When it comes to the environment, most of us are just lazy. We justify our actions thinking there are no visible direct short-term implications, and our lives aren’t going to change drastically if we use one side of this sheet and throw it away anyway. We are generally divided into two camps: (typically Singaporean) “I won’t do it until I’m forced to!” and “If nobody’s doing it, why should I?”. Environmental Sociology examines society’s attitudes towards environmentalism as well as measures to understand environmentalism as a movement. These attitudes prevail not only in individuals but across countries as well. The two that will be discussed hinder efforts at environmental conservation because they refuse to acknowledge that society as a whole can benefit from environmentalism. As NEA would put it, “You Save. You Win.”

“I won’t do it until I’m forced to!”

A society who harbours this attitude relies on legislation and government-initiated prescriptive before adopting such initiatives for themselves. This characteristically Singaporean attitude towards everything can be seen in environmentally friendly measures as well. For example, the Water Conservation Tax levied on every Singaporean household’s utilities bill is aimed at instilling the need for prudence in using water. Also, Bring Your Own Bag Day, an attempt to reduce Singaporeans’ usage of plastic bags, was initiated by the National Environment Agency, a quasi-governmental body. Singaporean society generally lets the government dictate their actions. This culture of ‘obedience’ unwittingly perpetuates an absolving of responsibility of the environment. Their reliance on the government to first lead means that nothing outside of legislative boundaries are achieved.

“If nobody’s doing it, why should I?”

This stems largely from the perception that an individual’s efforts cannot make a difference. One would think, however, that when it comes to countries, they would be smart enough to know that one entire country would make a difference. Clearly not so. The USA ‘s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol has roots in this mentality. It bases its arguments on the exclusion of developing countries such as China and India from the Protocol, two countries with increasingly high carbon footprints. Because these two countries are still being allowed to continue with their environmentally harmful practices, why should the USA be subjected to controlling her emissions? Countries who feel this way are clearly trying to skive from their responsibilities to the environment. They try to justify their actions by comparing themselves to others, even though they may be in a better position to make a difference.

“You Save. You Win.”

The NEA’s slogan epitomises how saving the environment is everybody’s responsibility and ultimately for the benefit of all. The nature of the environment is such that it is global. It does not need to be exacerbated by globalisation for harmful practices to impact the rest of the world. However, globalisation has superseded physical boundaries, making it such that international agreements and coordinated efforts can be better managed, and can be better enforced for the environment. Globalisation has also increased the world’s carbon footprint. Through widespread sharing of technology, fuel-guzzling inventions such as cars and aeroplanes are common all over the world.

Environmental Sociology concerns itself with social impediments to environmentalism. The attitudes of individuals, societies and countries contribute to this and can stand in the way of effective measures. Although globalisation has also contributed to environmental problems, it can and must be manipulated to effect change.

Content is generated on the Internet through the uploading of information. In the past, this was restricted to solely text. Currently, however, sound files and videos are uploaded with ease; mobile uploads is the most recent development. In particular, uploading videos onto the Internet is a recent phenomenon. Previously, one would be hard-pressed to find a server that could upload information of that size and support mass viewing. Youtube, however, has revolutionized this. Everybody is allowed to upload and view anything they like. This has also resulted in various spin-offs such as Youporn and Aqsatube. The mass reach of such websites has had implications on society, due to the varying agenda and content behind it. Should these be disadvantageous to society’s interests, technology would thus have been manipulated and used for detrimental purposes. Piracy, pornography and the spread of fundamentalist views are some such crimes that can be and have been perpetrated through these mediums. These mediums allow for widespread viewing and have mass appeal not limited by physical boundaries. As such, such crimes are spread and shared all over the world, which makes it difficult to take down.

 Youtube has nurtured a generation of exhibitionists and bedroom singers. Free access to upload and view videos is open to all. This revolutionary version of previous music-sharing programmes such as Napster and Kazaa works through streaming instead of downloads. The user is not inconvenienced by the hassle of downloading but instead watches it directly from the site. Videos of birthday parties, song covers, dance performances, how-to-pop-a-pimple tutorials – really, you can find anything on Youtube – can be found on the site. Unfortunately, due to the ease of uploading, piracy is rampant on Youtube. Entire movies and seasons of television shows can be found on the website, with huge followings of viewers. Because anyone can upload with no stringent regulation or registration process, this makes tracing the source of the infringement and pressing charges against it troublesome for TV networks. They are restricted to requesting Youtube to take it down, rather than to tackle the source directly. Furthermore, this is ineffective as the same video can be uploaded again under another username. In addition to this, because videos on Youtube are streamed instead of downloaded, the local police cannot charge individuals for possession of pirated goods. With Napster or Kazaa, both individuals and the companies themselves were charged with piracy. Youtube has allowed this to be circumvented and as such, piracy is rampant on the website. The development of technology to be able to host websites supporting high traffic and large volume of content is a positive step for all Internet users and content. However, the very nature of Youtube has been utilized to perpetuate the crime of piracy instead. This has created and is protecting a worldwide network of piracy, involving several nations at the same time.

