Trans-national environmental problems invite attention from other states, who are likely to exert pressure on the state in question to clean up their act. However, for “localized” problems (although there are no real localized problems), it is not likely to other states to intervene and help in devising a solution. The people will have to suffer. Unless the state sees the need to provide a solution, the people will have to find a way out themselves, or risk continuing to suffer the effects of harming the environment.

The power of communities banded together can be immense. Not merely in forming a louder voice when raising their environmental concerns to the state, but also in the work they can potentially accomplish if everyone has the will to act. Herein lies the problem. It’s not easy to get people to join in the acts, especially when the ones most affected by the detriments of poor environmental practices are often the ones most ignorant. The poor residing in the slums are highly likely to be nearest to landfills or dump sites and have their water sources polluted, but they are unaware that the water they drink from the rivers to quench their thirst can be breaking down their immune systems. And the ones who are aware, are probably too far away from these areas to see and feel the effects, or maybe, even to care.

While the state has an important role to play in eradicating poor environmental practices, the earth will not be truly protected until everyone – from the governments to individuals, understand the importance of preserving what we have. People should not wait until their livelihoods are threatened by the ailing mother nature before they start realizing the impact of their environmental unfriendly actions. Of course, the green efforts of an individual can be very limited and seem insignificant, when large corporations are wasting resources and contributing to the damage of the environment. This is where the state can come in to regulate corporate practices and encourage conservation efforts.

We all have a stake in this earth, and a huge one at that. The effects of environmental degradation transcend boundaries and affect everyone. While there are a lot of talks going on regarding how globalization segregates, maybe there should be greater, if not at least equal, attention placed upon how it has at least united us in this one aspect. If we can all pool our resources together to help one another improve environmental conservation efforts, regardless of economic potentials and political powers, then maybe, we can enable future generations of earthlings to continue enjoying the fresh air and clean waters, no matter where they may reside on our planet earth.

Technology has become such an integrated part of our lives, so much so that it has even become part of what defines us. All over the world the tech savvy crave for the latest technologies, and every new product launch is lauded and welcomed by people across continents. Being able to own the latest technologies has become a reflection of a person’s socio-economic status, and this phenomenon is evident in all levels of the society. Most people are part of the race to be the first to lay hands on the newest technological development, from young school going kids yearning for the latest game devices, to the businessmen lusting after the latest communication devices with sleek appearances to boot.

This is an age of great digital divide, where we see an increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots. While technology has often been claimed to improve the lives of many, and this I do not dispute, it has also highlighted the disparity between the rich and the poor. While the rich are able to afford technology in its newest forms, the poor are often happy enough to receive old and obsolete versions which are used and unwanted by the rich. This is assuming they even have the knowledge to use these devices in the first place. And we are likely to continue to observe this pattern of “handed down” consumption of technology.

In the free market, producers flock to wherever there is demand for their goods. For technology, this has got to be in the developed countries, where the people have the sophistication and financial abilities to demand for these goods. The latest technologies will therefore, almost always be produced for the rich. Because the invention and innovation of new technologies require great knowledge and expertise, they are accomplished by the developed nations themselves too. To raise the wall of technological divide even higher, production of these technological products requires highly skilled labour, which means these jobs are likely to go to the people in the developed nations as well. Now the loop is complete, with the production and consumption of technology all kept within the developed nations. So, when do the poor get to consume the highly acclaimed benefits of technology? When the rich are sick of their toys, and dispose of them to acquire new ones.

I can almost see the rich throwing their used technology over the imaginery walls, calling out to the poor on the other side, “Hey, this is for you! It can bring you greater convenience and improve your life!!”

This is a race where the tortoise can probably never catch up with the rabbit. Not until an ingenious tortoise can devise his own rules and begin a new race of his own altogether.

How the states perceive the problems greatly affects the kinds of solutions that they prescribe in controlling the population growth rates. While most states may have a largely economic view of the population growth rate, using it as a gauge of the size of the labour market in the future, others may adopt different perspectives when understanding population issues, such as in considering ethnic balances, or the standard of living for families in different socio-economic classes. If the objective was plainly to increase or decrease the overall population growth rate, a standard measure can be implemented to encourage or discourage births. However, if there are more specific objectives to be attained, measures will have to be tailored to suit the specific needs of the different groups of people involved, for them to be effective.

