Lecture 12: Ecology

Despite the fact that environmental problems are so potentially deadly and dangerous, yet these problems still exist. I think they are hard to solve because the problem seems to be nobody’s individual problem but everybody’s collective problem, hence nobody individually has incentive to do anything about it. The two main contributors to environmental problems are the consumers and companies. The consumers, or rather, all of us people act based on individual incentives, if we get nothing from recycling or not polluting, we will do nothing. Companies act based on profit maximization, if polluting increases maximum profits, they will not do anything. This is also known as the tragedy of the commons, because the world’s natural resources and environment are common resources, as they are limited yet, unlike private goods, it is difficult to exclude others from them.  Since collectively, environmental problems pose such a big threat to all of us, similarly, only the government can represent us as a collective whole to address the problem by providing us creating individual incentives for people to conserve and not damage the environment.

In such a consumerist society, a large proportion of the pollution and waste comes from all the products we use. Pollution is a negative externality on people. Hence the government has already put several incentives in place such as regulating company’s pollution, privatization of the environment and natural resources. However, another way that the government can provide incentives for both the consumers and companies, by perhaps taxing products that are not recyclable or not environmentally friendly. Such as taxing non-recycled paper while not taxing recycled paper. This provides an incentive for companies to switch to more environmentally friendly products or techniques, as it creates a greater profit for the companies. Similarly, on the consumer’s end, it creates a higher demand for products that are environmentally friendly since they are relatively cheaper. The tax revenue created could then go into funding various programs that address environmental problems.

Another thing the government can do is invest in research. Fifty years ago, conservationists were concerned with the excessive use of tin and copper which at that time was a crucial commodity. Tin was used as food containers and copper was important for telephone cables. People advocated mandatory recycling and rationing of tin and copper so that supplies would be sufficient for future generations. Looks a lot like what is happening in regards to wood or paper today. But despite the lack of action taken in regards to  tin and copper, this never became a problem because of technological advancement. Plastic replaced tin as food containers. Mobile phones greatly reduced the need for telephone cables. Similarly, in regards to paper, no longer do we need ‘hard copy’ documents, when everything can be transmitted and viewed online. Hence, technological progress creates much progress in addressing our environmental problems. Since the government has a considerable amount of power in directing the focus of technological research, it is an avenue whereby environmental problems could be addressed.

All of these have limitations solutions will have their limitations. And again, like all problems and their solutions, there has to be a compromise. Between maximum efficiency for the current economy and ensuring a better collective future. We, as humans tend to be short-sighted as our lives too are relatively short. We ask why we should invest our current resources to solve an environmental problem which consequences will only be a major issue years after we die. The deeper issue in which spawns not just environmental problems but also social problems, is how individualistic and self-centered we as people have become.

Lecture 11: Technology and Energy

Mr Brown, the new age rebel in the online regime.

The advance of technology and the shift from the electronic age to the information age has brought much changes to society. One well known personality in Singapore is the infamous Mr. Brown who used to write a weekly article for the ‘Today’ Newspaper before he was apparently axed for ‘crossing the line’ with too controversial articles. He’s now a celebrity blogger of some sort who released podcasts for people’s entertainment. I mention this as apart from his usual humorous takes on life in Singapore, he touches commonly on politics and the actions of the ruling political parties in Singapore. And Mr. Brown is just the first and most outright example for me when it comes to how the Internet and this mass media can change politics in Singapore, and how likewise, politics can change the Internet and mass media. Along with the Internet has come greater accessibility and conveying of information, yet it also allows for censorship of information.

As mentioned above, Mr. Brown is just one form of political humor that has spawned out from the Internet. We receive political humor in our emails in the form of videos, audio files all the time. We have Mr. Brown podcasts that have touched on various political matters, such as government’s actions in regards to politician James Gomez’s genuine mistake of forgetting to submit his application form to run for constituency. We have various spoofs of National Day songs or even original songs such as the one by Dick Lee or Hossan Leong that have been widely circulated, which ridicule some government policies in a subtle manner.