 Youtube’s widespread popularity has caused several spin-offs to emerge. One of this is Youporn. Youtube’s model of mass uploads and streaming is replicated in this website meant exclusively for porn. Viewers are encouraged to make and upload their own porn videos. This makes content on the website dynamic. Its content changes according to the varied demands and preferences of the viewers. Although pornography in general is not considered criminal in all countries, child pornography certainly is. Youporn’s terms of service states that child pornography are not allowed. Viewers are made to verify their ages before logging into the site. Usernames also have to be registered together with personal information, for verification purposes. Youporn depends on a viewer-based flagging mechanism to raise alarm about inappropriate videos. Such measures are intended to discourage child pornography. How effective can they be? An eleven year old is certainly not deterred from logging in if the only barrier is a homepage on Youporn that asks ‘Are you older than 18?’. An anonymous person can easily provide false information during the registration process. This allows him to hide behind a false identity, leaving the authorities with little to track him with. Lastly, the flagging mechanism will be left irrelevant if the viewers themselves indulge in child pornography! While Youtube encourages videos of all content (explaining the pimple-popping tutorials), Youporn is directed solely at viewers looking for porn. The Youtube model has been manipulated to serving the porn industry and little regulation allows all form of pornography to be uploaded, including those exploiting children. This generates the social problem of child pornography.

 Lastly, the Youtube model has been adapted for the spread of religious fanaticism. Aqsatube is Palestinian militant group Hamas’ response to the Youtube generation. It allows all users to upload content, which are centred on propaganda and incitement of religious fervor. Radical Islam and terrorism is glorified. The similar model of access to uploading has expanded the server’s content to host videos from other militant groups, such as Fatah and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Aqsatube is different from Youtube and Youporn in that the agenda of the entire site is at question, rather than specific users. This is because Aqsatube is managed by Hamas. Host content must therefore closely reflect Hamas’ values and perspectives. Clearly Aqsatube aims to spread the political and religious motivations of such Islamic militant groups. The spread of such ideologies and correspondingly, Aqsatube, would not be problematic if they did not encourage global war or acts of violence. However, due to this, content generated on Aqsatube has the potential to incite and encourage terrorism around the world. In this respect, technology has been used to further such agenda. Aqsatube is capable of the spread of global terrorism.

 In conclusion, Youtube, in spite of its entertainment value, has the potential to protect and perpetuate crimes such as piracy, child pornography and terrorism. These are global and widespread, due to its online nature, and are difficult to tackle. As such, the Youtube generation is particularly vulnerable to influences from content on the Internet. Due to technology, crimes have taken on and hide behind a global dimension.

Citations:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1222017532579

The availability of cheap (and effective) medicine is important in taking the spread of viral diseases such as malaria in hand. This applies particularly so in Third World countries, where poor sanitation and close contact is often breeding grounds for such ailments. In the attempt to fester innovation across all industries, the WTO instituted the TRIPS agreement in 1994. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights called for the protection of all intellectual property including performance rights and pharmaceuticals. This meant a standardization of the upholding of patent and copyright laws across all countries. Such laws to protect intellectual property are generally regarded as a footstool to innovation, as companies would be assured of their returns. This has worked out very well for Singapore; our reputation for upholding copyright laws has attracted companies to base their research and development efforts here. In the specific field of medicine, however, how does this work out for Third World countries struggling to rein in epidemics? The cost of medicines will lead cash registers to be tipped in favour of the developed world, cemeting existing social structure. Political weight superceding the WTO does not help their case.

The TRIPS agreement pushes for intellectual rights to cover not only the product but the process. In the past, governments could use a ‘track-back’ method, based on the product, to replicate the process and manufacture a generic medicine outside of copyright laws. However, under TRIPS, intellectual rights now cover the process as well. This means a monopoly of the entire process of making drugs as well as the drug itself has been cemented. Companies are guaranteed this monopoly for a certain number of years, as part of the effort to encourage continual innovation in pharmaceuticals. However, in the same spirit of the monopoly, drug companies can unilaterally raise prices for medicines. This is uninhibited by the lack of competition and poses a barrier to quick resolving of epidemics, especially in Third World countries where cashflow may be a problem. As a result, governments may have difficulty affording drugs for the population and diseases are left unchecked. The protection of the process also disrupts the ‘track-back’ method used previously and no cheaper alternative may be manufactured by the government itself for distribution. By ‘fuelling research and development efforts’, TRIPS has posed restrictions for the affordability and availability of drugs to the (sick) people that these were made precisely for.

