Is the destruction of the environment inevitable as long as there are people?

Recently there has been greater awareness about the need to conserve and protect the environment. We read about it in the papers and watched documentaries such as “The Inconvenient Truth”.Most of us have been in schools which organize “green” activities like collecting old newspapers from home and recycling.

However, the earth is still dying due to global warming, pollution and all sorts of other environmental problems. Ice caps are still melting. threatening the survival of people living in low-coastal countries.

Does this mean that the environment is bound for destruction as long as human beings are around? It certainly seems that way now, but I believe that as long as there is social change, the earth can still be saved. By social change, I mainly refer to changes to social institutions in the political and economic arenas, such as the governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and business corporations.

According to Charon (2007), human beings have become passive as they come under the control of governments, business corporations and others. “They become victims at the whim of others, they are unable to deal effectively with problems as they arise and… they feel powerless in their personal life and in society.” (pp. 202).

Indeed, in terms of environment policies, I believe most of us cannot do much now. Rather, the effects on the environment are largely determined by the actions of governments, supranational institutions and NGOs such as conservationist groups.

Some of us may not be very concerned with the environment. Some are even get turned off by media reports on the environment. But it is a fact that what is happening to the earth will affect us in a huge way.

Perhaps the lack of concern and activeness is due to trust in the governments and corporations that they will do something to save the environment. This is a problem because most of those in power are not committed to protecting the environment in the first place.

According to Speth (2008), who writes for the Guardian Environmental Network and is dean of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, business corporations in USA are mainly concerned about generating profits, while the government is “subservient to corporate interests and the growth imperative”. Together with “rampant consumerism spurred by sophisticated advertising and marketing”, the market economy created will no doubt lead to environmental failure.

He also pointed out that environmentalists are not being as effective as they should be because they are “working within the system”. This means that environmental organizations put too much faith in current governments and corporations, that they will prioritize the needs of the environment above political and profit-driven interests. This is clearly not the case in the US.

Therefore, Speth believes that environmentalists should join hands with those who want to “reform politics and strengthen democracy”. “Today’s politics will never deliver environmental sustainability,” he wrote.

I agree with Speth that NGOs should have more say in the political sphere. I also think that the public can have more say, perhaps by voting for leaders who are more environmentally conscious. This is more possible in the Us now, as presidential elections are happening right now and Americans can vote for their national and local leaders.

In Singapore, we can also make use of the Speakers’ Corner to voice our concerns about the environment or start educating children at an early age about the importance of protecting the environment. The mass media will have to play an important role in informing the public about news of the environment. Yes there have been media reports on conservation and pollution issues, but these articles are usually at the back pages of the paper and written in a confusing, jargon-full language. There is a need to present such news in laymen language which is easily understood and engaging.

In short, there needs to be changes in all aspects of society if we hope to have a sustainable future.

References:

Charon, J.M. (2007). Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective. (6^th ed.). Belmont: Thomson.

Speth, J.G. (2008, October 21). Environmental Failure: A Case for a new green politics. The Guardian Environmental Network. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/21/network/print.

What does it take for technology to eradicate poverty?

There can be advancements in technology because of society’s need for it. Great inventions came about because the inventors have certain goals to fulfill in society. For example, the earliest form of Internet, DARPA, was invented for military use.

Hence, since the purpose of technology is to better society, it makes sense that technology should be utilized to solve or eradicate social problems.

However, technology also brings along with it more social problems. According to Castells (1998), technological advances, coupled with globalization and capitalism, can exacerbate social problems such as inequality, poverty, misery and social exclusion.

Still, I believe that in the area of reducing poverty, technology is more beneficial than harmful. But this requires greater state regulation and large amount of investments to be poured in the education and technological infrastructure of developing countries. To ensure the latter, supranational institutions will probably have to step in.

The recent financial meltdown sparked a global financial crisis and worldwide recession. Unemployment rates shoot up in several countries and many around the world lost their money in investments, shares and bonds.

