Socioatwork’s Weblog

In the more developed countries like Singapore, we are experiencing an aging population due to the falling birth rates and longer life expectancies. We are concerned about out birth rates falling below the replacement level of 2.1. We are afraid that there would be lesser young people to defend and fight for our country.

The better education received by women have led them to be more self-sufficient and career-focused, leading to later marriages and lesser time for child-bearing activities. They now also have better understandings of family planning and the use of contraceptives. These reasons coupled with the rapidly rising costs of living are discouraging many couples from producing more than two children.

On the other hand, there is a problem of overpopulation and the explosion of population in the developing countries, especially in the rising countries, China and India. The main resultant of this problem is the high illiteracy rates in these countries due to the lack of a proper education system, statistics have shown that in India, only 59.5% of the population is literate so far (male 10.2% and female 48.3% according to the statistics given in 2003). Although literate, most of this 59.5% have not even completed high school education. Poverty, social and economical conditions, etc. are a few of the reasons for this disturbing figures.

In view of the exploding population in these countries, the state had intervened with its population control policies. The more amours of these policies is the one-child policy enforced by one of the fastest growing countries in the worlds, China. Even though the growth of population in China did indeed slow down, it also brought about with it many disastrous social problems.

In my opinion, the worst of them is the obvious gender disparity between males and females. In China and many other Asian countries due to the influence of Confucius, there has been a longstanding tradition of preference for sons over daughters. This belief coupled with the enforcement of the one-child policy has led many parents to purposely abort female babies and abandon female infants. This has led to growing gender imbalance among the newborns and the resulting lack of wives for the overwhelming number of males versus the outnumbered females.

Before the enforcement of the population control policies, there were social problems created as a result of this overpopulation of the country. Thus the state intervened with their policies as solutions. After the implementation of the policies, the problem was somewhat under control, but another set of social problems have emerged as a result.

Perhaps the states ought to invest more in educating the future-to-be parents about family planning and deepen their understanding and knowledge about the use of birth control methods instead of enforcing their policies upon the people. This process would inevitably take a longer period of time for the effects to show but at least it would be a more natural one whereby the parents understand the full implications of their actions. But when that day actually arrives, I guess there would be another set of social problems that would arise from the lack of new babies to replace the ones that leave.

The damages done to our environment stemmed primarily from our human activities. Conditions of population growth, affluence and poverty, technological and industrial development, domestic and international economic activities, and patterns of consumption all affect the use–and abuse–of land, energy resources, and natural resources such as plants and animals, as well as the quality of soil, water, and air.[1]

Top problems of environmental quality today include deforestation, global warming, biodiversity loss, and hazardous waste. The solutions to these and environmental problems involve social change.[2]

I think the main problem that countries face is their need to balance economic gain and environmental needs. In the case of China, a prime example would be their building of the Three Gorges Dam.

The dam was started in the year 1993 and was stemmed from a century-old dream of communist China’s founder Mao Zedong to harness the Yangtze, the world’s third largest river, for electric power. Their main driving force was the creation of this was to generate more power for their rapidly rising population, in other words, to keep pace with their increasing economic growth. Many supporters of this project would say that the benefits brought about would far outweigh the costs to the environment. Some of these benefits include, the relieve of flooding and the reduction in the emission of harmful gases such as sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide.

However, the costs to the environment are actually much more staggering. Chinese officials estimate that the reservoir will partially or completely inundate 2 cities, 11 counties, 140 towns, 326 townships, and 1351 villages.  About 23800 hectares, more than 1.1 million people will have to be resettled, accounting for about one third of the project’s cost.[3] The Yangtze River’s river banks had also been weakened, resulting in the brittle area being more prone to landslides and riverbank erosions.

Moreover, pollution is only one aspect of this environmental catastrophe. Critics say the dam will also threatens many rare plant and animal species along the river and will reduce aquatic life stocks. Most at risk is the snub-nosed Yangtze River dolphin. Many have been killed or maimed by the propellers of boats, and now only 200 are left.[4]

Even before the actual construction of the Three Gorges Dam, activists and scientists have already warned that the project was just an ecological disaster waiting to happen. However China officials still went along with this project, proclaiming that the benefits to the citizens of China and the environment would more than make up for the environmental and social impacts. I think this is a prime case of whereby China has placed greater emphasis on its own economic progression than on the environment. Even if they realized that the project would pose great social problems, in the face of all the economic gains to their country, they would be more than tempted to ignore all the words of caution, close both eyes, and give the nod of approval for this massive project.