In view of this, TRIPS has invariably been worked out in favour of drug companies. Drug companies, hailing from the developed world, now have the upper hand in pharmeceuticals and healthcare. Poor governments are forced to fork out large amounts of money in order to pay for the medicines. This implies a movement of capital from undeveloped nations to the developed. The fairness of all this must be called into question. How will the Third World ever make the shift to First World if (excessive) funds are being continuously channelled to the latter? With cheaper medicine available or if the government is allowed to manufacture medicines by ‘track-back’, these funds can be more sparingly used for other aspects of developing a country such as sanitation and infrastructure. Furthermore, with the Third World’s reliance on the First, an unequal social hierarchy is entrenched. The Third World is constantly under the mercy of the First, and this has now been expanded to healthcare. By extension, drugs can now be dangled as a ‘carrot’ for the Third World to make regulations favourable to the First. The protection of intellectual rights has facilitated the movement of capital from the poor to rich countries, thereby further entrenching an unequal social structure in the world.

The WTO is an independent body governing the rules and terms of trade of all member nations. While it has the ability to formulate regulations to ensure fair trade, the enforcing of such guidelines is another issue. In effect, the WTO is powerless if a member country chooses to be errant. It does not have any provisions made to ‘force’ this country to adopt the measures, except through censure. It also allows economic sanctions to be imposed, should disputes arise. Closing doors to trade will certainly have effect, as a country’s economy is crippled. An export-oriented country such as Singapore would be vulnerable to such sanctions and thus ensure the WTO terms are followed. For large member nations such as the USA with a highly diversified economy, however, such measures are inadequate. For instance, in spite of Antigua’s victory over the USA in 2006 with regards to internet gambling, its economic clout against the US is dispensable. Few companies have even heard of the country, much less worry about not being able to carry out trade with it. The inherent structure within the WTO allows it to be manipulated by the developed countries. It works in favour of these countries due to its systemic flaws. Developed countries leverage on its weak enforcement mechanism and the economic clout it is based on – for them, their extensive economic clout – to force undeveloped countries under their thumb. Based on their political and economic clout, they can afford to supercede WTO’s regulations. Drug companies are hence protected by this and manipulate the world’s economy to work along their agenda. Healthcare in a Third World country is not a concern for them.

TRIPS enforces intellectual rights to raise funds for further research and development across all industries, including pharmeceuticals. However, the short-term implication it has on healthcare in the Third World is detrimental. Expensive medicine makes it difficult for Third World countries to combat epidemics and cashflow is always headed for developed nations. Political and economic clout of the First World allows this to go unheeded. Although the spirit of TRIPS has good intentions, its implications for global health necessitate a re-examination.

Citations:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301390.html

http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/policy/wto_trips/en/index.html

Counter-urbanisation is a direct reaction to urbanization and involves urban-rural migration. This happens as people feel the need to take a break from fast-paced city life or desire a wider expanse of land at a lower cost. Ease of transportation (as a result of urbanization) from rural areas to the city also aids this. As counter-urbanisation occurs, the economic segregation that causes a division between the haves and have-nots in the city is correspondingly juxtaposed onto the country. Similar to the physical separation between affluent and poorer sections in a city (e.g. Manhattan vs the Bronx in New York City), a rift is formed between the migrants from the city and those who have lived in the country all their lives. Migrants from the city have obviously benefited from the affluence of the city and would have an economic advantage over those originally from the country. They would be able to afford bigger houses and better luxuries. This may even be extended to the employment of the less well-off as house help. As such, a division is formed along the lines of not only the well-off and the poor but also the employer and employee. The economic division that happens within the city is thus imposed beyond the city’s boundaries and onto the rural townships.

Cultural differences seem starker after experiencing city life. The infamous glamour of the city revolves around consumerism and a culture of indulgence. Life in the city concerns itself with bank statements and it is a constant race to get the best. After being exposed to this, former city-dwellers find it difficult to reintegrate back into country life and relate to those around them. Their values and priorities are questioned and a shift consequently changes their personal goals. City-dwellers feel they are different from the people in the country because of this, even though they may have had roots there. As a result, they feel alienated in a context that was once familiar to them. Simultaneously, they choose to distance themselves from the country-dwellers and form a group unto themselves. The homogenization of the city results in a loss of cultural identity for these individuals. They no longer feel a sense of belonging and identity with the rural townships. This leads to further cultural division in the differing ways of life. After adapting to a culture that deems itself modern and progressive, for these individuals to undergo a shift in mentality back to a country lifestyle would be perceived as taking a step backwards, diametrically-opposing everything that the city has ingrained in them.