Furthermore, it can even undermine efforts to tackle poverty (The Independent, 2008). According to international development secretary Douglas Alexander, he warned that developing countries now have to deal with the financial crisis and rising food and energy prices, which could cripple their economic growth (The Independent, 2008). The World Bank also predicts that 44 million more people would suffer from malnutrition.

In addition, Mr Alexander urged governments and supranational institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to work together on continuously investing in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) despite the crisis. The MDGs cover areas such as education, sanitation and health care.

Supranational organizations can also ensure the transfer of technological knowledge to poor countries, such as investing in energy technology and agricultural technology in such places (Practical Action, 2002).

Therefore, we not only see how globalization causes the spread of social problems from one country to another, but also the crucial role played by supranational organizations in alleviating poverty, by ensuring that the poor has access to technology, education and health care.

Furthermore, social entrepreneurs are also taking up the mantle to use business and technology to help the poor.

One such example is Grameen Bank Founder Muhammad Yunus. He is determined to alleviate poverty in Bangladesh by building a telecommunications company and bringing mobile phone technology to the villages there (Business Week, 2005).

His Village Phone Project provides women borrowers with loans to “buy a handset and solar-powered charger and function as their village pay phone, providing the women with substantially increased income.” Mr Yunus was confident that families of women borrowers would be able to get out of the poverty cycle within two or three years.The project also aims to improve Internet connectivity in the village, hence giving the poor access to information technology.

Castells (1998) believed that there is a need to reintegrate social development and economic growth, and we have the funds and technology to do so. He added that business groups and governments would ultimately benefit from “informational development”.

Therefore, it is important that people with power in societies, such as the state authorities, supranational institutions and businessmen, take it upon themselves to empower the poor and eradicate poverty. It is not just for their benefits; it is a moral imperative.

References:

Castells, M. (1998). Information Technology, Globalization and Social Development. UNRISD Discussion Paper (114).

O’Connell, P. (2005, December 26). Can Technology Eliminate Poverty? Business Week. Retrieved October, 26, 2008, from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_52/b3965025.htm

PA. (2008, October 13). Financial crisis hits global poverty battle. The Independent. Retrieved October, 26, 2008, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/financial-crisis-hits-global-poverty-battle-959593.html

Practical Action. (2002, August/September). Technology Transfer and Development. Retrieved October, 26, 2008, from http://practicalaction.org/?id=wssd_tech_transfer

The World Bank. (2008, October 9). World Bank Group President, Robert, B. Zoellick, Opening Press Briefing at the IMF-WB Annual Meetings 2008. Retrieved October, 26, 2008, from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21933563~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html

Are states allowed to make mistakes?

The role of the state is to serve the citizens and should always be working for the interests of the public. However, we all know that not all states really serve the needs of the people all the time.

Still, in places where governments claim to work for the good of the country, when they make mistakes, should they be forgiven? They are after all, human and imperfect.

I believe this depends on the seriousness of the error and how the state handles the situation after making the blunder.

Just recently, on 18 October, it was reported that the Chinese government acknowledged that they should bear some of the responsibility for the tainted milk scandal which claimed the lives of four infants and harmed the health of more than 50,000 babies.

The first thought which came to my mind when I read it was: Is the apology enough? Can it compensate for the deaths and ruined health of thousands of babies? Not to mention causing distress to the parents and alarming consumers worldwide.

The news reports went on to explain that the government did not monitor the dairy companies closely enough, hence it is “partly” to be blamed.

However, I think there is a more serious issue than just lack of monitoring. This incident shows that a state is not able to serve and protect the people all the time.

Hence, when a state fails in its duty at certain points of time, should it be forgiven?

To be very honest, if I were a Chinese citizen, especially if I were a victim of the scandal, I would find it very hard to trust the government again. The blunder is too damaging.

