poverty is the boon to every nation. it's widespread and permeates every corner of the globe, be it in a small degree, or whether it's become a epidemic in a particular nation. we may pump in efforts to eradicate it, but that cannot be achieved. it can only be mitigated.
kamala sarup stated that although leaders can drive their drive their people to work more and be more productive. this is perhaps by exploiting natural resources to propel the economy. we're assuming that initially, there are resources to exploit. the influx of money generated can thus help aid poverty. however, he also mentions the feasibility of such an approach. he states that the nation's leaders can only push the people by only so much.
in light of the issue of poverty, it seems that kamala sarup has painted a very grim picture of the situation in poverty-stricken countries. i agree that there can only be so much individuals can do, and slightly more when pushed. however, this cannot be viewed in such an inferior tone as workers can slowly better themselves and contributing more to their nations. it is a time consuming task, and it might not be fruitful in it's immediate stages, but it can definitely help in the long run if efforts are in place.
however, is there enough manpower to spearhead these efforts? especially in poverty stricken areas where manpower alone is crippled due to lack of financial reserves to sustain it. it is where, i feel and believe, the point where richer and more able nations provide their aid and support in hopes of creating a more stable and economically blossoming world. if the better nations are not in favour of providing aid, then this world bears the saying, 'as the rich grows richer, the poor grows poorer.'.
this is where sachs claims come into context. his claims of having the richer nations giving 0.7 percent of their national income to the poorer countries is somewhat congruent to what i feel should be done. that is, richer countries can provide help to aid the poorer nations. this money can be used to better the infrastructure in the countries so that they can begin realising their potential in the primary and secondary industries.
the help provided can also be through expertise. other countries that are better off can send professionals to educate the workforce so that they can contribute to the country and help to lessen poverty in their country.
only when all this is given, can the poor be given a new lease of life to ensure that they are capable, relevant and able to contribute to their society. this, though it can certainly aid the lessening of poverty, still has a big question mark over the issue as to whether poverty can really be eradicated, as how sachs claims.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
embracing otherhood - challenges posed to singapore by a more diverse society
singapore has certainly grown in terms of her diversity. we have many foreign migrants who are either coming to singapore to settle in and attain a citizenship, or to contribute further to singapore's rapidly growing economy. having said that, the singapore has yet to overcome the challenges that is posed to singapore by a more diverse society.
it's true that while statistics prove that we are becoming more rich in society; that is, a society that has grown more complex, with the influx of many other nationalities from all across the globe, the general mindset of a singaporean towards such complexities is not positive. even if a migrant becomes a singaporean citizen, that doesnt mean that he or she is accepted as one on the social level.
perhaps this is due to the stigma that most singaporeans have about foreigners, be they be citizens or not. singaporean individuals are afraid of being replaced by such foreigners. singaporean students are wary of foreign students, such as scholars and those on an education visa. singaporean workers are resentful of foreign immigrants who are working in singapore, feeling that they're up to nothing but to remove job opportunities for singaporean equals or even a better educated worker. this is to due the fact that, singaporeans need to be paid with higher wages.
the abovementioned factor really questions the ability of our society to be accepting and to embrace the complex and secular nature of our state. we cannot be stuck in the past, thinking that foreigners are a boon to society, especially since their expertise and help has drove our industries. singapore collaborates with other nations for projects and such, and it's unfair if we reap benefits from those nations, while disrespecting their very citizens who happen to be in our midst.
another factor that is important to be discussed in this issue, asides from mindset (earlier mentioned), is the importance that singaporeans learn the importance of integration and unity. as seen in paris and sydney, the lack of the two elements of integration and unity can lead to spats between the different groups of people. this will not only create social tension and unease, but will affect the country collectively. productivity and efficiency will also be affected.
in ages past, when everyone in a society was simply homogenous, human nature mandates that people will bond together by virtue of race or background. however, in today's age, or more accurately placed, in singapore's society, it's not about virtue of race or background. it goes much more deeper than just that.
singaporeans need to understand, recognise and assimilate differences in our society. we have to understand that diversity doesnt' merely include chinese, malays, indians and europeans, but, everyone else. there's no longer an accurate classification of people as there're so many in singapore's societies, all contributing actively to the nation.