The relationship that the state shares with its people also affects the types of approaches that will be adopted in influencing population growth. In countries where states are of strong authority, policies with stated objectives can be imposed on the people, such as in the case of China’s one-child policy. In other countries, more indirect measures such as tax rebates, monetary incentives, and maternity leave will have to be used as a more subtle approach in encouraging births.

It is not just how the state perceives the problem, but also how it understands the way its people perceive the problem and the constraints that they have, that determines the efficacy of the solutions prescribed. While the state is solving a problem for a nation at large, it is far more important to focus on what the individuals that make up the nation feel and think about the problem, in order to devise suitable and effective solutions. If the state becomes too focused on the population problem itself (e.g. the declining birth rates), it will overlook the problems faced by its people (e.g. lack of financial resources, time etc). The latter are in fact the root causes, or actual problems, while the former is but a symptom of the greater problem.

In addressing the issue of declining birth rates in Singapore, my personal take is that the government ought to recognise that beyond the carrots that they are dangling out to entice couples to pro-create, deeper understanding into our social structure is needed. What they have created over the past many years, is a no doubt economically-sound and progressive society, but at the expense of cultivating a healthy social or familial culture. A pro-family culture has to be built up over time, and its development is not something that we can simply quantify into performance measures and targets. When the emphasis shifts from producing a sizeable workforce to growing family bonds and ties, maybe then, in the years to come, we might just hear more baby cries at night.

Even for the lucky ones who can manage the housing costs in the city, residential spaces are usually small and suitable only for satellite families. The large, extended families of the rural areas and suburbs cannot be brought into the cities, and the younger working generation starts to be distanced from their families. This causes a degeneration of the familial unit as a form of social support, sowing the seeds for many social problems to bud.

When the working hours are over and the workers all return home, the cities are void of life and character, giving rise to the term “death-by-night syndrome”. The cities, being the hub of economic activities, are also associated to stress, hectic schedules, fast pace of life and a heavy mind, for the typical workers. Unlike the city of Curitiba, which we have seen in the lecture as a model example of urban renewal, most cities suffer from urban decay or a lack of integration of infrastructure that promotes healthy social interactions. There is some sort of relationship between space and human behavior. Through effective utility of available public spaces in the urban city, we can attempt to fill the void in human lives by encouraging interaction and social activities. Parks and water features built in the cities help to integrate nature into the concrete jungle, and benches and pavilions allow passer-by to slow down their pace and enjoy the surroundings. All these will promote human interaction and ease the otherwise stressful and hectic atmosphere in the cities.

As we observe the hustle and bustle of the cities, and the throngs of people rushing about on the roads, we see a seemingly grand idea come to life – the city becomes a representative work of globalization on a local context, where people from different states or countries converge because of the need to work. And as with all other nations that are globalized, even the small cities cannot escape the perils of the problems associated with globalization. The problems have, in fact, all evolved from small individual to huge societal ones; from city-level to national-level. It is therefore imperative that apart from the function of enabling economic activities to take place, urban areas should also be spaces that encourage social activities, and strive to resolve the usual issues that globalization brings even before they surface.

Effective urban planning is essential to allow cities to reap the benefits that globalization brings, without sacrificing their characters and ‘souls’. Through the provision of proper shelters at affordable costs for everyone; and the integration of large, open social spaces to enable the cultivation of stronger communal spirit, the displaced and lonely individuals inhabiting the cities would likely enjoy more secured lives and experience greater social support; thereby nipping the potential problems in their buds.

When I took linguistics class some semesters back, the tutor brought up an interesting phenomenon – she’s had a friend who had migrated to the United States with her family for a good couple of years now, and every time she comes back to visit her friends, she continues to speak with the usual Singaporean accent, complete with the lahs, lehs and lors. And then the same tutor had seen a student picked up the American accent over a holiday, albeit she had been there for an exchange programme for only less than six months. She asked us why we thought such occurrences happen, and left it at that.