Politics has also been drawn along such lines. Urbanisation has so clearly made the demarcation between city and country that politicians wield their roots as political weight in their campaigns. The upcoming American Presidential Elections is one such instance. Both Vice-Presidential candidates hail from small towns with ‘small town values’. Both have used this to their advantage as they highlight their respective backgrounds as being a single parent and a mother of five (one of which is pregnant, and another has special needs). They claim to understand the needs of small town Americans, especially the intricacies of pocketbook economics. Choosing Biden as his running-mate caused voters to take a second look at Obama’s campaign, after he was quoted as saying, “It’s not surprising then they (small-town residents) get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” as a criticism of traditional small-town mentality. Following this, Clinton gained twice the number of votes from small town primaries and subsequently won all rural counties. The events that unfolded show how the segregation of urbanization (causing the Great Divide between city vs town) has affected a nation’s politics. That statement crystallizes vast cultural disdain held between city and country populations. Politicians, either from small towns or cities, gain support from their respective roots, as voters believe their system of life is the best. This causes segregation between city and rural areas in the arena of politics.

In analyzing the effects of urbanization, we normally focus on the cities, the name already directing us to do so. Yes, separation and alienation is a result of urbanization but it is present also in non-urban areas. City boundaries stop somewhere but effects do not similarly respect those same boundaries. The implicit juxtaposition and comparison of two completely different lifestyles cause traction and create a rift. The same economic, cultural and political segregation that occurs in cities through the shanty- and Chinatowns is being replicated in rural areas. These intangible effects cannot be contained by tangible city boundaries.

Citations:

http://www.politicker.com/palin-biden-and-small-town-appeal

As a Malay, I’ve always been told that I have to work twice as hard to prove my worth.
When I was younger, I always thought of myself as the quintessential Singaporean.

Of my four late grandparents, two were Malay, one was Chinese and one was Indian. This, I concluded, makes me a mix of all the main races in the country. But I later realised that it was not what goes into my blood that matters, but what my identity card says under ‘Race’.

Because my paternal grandfather was of Bugis origin, my IC says I’m Malay. I speak the language at home, learnt it in school, eat the food and practise the culture. And because of my being Malay, I’ve always felt like a lesser Singaporean than those from other racial groups.

I grew up clueless about the concept of national service because my father was never enlisted.

He is Singaporean all right, born and bred here like the rest of the boys born in 1955. He is not handicapped in any way. He did well in school and participated in sports.

Unlike the rest, however, he entered university immediately after his A levels. He often told me that his schoolmates said he was ‘lucky’ because he was not called up for national service.

‘What lucky?’ he would tell them. ‘Would you feel lucky if your country doesn’t trust you?’

So I learnt about the rigours of national service from my male cousins. They would describe in vivid detail their training regimes, the terrible food they were served and the torture inflicted upon them – most of which, I would later realise, were exaggerations.

But one thing these stories had in common was that they all revolved around the Police Academy in Thomson. As I got older, it puzzled me why my Chinese friends constantly referred to NS as ‘army’. In my family and among my Malay friends, being enlisted in the army was like hitting the jackpot. The majority served in the police force because, as is known, the Government was not comfortable with Malay Muslims serving in the army. But there are more of them now.

Throughout my life, my father has always told me that as a Malay, I need to work twice as hard to prove my worth. He said people have the misconception that all Malays are inherently lazy.

I was later to get the exact same advice from a Malay minister in office who is a family friend.

When I started work, I realised that the advice rang true, especially because I wear my religion on my head. My professionalism suddenly became an issue. One question I was asked at a job interview was whether I would be willing to enter a nightclub to chase a story. I answered: ‘If it’s part of the job, why not? And you can rest assured I won’t be tempted to have fun.’

When I attend media events, before I can introduce myself, people assume I write for the Malay daily Berita Harian. A male Malay colleague in The Straits Times has the same problem, too.

This makes me wonder if people also assume that all Chinese reporters are from Lianhe Zaobao and Indian reporters from Tamil Murasu.

People also question if I can do stories which require stake-outs in the sleazy lanes of Geylang. They say because of my tudung I will stick out like a sore thumb. So I changed into a baseball cap and a men’s sports jacket – all borrowed from my husband – when I covered Geylang.

I do not want to be seen as different from the rest just because I dress differently. I want the same opportunities and the same job challenges.

Beneath the tudung, I, too, have hair and a functioning brain. And if anything, I feel that my tudung has actually helped me secure some difficult interviews.

Newsmakers – of all races – tend to trust me more because I look guai (Hokkien for well-behaved) and thus, they feel, less likely to write critical stuff about them.