Another thing I found puzzling was that there was no talk of compensation for the parents of the babies in the article. I am not saying that the government should be the one to compensate, but there was no mention of how the state will help these parents get justice or compensation from the culprits.

Furthermore, it was even reported that in China, parents who wish to file lawsuits against the dairy companies are most likely to be unsuccessful, because the authorities “routinely favor producers over consumers and rarely hold companies or their shareholders to account even in major cases of malfeasance… and officials go to great lengths to silence the plaintiffs rather than allowing the wheels of justice to turn.” (International Herald Tribune, 2008).

A couple of days ago, an article about a Chinese couple whose twin babies fell ill after drinking tainted milk was published by the Associate Press. The news story showed how families not only had to suffer the emotional distress of seeing their children in pain but also the additional financial burden as they now have to pay for safe but much costlier milk.

The mother had this to say: “I’m just disappointed because the government should have done more to protect its citizens.”

This shows that people place a lot of faith in the state to guard their interests. But the state does not seem to step up to that task.

As I read the article on the Chinese government’s admission of its partial responsibility in the scandal for a second time, I realized that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao did not even say “I am sorry” directly.

Perhaps I am being naive, but is saying sorry so hard for a state to do?

I think it is good that the Chinese government has recalled all tainted milk products and has been more transparent with the results of the tests. However, I think one other important thing it can do is to help the victims get the justice they deserve.

Therefore, I acknowledge that states are not prefect. But I also believe that states should and need to be accountable to the people.

References:

AFP. (2008, October 18). China admits govt partly to blame for milk scandal. AFP. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-tC1CHNbyja8Z6ULtrt78G5zPoQ

Ang, A. (2008, October 18). A Chinese family deals with tainted milk scandal. Associated Press. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gfaVYHHc7nDFBz9f4MdNfz0N679wD93SFSI02

Wong, E. (2008, October 16). Lawsuits in China’s milk scandal unlikely to be settled in court. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/16/asia/milk.php

Can we ever embrace foreigners?

Urbanism is happening everywhere in the world. Singapore is part of this global phenomenon. According to the Sunday Times on October 12 this year, Singapore’s population has increased by a whopping 5.5 percent to 4.84 million in June. This is mainly because of foreigners moving here, whose numbers have increased by 19 percent.

Now there are about 1.2 million foreigners in Singapore. They include scholarship holders, foreign workers, service staff from China and foreign-born athletes. They come here for hope of a better life.

The government is enthusiastic in drawing them to Singapore because they boost the talent pool and do the jobs that most Singaporeans do not want to do.

However, not all Singaporeans share the state’s enthusiasm. Some view foreigners as intruders who are here to steal their places in universities and their jobs in the workplace. They are unwilling to see them as part of Singapore, as fellow contributors to this country.

So the question is, can we ever embrace foreigners? This is a valid and practical question to ask ourselves because they are certainly here to stay.

I guess this depends on what I mean by embracing them. When I think about embracing someone or a group of people, I do not mean that we sweep our differences under the carpet and pretend that all is well between us. My idea of embracing is to resolve to want to see all of us as being on the same boat, acknowledge our differences and be proactive in solving whatever problems we have.

I believe this is why the media has been churning out many reports on such issues frequently. It is an avenue where locals and foreigners can voice out their opinions and feelings. The media can also help to facilitate dialogue and understanding between them.

The most recent news about the foreigner issue is the Serangoon Gardens saga. Many residents at the private estate are unhappy about the government’s decision to build a dormitory for foreign workers near their homes. They even signed a petition against the decision. However the state went ahead with the plan, but made some adjustments, such as providing the dormitory to workers from the manufacturing and service industries instead of the construction industry. (Then what about the construction workers? Where will they stay?)

I think the workers have a right to proper housing conditions. If the state were to build a foreign dormitory near my home, I would not mind. I am not being noble, but if the workers do not have a proper place to live in, they will probably reside on the pavements and streets. And for those who believe that foreign labour workers pose a danger to the well-being of others, those who do not have basic housing needs are likely to be more tempted to commit crimes.