In addition to political humor, we have blogs, informative websites, file-sharing websites as another avenue. During the 2006 elections, the large number of blogs were set up specifically in regards to the elections to comment on the ongoing events. Recently, the SDP website posted the courtroom dialogues between MM Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Chee of the SDP during the defamation lawsuit, seemingly with the intention of drawing attention to the incoherent responses given by MM Lee.

But yet at the same time, politics can affect the Internet and mass media. With the Internet as the medium and just a few Internet Service Providers in Singapore, it allows for censorship of websites. At the moment, no political websites that I know of have been censored, however, the government has shown its capability and power in banning websites by barring Singaporeans from accessing various pornographic websites. Hence, if need be, the government can simply bar access to political websites too. Though, ways around the barring of websites exist, I believe that the general population would not know how to do so.

Also, as there are a few Internet Service Providers, it is possible for the government to track down the IP addresses of people who post undesirable information on websites or blogs. As seen in the actions of the Japanese animation company that tracked down illegal downloaders of their animations, it is possible for the Internet Service Providers to give out the IP addresses to identify these people. Hence, it would be foolish to think that we are truly anonymous online. As we have seen, the government has been known to sue individuals who have posted undesirable information on their blogs, such as Gopalan Nair. (Though this was not done under anonymity, as stated above, anonymity is not truly possible.)

In line with being unable to be truly anonymous online and liable to being sued for undesirable information posted. There is a government policy in Singapore that prevents anonymity in regards to the mass media. Any article sent in to the media requires identification in the form of their full name, IC number and address.

Hence as can be seen, it works both ways in regards to how politics and the Internet/Mass Media shape each other in Singapore. I do wonder if any government agency will be alerted about this blog post after I click ‘Publish’.

Lecture 10: Population and Health

The equilibrium of human population.

People have talked about various problems and fears in regards to rapid population growth or the ‘population bomb’ in developing countries. People worry about whether we have enough resources, such as food, fuel, clean air, education and land, to support the growing population and whether it will deplete our resources to the point that the world will be put into chaos. People too worry about the opposite effect happening in developed countries or declining population and the various consequences and dangers of the aging population. I believe, however, that perhaps there is not so much to worry about because I believe that human population would, in an economic sense, find its natural ‘equilibrium’, based on demand and supply. The problems or needs caused by our rapid population growth create a demand for a solution, and naturally this will create a solution, through human innovation, due to the demand. In the past, many people would not have believed that the world could support 6 billion people. Yet, somehow we have survived well and solved the problems of the rapidly growing population, in a sort of natural progression. Lets consider the various resources that are or were in danger of depletion as a result of rapid population growth.

In the past, firewood was a major fuel source. As firewood ran out, we started worrying and looked for alternatives and we started using coal. As coal ran out, we then started using oil. Now, as oil runs out and as OPEC raises prices for oil, it has created a problem. But the solutions for the problems have come naturally. People have started looking for alternative fuel to run our cars. Hybrid cars, electric cars and electric cars started to be looked at, researched and manufactured at more affordable prices. Governments started looking at alternative forms of energy such as solar, tidal, wind, nuclear or geothermal energy.

Another resources would be land. Nobody in the past would probably have believed that population densities of 6000 per kilometer square was possible. To them, it would be the equivalent of humans living in houses several meters wide and tall. But their perceptions were limited by the height of the houses they thought possible. Today, 6000 people per kilometer square is possible in Singapore as we have housed people in tall buildings, with a survivable amount of space to live (though debatable). As population rises further, its likely that other countries would address the problem in the same way as Singapore.

Yet another resource would be clean water. We worry that our supply of food and clean water would run out. Again, as the resource runs out, the demand for it has in naturally created solutions. In Singapore, as our supply of clean water runs out due to domestic disputes, we have turned to reverse osmosis to create the country’s pride, NEWater. Elsewhere, countries have looked at desalination and the use of recycled water for non-consumption uses.