Globalization has aided in the rapid proliferation of science and technology. With the disappearance of boundaries, science and technology is able to spread across continents resulting in more and more people becoming reliant on technology. In today’s context, it is rare to actually find a household that has totally has no hint of technology in it.

When asked, nine out of ten people will think that it is our intelligence and inventiveness that has led to the many breakthroughs in science and the resulting new and innovative technologies created. Humans are the one in control. We are the ones with the brains and we create these new technologies. Science and technology is used to suit our needs and preferences. Science and technology is helping to make our lives easier and more convenient. I’m sure that this are some of the many phrases that will go through people’s minds when asked about this topic.

A disturbing thought about all these is that we are beginning to rely a lot on science and technology to get things done for us. What happens when one day all the technology decides to revolt against us and take a break? Are we getting too over-dependent on the convenience of technology? I fear that the answer may be a yes.

Even though we were the ones who initially created the new technologies, but what happens when these new technologies of ours break down? We immediately start seeking technical help and advice in solving the problem to get it up and running again. All this is done because without the help of technology, we are unable to get our work done. So who is now pandering to the whims of whom? Are we creating technologies that are catering to our needs or are we now rushing to solve the problems of the technologies?

It is ironic how the master-servant positions between us and technology has evolved. We had first started with a very simple concept. We need to get our work done, and with the help of technology, we actually get to complete them in half the time. So technology is helping us and we are the masters of technology. However, over the years, people have grown too accustomed and used to the idea of technology being part of our lives that we hardly even notice that it is there anymore. As a result, we are now becoming the slaves of technology. When the technologies are not performing, we would rush to troubleshoot. We no longer seem to be in control of them and rather, we seem to be under their control.

It is an irrefutable fact that science and technology has indeed brought about tremendous benefits to us and our lives are made a whole lot easier with their presence. However, what would happen one day when like in the movies they show, our technologies start becoming too clever for their own good? When they start thinking about why they have to be under our control when we are the ones who need them? I fear to think that such a day would ever come.

One of the main drivers of urbanization is the rural-urban migration. Most of the developed countries in the world today have already experienced years of urbanization when residents migrate from the rural, countryside areas to the urban and modern cities. When residents move from one area to another, so does the economic and industrial activities.

Urbanization has led to the development of the modern city which we are all living in now. Most people only see the good side of the development of the modern city but fail to notice the bad side.

For instance, with the rise of cities leads to a question of urban planning. With millions of people living together on a single piece of land, there would be inevitable be problems and conflicts arising due to the pure fact that all humans are different. We all think differently and thus act and behave differently. Not everyone would be able to tolerate and live harmoniously with everyone else living in the same city as them.

The urban planner would have to crack their brains trying to figure out a way to ensure that residents are living close enough a proximity so that not too much space is wasted, while making sure that they are not too close for the residents to complain of neighbours invading their private space. Personally I feel that the structure of the flats built by the Singapore Housing Development Board is a good idea. The common corridors would help residents in cultivating some kind of neighbourly bond but when they start feeling irritated by their neighbours they can just retreat and hide in their flats.

This increased migration to urban areas is due to a combination of ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors. The ‘push’ factors would include the poor living conditions, natural disasters and unemployment in the rural areas. However, in my opinion the ‘pull’ factors would be greater than the ‘push’ factors, but the ‘push’ factors are complementing the ‘pull’ factors.  When someone in the rural area sees a fellow village-mate returning in glory from the urban areas, he would definitely be tempted by an urge to migrate over to the urban areas as well. This would be especially so if the individual in question feels that he is stronger and better than the fellow village-mate. Due to the problem of ego, he would feel the need to prove that he is better and the ‘If he can do it, so can I’ mentality. So this peer influence would be a very strong ‘pull’ factor for a person who is not exactly making end’s meets in the rural area.

In general, cities are perceived as places whereby individuals can lead better lives due to more opportunities, salaries and lifestyles. But these are all just perceptions that attract people from the rural areas to the cities. Many a time, when they actually enter the cities, these people then realize that opportunities do not just drop from the skies and they need to work very hard for them. Plus, success in cities also depends on a little amount of luck and knowing when to grab the opportunity when it arises. So maybe, if this perception of cities being areas of prosperity and places of sure success are altered, the alarming rate of rural-urban migration would slow down just a little.

