Embracing Otherhood

Over the years, Singapore has seen a huge influx of foreigners coming to Singapore for various reasons. No, I am not talking about your typical tourists who wear flowery clothes and visit Singapore's places of attractions. I am actually referring to foreigners who come here with the intention to stay for quite a while, be it due to work commitments, study or even the want to settle down here permanently. As Singapore plays host to this ever increasing group, it is no doubt that there will be more cultural diversity among the people such that Singapore can continue to live up to its multi-racial and multi-cultural tagline.

To an outsider, it is great for Singapore to have such racial and cultural diversity because it only adds to the unique attractiveness of this island. However on hindsight, the government is facing numerous challenges to assimilate these foreigners into the mainstream and at the same time, placate the locals who feel the presence of these foreigners is a threat to their statuses in society.

While there is no doubt that foreigners contribute to our econonomy, we still have to wary of the problems they cause. For example, as employment rules relax, more employers in Singapore turn towards foreign workers for labour because they command less wages compared to Singaporeans and thus directly reduce the production costs of the company. This results in many Singaporeans losing their jobs, who find it impossible to live on such low wages, unlike foreign workers who send most of their money home where the conversion rates make such pittance look so much. Hence, we see an increasing resentment of the locals towards these foreigners.

The story does not end here. Over the years, there have been numerous news reports of these foreign workers causing troubles here, such as being involved in brawls and partake in shady activities such as drug trafficking and conning people out of their money. The most prominent example, of course, are stories of Chinese women accompanying their children seeking education in Singapore who do odd jobs by day and throw themselves in the sleazy business by night. Such behaviours of these foreigners are destabilising the country and adding to the moral decay of society as crime rates soar. It is therefore up to the government to rack its brains to ensure that foreign workers are not given jobs oppurtunities at the expense of locals, so as to prevent anti-foreign sentiments to rise. At the same time, the government also has to take the rap for failing to cope with the troubles these foreigners cause and must take responsibility to clear up the mess, lest a outbreak of a full scale social unrest.

Apart from foreign labour, the government also faces similar problems in foreign students in its education system. For many years as far as I can recall since the introduction of scholoarship programme for foreign students in Singapore began, the scholars often, if not always, outperform local students in national examinations. This has led to an outcry from many local students and parents, who feel that Singaporeans are not given a level playing field, especially since many of these scholars are older in age yet are competing in a lower age group. Such a scenario only aggravates the competition among local students for a place in top schools and strain relationships between local and foreign students. Although I have to admit that these foreign students are extremely hardworking and diligent in their bid for academic success, I am afraid if this goes on, sooner or later most local students will just concede that they are not as good as these scholars instead of challenging for top honours. I am not saying that having competition is detrimental. I am just saying that in a bid to attract and groom foreign talents, the government should also make sure that Singapore students do not lose out in the process because ultimately the locals will be the ones who shape the future of the country.

In conclusion, as Singapore play host to more people from other countries, the government has to weigh its priorities correctly and not let the notion of foreign talent get over its head when making crucial decision which might put local Singaporeans on the losing end of the game.

World in the balance

Judging from the patterns of demographic change, it is imminent that we are going to face a major population crisis. There is no doubt that both the developed and the developing countries are behind this and that the population policies introduced to solve the problem seem to have hit a snag.

Just take a look at China, the world's fastest developing country where GDP continues to enjoy growth of double digit percentage points every year. Despite having the one-child policy around for decades, the population continues to grow at exponential rates, partly due to lack of reinforcement of the law as well as rampant corruption among officials. Continued population growth will bring about high unemployment rate in the country as the country would not be able to generate enough jobs for the entire country. Instead of serving its purpose of controlling the population, such policies brought about adverse effects to the society. Rooted to their Confucianism ethics, Chinese are bound to the obligation of having a male offspring so as to continue the family line and with the one-child policy in place, many of the less-educated peasants from rural villages would rather end a baby girl's life or desert her for a second chance of conceiving a boy. This leads to serious gender inbalance in the country, which will eventually lead to more social problems such as difficulty for a man to get a wife and shortage of female workers in related industries.

