP continue to receive majority votes over the years, receiving the support of the people. It could be due to the fact that the opposition in Singapore really have nothing much to offer in comparison to the PAP. And looking at the Opposition party that was never in control and never given the chance to be in the limelight, it is natural for Singaporeans to want to continue voting for something that they knew could give some results rather than to go for something on the experimental side. The fear of losing what they have and the hope that the dominant PAP could provide better explains the continual support received by the PAP.

However, looking at the issues and the way PAP functions, it is not likely they would evolve quick enough to solve all the issues Singaporeans face and do things a different way. Perhaps, it is really time for Singaporeans to be more proactive and show their need to be babysitted less in this nanny state. One good way to start is to get more politically involved. Many Singaporeans have gotten so passive they simply let the government do anything they want and Singaporeans would only complain and then struggle with the situation imposed upon them. Should Singaporeans voice out loud and persistently to air their views and ask for what they want, how long can the government ignore the voices of the people? If it is so loud that it and persistent that it becomes international and get our global neighbours attention, can they or would they sweep it under the carpet and still maintain their global reputation?

Yes, the above is written knowing that Singapore is the only country in the world with a Speaker’s corner where you need to register with a police in a nearby police station and get an approval before you can speak. Still, that does not mean our voices cannot be heard. It is noted that internet forums have been increasingly popular for people to air their views and in this era of IT, the impact of the internet is not to be trifled with. For if there is a will, there is a way.

____________________________________________________________________________

Works Cited:

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

On Week 7, War: Arms, the Maginifer of War?

Ang Jinghui — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:50:49 +0000

In this era, the presence of deadly weapons and killing machines like missiles, submarines, nuclear bombs, machine guns, grenades has magnified war to a much larger scale than it was in the days of spear and bow fighting. Take for example the nuclear bomb that wrecked Hiroshima and Nagasaki within split seconds, it was never possible before that to create so much damage in war. However, what is it that results in these arms and their widespread circulation and usage? Is the availability and deadliness of arms the cause of the proliferation and growth of war? Are the any other roles that arms play other than being a Magnifier of war?

Due to the presence of a global arms trade, the most basic weapon-the rifle- could be mass produced cheaply, using a combined effort of industrialisation and technology, it is so dirt cheap that an ‘ AK 47 can be purchased for as little as twenty dollars, less than a bag of rice’ according to sociology textbook, ‘Global problems’. Their availbility is also prompted by America’s donations of ‘Stingers’ to ‘mujadeen warriors’ in their fight against ‘Soviet army’ and yet these arms are not recollected after their purposes has been served. Such a provision of arms to support certain groups by America does not just stop here, it is repeated again and again as seen in AmerIca’s supplying of arms to Iraq during the Irad war. This availability of arms, though profitable to America as they earn from the business transaction, makes it easy for ward to occur. It is this availability that allows international organised criminal groups like MS13 in America to carry out their activitities with the power that arms gave them. And it is possible that they have the power to carry out warfare with the government should they continue to grow.

It is interesting to note that America, an advocate of human rights and peace is encouraging war with the sales and supplying of arms that supports and magnify the impact of war. It made America much like a two headed-snake. However, it could be due to how they perceive peace to be a by-product of arms or a usage of it. It is the usage of nuclear power in WWII that stunned Japan into near immediate surrender and the world into fearful peace. Does it mean that countries need to be threatened by arms with the possiblity to destroy the entire world easily in order to be peaceful? Apparently, during WWII, this is how things appear to be. Which is why, during the cold war, superpowers refuse to go into war, yet constantly stockpiling and creating better arms to threaten each other into not fighting with each other in a bloody, physical war.

The production of arms which supposely provides security to those who wield it mirrors the inner insecurities modern countries have. How having arms gives a feeling of superiority and security in this dangerous modern world of uncertainty drives countries to pump in significant funds into research and development of better, deadlier arms and the purchase and production of more arms. Yet this is almost like a cycle. Once a country has more superior and more arms to feel secure against other countries, other countries feel insecure and catch up, spiraling into a rat race to build up defense walls. This is a situation where changes in global politics is called for. Perhaps the improvement of ties and closer teamwork between countries’s leaders might just be the best way to solve this problem of the excessive development and production of arms.

Week 5: Crime

Ang Jinghui — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:36:16 +0000

Music, Drugs & Violence:Happy Three Friends?

One wonders what music has morphed into in this globalised age of ours? Is music where it used to be, associated with class-conscious entertainment of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven that is healthy and still as innocent a lamb it used to be? Is it innocent and just a scapegoat or can it be proven guilty?

Studies has shown that ‘Young people who listen to rap and hip hop are more likely to have problems with alcohol, drugs and violence of other types of music’ . Another study by the American Psychological Society also proves that ‘Songs with violent lyrics increase aggression related thoughts and emotions and this effect is directly related to the violence in the lyrics’ and in Colorado, ‘police publicly condemned the music in a news release after a killing in July and are warning nightclub owners that their places might not be safe if they play gangsta rap’. The alcohol industry has also been using rap and hip hop to market its own products, strengthening the relationship between music and drugs while increasing sales. The industry uses mass media e.g. internet, TV, radio to reach out to millions, making such a move potentially worrying. But who or what allowed this marketing to happen knowing this nature of unhealthy music? It might be the combination of lax censorship laws or laisser faire media policies together with the availability of mass media in this age.