Most of us, locals and foreigners, are on the same boat. We are striving to get the best results we can in school and we all want to make a living in Singapore. Some people will argue that we need not compete with them in the first place, but what is the point in arguing for that? They have come, more will come and most will stay.

I am not resigned to this fact, but rather, I want to make the best out of it. Some of my close friends are foreigners. By knowing them better, I am exposed to other worlds and cultures and that has added colours and interesting perspectives to my life.

I had some bad experiences with foreigners too. In my first year in university and living in hall, I had neighbours from China who talked and laughed really loudly at night. On top of that, they liked to cook in their room and the less-than-pleasant smell would invade my space. I was annoyed and irritated, but after talking to them nicely and compromising on both our parts, the problem was solved.

I know such problems are small, but the big problems also require pro activeness to devise solutions and come to a consensus.

So can we ever embrace foreigners? Yes, but perhaps not now. Rome was not built in a day. Therefore, a truly harmonious and multi-ethnic Singapore will also require a lot of time and much more effort to be built.

References:

Tan, D.W. (2008, October 12). The Them and US Divide. The Sunday Times, p. 27.

Can we ever attain democracy?

Almost all of us have been brought up to believe that democracy is the best way to govern a country. This is because democracy gives power to the people, as they are able to elect a state which serves their needs and get to participate in policy-making decisions. At least that is the ideal model of democracy. Most will agree that it still remains an ideal today, even in countries which claim to be democratic.

So can we ever attain democracy? I do not believe so. Firstly, society operates in ways which undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. Furthermore, those being led are not ready for it.

Most nation-states operate in bureaucratic systems. And bureaucracy gives rise to oligarchy, where the elite will rule social institutions while the rest of the people are subject to their rule (Michels, 2003). There is a clear hierarchy where power is concentrated at the top.

Such bureaucratic organizations include major corporations and governmental bodies. In most business organizations, especially multi-national companies, the Chief Executive Officer is the one who shapes the company system and culture, followed by the directors and managers, with the workers at the bottom. The same applies to the governmental bodies. The Prime Minister is the one who heads the government, followed by his Cabinet ministers and so on.

The authorities have the power to make decisions about policies which affect the public, but the people have little or no control over that. For example, when news of the hike in transport fees broke out, many Singaporeans protested against the hike and poorer Singaporeans lamented about the increased financial burden. However, the government still continued with the plan.

Furthermore, those in power would want to stay in power, hence they would think of ways and means to protect their status and privileges.

In many cases, the government and business organizations work with one another to protect their power. For example, in an article in Today about the ongoing financial crisis, the US president wants to extract US$700 billion from taxpayers’ pockets to help major financial institutions cope with the meltdown. However, the average Americans who are affected by the crisis are not taken care of.

According to the journalist, Terence Hunt, the US government wants to “bail out the titans on Wall Street, not the people on Main Street”. He also questioned why the authorities had not anticipated this outcome and intervened sooner. He felt that the government should be held partly accountable for the economic collapse. Instead, President Bush painted “a picture of a government standing innocently on the sidelines as the economy went off the rails”.

Was the US government serving the needs of the people in this case? I do not think so.

Therefore, as long as there is bureaucracy, rule by the people will not be possible.

The second reason why I do not think that democracy can ever be attained is that the people are not ready for democracy.

The masses want to be led. Hence, even liberals like John Stuart Mills believe that the “spirit of freedom resided in benign oligarchies and not mob rule.” (The Observer, 2007). This corresponds with why some members of the public are apathetic about public affairs, because they believe that the government is there to take care of everything. Hence, in way, some people do not want democracy.

Of course, I am not ignoring the fact that some governments make it impossible for the people to have a say. For example, the Communist government from China controls the flow of information to the public. Therefore, the people are not able to access important information until it is too late.