If the problems caused as as result of overpopulation are disturbing, the consequences of an ageing population would be disastrous. Ageing population is a common trend seen in many developed countries such as Japan, Italy, Germany and yes, Singapore. In Singapore, in spite of repeated calls for people to have more offsprings and incentives targetted at those who respond to these calls, there seem to be only a minor blip in an otherwise downward population trend. This might not be serious enough to press the emergency button for now but there are serious repurcussions for these countries in the future. With an ageing population, a country will face a shortage of labour, which will lead to it losing its economic competitve edge and eventually failure to sustain the economy. After which, future economic powerhouses such as India and China will take over, usurping the country's position of leader in the economical rat race. This may look like a case of winning or losing on the macro level, but when zoomed to the micro level, such a scenario would probably mean that the country will undergo recession, leading to high unemployment and a considerable drop in the standard of living.

As such, countries should take the initiative to make sure that population policies are effective in solving the two population issues. Only then, the standard of living of the people can be maintained and we would not have to see such unwanted possibilities materialise.

Warning! Rogue vendors on the prowl.

I read with disgust the news about the recent case in China where an unscrupulous street snack vendor mixed chemically softened cardboards into his pork buns so as to cut down on production cost and increase profit. The cardboards from discarded boxes were first softened using industrial chemicals before being mixed with low quality pork in the ratio of 6:4, and then stuffed into buns and steamed, before being sold to the customers. The audacious vendor even showed how the process is done and claimed that most people cannot tell the difference in taste.

It is horrifying to see that the food we eat might be posing a health hazard to us, especially when we are unsure about the process of making the food behind the scenes. The prospect of eating cardboard doused with chemicals will definitely not go well with the consumers. That brings me back to the topic on mind. Is the food we are eating nowadays killing us?

First, there have been allegations that genetically-modified food, which promised to alleviate hunger with higher yield and faster growing crops and claimed to taste better, is actually a danger to human health because genes that are not present naturally are introduced, leading to unknown health effects that might trigger allergies more easily.

Secondly, there have been reports claiming that seafood we eat are contaminated due to their consumption of toxic materials released into the waters by polluting factories, posing a health risk to people who indirectly ingest the toxic materials.

Now, we have increasing numbers of cases of food that has atrocious safety and hygiene standards. This makes me wonder whether we are doing enough to ensure the food we eat is safe.

I attribute the problem of unsafe food to 3 reasons: Insufficient knowledge of food biology, the extensive damage of the environment by humans and lastly, the lack of inspection on safety and hygiene of food sold.

Insufficient knowledge of food biology. Before we even get a full picture of how the ecosystem works, we rush to come up with genetic modifications and claim it to be a scientific breakthrough, where in the real case the genetically modified food may turn out to be detrimental for health. More research has to be done in this area so as to ensure that genetically modified food does not have any side effects on human health and that its benefits outweigh that of conventional food.

Extensive damage to the environment is a dire situation faced by many countries in the world, typically developing countries. Firms simply release their untreated sewage into nearby rivers and lakes, polluting the waters and contaminating marine life. As a result, many sources of food dependent on these waters, like fish and prawns which are contaminated with toxic materials are unwittingly consumed by people, leading to various ailments such as birth deformation and even death. More controls should be imposed 0n these firms over the pollution issue, so as not to pollute seafood habitat and thus make food consumed safer.

Lack of inspection on safety and hygiene of food sold. Government officials are to be blamed for this fiasco. Despite having many cases of food poisoning across the world, individual countries have done little to step in the solve the problem. As a result, rogue vendors mentioned above thrive in the market, plunging the society's health problems to the worst. The report on the street vendor might just be the tip of an iceberg. Therefore, health officials should treat every complain of food standards seriously, and make an effort to record down information of licensed food sellers and arrest those who continue to sell food illegally.