Not only does the genre of music has influence on drugs and violence, star appeal seems to come in too, with people often pointing fingers at them for popularizing drugs. Too many stars have been known to use drugs- e.g. The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Naomi Campbells- that there are lengthy record lists of stars that are addicts. Some musicians are known to take drugs for inspiration. The song ‘help’ by the Beatles is a LSD-orientated song which is possibly inspired by drugs. If music concerts have such a ability to allow John Lennon to recruit huge masses of people to support him in his political endevors, one can imagine the same for drugs.

Hence, can we blame music for its close friendship with drugs and violence or people allowing such music to be used and people who, in the name of music, influence drugs use and violence? With this, the idea of music censorship comes into view. ‘Puff the Magic Dragon’ that has references to Marijuana was previously banned in Singapore in the 60s. According to K Bhavani, spokesperson of the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts, censorship is done with sensitivity to the largely conservative asian values of Singaporeans. However, with the availability of the internet, it is challenging to fight the pervasive nature of music. This made us question the effectiveness of censorship with common cries of protest against censorship that many have believed to be unhealthy and that ‘music is freedom’ Also, the fact that ‘Puff the Magic Dragon’ is no longered censored also points to the changing views of what is viewed as offensive or unhealthy and needs to be censored.

However, at the moment, not much studies is done regarding the effectiveness of censorship to prove that music censorship can cause/ curb drugs usage. On the other hand, there are more major causes-e.g. proliferation of drug industries, cultural acceptance of drugs usage-of drugs and violence other than music for music to take the blame entirely. Therefore, the nature of music like rap, techno, hip hop could only be partially guilty for promoting drugs and violence as other darker forces are driving people who are known to listen to whatever appeals to their nature.

Citations and References

“Boston University of Public Health.” Pyre.org. 20 April 2006 .

“Partiheimer” APA.org. 4 May 2003 .

“K.Bhavani” Yawning Bread. 27 May 2005 .

“Frosch.D” New York Times. 3 September 2007 .

Week 4: Gender and Family

Ang Jinghui — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:25:55 +0000

Househusbands to the Rescue in the Modern Career Woman’s Dilemma ?

Despite trends of more women entering the workforce and climbing the social and corporate ladder, it seems that women have yet to reach the top of the ladder.

Just take at look at the Forbes list of the world’s Billionaires, out of the top 25 listed, majority were men. The top 10 were all men and the 1st women that came into picture ranked 17th, was Liliane Bettencourt whose net worth was $22.9 Billion, a far cry from Warren Buffet (who came 1st)’s 62 Billion which is about 3times. Why is there such a disparity? In the Singapore context itself, there is significantly more men than women holding positions in NMPs, Parliament, Supreme courts, National Trades Union Congress Committee or MPs. In many of which, men took up more than 70% of the positions. Again, why is there such a disparity? This could be due to the stress of holding dual roles of mothers and career or simply the fact that women were only allowed into these male-dominated scenes recently.

There is a common saying that behind every successful man, there is a supportive woman/wife. Usually it is assumed that the wife is plays the traditional dutiful role of a mother, taking care of the children and running the household. For centuries, this is what has been the situation. However, in this age of globalisation where there is almost a role-reversal, do we see men becoming the supportive husbands behind the successful women?

It is interesting to note that parenthood, rather than motherhood is gaining popularity in Singapore as it is common sight to see loving husbands attend workshops with their wives to learn how to cope with labour and stuff like changing diapers for babies. They are the new breed of men called the ‘Househusbands’ who are sometimes featured in magazines, newspapers and in recent Channel 8 drama TV. They are the men who has chosen to give up their careers to stay at home, cook, take care of the children, manage the household while their wives bring the bread home. Usually, it is due to the fact that the wives brings a larger loaf of bread home than the husband and the children need parental support at home that this situation comes about. However, not all families are fortunate enough to have the luxury of a househusband. What happens then? Such families would usually have two working parents and grandparents would come into picture.

As Singapore is predominately made up of Chinese and Indians with traditionally huge families or an emphasis on close-knitted ties with families, we see this era as an era of ‘Grandparenting’. Many young parents who have to work and support their families rely on Grandparents to take care of their children. This is so common that the MYCS itself holds events like ‘Official launch of Grandparenting with Confidence’ with an opening speech by Mr Chan Soo Chen (Minister of State, MOE & MCDS) who harped on the joys of Grandparenting and the important roles Grandparents play in the Singaporean family.