A very good example is the recent tainted milk scandal. Apparently, problems with the milk were discovered some time ago, but the authorities did a cover up of the information. As a result, tens of thousands of babies are affected and a number had died.

Therefore, I believe that democracy can never be attained, at least not in my lifetime. However, we should not give up striving to make it more of a reality. It is the best system we have to improve human life, whether it is by ensuring human rights or making sure that governments are held accountable to some extent.

References:

Fraser, N. (2007, September 30). Democracy: the 10 Big Questions. The Observer (England). Retrieved from LexisNexis database.

Hunt, T. (2008, September 26). Washington’s not to blame? Today, pp. 14.

Michels, R. Organizations and Oligarchy. (2003). In Handel, M. (ed), The Sociology of Organizations, (211-223). Sage Publications.

Should interfaith dialogue be supported?

Recently, an ongoing debate in Singapore is about whether greater interfaith dialogue should be encouraged. This is a pretty important question, considering the cosmopolitan society we live in.

I believe that we should have more of such dialogues, in spite of fears by some that this would erode one’s belief and identity in his faith.

In an article published by the Straits Times in September this year, nearly half of the Christian clergymen said in a poll that they were fearful of the how “interfaith dialogue would compromise their religious convictions”.

No offense to them, but I do not believe that one’s identity is that easily shaken, unless it was not strong in the first place.

Actually, a lot depends on what would be covered in the dialogue. If it is just about knowing one another’s beliefs and values to a greater extent, I think it is perfectly fine and may even be beneficial. We may find more similarities between the different faiths than we currently know about.

It may even clear up some misunderstandings different faiths have about one another.

About three or four years ago, I met up with my secondary school friends for a Christmas dinner. Being the only Christian in the group, my friends, who were free-thinkers and Buddhists, started complaining to me about how they were “harassed” by some Christians who were trying to share the message of Christ with them on the streets. They did not understand why we Christians have to impose our values and beliefs on them, when other faiths do not do so.

I do not deny that it was tough, even hurtful, listening to them speaking so harshly about my faith, but I also knew that it was because they did not have adequate understanding. At least they trusted me enough to be honest about their feelings.

Hence I tried my best to explain that the essence of street evangelism is not about forcing the Christian faith on non-believers. Jesus Christ himself spoke about being gentle and respectful when explaining the reason for our faith. Perhaps the Christians have expressed themselves in the wrong way and hence ended up sounding forceful and aggressive.

Ultimately, what Christians can only do is to share their beliefs and testimonies. We do not have the ability to convert a person. Whether someone becomes a Christian or not is his personal decision and freewill.

I believe my friends still have their reservations about Christianity even after my explanation, but at least we cleared some doubts and their hostile reaction towards Christians has toned down. I also learned that I have to be more sensitive to the feelings of non-believers. And now, after so many years, we are still friends.

What I am trying to illustrate from my example is that interfaith dialogue may be uncomfortable and even antagonistic, but if everyone comes with the willingness to want to understand, the outcome will most likely be beneficial.

Engaging in a dialogue will also strengthen our faith, because it encourages one to think carefully about his beliefs and put them to the test. Faith has to be tested to see if it is real, and one way to do so is by sharing with others.

The Institute of Interfaith Dialog has this to say on its website, and I cannot agree more: “By being in constant communication with other people who have different traditions from their own, we each have the opportunity to refine and appreciate our own beliefs and traditions.”

Do the people who commit crime out of poverty deserve more of our sympathies or wrath?

What makes people commit crime?

According to Charon (2007), one important reason is poverty. We all live in unequal societies where material success is important to many individuals. Some who do not have it turn to crime. They “see no reason to follow laws that seem to work against them in the competitive order” as such laws are constructed by those who have more power in the order.

This seems to suggest that these people are forced by social constructs to break the law. To me, it also implies that we should understand and sympathise with them more. But how far should we go? I would like to use a news report I read in the Saturday’s paper this week to discuss this issue.