hence, these are the two most crucial challenges posed by an increased in diversity in singapore's society.
it's true that while statistics prove that we are becoming more rich in society; that is, a society that has grown more complex, with the influx of many other nationalities from all across the globe, the general mindset of a singaporean towards such complexities is not positive. even if a migrant becomes a singaporean citizen, that doesnt mean that he or she is accepted as one on the social level.
perhaps this is due to the stigma that most singaporeans have about foreigners, be they be citizens or not. singaporean individuals are afraid of being replaced by such foreigners. singaporean students are wary of foreign students, such as scholars and those on an education visa. singaporean workers are resentful of foreign immigrants who are working in singapore, feeling that they're up to nothing but to remove job opportunities for singaporean equals or even a better educated worker. this is to due the fact that, singaporeans need to be paid with higher wages.
the abovementioned factor really questions the ability of our society to be accepting and to embrace the complex and secular nature of our state. we cannot be stuck in the past, thinking that foreigners are a boon to society, especially since their expertise and help has drove our industries. singapore collaborates with other nations for projects and such, and it's unfair if we reap benefits from those nations, while disrespecting their very citizens who happen to be in our midst.
another factor that is important to be discussed in this issue, asides from mindset (earlier mentioned), is the importance that singaporeans learn the importance of integration and unity. as seen in paris and sydney, the lack of the two elements of integration and unity can lead to spats between the different groups of people. this will not only create social tension and unease, but will affect the country collectively. productivity and efficiency will also be affected.
in ages past, when everyone in a society was simply homogenous, human nature mandates that people will bond together by virtue of race or background. however, in today's age, or more accurately placed, in singapore's society, it's not about virtue of race or background. it goes much more deeper than just that.
singaporeans need to understand, recognise and assimilate differences in our society. we have to understand that diversity doesnt' merely include chinese, malays, indians and europeans, but, everyone else. there's no longer an accurate classification of people as there're so many in singapore's societies, all contributing actively to the nation.
hence, these are the two most crucial challenges posed by an increased in diversity in singapore's society.
gay marriage flap
with the world being more affluent and literate, individuals can choose their own path in life. it was not like in previous, somewhat medieval times, where people chose what was normal, what was right. now it's about personal choice, choices that ensure one's personal sense of fulfilment.
now, it'a about not straight relationships, but those of a different kind.
gay relationships.
this article states that in france, the very first gay marriage was witnessed between two men.
pardon me if my blog entry layout has led you to believe that i'm discussing gay rights and such. no, i'm discussing something sensitive that the article touched on, though it was somewhat little.
it's the fact that, although we now live in a more diversified and free world, where others respect our personal choices and opinions, where we no longer are crucified for not obeying the norm, there is still a great risk that religious and social issues can flare up. this marriage occurred in france, a country which is believed to be home to one of the world's well-known secular state.
that being said, are we really in a world that emphasises on personal rights and choice? or are we just dellusioned to believe so?
clearly more has to be done to change this mindset. it's not about merely better economic and social status. it's about worldwide awareness and acceptance of a particular issue.
now, it'a about not straight relationships, but those of a different kind.
gay relationships.
this article states that in france, the very first gay marriage was witnessed between two men.
pardon me if my blog entry layout has led you to believe that i'm discussing gay rights and such. no, i'm discussing something sensitive that the article touched on, though it was somewhat little.
it's the fact that, although we now live in a more diversified and free world, where others respect our personal choices and opinions, where we no longer are crucified for not obeying the norm, there is still a great risk that religious and social issues can flare up. this marriage occurred in france, a country which is believed to be home to one of the world's well-known secular state.
that being said, are we really in a world that emphasises on personal rights and choice? or are we just dellusioned to believe so?
clearly more has to be done to change this mindset. it's not about merely better economic and social status. it's about worldwide awareness and acceptance of a particular issue.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
killing of animals - right or wrong?
there has been a lot of debate as to whether there should be culling to animals to maintain the ecosystem.