Others, who are unable to find the aid of grandparents or househusbands, turn to domestic maids. The journey of juggling career and family is not all bleak and a lonely one for women in Singapore. Should the government continue to promote these healthy alternatives, it is possible for such a saying to become household, ‘Behind every successful woman, she has a supportive husband and family’. Only then can the ugly vision of women sacrificing her motherhood, self and almost everything for career in ‘Top Girls’ by Carly Churchill be proven to be something of the past.

Week 3: Work & Trade

Ang Jinghui — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:58:19 +0000

The idea of ‘The Division of Labour’ on a mico level could be applied to both the free trade market or the communist market. This ‘Division’ allows the revolutionary Ford motors to make cars accessible to the masses. Thus, a blessing with far-reaching consequences, giving numerous cities their trade-mark traffic and roads.

For the consumers, ‘Division of Labour’ allows goods to reach them at competitive prices. However, sometimes, in order to cut cost, companies exploit cheap labour to produce goods that they sell much higher. As it is something that could happen to both a communist/free trade market, Karl Marx’s suggestions of establishing ‘a minimal wage’ would come in handy provided this is not hindered by corruptions or a lax implementation of this law. However even with minimal wage laws, there are still negative impacts of this Division as traditional craftsmen- e.g. carpentry, toy crafter, tailors- are unable to compete (price-wise) with companies that produce that same craft they made cheaper and sometimes better due to the use of technology and machines. This results in the displacement of all these traditional craftsman as they had to search for other jobs to survive. If they are unable to find jobs, it is a concern as it may result in social unrests. But if they do, it means the death of their trade too. It then brings to mind the following questions: what are the sacrifices a traditional society make in their transition to a modern society? Would the sacrifices bring more advantages or disadvantages to the people in long run? However, it seems there is a group similar to craftsmen that have barely escaped the death-clutch of the ‘DIvision’. They are the artists, whose art are not meant to be mass produced. Some artist-craftmen are able to hold on to their tradition as they turn it into art for people to admire on the International level. Despite it being the same type of craft the factories could churn out, being art and made more elaborately, painstakingly (sometimes) and comes with individual style, it makes mass replication via ‘Division of labour’ challenging and meaningless.

As for ‘Division of Labour’ on the Macro level called ‘International Division of Labour’ it is said that every country had their own job/resources to contribute to global economy. It seems that not every country has the capability to contribute as active players to the global economy as there are countries that are still closed up to the outside world where they hardly interact with the global economy e.g. Bhutan. Also, there are poor and underdeveloped countries that, instead of being the bigger players in contribution, have much lesser contribution and instead needs the financial aid of other countries. Therefore, this global economy is actually contributed by a ‘soccer team’ of countries with not all in the team, some watching at the side, totally not involved despite some clearly abundant in natural resources. e.g. Africa had vast natural resources but is not a major player of the Global economy.

Class and Inequalities

Ang Jinghui — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 04:10:34 +0000

During this lecture on ‘Class and Inequalities’ we were exposed to the idea of ‘The Modernisation Theory’ which believed that poverty is caused by the sustaining of tradition conditions. I choose to disagree with this. Singapore is one country that has definitely moved on and modernised while retaining their traditional Asian values. However, there is a balanced strike between the two as Singapore has adopted new western way of doing things and influences too.

The Modernisation theory brings to mind the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert. In their world, where they lived the way their ancestors lived centuries and far beyond, there was never a concept of poverty in the first place. Yes, in our eyes and standard, they may be poor without material comforts like a jacuzzi, car or TV. But in their eyes, they had everything. The earth and mother nature had bountiful to offer them. They are well-taken cared by nature. Therefore, it is indeed like what Prof SA said, that there is indeed no fixed definition of poverty. It also leads one to question the relationship between wealth and happiness; does better condition promise better life?

Because of the above points, the Dependency theory is more agreeable for me. It believed that an individual being poor comes from other causes like colonisation, exploitation by Capitalists. It reminds me of something at we learnt in another Sociology lecture where students were shown statistics of the number of suicides in the different coutries. It appears that there are societies with significantly more suicides in terms of both sexes compared to other countries. Thus, implying that sometimes a problem as personal as suicide may be something that is a social phemonemon instead or due to influences of the society on the individual. Likewise, this Dependency theory is explaining how poverty is not a result of personal problems/characteristics like laziness or stupidity but due to the influences of societal conditions.

When we were questioned why do we need to care about poverty and inequality. I simply thought it was a matter of us showing our humane side for our fellow human counterparts. However when told it has far more implications like the result of social unrest, it brings to mind the beginning of the WWII. As everyone knows, Germany lost in WWI and fell into depression as a result of the collapsed economy and ruined infrastructure. This created social unrest as food, employment was scare and inflation made money worthless. This state of insecurity and unhappiness allowed humankind to be exploited by people like Adolf Hitler and the Nazi to use the Jews as the scape goat for all the problems in German society and led things to accelerate into WWII. This shows how something as simple as poverty\could be overblown to result in the death and destruction of such global impact. And made me think that a country’s problems is not just their own problems as it has far-reaching consequences for its neighbors and far beyond too.