I’m inclined to think that it is probably not just the environment that we are immersed in, that shapes who we are, but also who we really want to be.  With an increasing number of corporations spanning their operations worldwide, it is becoming more and more common to receive chances to work overseas, be it for a short term assignment, or a long term posting. Even for the students who have yet to step into the workforce, opportunities to be immersed in a foreign culture are aplenty, with established college international-exchange programmes, work-and-travel programmes hosted by external agencies, and overseas community involvement programmes being made widely available. After having experienced for ourselves the different cultures, we are able to compare and contrast, and then, perhaps, form some personal preferences.

You might have heard something similar before – an Australian-born Chinese tells you about her Chinese roots, how she remembers about her mother feeding her porridge whenever she was sick when she was young; and her dilemma as an Australian mum when her son fell ill and she could not quite decide what to make for lunch – porridge or sandwich. (read from: http://www.karencheng.com.au/2008/09/30/sick-food/ ) Oh yes, she was stumped by her own cultural mish-mash, but she identifies herself as an Australian-Chinese nonetheless.

Some of us may be born and bred in Singapore for a good few decades, only to decide to settle in Australia for good after a 5-year outstation. (I would not go into the discussion of permanent residencies and giving up of citizenship, as I believe one may have a thousand reasons for making various choices, although the choosing of a preferred culture, or identity, could be part of it.) And after one obtains permanent residency in the new found home, one suddenly has a lot more options in how one wants to introduce oneself.

(Assuming the Chinese man introducing himself at a cocktail party with many internationals)

“Hi! I am a new Australian and I just celebrated obtaining my permanent residency a few months ago.”

“Hi! I am a Singaporean who moved here a couple of years ago on outstation.”

“Hi! I am a Singaporean Chinese and I am here for work.”

“Hi! I am a Singapore-born Australian Chinese who has decided I like this place so much I want to call it home.”

There are so many possibilities for self-labeling, it’s really up to creativity. What one chooses as a self-label, is determined by who one wishes to see oneself as. And in the case of “a Singapore-born Australian Chinese”, the order in which the labels are placed probably reflects some sort of primary/secondary identity which are adopted, and this again, can be subjected to personal preference.

An identity is, afterall, something that we identify ourselves as. It is not something that is fixed and unchangeable; it is not innate. Unlike, say, the colour of our skin or the community that we were born into. This characteristic of an identity is greatly emphasized in today’s globalized world. If we do not like or want that something, we will be unlikely to identify with it, much less acknowledge it as our identity.

The Nation refers to the people and the State refers to the government. In the modern Nation-State, the consolidation of power occurs through the forge of a national identity, the creation of a common territory, language and religion. What happens (the way I understand it), is that through the creation of some common grounds, the people are made to believe that they share to a certain extent some similarities, and thus identify themselves as belonging to the same group or community. When this effect happens on a large enough scale, all, if not most, of the people will share that belief and what is formed is called the national identity. This national identity is a very powerful thing, as it unites people who come from such diverse backgrounds that they may otherwise never feel they have something in common with everyone else. It works almost like an invisible “glue”, gelling the people together.

When you have one entity with one common belief, it is much easier for the state to deal with. This is why it helps the consolidation of power in modern Nation-States. So, who created this amazing thing that brings people together? The national identity was basically created by the state for the people, rather than the people creating one for themselves in the ideal situation. The taking on of such an identity by the people forms something like a contract, that binds them to the governance of the state. And in such a case it is arguable if there is indeed democracy present in the system.

With globalization, the Nation-State suffers a national identity crisis. With the phrase “global citizens” being used more and more commonly, one starts to wonder to which land does one truly belong and what identity should one adopt. If a person is no longer just rooted to one nation, then it renders that particular national identity irrelevant, and hence that particular state to lose its recognition by the individual. Democracy, then, should it still occur at a nation-state level, or should it be on a global scale? Is it even possible for the latter to happen at all?