The point shown here is that, in a way, problems that we have created by our rapid population growth have always seemed to be solved in a natural way by the need for a solution (like a economic equilibrium of demand and supply). If the resource of ‘educated humans’ starts running out and we have a lack of people to educate the growing young generation, I believe it would naturally result in us innovating ways to do so with less people. Though, even with our human innovation, and our understanding of science, perhaps we would not be able to keep up with an exponential growth of population. If that does happen, it probably wouldn’t take human innovation to solve it. Overpopulation and its various problems would create a demand for a solution. Though simplistic, it does make sense that people could simply have less children through contraception and birth-control.

Lecture 9: Urbanization

Singapore as an urbanized city.

In some ways, Singapore is like a urban structure or city. Even though we are in fact a country, we have such a small land area that everything is in such close proximity to each other that it can almost be considered a city. Its sort of like New York City with our CBD as New York’s metropolitan area and our surrounding housing clusters as the surrounding boroughs in New York City. We are surely as densely populated as most cities in the world and most of our land area is urbanized. The system whereby we run is also much like an urbanized city, where everything is centralized and there is much focus on the economic system. Hence, I feel that in some ways, we can see the effects of urbanization in Singapore.

Emile Durkheim wrote about the anomie, one aspect of urbanization whereby a sense of displacement and rootlessness would be experienced; a breaking down of social or moral norms to be unclear or not even present. I feel that this is in the process of occurring in Singapore. Much of our ideals of social and moral norms seem to be strongly rooted in our various racial cultures. We have right and wrongs that are taught and passed down by the older generation that are still followed. However, I feel this will not be the case in the next few decades as the newer generation grows and the older generation passes on. Looking at the new generation of Singaporeans, its clear that we are slowly losing our sense of roots and norms. Older traditions and values are gradually being eroded away. People’s opinions towards issues like cohabitation or homosexuality are changing and mixed. In the past, it would have been a clear cut ‘wrong’, but now its a blur idea of right and wrong. The most clearly blurred norms would probably be in regards to individualism and social collectivity. Our traditional norms focus much on contributing to the collective welfare of society, but the competitiveness of our society focuses on building up wealth and prestige for the individual. Its a contradiction between our traditional norms and the structure of our urban society. The structural limitation of the society prevents the individual from achieving the traditional norms. So, I feel that slowly the once clear-cut norms are being eroded away into a state of unclear and mixed norms. I guess not only urbanization has contributed to this, but globalization plays a large part it in too in spreading materialism or individualism.

Another theory of urbanisation by Georg Simmel was that urban dwellers cope with the onslaught of too many people, sounds, sensations, and demands by becoming more withdrawn and indifferent to external stimuli, including people. The city becoming an iron cage of work and bureaucracy; people having identity crises in a soulless mass-consumption society. I too feel that this is present in our society here. As compared to other countries, Singaporeans have relatively much less free time. We can’t afford not to work and we are caught in the continuous work cycle. We have much less time to interact and spend time with other people, very frequently becoming withdrawn from our families and social life. In terms of identity crises, I think that relative to other countries, we tend to have some sort of an identity crises. In a system where our life path seems to be laid out and structured, we blindly follow this life path, very frequently forgetting what we really want for ourselves and our loved ones. When I talk to people from other countries, its not uncommon to meet people who sell all their property and possessions and go backpacking across the world to ‘discover’ their identity and pursue what they really want. I don’t think many in Singapore would actually do that.

I guess that in many ways, Singaporeans do feel the effects of urbanization though other factors like globalization probably play a large part too. However,  along with the negative ills, Singapore has all the benefits of being an urbanized society too; the efficiency, quality of living, diversity. Its always some sort of compromise between things.

Lecture 8: Ethnicity and Religion

The changing landscape of religion.