If the above three problems are solved, I do not see why unsafe food should be haunting us today.

Do People Have The Freedom To Practise Their Religion?

There have been many cases where people are unable to convert to a religion of their choice, or forcefully made to convert into a particular religion, the latest concerning the case of Revathi Masoosai, a Muslim-born woman who converted to Hinduism after marrying a Hindu man, but got her official application to change her religion from Islam to Hinduism rejected by the Islamic Authorities of Malaysia.

Malaysia's law states that Muslims cannot marry non-Muslims but there is no issue over the conversion of religion. However, contradicting Syriah Court laws rule that Muslims cannot convert to another religion and anyone who apply to renounce Islam can be found guilty of apostasy, which is punishable by jail and a fine.

This is outright absurd for a country which boasts freedom to practise religion as well as religious pluralism, and cases like Mrs Revathi's are making worse the already strained race and religious relations in Malaysia, as well as getting the attention of international human right groups.

This is not the first time such a case has happened. In May, the country's Federal court rejected the appeal from Ms Lina Joy, a Malay woman who wanted to convert to Christianity, to have her religion changed to Christianity, reason being that she has to follow the existing laws and practices of her religion, which forbids conversion.

I am extremely disappointed that such cases have been happening in a democratic country like Malaysia, and I am puzzled by the fact that nothing has been done by the government so far to rectify the problem. It also comes to me as a shock that Islamic Authorities of Malaysia has been using unethical practices such as breaking up Muslim-converts' families, detaining these converts and make them perform actions forbidden by their converted religions.

According to Mrs Revathi's account, she was not allowed to return to her husband and had her child forcefully placed in the care of her Muslim parents. She was also made to undergo rehabilitation, which in actual fact was more like a prison than a "rehabilitation school". There, she was forced to attend Islamic religious classes, pray as a Muslim, wear a headskarf and eat beef, forbidden by Hindus.

As a religious organisation, where is the morality? Treating converts with contempt and make them do things against their will are already gross violations of human rights. What's more, this is an organisation of authority and is backed by the Malaysian government. This issue not only tarnished the Malaysian government's image and reputation, but is also a big step backwards for the country's democracy. Unless something is done soon to clear up the grey areas between state and religious laws, as well as to keep the Islamic Authorities' actions in check, I fear that one day Muslims who wish to convert have to live in obscurity to avoid the authorities, or in a far-fetched but possible scenario, non-Muslims might even be forced to convert to the state religion, which would signify the end of democracy for Malaysia.

Commentary

I refer to the the article " What really affects the ability of students to learn?" posted on http://aneworld.wordpress.com/, dated May 5 2007.

In the article, the author stated his belief that although schools affect the ability of students to learn to a certain extent, self motivation and positive attitude has a greater effect on the students' learning ability.

As quoted from the article, the reason why most people differentiate "top" schools from others is because these school equip their students with more knowledge other than those taught in textbooks, making the students more knowledgeable and a cut above the rest. Coming from one of these schools, I have to admit that I had undergone gruelling extra lessons on things that were not within examination syllabus and although I had a deeper insight into certain specific topics, I was unable to arrange my time solely for the revision of topics relevant to my examinations and as such, I did not do as well as I would have expected for my major examinations. Just like what was said in the article, I was at a disadvantage because I had to carry the burden of remembering other information whereas students from other schools had the luxury of spending their entire time on preparations for the examinations

I learnt that being in a well-known school did not guarantee me fantastic results, albeit the hard way and thus I would like to clear the misconceptions that all students from the "top" schools always do exceptionally well. However, I agree with the author that with ample self-motivation and the right attitude, we can succeed in whatever we do. The statistics provided in the article showed that students on financial aid tend to do better in school because they have the motivation to work hard and have the positive mindset. I think that anyone can do well even if they are not in top schools if they have the above two elements. For me, I try not to think of the past and instead look ahead and brace myself for future challenges. I embrace the positive attitude that I can succeed instead of lingering in learned helplessness. In addition, I am motivated to work hard and do well because I want to prove to myself and my peers that I am capable of succeeding in major examinations despite faltering in my previous one. Since I am equipped with the two aspects required as said in the article, I am confident that I can do well in my examinations and work.