The latest American financial crisis has far and wide implications round the globe, but the decision as to whether or not the bailout plan would go through lies in the hands of that chosen few. Even though workers as far away as here in Singapore would have their jobs impacted by the decision, they have absolutely no say in the matter. Nearer to the heart of the problem, taxpayers had gone onto the streets to protest against having to fund the bailout, and as much as their voices were heard, the final call was still the top people’s to make.

I have read in a report commenting on how the US has always been trusty in resolving crises, but not doing as well in heading them off. The writer credited that to the slow pace of getting bills passed and issuing tax reliefs in the US, as they have to seek consensus of the congress, which usually runs into many problems and takes a long time. This was compared to the many other economies which are more efficient in heading off crises, simply by manipulating their taxes and charges in order to control demand and/or supply.

Here we see a possible situation whereby allowing many voices to be heard may not be an ideal means to an end. I am inclined to think that limited democracy is not always a bad thing after all, as sometimes there is simply no time to waste in getting the consensus of everyone, and the majority may not always have the knowledge to act in the most sensible way. That said, it is still important  to value the views of the masses and educate them so they are aware of the choices that they can make.

As international trade becomes commonplace in today’s world, every major country would have multiple trade links with many other countries. Tensions can arise from this increased level of contact and connection between countries, creating more potential for disagreements and disputes. However, fortunately, we have not seen many of such instances evolving into full-blown wars.

This is because powers are kept in check by every other nation with vested interests, as well as economic/political organizations such as United Nations, ASEAN and BRIC etc. There has been much debate, even internally within the country, regarding the war in Iraq commissioned by the United States. In a more recent case, the South Ossetia war,  we have heard how numerous parties have sounded their disapproval towards Russia’s invasion of Georgia. I have also read in a recent statement MM Lee made on Russia, during the Forbes Global CEO Conference, where he alluded to its recent invasion on Georgia – “‘If the Chinese had done that, they would have had the whole of South-east Asia agitated and no friends.’”

From the few examples above, we can see how every country’s actions are watched by everyone in the world. Unlike in domestic affairs where interventions or commentaries by external parties are minimal, such as the unstable state of politics in Bangkok of late, in international affairs the external parties such as other nations or organizations like UN will be less restrained in voicing out their opinions. Precisely because of the high degree of interdependence between countries in today’s globalized world, most countries are very watchful of their own management of international relations and take extra care in maintaining their diplomacy. In instances when this fail and where certain relations are upset, external parties would step in to control and mediate the situation.

In today’s world, economic strength is arguably far more intimidating and superior than military strength. This is again explained by the importance of international trade to almost every country’s economy. There is no doubt that the military strength still commands a level of fear in others, as evident in how several parties have been careful in negotiating with North Korea for the latter to limit their nuclear ambitions, but we are also aware of the country’s dependence on food and humanitarian aid from the UN and US, amongst several other parties.

In my opinion, power yielded from growing a strength through the economy is also likely to garner more respect than through the military. Citing MM Lee, in drawing a contrast between the way China and Russia are flexing their growing strategic muscle.

“Both are equally formidable on the economic front. But on the diplomatic front, one maintains a quiet presence while the other is more open to slugging it out.

China does not display its strength by intimidating others. Russia, on the other hand, is more ‘robust’, noted Mr Lee.

‘One is getting his act together. There’s no doubt that the world knows that China has come together. But they don’t beat their chests and threaten anybody.’

‘On the other side, really robust – you’ve got to respect us and we demand that you recognise that these are our countries. Where any Russians are is where we will be.’

He left the audience to decide who is the better strategist. I am sure you know where I stand.

With this ever-increasing significance of economic strength, we have also witnessed the shift from military towards economic warfare. The United States had imposed economic sanctions on Myanmar days before the cyclone Nargis struck the country early this year, and the impact of its action is claimed to impede U.S. humanitarian organizations and individuals from donating money directly to causes within impoverished Myanmar. In addition to Myanmar, the US had also imposed economic sanctions to a number of countries, such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.