As defined by Wikipedia, a religion is a set of tents and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

It seems that religion seems to long have been a reason and cause of violence. The Crusades starting 1095, the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s and the current-day violence which comes in the form of terrorism or inter-religious group violence such as in Indonesia. But what aspect of religion brings about this violence? I would think that its due to the fact that religion in the past and present has always been intertwined with politics and power, and always having a form of theological legalism present. When religious law becomes a state’s law, conflict is also bound to happen, as religious law is a matter of conviction that varies from person to person.

However, I think and feel that as this world continues to be changed by globalisation and technology, the landscape of religion will and has been inevitably changed. Firstly, I feel that religion is slowly evolving more in people’s eyes into a form of simple morality or ethics, and becoming less of a set of traditions, rules and laws. It is becoming a form of fulfilling Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As the world’s standard of living rises and people’s basic needs are satisfied; namely their physiological needs, need for safety, need for love, need for esteem, there could be a growing need for the final aspect of self actualisation. One aspect that is described in self actualisation theory is, ‘humans need a philosophy of life, religion, or a value system, just as they need sunlight, calcium, and love.’ Religion is moving more into giving people a sense of morality, values, philosophy. It is becoming less of fulfilling traditions and holding fiercely to them, more of answering the question of ‘what comes after death?’ or ‘how do I attain fulfillment in life?’.

Secondly, there has been a rise of moderate or liberal forms of religion. The two largest religious groups in the world, Islam and Christianity, have seen a rise in moderate and liberal forms. Though the rise of moderate of liberal forms has been a source of conflict in countries such as Indonesia where there have been bans on moderate Islamic groups, the fact that this banning is needed is because of the growing popularity of moderate Islam. One example of a predominantly moderate Muslim country would be Malaysia. Much of Islam’s current growth has not been predominantly Islamic counties, but in Western countries in the form of more moderate forms of Islam. In Christianity, attendance at traditional churches have dropped and the growth of new large and highly popular liberal Pentecostal Churches. Even traditional denominations and the Roman Catholics are moving slowly towards more moderate forms of Christianity, some changing their doctrines on issues such as Homosexuality or abortion.

I feel that religion only seems to be a key source of conflict because terrorism has widespread effect and media attention, but it only represents but the actions and views of a minority of religious communities, when in actual fact, much of the landscape of religion is changing to one of a less violent nature.

Lecture 7: Democracy and Human Rights

A right is defined as the the legal and moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something, or to obtain or refrain from obtaining a thing or recognition from civil society. Who then defines what a person should or should not be entitled to? What does our birth into the world really entitle us to? The world is filled with people of different values and perceptions of right and wrong. We don’t have a global culture that shares one set of values of beliefs, how then is it possible to impose human rights on others? One man’s meat may possibly be another man’s poison.

US’s invasion of Iraq was seen initially as a liberation, freeing the people from the enslavement of Saddam Hussein. But it can also be seen as one stronger party simply imposing it’s interpretation of right and wrong on a weaker party. Its like a vigilante breaking up a less-than-perfect or abusive family by killing the parents to liberate the children, after which becoming the new parent and applying his ideals of a family. But who is to say that the children, though disgruntled and abused, did not mind the family and tolerated and loved the parents despite their imperfections. Who is to say that the children wanted the vigilante to do so, and who is to say that the children prefer the vigilante’s ideals of a family? In fact, many reports and personal accounts of the Iraq war has shown that, in fact their lives, in many aspects, have worsened and were better under the government of Saddam Hussein and many would have preferred his rule though it was far from perfect. Who is to say what is human rights when one person’s ideal of human rights and liberation, is another person’s idea of enslavement and suffering?

Who is to say what is the ‘norm’ or even whether it is ‘right’? Even consider discrimination and slavery, it may be evil and unjust in some societies  but it may also be the norm and the social balance of some societies which are established with caste systems, whereby lower caste people were discriminated (which violates UN’s human rights). In ancient Greece and various olden and modern religious societies, slaves were seen as the norm and simply playing their role in society and, though not all, some filled their role with contentment. Most ancient writers considered slavery not only natural but necessary. Who has the right to decide to impose equality and break up the social system in place, which may lead to further and worse chaos and disorder? What would ensue from the breaking down of the caste system in these societies? In imposing of human rights, there may be negative consequences or collateral damage that even outweigh the damage of the original human abuse. And in the first place, who defines the norm and accepted right or wrong, when it defers from society to society and era?