Recently, I had a conversation with several colleagues about this essay. I told them I never thought of myself as being particularly patriotic. One Chinese colleague thought this was unfair. ‘But you got to enjoy free education,’ she said.

Sure, for the entire 365 days I spent in Primary 1 in 1989. But my parents paid for my school and university fees for the next 15 years I was studying.

It seems that many Singaporeans do not know that Malays have stopped getting free education since 1990. If I remember clearly, the news made front-page news at that time.

We went on to talk about the Singapore Government’s belief that Malays here would never point a missile at their fellow Muslim neighbours in a war.

I said if not for family ties, I would have no qualms about leaving the country. Someone then remarked that this is why Malays like myself are not trusted. But I answered that this lack of patriotism on my part comes from not being trusted, and for being treated like a potential traitor.

It is not just the NS issue. It is the frustration of explaining to non-Malays that I don’t get special privileges from the Government. It is having to deal with those who question my professionalism because of my religion. It is having people assume, day after day, that you are lowly educated, lazy and poor. It is like being the least favourite child in a family. This child will try to win his parents’ love only for so long. After a while, he will just be engulfed by disappointment and bitterness.

I also believe that it is this ‘least favourite child’ mentality which makes most Malays defensive and protective of their own kind.

Why do you think Malay families spent hundreds of dollars voting for two Malay boys in the Singapore Idol singing contest? And do you know that Malays who voted for other competitors were frowned upon by the community?

The same happens to me at work. When I write stories which put Malays in a bad light, I am labelled a traitor. A Malay reader once wrote to me to say: ‘I thought a Malay journalist would have more empathy for these unfortunate people than a non-Malay journalist.’

But such is the case when you are a Malay Singaporean. Your life is not just about you, as much as you want it to be. You are made to feel responsible for the rest of the pack and your actions affect them as well. If you trip, the entire community falls with you. But if you triumph, it is considered everyone’s success.

When 12-year-old Natasha Nabila hit the headlines last year for her record PSLE aggregate of 294, I was among the thousands of Malays here who celebrated the news. I sent instant messages to my friends on Gmail and chatted excitedly with my Malay colleagues at work.

Suddenly a 12-year-old has become the symbol of hope for the community and a message to the rest that Malays can do it too – and not just in singing competitions.

And just like that, the ‘least favourite child’ in me feels a lot happier.

Each year, come Aug 9, my father, who never had the opportunity to do national service, dutifully hangs two flags at home – one on the front gate and the other by the side gate.

I wonder if putting up two flags is his way of making himself feel like a better-loved child of Singapore.

ndianah@sph.com.sg

The Singaporean identity has always been the overarching emphasis of the Government. In the beginning stages of independence, dialects and other minor languages were phased out. Mandarin was instituted as the common official language for the Chinese, Bahasa Melayu for the Malays and Tamil for the Indians. Furthermore, English became the mode of instruction at most schools and was treated as the first language of Singaporeans. This forced the races to put aside certain crucial identifying, and also differentiating, aspects of their culture and be united by the use of a foreign language instead. This also allowed the language barrier among races to be bridged and facilitated better communication. Also, with public housing, villagers were relocated to a flat that allowed them to live in close proximity to members of other races, destroying pre-conceived prejudices. Racial Harmony Day was also introduced in schools and celebrated by a fusion and showcase of ethnic festivities. The Singaporean government has introduced these policies in order to reduce racial segregation among Singaporeans. The emphasis on education in schools is also that of National Education rather than on an individual race’s progress in society. This helps Singaporeans think of themselves as Singaporeans, rather than as their separate races. It is because of these measures that racial harmony, as defined by all Singaporeans, has deemed to have been achieved. These policies have blurred the appearance of racial discrimination in Singapore.

The problem of this definition is that Singaporeans have defined racial harmony as the absence of racial tensions, rather than as true appreciation and understanding of each other’s cultures. As such, underlying racial discrimination and prejudices can still be identified in society. Certain racial stereotypes do exist (such as ‘smelly’ Indians, noisy Chinese funerals and informal Malay weddings) and racial jokes are often cracked. Of course these are made in jest but what it actually reflects about our attitudes to ‘the other’ is apparent. Job advertisements in newspapers and online portals sometimes have pre-requisites for race (although this might also be due to the nature of the job). Tuition agencies send out emails to their registered tutors and once in a while, one finds an assignment that states “(insert race) ONLY”. An article I found extremely pertinent to this issue is called Feeling like the Least Favourite Child by Nur Dianah Suhaimi of The Straits Times. The column describes certain entrenched stereotypes of the Malay community in Singapore regarding education, National Service and Singapore Idol and how hard the writer has had to work to change these mentalities. All this, in spite of the supposed racial harmony that we have. Racial discrimination in Singapore is very subtle, never overt, due to Government-imposed restrictions on what can be discussed in print, forums and blogs. The Sedition Act has been known to be enforced. Racial discrimination in Singapore is very rarely discussed also because most minorities feel that the Government is adequately meeting their economic needs by extolling a capitalist and meritocratic society. This is another hallmark of the Government’s success in forging a Singaporean identity: by emphasising a single Singaporean goal of economic progress.