In today’s globalized world, war has taken on a new economic form, although the traditional military form is likely to remain. Increasing international trade and the formation of international organizations have also had their impact on regulating power and prevented wars from being waged. However, whilst we see less of (or less large scale) military wars being fought, we have to acknowledge the evolution of warfare and be vigilant in dealing with them to minimize the damage done, whether or not they involve the loss of human lives.

References:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_277391.html

http://www.workers.org/2008/world/myanmar_0522/

Punishment can serve as a deterrent to discourage criminal behaviours, but it does not address the causes of crime. Symptoms suppressed through punishment often resurface as other social problems. An example on the familial level is of a neglected child stealing to gain his parents’ concern, only to become estranged from his family when they scold and hit him without realizing the need to spend more time with him. The child may never steal again, but neither will he confide in his parents ever again. To the parents, they may have achieved their aim of deterring the child from theft. But to the child, not only has he not succeeded in gaining the affection he craves, he may even be convinced that his parents do not love him at all.

The ramifications of punishment are immense, and are further magnified at the state-level. When the state metes out punishment according to the severity of the crime, it is almost like state-sanctioned revenge. It does not address the grievances felt by the actors of crime that spurred their behaviour, and instead, invites greater angst amongst those who feel the same. What then follows is a vicious cycle of crime and punishment.

It can be argued that such deviant behaviour is an ineffective method of expression that often harms the society at large, and thus warrants some sort of punishment. However, not withstanding the fact that harmful behaviour ought to be discouraged, it must be noted that if the actors of these crime have had a better and more efficient way of expressing themselves, they probably would not have resorted to crime. Finding out the root causes of deviant behaviour may be time and resource consuming, but we should not just criminalize these acts, wait for the law to punish the actors and pretend that all problems would be solved if we can throw all of them into jail, or worse still, pretend that there is no problem at all.

The truth is, as with everything else, the problem usually starts small. By giving due attention to the slight symptoms and digging to find out the root causes, many crimes can be prevented. It could even be surprising how some problems could be solved when no solutions are devised, and are actually non-problems in the first place. Especially with globalization, where anything and everything can happen and evolve at a rapid pace, it is all the more important for us to pay attention to the small problems before they turn into huge societal ones.

The Feminist Movement used to propagate the concept of gender equality to fight for access to education for women, as well as political rights. Fast forward a few decades, the term “feminism” has evolved to mean superiority of the female gender, and no longer just one that seeks to remove the exploitation of women. While the modern woman now expects to be treated no different from her male counterparts with regards to her salary and opportunities, the traditional expectations that she has of men remains unchanged.

When looking for a potential partner, she often expects the other party to be a “gentlemen”; to hold the door for her, carry her handbag, move her chair and play the proactive role in the courtship.

The modern woman now wants to have the cake, and eat it.

Definition of Social Role by Gender

Women in my grandmother’s era stayed at home, did all the household chores, gave birth to many kids, took care of the little ones and the elderly at home. My grandfather went out to work and was the sole breadwinner of the large family. Life was hard, but they got by. Women then were quietly playing the supportive role for their husbands, and the word “divorce” was unheard of.

Now, most women continue to work after marriage, and are expected to juggle both the roles of a commited and capable worker, and a responsible mother and loving wife. Both roles require polaric qualities from the same individual, and juggling them proves to be a highly challenging task. The result is that marriages are put under the test, and many fall apart.

Although it is arguable that couples in my grandparents’ era were happier, what is reasonable to conclude is that unions then were more lasting, and roles were simpler and more clearly defined than present.

The Balanced Union

It seems like now we’re confused over our roles in the society. Males demand the ladies to be more rational and financially independent, and the ladies want their partners to be more sensitive. At the same time, ladies should remain soft spoken and preferably submissive, while the men must still be macho and always ready to offer the ladies protection. Oh, how confusing.

When pared to the core, every relationship is about striking some sort of comfortable balance between both parties. In the olden days, this was a lot easier to achieve. Each party had a scripted role to play, and knew exactly how to react to situations and problems in accordance to their “designed” scripts. Few questioned the boundaries of these roles, and even those who did seldom challenged them, preferring to suppress their individualism and conform to social expectations so as to preserve the holy institution of marriage and family.