However, I do feel there still are sets of universal values and interpretations of right and wrongs, governed by a higher moral law. These are things that I feel are defined universally among all mankind, such as the right to live. And I feel these can and should be imposed and ensured, as they are values intrinsically rooted in all humans. The problem is that it becomes dangerous when we go beyond these basic human rights and dictate right and wrong based on opinion. Going further may do the opposite and imposing your definition of human rights on others, may in fact result in enslaving them to something they do not want. Its like the Christian Crusades, in which a dominating force imposes its arbitrary set of beliefs and values upon other cultures.

Lecture 6: War

Generation Y & Z

What is war to generation Y & Z? Me being a part of generation Y, the group of people born after the mid 1980s and typically associated with the Internet, Facebook, blogging, being highly peer orientated and brand conscious, I wonder what does war really mean to us? War is one of the many computer games in which we shoot typically Middle-Eastern looking enemies. Or war is what we hear and see on the television or in cinemas, or what we read about in our history textbooks or the Internet, yet not touch and embrace. To this generation, war seems like this queer new stranger we meet online, who at times makes no sense at all.

Though I’m not particularly proud to say so, but I admit to being at times, rather self-gratifying and self-centered. And I believe this tends to be the case for much of my generation. Though for moral reasons, we may try not to be, it is still something that has been intrinsically cultivated in us – the question of ‘what do I get out of it?’. Everything is about MY-space, I-pod, YOU-tube, maggie-MEe (just joking); we tend to be so typically focused on ourselves and this individualist culture surrounds us so much that it is impossible to escape it. What this means is that, we value our mortal lives, the ability is enjoy and self-satisfy and gratify; we fear death even more for it takes these away. Would this generation consider dying or even risk death in war? On an individual level, I believe that most would say no, for our lives mean too much to us.

Between nations, globalisation breaks down the concept of national boundaries and patriotism, especially for generation Y and Z. What does it mean to be of a different nationality from another person, when you’re just seconds away online and have everything in common? People’s social circles are no longer restricted to within one’s country but to all over the world, we meet foreign friends online or during our travels or even in school. If war broke out between one’s country and the country of any of these people, would one pick up a gun to fight and potentially kill the other person or his/her relative? I believe not. National boundaries are breaking down and the world seems to be just made up of one country, ‘The Internet’. In recent years, the world even seemed to respond as one cohesive unit to global disasters like the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, whereby relief and manpower poured in from all over the world.

What too is patriotism to this generation of youths? If war threatened to break out and involved Singapore, would we stay and defend our homeland, or would we flee to another country and bring along with us our material wealth, family and enjoyment with us? Even without the outbreak of war, people are already migrating all over the world to seek a better life or job or happiness. What is National Service to this generation? Most people would call it a waste of time, because they don’t get to further their self-ambition and self-interest. It makes no sense as war seems not to be an immediate reality, like I mentioned, its something they have not physically touched.

Within countries themselves, globalisation seems to bridge the ethnic gap among generation Y and Z. It brings a greater common understanding of each other and a common identity. Like the case of breaking down of national boundaries, ethnic boundaries are broken down. Youths of different ethnicity are bound into one group where skin colour or ethnic practices seem trivial, and where we speak each other’s languages and understand each other’s cultures or practices. To this generation, this breaking down of ethnic boundaries gives less reason for conflict.