Certain criticisms of democracy in Singapore include that of racial issues. Anything regarding race is generally disallowed from public airing. The Speaker’s Corner still does not allow anything of a racial matter to be talked about, despite recent revisions to allow for a wider scope of discussion. This stems from a fear of the ignition of racial differences, where races may end up pursuing their individual racial progression and discarding the overall Singaporean identity. If racial harmony indeed existed, this would not be a concern of the Government. Issues of a racial nature would then be spoken about in a balanced manner, as an understanding of other races exists. A latent consequence of the suppressing of racial issues is that the racial lines are further entrenched in our mindsets. Instead of believing that a uniform Singaporean identity exists, a taboo of race is propagated instead. Singaporeans will tend to think of themselves as different from the other races, except that these differences may not be spoken about. The mentality of ‘us’ and ‘them’ will be ingrained in us and a ‘just live with it’ mentality would be replacing any form of understanding. This backlash reverses any mutual racial appreciation and acceptance. The Singaporean’s definition of racial harmony, the absence of overt conflict, would have it such that it still exists. However, an understanding of each other’s cultures would have ceased.

The Singaporean Government’s attempt at solving the country’s problem of racial discrimination can be described by stretching a canvas sheet over a cracked tiled floor. The sweeping measures that have been instituted since independence has on the surface, without doubt, closed the gap between different racial groups and forged a uniform Singaporean identity. However, under that veneer, subtle racial discrimination does exist and may even be propagated by the very same policies. The taboo of race will cause paranoia of racial issues in Singapore.

Citations:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Our+Columnists/Column/STIStory_266543.html?sunwMethod=GET

Ethnocentric tendencies imply that the country or individual thinks its ways are the best and most correct. By carrying out these methods and agenda, superpowers who already carry considerable political weight cause them to be translated into global institutions. The United Nations (UN) is often hailed as democratic due to its nature of lending a representative voice to every participating member in a global arena. It claims to be the embodiment of the world’s interests as they debate global security issues such as terrorism, environmental concerns such as sustainable energy as well as human rights matters such as genocide and ethnic cleaning in countries like Kosovo. How can the UN be considered a true manifestation of democracy, however, when inherent structural laws (or flaws) dictate it consider certain countries ‘more equal’ or ‘more correct’ than others? The right to veto is bestowed upon the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council. This political instrument allows them to control global events according to their or their allies’ agenda. The UNSC’s non-intervention over USSR’s military action in Chechnya is one such example. Democracy is also subverted by countries’ withdrawal from the UN whenever they disagree with a certain policy. Democracy honours the result of the vote as the most important deciding factor. However, when its significance is undermined by a country with a ‘more important’ vote and opinion, how can true suffrage be achieved? This causes the nature of the UN to be fraught with questions.

In democratic elections, the absence of a choice is highly contentious as a measure of fair result. Winning by default means that there is no clear mandate by the electorate for that candidate. How can that candidate’s capabilities be judged if there is neither an alternative to measure it up against nor really, any choice? The lack of electoral competition in Singapore has made the ability to vote a rarity. The government in Singapore, most understandably, redraws constituent lines so that from the onset they are able to garner a good majority of Singaporean voters and minimise losses. In the 2006 General Elections, 37 out of 84 seats in Parliament were won through a walkover, indicating that there were no contesters for those seats.(1) The issue of contention is not the percentage of opposition being represented in Parliament, though that is an entirely different issue worth discussing by itself. Rather, it is the choice given to the electorate. Without a lack of choice, no real directive can be said to have been granted to that candidate. Also, with no alternative, candidates who may be less than capable will be elected into office by default.

Democracy and equality are inextricably linked. Universal suffrage is established precisely because of the belief in the entitlement of “one person, one vote”. Without universal suffrage, does the equation change? Is everybody not entitled equally, then? Disparity in equality can be seen in the example of the Titanic. When the emergency occurred, first-class passengers were vacated first, followed by second- then third- (women and children were vacated before anybody else). Did the cost of their tickets reflect the value of their lives? On whose terms is that decision made? Should a vote have been taken in those moments before the ship sank, it would have decided that the third-class passengers be rescued first, as they were in the majority.(2) (This is an assumption based on the comparison between the different classes, rather than on women and children versus men) Democracy is very intimately associated with equality as it is a system, based on popular vote, which often has implications on issues connected to our lives. Without true democracy, it is difficult to say equality has been achieved.