For those who have been keeping up with the kidney for sale case in Singapore, you would have known that the middleman, who arranged the illegal organ sale from an Indonesian to a Singaporean retail magnate, has been sentenced to 14 months in jail.

Despite him being the main focus in the article, my attention was drawn instead to the judge’s comments about the two Indonesian sellers. According to the article, the judge said that they were poor and exploited. One seller was jailed 3.5 months and fined $2000 and the other got three weeks in jail.

Then I compared their sentences to that of Mr Tang Wee Sung, who was sentenced to one day in jail and ordered to pay $17,000 in total for two offences – lying under oath and organ trading.

According to the judge, Mr Tang was a victim because he “was in desperate need of a transplant to save his life”.

Clearly, Mr Tang was fighting for his life. But so were the Indonesian sellers, who obviously needed the money from selling their organs in order to survive. They may not on the verge of dying, but they are still struggling to make ends meet every day.

According to singaporenews.wordpress.com, one of the sellers has been unemployed for half a year and his elderly parents are dependent on him for a living. The money fetched from selling one of his kidneys is about the same as the amount of wages he would earn from 16 years as a labourer in Sumatra.

I wonder what would happen to the livelihood of these men’s family when they are in prison. I also wonder if they would still be able to get jobs after they are released from prison. Would the stigma of being an ex-offender prevent them from getting employed?

Charon (2007) also made an interesting observation. While he acknowledged that crime is committed by both the rich and poor, the latter will suffer more in the court system. This is because the rich are able to avoid imprisonment by “paying fines, hiring expensive lawyers and convincing the courts that they are not a danger to society”.

I cannot help but remember that Mr Tang only needed to spend one day in jail. Yes he had to pay the hefty fine of $17,000, but considering who he is and what he does as an occupation, that is not a big sum to him right?

I am not saying that Mr Tang deserves more punishment or that his sentence was unfair. I do not think that I am in any position to question the wisdom and complexities of the court system in Singapore.

But I do wonder if Charon was right in stating that social institutions favour those in power.

Going back to my topic question, I do sympathise with the Indonesian sellers. I do not think that what they did is right, but I think the motivation behind their act is borne out of a need to survive and provide for their loved ones. I believe that the judge had also taken into account their circumstances and meted out punishments he thought were just.

I can only hope that when they are released from prison, they would be able to start anew and society would embrace them again.

References:

Charon, J.M. (2007). Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective. (6^th ed.). Belmont: Thomson.

Jtsmyth8. (2008, July 4). $22 000 for your kidney, would you do it? Message posted to http://singaporenews.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/22000-for-your-kidney-would-you-do-it/.

Singh, K. (2008, September 6). 14 months jail for middleman. The Straits Times, pp. A3.

Ethnocentrism – good or bad?

Ethnocentrism, or the belief that one’s own set of values and beliefs is superior to others’, has always had negative connotations. It is often cited as the main cause of many social problems, such as wars, oppression and slavery, among others.

For example, Hitler and the Nazis believed that the Aryan race is superior to the Jews. Hence there was the Holocaust, where millions of Jews died.

Furthermore, Catton (1960) talks about how ethnocentrism is an important part of patriotism. Hence, he said that “war is like magic”. People go to war not because they believe that it can provide solutions for their problems.

According to Charon (2007), ethnocentrism is defined as the “perception of others through the lens” of one’s own culture, followed by the judgment of others using the standard of one’s culture. To him, ethnocentrism is inevitable. It comes about naturally when a group of people share lives together till they develop a likeness among themselves in the way they relate to each other, in their language, in their values and other areas. In a nutshell, social interaction gives rise to ethnocentrism.

When linking ethnocentrism with social problems such as war, slavery and exploitation, Charon (2007) said that the former may encourage the latter, but it is also true that social problems give rise to ethnocentrism as well.

For example, the institution of slavery in many parts of the world was formed for economic gain, but it led to racism. Racism, “inspired by ethnocentrism”, is meant to “justify and protect the institution”.