my view is, it should be left to mother nature. mother nature has always exercised extreme balance on its ecosystem and hence, we should not interfere.
however, in light of the recent situation, we see poachers killing animals for sport and pleasure, that animals become extinct. it is pretty clear, that the scales of nature has tipped. and this change is not in our favour, and neither is it in the favour of the animals of the wild.
human interference is now needed to maintain the very delicate balance that has been established by mother nature.much has to be done and the matter has to be looked into. if not, it may result in our very own undoing.
though last time we existed in harmony with the creatures of the planet, with globalization and many other factors, we demand additional land. land required to propel our industries, our food resources, our housing needs, education infrastructure and so on. it is this desire that led us to believe that it's right to poach creatures, to attain our goals, no matter how we attain them.
we kill animals, be it for sport, or for land. we destroy their homes and habitats. we pollute the waters that they depend on. we wipe out an animal species which was once their source of food. in this view, we see that killing of animals is not right, and hence, not justified.
however, one could argue that the killing of animals is important to the nation's well-being. respecting animals and the ecosystem is good, however, we do have our livelihoods. with modern technology and a growing world population, it's just merely a lack of luck that we humans and the creatures of the planet cannot fully live in co-existence.
we simply have to kill animals and remove their habitats. only then can the world's demands be addressed.
however, the big question is, how viable is this approach?
my view is, it should be left to mother nature. mother nature has always exercised extreme balance on its ecosystem and hence, we should not interfere.
however, in light of the recent situation, we see poachers killing animals for sport and pleasure, that animals become extinct. it is pretty clear, that the scales of nature has tipped. and this change is not in our favour, and neither is it in the favour of the animals of the wild.
human interference is now needed to maintain the very delicate balance that has been established by mother nature.much has to be done and the matter has to be looked into. if not, it may result in our very own undoing.
though last time we existed in harmony with the creatures of the planet, with globalization and many other factors, we demand additional land. land required to propel our industries, our food resources, our housing needs, education infrastructure and so on. it is this desire that led us to believe that it's right to poach creatures, to attain our goals, no matter how we attain them.
we kill animals, be it for sport, or for land. we destroy their homes and habitats. we pollute the waters that they depend on. we wipe out an animal species which was once their source of food. in this view, we see that killing of animals is not right, and hence, not justified.
however, one could argue that the killing of animals is important to the nation's well-being. respecting animals and the ecosystem is good, however, we do have our livelihoods. with modern technology and a growing world population, it's just merely a lack of luck that we humans and the creatures of the planet cannot fully live in co-existence.
we simply have to kill animals and remove their habitats. only then can the world's demands be addressed.
however, the big question is, how viable is this approach?
Friday, July 6, 2007
global warming and it's impact on the world around us
global warming and it's impact on the earth and us.
we tend to ignore global warming. we claim that global warming is just a simple case or rather, a phenomenon whereby there is a heating up of the earth and hence, a rise in global temperature. we fail to understand the scope of its potential. it's highly capable of causing health pandemics that can in turn cripple our economic and social security and stability.
the article i chose showed how global warming is so deadly and steps have to be taken to ensure that global warming is either curbed or further prevented. global warming is able to create forest fires and the debris and dust can be easily spread by wind. this debris and dust can lead to severe respiratory problems among people if they're continuously exposed towards it.
furthermore, global warming that causes an increase in the global temperature melt the polar ice caps and this actually constitutes to a higher sea level. the unfortunate thing is that, in the low lying countries, they experience floods. not only that, the increased floods is an invitation to spread waterborne diseases. this could mean a potential disaster in the poverty stricken countries as they are not able to cope with such pandemics.
the article highlights another complication that global warming can lead to. haze, due to forest fires and such will become more frequent and at a more drastic level. drastic here means that as time passes, the haze that occurs will intensify in severity as temperature soars and more fires break out.
global warming also affects our social security as the increased temperature actually means that food crops could also be affected. if nothing is done to address our climate that is currently in crisis now, it's easy to conclude that we might just die because of our own doing. that is, irresponsibility to the environment. the increasing temperatures, failing crops are just a consequence to the global warming pandemic.