Identity was a word coined by us industrialized people to enable us to differentiate ourselves from the rest of the other billions of people all over the world. It was supposed to help make identification simpler and easier. However, in recent years, identity seems to have backfired and is instead, working against us.

The forging of an identity was done in goodwill, to make ourselves distinctive and unique, and when two or more people who have these same distinctive and unique characteristics came together, they form a group identity using their similarities. Based on this common ground, they create a group that is different from the rest of the world.

However, it seems that we failed to take into account the conflicts that may arise between the different groups of identity. This is especially dangerous for groups with common identities in the sense that a single radical would be able to easily spread his/her own feelings of resentment and bitterness to the other members. This is because all the members in the group have that same common thread of similarity between them and they would be able to better relate to that single radical’s ideas and theories.

This is especially true for the minority groups who are in general more susceptible to unfair or unequal treatment. One can easily dig up thoughts of resentment in these groups who are often disadvantages or discriminated against in one way or another. Once these feelings are brought up to the surface, these groups of people are capable of inflicting a huge amount of damage onto the other groups of identity which they feel are discriminating or looking down on them.

The powers of these groups of identity cannot be underestimated as their motivation would be very great since they are all fighting for something they truly believe in. Moreover the bond between the members of these common identity groups would be stronger than other normal groups with members not having a common identity as the former are able to identify with each other better and would feel a sense of brotherhood and kinship. This makes the situation even more perilous as they would be willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve the common goals and objectives of the group and for the ultimate radical leader who had led them upon this journey.

An interesting side note is that since there are so many different sides to a person, would he/she be able to forge many different common identities with a lot of differing groups then? How would he/she know which group to pledge their greatest loyalty to? More often than not, these identities are conflicting in interests. For example, a man’s identity as a faithful employee may clash with his responsibilities that come with the identity of a family man. In cases like this, I guess the individual’s priorities would come into play.

More and more countries around the world are embracing the concept of democracy as their form of government political system. But does democracy really ensure that the citizens are the country will all live in peace and harmony since every adult is entitled to his/her say. To be labeled as a democratic country, two criteria will have to be fulfilled. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.[1]

Translating literally from a chinese proverb, ‘Books are dead, while humans are alive’. That is, to say that the theories about how fair and equitable democracy are ultimately just theories, and humans are the ones who will be applying them to actual context and reality.

For example, in the case of Singapore, officially, our political system is is said to be a democratic one. All adults over the age of 21 are allowed to participate in the elections held once every four years to have their say in their elected government. However, the main governing party has been unchanged for 43 years ever since we became independent. This is totally unlike other democratic countries whose governing political parties have changed at least one in their whole independent history.

So is this a case of the elected party in Singapore doing such a great job that all our citizens are showing their utmost support for them every election period or is there some other underlying and implicit factors playing a part in the decision making process of Singaporeans? Well, that is an area too sensitive to explore here but I’m sure all Singaporeans will have their own takes and views on this.

All in all, this supports my point that democracy itself takes on many forms across the different countries adopting this same political system. Thus, no one will be able to say definitely that democracy is the best system.

Take for example, the Kingdom of Bhutan, it is one of the most isolated and least developed nations in the world yet in 2006, Business Week rated Bhutan the happiest country in Asia and the eighth happiest country in the world. After centuries of direct monarchic rule, Bhutan held its first democratic elections in March 2008. Bhutan is also the last remaining monarchy, constitutional or otherwise left in South Asia.[2]

What makes the people of Bhutan different from the rest of the world? No one can say for certain, but it is definitely not related to their political system. Perhaps, its due to the fact that foreign influences and tourism are regulated by the government to preserve the nation’s traditional culture, identity and the environment.[3] I suppose the people of Bhutan are so alienated from the rest of the world that they do not develop the same goals and wants of the more developed countries. They derive happiness from the most basic things that we city dwellers have long taken for granted.

War is an international relations dispute, characterized by organized violence between national military units.[1]

In the age of modern globalization, where economies are booming and populations are growing, more and more humans are being cramped together in a fixed amount of land and space. Human conflicts in this kind of living and working environment are bound to happen.