This article has gave me renewed hope of succeeding in life and I hope that my efforts will eventually pay off.

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression is the right of a person to speak or publish his own opinions without fear of punishment and interference from other organisation. In the first article, Singer believes that freedom of expression is the fundamental of democracy and thus should not be restricted. On the other hand, Szilagyi in the second article felt that even though people should not be deprived of the right to express their views and opinions freely, it is important that the people practise social responsibility and avoid sensitive issues that may potentially spark social unrest.

In my opinion, the latter should be adopted in Singapore, especially when we have cultural and religious pluralism in our multi-racial society. The reason why Singapore have come thus far, evolving from a small fishing village into a cosmopolitan city, is because all races and religions had been able to work together as one, working towards a common goal as one country instead of satisfying their own agendas. As quoted from Szilagyi,"What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society?" I would choose the latter, as it is the collective interests of the society that ensures continual growth and prosperity of our country and not the freedom of expression of the people. In some countries where a greater emphasis is placed on freedom of expression of the people, there has been countless cases of insensitive articles published on a certain race or religion that sparked social unrest. This, i rather not experience in my life.

As much as i would like to have absolute freedom of expression, i understand that it cannot be accomplished together with the protection of collective interests of the society. I believe that the welfare of the country should come first and if we can maintain racial and relgious harmony among all our people at the expense of less freedom of expression, i would adopt it, rather than face with racial and religious tension and riots all the time and fearing for our own lives.

In Singapore, we are lucky to have races and religions which are more tolerant to sensitive issues but in order not to risk any chance of social unrest, the government has set strict laws which convict anyone intent of disrupting social harmony by making sensitive remarks. But more importantly, i think it is the social responsibility of all Singaporeans to refrain from abusing their freedom of expression to take a swipe at other races or religions so as to protect the collective interests of our society, lest a repeat of the 1964 racial riots.

Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?

All the time, we hear the phrase "get things done by hook or by crook" from our teachers and parents, but seldom do we feel the irony in it. For all the civics and moral education we receive, we are told to get the results regardless of what methods we use. That brings me back to today's topic, that is whether any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified.

There are concerns that many countries are so result-driven when it comes to maintaining law and order that they employ inhumane, cruel and degrading punishments. However, it is interesting to note that different countries have different perception of human rights and there is no single institution which can accurately define human rights and determine what is acceptable or not.

Take the examples shown on the video on crime and punishment. In Togo, suspects were made to dip their hands into boiling oil to determine the culprit. This may seem inhumane to the outside world but it is deemed perfectly acceptable to the locals. Furthermore, it is actually effective because the culprit eventually got caught. There are arguments that this punishment is unfair since the victims have to suffer too, and that is not backed with evidence of the crime. However, it was made clear that the permission of the victim was sought before the boiling oil comes in. Furthermore, it correctly identified the culpriti and the crime was uncovered. This might be more effective than the juridicary system in the west which is evidence-based and does not employ such "inhumane" methods. However, once again, it is all about the perception of cruelty.

Another example shown in the video is the shaming of criminals in Houston, America where convicts carry placards detailing their crimes and parade on streets. Some criticise that this punishment is degrading because it takes away human pride and subject them to ridicules and violence from the public. However, it is actually an effective method of deterring crime, perhaps even more effective than imprisonment. It was said in the video that crime rates fell and most of the convicts repented. As "degrading" as it might be, it is effective, and once again "degrading" is just a perception and is not a general view.

In conclusion, any form punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order and is generally accepted LOCALLY should be justified because at the end of the day, it is the law and order of the local area that is concerned, nothing to do with the outside world.