these problems indirectly threaten our national and social security. with the increased heatwaves and diseases that have become more rampant, the workforce may become less productive. this puts a direct dampening on the economy and hence we'll be severely or adversely affected. global warming thus has to be looked into tactfully and critically as something can be done before it's too late.
we tend to ignore global warming. we claim that global warming is just a simple case or rather, a phenomenon whereby there is a heating up of the earth and hence, a rise in global temperature. we fail to understand the scope of its potential. it's highly capable of causing health pandemics that can in turn cripple our economic and social security and stability.
the article i chose showed how global warming is so deadly and steps have to be taken to ensure that global warming is either curbed or further prevented. global warming is able to create forest fires and the debris and dust can be easily spread by wind. this debris and dust can lead to severe respiratory problems among people if they're continuously exposed towards it.
furthermore, global warming that causes an increase in the global temperature melt the polar ice caps and this actually constitutes to a higher sea level. the unfortunate thing is that, in the low lying countries, they experience floods. not only that, the increased floods is an invitation to spread waterborne diseases. this could mean a potential disaster in the poverty stricken countries as they are not able to cope with such pandemics.
the article highlights another complication that global warming can lead to. haze, due to forest fires and such will become more frequent and at a more drastic level. drastic here means that as time passes, the haze that occurs will intensify in severity as temperature soars and more fires break out.
global warming also affects our social security as the increased temperature actually means that food crops could also be affected. if nothing is done to address our climate that is currently in crisis now, it's easy to conclude that we might just die because of our own doing. that is, irresponsibility to the environment. the increasing temperatures, failing crops are just a consequence to the global warming pandemic.
these problems indirectly threaten our national and social security. with the increased heatwaves and diseases that have become more rampant, the workforce may become less productive. this puts a direct dampening on the economy and hence we'll be severely or adversely affected. global warming thus has to be looked into tactfully and critically as something can be done before it's too late.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
singer vs szilagyi
singapore is known all across the globe for her multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism. despite the fact that there are lots of different religious and cultural practices, peace and serenity prevails in our country.
due to a very simple reason. singapore places great emphasis on being socially responsible about expression of thought and feelings. singapore experienced how being irresponsible can lead to racial tension, as seen in the 1964 racial riots.
however, the two articles do raise two important question.
'should freedom of speech be practiced without enforcing limits and boundaries?'
'or should there be mainly a greater focus on social responsibility?'
in my opinion, i feel that freedom of speech should be practiced without enforcing any limits and boundaries. on top of that, there should be a greater focus on social responsibility. these two elements complement each other and hence would enable a more open, though safer environment.
freedom of speech enables viewpoints to be expressed freely, and this is important as democracy means that everyone is fairly and equally treated. this element of democracy can thus be achieved only if every individual in a democratic country has his voice heard and is respected for his opinions.
at this juncture, i'd expect people to come up and say that such freedom of speech cannot be implemented in singapore as the nature of our society goes counter to freedom of speech. many claim that insensitive remarks, libel and flaming will pepper blogs, forums and media. this will lead to racial, religious and cultural tension that will have history repeating itself where singapore experiences greater and bloodier riots.
that's where the focus of social responsibility comes in. with the emphasis of being socially responsible in blogging or in posting an article in the media or forum, freedom of speech and social responsibility can act hand in hand. when this happens, we can be assurred that freedom of speech is not utilised to create discord and problems that might threaten our national sovereignty.
hence, i say that it's not a matter of adopting a single author's approach of free speech. i believe that both is integral in ensuring that free speech can be practiced without a backlash to the country's safety.
freedom of speech is an integral part in a democratic country. hence, we cannot stamp our foot down and control it. that mocks the value of democracy. focus on social responsibility is the key in ensuring that we all benefit from the newfound freedom of having everyone's views and opinions expressed freely, yet conducively.
due to a very simple reason. singapore places great emphasis on being socially responsible about expression of thought and feelings. singapore experienced how being irresponsible can lead to racial tension, as seen in the 1964 racial riots.
however, the two articles do raise two important question.
'should freedom of speech be practiced without enforcing limits and boundaries?'