Many youths claim to go ‘indie’ and take on the anarchic stance of opposing the government at all costs. They think to be subversive is to be cool and their mantra is for liberation and freedom of expression. The problems of democracy lie in structural ethnocentric tendencies, nuances in the absence of choice and have severe implications for equality. It is due to these complexities that true democracy is very, very difficult to fulfill. A little less freedom can also be good for society, if one looks at Singapore in comparison to other countries in the region. Democracy may be an ideal, but demockracy is not so bad either

Citations:
1) http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/PAP_returned_to_power_in_2006_Parliamentary_Elections,_Singapore
2) http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/boulevard/3682/htm_history.htm

The nuclear family has always been regarded as society’s foundation. Socialisation through the family has the greatest impact in our early years. Extremist attitudes that are adopted by Muslim families thus have immense influence on their children. These children are more likely to inherit these teachings and regard them as correct and even moral. For example, in these radicalized societies, suicide bombers are deemed to have brought honour to their family. Future attempts by society or social institutions such as MUIS, in Singapore, will be hampered by such an entrenched mindset. The nuclear family structure will also be left wanting as members of the family decide to take on the ‘mandate’ of waging a holy war. This results in gaps in the family. The graph(1) on the left depicts a large portion of suicide bombers in Israel being in their late teens and early twenties. The statistics come from a sample size of 160 suicide bombers in Israel. If such a significant number of suicide bombers come from a single age group, this will mean that a generation of males (suicide bombers are usually males) has been virtually lost. This will have implications for the country’s future workforce and population.

Families in the countries plagued with terrorism are also affected. Not only do they lose relatives who may have been at the scene of the attack, but the family is also kept apart by military enlistment in that country. According to statistics in 2006(2), the US army has seen a 15% increase in re-enlistment. This can be attributed to strong nationalistic sentiments stemming from the 9/11 attacks and being further bred by the ongoing Afghan and Iraq War. 69% of all troops being killed in Iraq coming from the Army is not enough of a deterrence to these Americans. Families still send their children overseas to fight. Although it may be argued that familial bonds may be strengthened by this ordeal, it is difficult to say whether the family will still be able to be kept intact because of deaths in war. Similar to suicide bombers coming largely from one generation, military enlistment also has consequences on a country’s future.

In both extremist and non-extremist societies, what Islamic fundamentalism breeds is xenophobia. In the extremist Muslim state, xenophobic sentiments will be harboured against anybody who is ‘white’. Based on historical circumstances, a persistent perception that these Westerners are out to interfere in their country’s political and economic systems will exist. Likewise in non-extremist societies, people of a darker skin colour such as Arabs or Malays are instantly regarded with trepidation. Generalization occurs in both of these societies. Social institutions will have to implement measures to correct these prejudices and build a society based on non-discrimination. If xenophobia is allowed to run unchecked, generations will inherit this mentality and affect communication within society, leading to a breakdown.

Islamic fundamentalism is always perceived as a war. To the extremists, it is a war against the ‘Great Western Infidel’. To non-extremists, it is a War on Terror. Having been overlooked in the last seven years due to national fervor, societal implications have now risen to the fore. Both the Iraq and Afghan War are now major issues in the upcoming American Presidential Elections as a country battles with war fatigue.

Citations:

(1) http://israelsmessiah.com/terrorism/suicide_bombers.htm

(2) http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20060414.aspx

Without the presence of crime, any agency meant for maintaining social order would be irrelevant. This would affect not only the local police force but also the bomb squad, checkpoint authority and generally a large portion of the Home Team in Singapore. The need for these agencies is mandated by the presence of crime and thus the lack of it would put many in unemployment. Singapore has consistently evinced not only a low but also plummeting crime rate. Despite, this, Singapore has a large operationally-ready police force of 12, 516 full-time police officers (http://www.spf.gov.sg/prints/annual/2007/07spfa_mpdstats.htm). Without the presence of crime in society, albeit minimal, these officers would be unemployed. Generally, unemployment leads to social dissatisfaction and unrest, leading to more crime. This might be due to desperation to stave off extreme poverty. The presence of crime, even in its most minimal form, has defined the scope of these officers’ vocations and kept them employed. Put simply, this is comparable to the relationship shared between the Joker and Batman in The Dark Knight. The Joker put it most succinctly when he said in response to Batman’s interrogation, “You complete me.”