Rational humans are guided by self-interest and actions would be based on the ones that would allow them to derive the greatest utility for themselves. Moreover, psychologists have argued that human beings are inherently violent and are suppressing their need for violence in the normal civilized society that we live in everyday. So, this innate violence in humans coupled with differences in ideological stands, displacement, marginalization etc, will inevitably lead to wars happening.

For example, in the case of ideologies, every man will feel that his ideology is the best for the world, and they are perhaps really sincerely trying to bring about the best for the world by promoting their ideology. They feel that if the whole world operates with their ideology, the world would be a much better place to live in. They truly believe in the powers of their gods and want the world to enjoy the same enlightenment as them. I believe that some of them truly believe that they are helping the world by spreading their ideologies. However, perhaps they are just doing it in a too extreme way and adopting too violent methods.

But to me, all these theories will ultimately just remain as theories. Living in Singapore, where we are so protected by our government in everything we do, I do not really feel the impact of the terrorism and war that is happening to other countries around us. Even when, the September 11 attacks happened in 2001, when I first heard the news of the Twin Towers of New York City, most of us only treated this piece of shocking news as just a normal piece of news.

Somehow, I feel that the war and terrorism happening would not possibly affect us as we are all safely tucked around in our own small little red dot, where no disasters, be it natural or man-made can impact us. We are so used to our peace and serenity that we have sort of taken it for granted. Even when it was known that our Yishun MRT station was almost bombed, we did not feel the seriousness of the situation as nothing actually really happened to Singapore. All the public really knew was that a great disaster had been averted as the bomb was found in time; we once again did not experience the disastrous effects.

Singaporeans are getting so used to their peace and protective government that when the time really comes for us to stand up and defend ourselves, I really fear that we would not measure up.

It is a widely-accepted fact that in general urban areas suffer from more crime and violence than rural areas. It is also a fact that the poor are usually at the receiving end of these crime and violence. Once again, another social problem is linked to the inequality in the distribution of wealth.

In large cities, the rich are often the ones who wield all the power and get all the respect. In contrast, the poor often feel powerless to control anything that is happening around them. They are looked down upon by the rich and the educated and, more often than not, the people in these situations tend to band together to find common ground. This is also one of the major causes of the rise of urban gangs in modern cities today.

The rise of urban gangs actually started out on a very simple logic. It was a way of making the public take notice of them and reaffirms their presence in the society. Moreover, being part of gangs had a way of giving them a sense of comradeship and solidarity that is eluding them. At its most basic, a gang refers to a very definite kind of local social institution, which generally consists of a variably sized group of overwhelmingly male youths aged between 7 and 23 who engage in illicit and violent behavior—although not all gang activities are either illicit or violent—and have a particular territorial dynamic.[1]

Previously in the 1990s, gangs were formed with a social dimension involved, that is, gangs were loyal to their neighborhoods, and they protected the residents. They put themselves in danger because of their ‘love’ for their neighborhood, trying to protecting them from other rival gangs. The local neighborhood gang never victimized their own neighborhood residents; rather the threat comes from gangs from other neighborhoods. Therefore, in a ironic sense, local neighborhood gangs actually created a kind of ‘safe haven’ for the residents and made them feel a little safer living in the neighborhood.

However, in the context of today, the level of violence and brutality seems to have upped, and gangs are working more for individual interests, rather than the collective interests of the neighborhood as a whole. They used to operate on their ‘love’ for the local community and neighborhood, but now they do not bother protecting the local residents, and in fact even prey on them.

This total turnabout in attitude can be attributed to the popularization of drugs, the main drug being marijuana. The consumption of this drug results in one being more prone to acts of violence by enhancing aggressiveness. Now, the neighborhood residents feel unsafe and insecure because of the presence of these local gangs, whom had once provided them with a sense of security and ease.

The main aim of the gangs has slowly shifted to being more of economically-oriented, rather than socially-oriented. The gangs concentrate on earning more capital from the sale of their drugs transactions and are focusing less on gang wars that would deter people from entering their neighborhood.  Their violence was aimed at protecting the interests of the local residents in the past, but now they serve to protect their source of income by using the violence to ensure that their drug transactions go smoothly.

In an economic sense, the evolution of urban gangs was a natural process that was bound to happen sooner or later. Alienation due to wealth, power and status was part of the reason for the existence of the local gangs in the first place and with the rise of drugs, the local gangs have finally found their own way to upset the existing balance of wealth and truly belong in the modern cities of today.