However, ethnocentrism has its important functions as well.

Even though it may cause external conflicts, it creates internal unity. It also makes individuals feel more certain about their beliefs. Through providing individuals with a sense of belonging to a particular community, ethnocentrism enables social order. Societies need that kind of solidarity and order so as to continue (Charon, 2007).

Taking the example of Hitler and the Nazis again, after World War I, Hitler managed to unite the whole of Germany despite economic depression and low morale. He took advantage of the feelings of nationalism and led them to become a powerful aggressor in World War II.

Another example is Singapore. Singapore’s firm belief in the practice of pragmatism and meritocracy has seen the country make tremendous economic progress from being a Third World country to a First World nation.

Perhaps the best example to portray the good and bad of ethnocentrism is the bumiputra policy in Malaysia.

On one hand, the policy highlights the special status of the Malays and gives them special privileges that other races do no get to enjoy. This builds a sense of solidarity among the Malay race and cements the loyalty of Malays towards the country.

However, this policy has also led to racial tensions among other races, such as the demonstrations put up by the Indians who believe that the government is treating them unfairly and the offensive remarks made by an UMNO official about the Chinese. And the different political parties are using this racial tension to advance their political interests.

In a nutshell, ethnocentrism is a double-edged sword. It is inevitable and may even be beneficial to some extent, but it does not mean that we ignore its potential to do harm to society and other cultures.

References:

Catton, W. (1960). The functions and dysfunctions of ethnocentrism. JSTOR. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.jstor.org/pss/798910.

Charon, J.M. (2007). Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective. (6^th ed.). Belmont: Thomson.

Power to women!

Does being in a position of authority mean you have power? Not necessarily so. For example, some emperors in the history of China are only rulers in name, while they are being controlled and manipulated by court officials.

In recent times, we have seen more women taking up leadership positions in corporations and countries. The most prominent examples include Ho Ching and Hillary Clinton. On this year’s Forbes’ list of the most powerful women on earth, Ho Ching ranks 8th. Not bad at all. (But I wonder why Forbes does not have a list which compares men and women).

These women obviously have power and authority. But I believe that not all women are like them, even if they occupy management positions in their companies.

Kanter (as cited in Shafritz, Ott, Yong, 2005) talked about powerlessness experienced by female managers in 1979. The reasons for that are the lack of the “right” connections, the inability to make innovative decisions and take risks and the way male managers treat them.

Also, according to Kanter, sometimes women managers are unable to perform to the best of their abilities because their male counterparts are “patronizingly overprotecting” them. This can be be due to the men’s fear of being associated with the female manager who may fail, because his judgment will be questioned.

But who has never failed before in his or her life? Who has never made mistakes?

It is ironic that women are commonly thought to be the weaker sex, yet society expects them not to make mistakes.

On the other hand, Kanter wrote about this powerlessness of women in 1979, which was almost 30 years ago. A lot of things have changed, including gender roles and expectations.

However, I agree with Kanter that women are still more vulnerable to experiences of powerlessness than men, because of the patrimonial hierarchical nature which most companies still have now, especially in Asian countries like Singapore.

That is in the workplace. Now let’s talk about in the household.

I used to have an argument with my friend about whether it is acceptable for a woman to be the head of the household, assuming that this household has two parents who are still married to each other.

I argued that as long as she makes the major decisions at home, and her husband listens to her, then she is rightfully the head of the household, with power and authority.

My friend disagreed and said that the man ought to be the head of the household, unless he is really incapable and evil. Even if the wife makes the major decisions, she is expected to submit to his authority. In a way, the husband immediately has authority, simply because he is a man.

I agree that a wife should submit to her husband, but submission can mean different things in different contexts. For example, I believe that there should be respect. Respect, to me, is a form of submission because sometimes we have to hold the person in regard even if we do not agree with his actions or thinkings. By holding the person in regard, sometimes we have to swallow our pride and obey the person, however unpleasant the commands may seem at that time.