In the lives of generation Y and Z, religion too plays a greater role and purpose. In the past, religion brought about conflict as much of it was intertwined with power and politics and wealth. Though religion today still holds some of that characteristic, I believe it has evolved into a new identity and role to this generation of youths, focused more on morality or even self-actualization. War between countries predominated by the same religion are less likely to occur. Also, I believe that between religions, there may be less reason for conflict due to the rise of various schools of religious thoughts, such as Agnosticism or Monotheism or Polytheism that change people’s perception of their religion and other religions. Consequentially, creating more religious tolerance. Most moderate forms of world religions in themselves promote peace and harmony. Even without a sense of morality and in this violent generation, the majority of generation Y and Z would tremble at the act of killing another human (actually doing it is far different from saying one dares to do so). For those without a religion, its one less reason for conflict.

As this generation of Y and Z start to become the next generation of leaders and citizens, I believe war may evolve too. Though I feel that this generation Y and Z culture not only applies mainly to youths within developed countries, but also to a limited extent in developing countries whereby this culture has been spread by globalization to a larger degree in urban areas and a lesser degree in rural areas.

Lecture 5: Crime

Criminal relapse in Singapore.

There are many reasons for crime in developing countries across the world; some of the more major reasons being a lack of a proper law enforcement, corrupted government and lack of job opportunities. However, in a developed country such as Singapore, which does not suffer from the reasons stated above, what then contributes to crime?

One of the major contributors to crime in any country are the released criminals themselves. It is a known fact that criminals have high chances of relapsing after release from prison¹. One of the main factors contributing to relapse rates is the difficulty of released criminals in finding a permanent job after release from prison. In Singapore, the Yellow Ribbon Project was initiated with the aim of providing ‘Second Chances’ in society for released criminals. The Yellow Ribbon Project is run by the government statutory board, the Singapore Corporation Of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE). As a contract employee working for six months at SCORE, what was surprising was that the problem encountered in preventing relapse, was not so much the difficulty in getting companies to offer jobs to released criminals, but rather the difficulty in getting the released criminals to take up the jobs offered, namely  unspecialized or low-skilled jobs (due to the fact that most criminals have a low level of education). Examples of such jobs are restaurant staff, plumbers/electricians, clerks, cleaners etc. This inability to get released criminals to take up jobs has led to many of them relapsing back to prison.

We then have to look at what is causing this? Perhaps people would say that it is the criminals who choose not to do so, due to their nature or character. However, the root of this problem and main reason for these released criminal’s actions was the stigma in society against these jobs and the comparatively low salary received in these jobs. The stigma is clear in Singapore as few middle-aged men would take up these jobs as permanent vocations and a large proportion of the jobs in these industries have been taken up by foreigners or students. They are seen as a lower-class of work and looked down upon. Also, the comparatively low salary earned at these jobs is obvious, perhaps as a result of the stigma and at the same time, contributing further to the stigma. A plumber in Australia earns up to $1500 a day due simply to the fact that nobody is doing the job², whilst a plumber in Singapore would probably earn just $1000-1500 a month, which is also comparatively lower than more specialized jobs.

What SCORE has done in attempting to fix the problem is educating and vocationally training criminals during their prison term and specializing them in more desirable jobs such as multimedia design. However this has its limitations as it is costly, in addition to the difficulty of predicting the job market demand for these ‘desirable’ jobs. This has been shown to be ineffective in lowering the relapse rate.

Also, not only does this stigma have a major impact on the criminal relapse rate in Singapore, but it begs the question of equality. Each of these jobs play a role in society that is fundamental to its functioning, and it is only fair that these jobs receive a comparatively equal salary and social standing. Not only is it about equity and fairness, but having members of the population earning significantly less than others, leads to and worsens the issue of the rich-poor gap within the country.

We then have to look at why this stigma and comparatively low salaries come about, and address the root of that problem. I believe it is our knowledge-driven society where education and specialization seem to determine much of one’s social standing. The consequence of the government’s focus on knowledge-intensive jobs may have undermined these less-specialized jobs, and created the idea that they are less important and contributing in society. Not to say that focusing on knowledge-intensive jobs was wrong, but rather, I believe it has consequentially caused this stigma against less-specialized jobs, which in turn has led to various other problems, one of which is the unwillingness of criminals (who largely have low education levels) in taking up these jobs upon release, contributing to the high relapse rates and crime. Perhaps, the government could play a role in changing society’s perception of these jobs or enforcing a minimum wage on them.