That’s not to say that it is an impossible task to find that same balance in marriages these days. What it takes though, is a lot more understanding of the self and between partners, as well as greater care in not tipping the balance. With more overlaps between the roles performed by each party, couples need to accept the fact that they now have to learn to give and take, and can no longer expect each other to behave in accordance to their prescribed “gender roles”, just because.

For true gender equality to be recognised, gender has to remain a biological term, not a social term.

Division of labour results in specialization of skills

Instead of producing a full product, workers in the new capitalized industries produce parts of the end-product, and are seldom, or almost never, required to perform the other steps necessary to complete the product. This limitation or reduction in skills performance is arugued by Karl Marx to “deskill” workers, and thus rendering them vulnerable. However, this narrowing of skill performance could also likely lead to the worker becoming a specialist in his task, rather than to “deskill” workers, as proposed by Karl Marx. Instead of having to perform a full spectrum of tasks in order to produce something, the new worker now needs only to concentrate on carrying out one specific task amongst many others, and can thus focus on doing it better and faster.

Specialization leads to knowledge acquisition

Having repeatedly performed the same task, workers now know best how the task can be done more efficiently and effectively, which is supported by Adam Smith’s proposition of the efficiency of division of labour. This knowledge is not gained first-hand by the capitalists who “exploit” the workers, but rather by the workers themselves, through having gone through the same (inefficient/ineffective) work procedures many times over. Hence, workers are the true owners of knowledge in the modern world. It is not true that workers are “losing their skills” and “losing the ownership of their end products”, and on the contrary, workers in today’s world are acquiring something more valuable – knowledge.

Knowledge as the new product

Knowledge is worth more than goods are in the new market, and trade will increasingly be carried out in exchange of knowledge than goods. This is evident in the modern world, where the employment of consultantation services is becoming a commonplace. And since knowledge is becoming increasingly valuable, the new way to building wealth and power for nations will be to focus on acquiring knowledge. As the race for knowledge progresses, the only way to develop stronger capabilities is through finding a niche to focus and specialize in, so that you become an expert in the field. And so, it is foreseeable that the next wave of evolution involves the specialization of knowledge (creation of worth) and the free trading of specialized knowledge (accumulation of value).

From industrializing to industrialized

In the new international division of labour model, we can see that nations have moved from capital accumulation to knowledge accumulation. Services and investments are now more valuable than manufactured goods, and are traded as higher-end products compared to the manufactured goods, as manufactured goods were, when compared to natural resources in the past. Something more significantly different in the new model, however, are the positions in which the trading nations are in. In the old model, nations producing finished-goods acquire raw materials from the nations with abundance of raw materials precisely because they do not possess them.  In the new model, we see that the post-industrial nations, as their name suggests, have once undergone industrialization; and this is seemingly the key to progress. Whilst finished-goods producing nations might have attained their higher status (i.e. wealth and power) despite not having owned raw materials, the new model proposes that to attain the high status in the modern world, nations require some sort of progress through industrialization.  This would highlight to us that rather than a one-way exploitation, the new international division of labour actually leads to the progress of nations by allowing a promotion in status.

An example of this progress from an industrializing to industrialized nation would be India. We have seen how many MNCs relocate their call centre functions to this country in the past decades due to their lower cost of labour (i.e. “cheap labour”), and then in recent years, this country has progressed to become the land of IT experts and is quickly rising to be one of the powerhouses in Asia.

The brighter side

Whilst free trade have brought about many issues such as labour exploitation, dominance of a few big players and the inequitable power distribution among nations, all is not gloom and doom. There are always benefits brought about by globalization and international trade, and the transfer of knowledge, skills and capabilities, the promotion of local cultures and better appreciation of differences are just a few to name. It is also worthy to note that in recent years, there is a popular rising trend of trade responsibility and phrases such as “corporate social responsibility”, “eco-something” and “fair trade” will remain the buzzwords in the years to come.