In today’s context, the duty of a woman is no longer what it was a hundred years ago and I’m sure that it would not be what it is today a hundred years later either. Globalization and more importantly the opening up of the markets to women have resulted in more and more women being independent in their own rights.

The era of the modern women has brought about many changes in society. The first would be the divorce rates. In the past, women were largely dependent on men as their duty was merely to stay at home and look after the kids and family. They were often out of touch with the world and their knowledge limited to household matters. This resulted in many women being unable to fend for themselves. Thus, many women were often reluctant to get divorced although they were struggling to keep their marriages alive. Once without the support of their husbands, they were rendered helpless with no financial support. They were also afraid of losing custody of their children and so many a time, chose to stay on in an unhappy marriage.

In the past, the men were often the sole breadwinners of the family and lorded this power over the whole family. The women were supposed to look after their every need when they got home from work as they were very exhausted and tired from their whole day at work. There was a very clear division of labour between the husband and wife previously. With the modernization of women where more women are part of the workforce, this division has become blurred and ambiguous.  However, the ironic point is that the role of the women seems to be expanding while the men’s are just staying the same. Now with women going out to work in the day, they are still expected to cook dinner, wash the clothes, clean the house and look after the kids even after they get home from work in the evenings. While the men still get to lounge in front of their television sets after they get home from work and wait for dinner.

This is especially true for couples staying with their elderly in-laws, the mother-in-law often expects her daughter-in-law to look after the family’s every need, and would frown upon her son doing any of the ‘women designated’ duties around the house. I feel the problem lies with the mindset of the elderly generation. They are so used to the traditional view of women being in charge of household matters while the men work hard for the family’s livelihood that even with more women in the workforce now, they are unable to adapt to the idea that women are not solely in charge of household matters now.

What I do not understand is why some men feel that it’s an insult to their ‘manliness’ for them to help out their wives in household matters. It seems to me since the house belongs to the two of them and both of them are committed to making their own happy family, why shouldn’t both of them contribute to its sustainability? Shouldn’t there be a new division of labour around the household, namely that of men undertaking some of the household matters since women are now sharing the men’s burden of bringing bread home for the family?

Trade is a word that has been prominent in Singapore’s economy even before the Sir Stamford Raffles era. Trade has been what made Singapore the prosperous and flourishing nation that it is today. Although our port has been currently demoted to second place by Hong Kong, it is still a very important part of our economy.

Trade actually operates on a very simple logic, that countries produce extensively where they have comparative advantages and later trade with other countries to get whatever they do not have comparative advantages in. In essence, it is just another form of the market balancing itself through demand and supply, whereby some countries demand while some others supply.

Neoliberalism is promoted as the mechanism for global trade and investment in order for all nations to achieve an equitable prosperity. The mechanism works on the theory that humans are all rational and would thus be motivated by greed and self-interest. Thus the whole system sort of becomes into a competition where only the fittest would survive. However, this competition has failed to take into account the differing power and influence that countries wield, leading to the exploitation of those not so well to do nations. For instance, the rich nations tend to set protectionist policies to help protect their local domestic industries. This leads to the imported good being relatively more expensive and thus lesser demand for them. However, the rich nations want the poorer nations to open up their economy and remove all barriers of trade, so that they would be able to export their goods into the poorer nations at higher profit margin.

This exploitation of poorer countries and their lower paid workers would only lead to a greater disparity of income between the upper and the lower class. The theoretically assumption of neoliberalism was that it would lead to equitable prosperity for all nations, but the end result of this ‘free trade’ of today seems to suggest otherwise. The mechanism appears to have underestimated the motivation of self interest and greed of the nations today. This is especially so in today’s dog eat dog world whereby only the richest and the most powerful nations get to be heard.

“Globalisation is institutionalising a new balance of power between states that hardens the sovereignty of some while reducing the autonomy of the others. The worldwide free market accentuates the disparity between the centres of capital and the peripheries. The players with knowledge and power lay down the rules; the others fall into line.”

Noelle Burgi and Philip S. Golub, The States we are in, Le Monde Diplomatique, April 2000.

So how free is free trade really? A video by Lori Wallach, Director, Global Trade Watch (http://www.bigpicture.tv/videos/watch/37a749d80) talks about what basically constitutes today’s free trade agreements and how little they have to do with the concept of free trade that originated from Adam Smith and David Ricardo.