¹ Seah Chiang Nee. (July 30, 2006) A Softer Sentencing. Retrieved 7 September 2008. http://www.littlespeck.com/content/security/CTrendsSecurity-060730.htm

² Maurice Dunlevy. (August 02, 2007) Plumbers demanding $1500 a day. In The Australian. Retrieved 7 September 2008. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22173884-2,00.html?from=public_rss

Lecture 4: Gender & Family

Is Child-Care really Child-Harm?

In the past, reasons for woman working may have been gender equality or self-actualization. However, at present, though many still work for those reasons, the larger reason would be purely financial reasons. With the rising costs of living, it is only necessary for both the man and woman in a marriage to work, so as to earn enough money for themselves and to raise a family. This led to a problem with the difficulty of a raising children when both parents had to be physically at work. What arose from this problem is childcare, which seems to be the default choice for parents in solving the problem. For the richer class of society, childcare may be a matter of luxury and choice, for the parents to have more time for themselves to pursue their own ambitions and leisure. But for the middle-class in society, it is a necessity to survive. Companies’ have subsidized childcare as some of their ‘family-friendly’ policies. I’d like to look at how ‘family-friendly’ childcare really is, and how it affects the family institution.

Perhaps, in this rat-race society, childcare may have its benefits. The childcare industry can be seen as a ‘specialized division of labor’, whereby the childcare workers are more efficient at doing the job than the parent themselves, applying advanced learning programs or psychological knowledge, thus providing better childcare. However, this changes the whole concept of the word ‘parent’. The joy of raising the child is lost and the term ‘parent’ simply implies a biological relation rather than an emotion relation and a passing down of values and interests. ‘Parent’ in a family institution becomes more of ‘guardian’, one that simply provides materially. The bond between child and parent is lost. In a report by the University of Minnesota, ‘Psychologists believe it is necessary for children to develop a secure, attached relationship with their primary caregiver in order to develop a sense of independence, trust in others, and the ability to form friendships and bonds throughout life.’¹ The consequences are dire not just for the family as a whole, but for the child as an individual too.

Childcare also will be unable to provide the type of nurturing that a parent will provide, nor can it teach the moral values that a parent inculcates. In a New York Times article titled ‘Poor Behavior Is Linked to Time in Day Care’, it is reported that ‘A much-anticipated report from the largest and longest-running study of American child care has found that keeping a preschooler in a day care center for a year or more increased the likelihood that the child would become disruptive in class.’² The children inevitably pick up the values of the child carers and most child care centers will not be able to provide the individual attention which a growing child needs.

Not to say that childcare is something to be removed and condemned as a social problem. It is definitely a necessity as no real solutions exist. It spawned as a solution to the original problem, but has spawned its own set of issues. The issues of childcare are only further worsened when children reach the age where they do not require childcare, and the adolescents are left to develop without nurturing parents or parents who are too tired from work to do so. What needs to be addressed is the original problem, which is the need for both husband and wife to work for enough money to survive. The base of this problem has to be fixed and this would require an major change in the structure of society and the way we look at it.

On a side note, after looking at this whole issue. Perhaps, there is innate value in the tradition of a man being the breadwinner, earning enough for his wife and family, with the wife being the homemaker. I think it is good to challenge the assumptions of tradition, but yet, much tradition holds innate value and wisdom. I feel that we need to be careful of how we ‘progress’ and be careful not to see all tradition as a hindrance to prosperity (as modernists would call it).

¹ Rose Allen. Child Care: Is It Good or Bad for Children. In University of Minnesota Extension. Retrieved 31 August 2008. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7268b.html

²Benedict Carey. (March 26, 2007) Poor Behavior Is Linked to Time in Day Care. In The New York Times. Retrieved 31 August 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/us/26center.html?_r=2&ref=health&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Lecture 3: Work & Trade

Is efficiency all its made out to be?