The threat of crime is always alarming. This keeps the police force competent as they continually strive to maintain excellent standards of service. Training is implemented to keep officers up to date with global events and developments. A part of the state’s budget is also invested in the improvement of technologies to fight crime. Apart from this, the threat of crime also keeps a country’s population on their toes. This breeds strong loyalties towards community, society and state. For example, in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, the United States was truly united in their fight against terrorism to bring justice to the perpetrators. The fabric of society is tested and weaved more closely together in the face of danger. The threat of crime thus aids this and makes a country’s citizens more aware of each other. A shared experience which defines society can be said to be forged and becomes part of that nation’s identity.

Society’s morals are defined by its constitution and judiciary. The severity of judgment meted out to the accused reflects society’s stand with regards to that crime or act. For example, Singapore has been known to carry out capital punishment against drug traffickers. This reflects the strong sentiment in society against narcotics. Also, the most recent judgment made against Tang Wee Sung who was convicted under the Human Organs Transplant Act for organ trading is a mirror to compassion and consideration in society. Tang was jailed for only a day, as his severe medical condition and desperation was taken into account. What goes on in the Singapore courts is a very relevant indication of what our society defines as good and bad. Another example would be the attempt to repeal the infamous Penal Code 377A, to allow for homosexual sex. The Singapore government’s decision not to do so shows that Singaporeans still make a conservative society and are not quite ready for such a big step yet. The severity with which crime is dealt with reflects and defines society’s values.

Crime is a part of society we would all like to do without. However, due to inherent selfish human nature, crime is inseparable from society and actually, needed. Society needs crime to provide jobs and to forge common threads internally. Most importantly, crime is needed to define the moral standards in society. In truth, crime is a part of society we cannot do without.

I remember coming across an article in the National Geographic investigating cases of honour killing in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Honour killing particularly takes place in these countries because of strong Muslim influence that requires utmost conservative behaviour. Women are not allowed to speak to other men who are not relatives, their ankles must not be shown and the mere suspicion of committing adultery can have disastrous effects on their appearances and lives. The article was accompanied by a video which followed very closely several of these families which subjected their wives to such ‘corrective’ measures. One case study showed a woman who had had acid poured over her face, based on suspicion that she was cheating on her husband. Another was subjected to stoning because she eloped with a man from another community.

Naturally, this has had women rights groups taking up arms against these acts. The Kurdish Women’s Action Against Honour Killings (KWAHK) and Women Action Forum (WAF) are some of these groups which conduct counselling as well as education programmes for women in their respective societies. Some have even brought the matter up in legislative circles, and tried to push for improved women’s rights, naturally stirring up much discontent. Their actions have been deemed as ‘shameful’ and ‘dishonourable’ to their families.

It is especially so in these societies that one can observe the inequality of women in society. It is in these conservative Muslim societies that one can truly evince the helplessness of women. Women are mainly uneducated and left to the arbitrary judgments of the men in the house, who sometimes use them to vent frustrations and emotions due to, for instance, an inability to keep a job or bad economic conditions. Women are also almost always subjected to the tradition of keeping the house. This fixes the stereotypical role of women as being the homemaker, taking care of the children and the upkeep of the house. Education is deemed as wasted on them and thus, they are often left illiterate and unaware of the rights that they possess, exacerbating their already poor position in society.

In this respect, it is my opinion that women who are willing to go against the grain and work to educate their counterparts in these countries are taking on a burden that puts not only themselves but their families in danger, especially being in a society which requires submission from women. They need to sustain a belief among themselves that is not widely supported at all and have to work doubly hard to rise up in society.

In a developed country such as Singapore, women complain of being passed over for promotions or being dropped by their companies after taking an extended period of maternity leave. By drawing parallel lines to the situation in these Muslim societies which practice honour killing, this is our modern form of discrimination against women. In a modern society, women are generally better educated and have an awareness of their rights and roles in society. They subscribe to the notion that whatever men can do, they can do too and accomplish it either as well or better than them (for example, in housekeeping). Yet, it is an inherent fault of society that causes this imbalance in society to be unresolved.

The inequality of women is not due to poorer education or less knowledge of rights. Rather, it is the mentality of society that hinders the progression of the resolution of this problem. What is required of society is not greater widespread education, rather a change in mentality. In a poll conducted by The Straits Times last year, an increased proportion of men proved to be receptive to having a female prime minister. This reflects a greater openness to the role and ability of females, which is the right direction society is taking.

In conclusion, despite greater education and representation of women’s rights in governments, it seems that inequality of women is prevalent in both developing and developed countries, albeit one very blatantly and the other in subtle nuances. Better education and representation is not the factor that needs to be altered, rather it is society’s mentality that needs to be. Men need to be more secure and open, if uncomfortable, to women rising up in society and women need to start believing in themselves.