'or should there be mainly a greater focus on social responsibility?'
in my opinion, i feel that freedom of speech should be practiced without enforcing any limits and boundaries. on top of that, there should be a greater focus on social responsibility. these two elements complement each other and hence would enable a more open, though safer environment.
freedom of speech enables viewpoints to be expressed freely, and this is important as democracy means that everyone is fairly and equally treated. this element of democracy can thus be achieved only if every individual in a democratic country has his voice heard and is respected for his opinions.
at this juncture, i'd expect people to come up and say that such freedom of speech cannot be implemented in singapore as the nature of our society goes counter to freedom of speech. many claim that insensitive remarks, libel and flaming will pepper blogs, forums and media. this will lead to racial, religious and cultural tension that will have history repeating itself where singapore experiences greater and bloodier riots.
that's where the focus of social responsibility comes in. with the emphasis of being socially responsible in blogging or in posting an article in the media or forum, freedom of speech and social responsibility can act hand in hand. when this happens, we can be assurred that freedom of speech is not utilised to create discord and problems that might threaten our national sovereignty.
hence, i say that it's not a matter of adopting a single author's approach of free speech. i believe that both is integral in ensuring that free speech can be practiced without a backlash to the country's safety.
freedom of speech is an integral part in a democratic country. hence, we cannot stamp our foot down and control it. that mocks the value of democracy. focus on social responsibility is the key in ensuring that we all benefit from the newfound freedom of having everyone's views and opinions expressed freely, yet conducively.
commentary of a friend's blog entry
nicole khong zijia 11/07
http://nicole-ism.blogspot.com
'youtube has no ethics or principles and is created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. do you agree?'
i agree with the view to a large extent. youtube is now a fast growing website that is gaining immense popularity. it's a website that basically enables users to upload any media-based material, like songs or videos. there are no restrictions and one can post simply anything. in this materialistic world, we all pursue success. similarly to youtube, they enforce minimal restrictions such that users enjoy their services so much that youtube reaps tremendous profits. this shows that, youtube does intend to benefit users so greatly simply for the benefit of monetary influx.
youtube's open nature is good in the sense that we can get a varied amount of media and entertainment. however, many fail to notice that this very open policy actually infringes the rules of media and entertainment. users tend to simply upload movies and such without bothering to note the privacy statement or copyright laws. this makes youtube almost an avenue for illegal content online. does this show that youtube practices morals and ethics? no. they simply do not empower their media search engine with proper upright media rules and regulations.
furthermore, in this world of high advancement in technology and such, we are constantly looking for avenues that enable us to get the juiciest bites of media on the run. people turn to avenues like youtube where media is easily tapped on. the market for media is so great that websites such as youtube is highly pressurized into supplying what is demanded by the masses. we can thus see that youtube sometimes does not have a basis of foundation that it builts its website on. but it's based on market and demand.
http://nicole-ism.blogspot.com
'youtube has no ethics or principles and is created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. do you agree?'
i agree with the view to a large extent. youtube is now a fast growing website that is gaining immense popularity. it's a website that basically enables users to upload any media-based material, like songs or videos. there are no restrictions and one can post simply anything. in this materialistic world, we all pursue success. similarly to youtube, they enforce minimal restrictions such that users enjoy their services so much that youtube reaps tremendous profits. this shows that, youtube does intend to benefit users so greatly simply for the benefit of monetary influx.
youtube's open nature is good in the sense that we can get a varied amount of media and entertainment. however, many fail to notice that this very open policy actually infringes the rules of media and entertainment. users tend to simply upload movies and such without bothering to note the privacy statement or copyright laws. this makes youtube almost an avenue for illegal content online. does this show that youtube practices morals and ethics? no. they simply do not empower their media search engine with proper upright media rules and regulations.
furthermore, in this world of high advancement in technology and such, we are constantly looking for avenues that enable us to get the juiciest bites of media on the run. people turn to avenues like youtube where media is easily tapped on. the market for media is so great that websites such as youtube is highly pressurized into supplying what is demanded by the masses. we can thus see that youtube sometimes does not have a basis of foundation that it builts its website on. but it's based on market and demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