Capitalism is a key concept in almost every discipline of social science – Economics, Sociology, Political Science, etc. Many have different opinions and viewpoints over its various consequences, flaws or strengths. However, one thing has been agreed upon, Capitalism maximizes efficiency, indeed making the most out of the scarce resources that the world has. But is efficiency all its made out to be?

On the aspect of work, capitalism has led to the division of labor. Each person specializing in their own trade, thus becoming more efficient at doing the task they are specialized in. But one consequence of this that Karl Marx believed and foresaw, was the alienation experienced by a modern worker in a capitalist economy. He described it as ‘modern industrial workers labored at routine, deskilled, repetitive tasks on minute parts of products that meant nothing to them and that they themselves maybe could never afford. And the truth was, most would never advance, no matter how hard they worked. Work was not just harsh; it was meaningless.’¹

I believe this is indeed true in Singapore. With a pyramid shaped corporate structure, only an elite few will rise the ranks, leaving those at the lower end of the corporate ladder perpetually stuck. Whatever work line we are in, we tend to be doing routine and repetitive tasks, yet not reaping the full benefits of our effort and labor. Corporate workers sit in the same office cubicle day after day, churning out reports that mean nothing to them, yet earning but a fraction of the profits their labor has reaped for the company. One may say job rotation solves the problem of repetition and routine, but the individual still remains within the same industry. People get stuck in the industry in which they specialized in, and are unable to switch industry. In a recent Straits Times article², over 50% of Singaporean workers regret their choice of study or specialty. Yet they are unable or choose not to re specialize, because of the difficulty in doing so, in addition to the opportunity cost of re specializing. Citing from the article on the difficulty in re specializing, ‘The biggest obstacle cited was money, followed by the lack of time to search for a new career and family responsibilities.’, and the opportunity costs of doing so, ‘They include having to pick up new skills from scratch, starting lower in the office hierarchy and taking a pay cut.’ We spend half of our lives working, yet we have to spend it within the same industry, unable to get a feel of working in another field, apart from taking it up as a hobby. We live life once yet we only get to experience but a small portion of the experiences life offers. I believe this leads a lot to life dissatisfaction and is another consequence of specialized division of labor. I wonder if the benefits of efficiency are worth the consequences?

Looking at the larger picture of society and it seems that the general idea is that humanity is on a straight upward path towards a more perfect and efficient world. Though encountering some difficulties, slowly adapting and adjusting and progressing. I propose a different perspective, whereby we are on a vicious cycle. Rather than moving on a forward path, we are transitioning from phase to phase. On each phase, we find solutions to our problems and we ‘progress’. Yet I note that within our solutions themselves, always lie yet another series of inherent problems. We solve this new series of problems, and consequentially create another series of problems and the cycle continues. We solve poverty and create wealth, but the inequality of wealth distribution arises, we solve inequality and lack of efficiency or state dependency arises and so on. In the end, the ‘pluses’ of the solutions seem to cancel off with the ‘minuses’ of the problems created. Perhaps, living the ‘kampung’ life in the early 20th century, or the life as a hunter-gatherer in the ancient world, would have been equally or even more satisfying and fulfilling in our pursuit for happiness. Are we really progressing or simply transitioning? I may be incorrect in my perspective and humanity may be indeed progressing. But yet, in this constant rat race for greater efficiency, what have we lost in blindly pursuing this ‘good’? I feel that efficiency isn’t all its made out to be and that ‘more’ is not always better.

¹Sernau, Scott. (2006) Global Problems – The search for equity, peace, and sustainability. Pearson.

²Clarissa Oon (Aug 05, 2008) Over 50% of workers regret choice of study. In AsiaOne. Retrieved August 25 2008. http://www.asiaone.com/Business/Story/A1Story20080805-80747.html