However, if the wife is more capable of making the right decisions, then her husband would have to respect her authority and obey her.

Women deserve more credit for what they have contributed to society. They not only have to work to keep the economy booming, but they are also responsible for taking care of the family and raising their children to become functional members of society in the future.

I am not saying that men are not doing as much, but I am saying that women are giving much but receiving little from society for their efforts.

Please, give credit when it is due.

References:

Shafritz, J., Ott, S., Yong, S. (2005). Power Failure in Management Circuits. Classics of Organization Theory. (6th ed.). Wadsworth.

Put an end to child labour!

In the past (sometimes even now), I complained incessantly that I am over-stressed – too much homework, too little time. I thought that life was tough and unfair.

But the moment I knew about a thing called Child Labour, I started to reflect upon my life and realized that hey, my life ain’t too bad after all. Compared to little kids who have to work to get minimal wages in order to survive and thus miss out on the privilege to go to school, my woes are so small, almost negligible.

On top of slogging long hours at workplaces where safety conditions are inadequate, these little ones may also have to live in unhygienic living quarters.

Some may even be victims of crime or turn to crime as a resort to break out of poverty, because no matter how hard they labour, they will always be trapped in poverty. Hence they may seek other ways of getting income.

According to Baker and Jaffe (1999), while poverty is not a direct cause of crime among youths, it brings along with it problems that are associated with delinquency. To save children from becoming victims or perpetrators of crime, “freedom from poverty and violence” is necessary (Baker & Jaffe, 1999).

In Uganda, exploitation of child labourers is also very common, because it is cheap. Many young girls left their villages to work as house maids, but were given “little pay and heavy workload” (Africa News, 2007).

Many experts believe that providing poor children with education is the best way to put an end to child labour. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO) in an article in Africa News dated June 2008, education is essential to “breaking the cycle of child labour and poverty as well as eradicating child labour in its worst forms by 2016″.

Yes, I believe that education for children is crucial to getting rid of child labour. When they spend their time studying, that means they are spending less time working. Plus, equipped with knowledge, they might have a better chance of breaking out of the poverty cycle.

However, I also think that this is not enough. There needs to be education of a different kind – educating the rest of the world, especially the more affluent countries, on the conditions of these children and what we can do to help them.

I’m sure many people know or at least heard of popular multi-national brands which have been said to use child labour to make their products. While the items sold by these companies are expensive, child labourers are paid pittance. According to Senau (2006), soccer balls sold by Nike and Adidas are sewn by Pakistani children for only six cents an hour. Imagine the profits these companies make!

And we, as consumers, are indirectly contributing to this phenomenon.

Hence, as we learn about the circumstances of these children, we should do something about it. It’s as easy as writing to the management of these companies to state your stand against child labour, or just stop buying their products.

To achieve this, the consumers need to know what goes on during the manufacturing process. This would require transparency on the part of the companies involved. Perhaps the government may also step in to ensure that the companies are open about this issue.

I am far from being a saint, but I want to do whatever little I can to help these children, be it donating to causes which help them or even writing about this now, to spread my ideas to other like-minded people.

References:

Baker, L & Jaffe, P. (1999). Why changing the YOA does not impact youth Crime: Developing effective prevention programs for children and adolescents. Canadian Psychology, 40(1). Retrieved August 26, 2008, from EBSCOHost databse http://web.ebscohost.com.ezlibproxy1.ntu.edu.sg/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=7&sid=29463e93-1c04-405e-9e4c-a78cd21d7526%40sessionmgr107&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=pdh&AN=cap-40-1-22

International Labour Organization. (2008, June 12). Africa; ILO Says Education Is The ‘Right Response’ to Child Labour. Africa News. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from LexisNexis database.

The Monitor. (2007, May 11). Uganda; Let the Children Work, Not Labour. Africa News. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from LexisNexis database.

Sernau, S. (2006). Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace and Sustainability. USA:Pearson.