In an ideal world, countries should live as you would with your neighbours, in peace with one another and most of all refraining from being nosy. This is certainly a trait; you and I would appreciate from our next door HDB or condo dwellers. However, should the usually happy and normal family one day, be invaded by one other dastardly neighbour, who start committing the most heinous of acts like rape, pillaging and general destruction, would you think to yourself : “Hmmmmm.......is it right for me to become involved in my neighbour’s “internal affairs” ????
Surely not!!! I hope. As rightly quoted, by Mr Mahbubani, the world and specifically the US and the EU to a greater extent, being immediate neighbours, I quote, “...failed to take moral responsibility for their actions....” referring to both cases of Iraq and Yugoslavia. I however, find it ironic that Mr Mahbubani should refer to these powerful countries’ “actions.” For the case of Yugoslavia, it was instead a case of non-action and if there were any at all, these were far too weak and indecisive. This resulted in unchecked “ethnic cleansing” and genocide that till today, remains a deep black patch in our recent history. Countless Bosnian victims including 3,500 children perished under Serbian sniper fire. Over 200,000 Muslim civilians had been systematically murdered. More than 20,000 were missing and feared dead, while 2,000,000 had become refugees. It was, according to former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, "the greatest failure of the West since the 1930s." I understand that the then “Snr” US President George Bush, failed to take action, and it was his successor, Bill Clinton, who mobilised Nato, to finally stop, the key perpetrator, Slobodan Milosevic.
While not fully relevant, it is not the totally the case of dastardly neighbours for Yugoslavia, but perhaps the grandfather of our neighbouring household that perpetrates evil acts against his own family. One should still take moral action, although, it is the neighbour’s own internal affairs. In the political landscape of the world, a country can seek help and bring attention of wrongs committed to the United Nations and the Security Council who are basically the equivalent of our neighbourhood police. They are tasked to maintain the peace and security in the neighbourhood, i.e. world. But in a less than perfect world, we know the police are not perfect (even Mas Selamat can escape).
This brings us to the case of Iraq. We have a situation where a country or neighbour, has failed to behave. The father of this family has killed many of his own children, whom he decided he did not like. The then president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003 had gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believed he must rule with an iron fist to keep his country, which is divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions showed that he was a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him, even using deadly and outlawed chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels. Then in 1990, he ordered the invasion of Kuwait. This time the, US acted swiftly in concert, in the world’s first Gulf War and Saddam was beaten back. In more recent history, Iraq was invaded by US and UK forces on now an apparent lack of evidence. This is a case of accusing an evil neighbour of keeping and planning to use a dangerous “long rifle” that is prohibited and against the law. The only “sight” of this “long rifle” have in fact been Saddam’s pool stick that always remain draped, since he dropped the hobby. However, one of the more powerful police officers then decide that they needed to bring him to justice claiming that the pool stick is actually a potential murder weapon that is actually a rifle. With Saddam eliminated, the saga of Iraq continues, and the police officers are still unable to bring peace to this household, where Saddam in fact has many wives(i.e.the Sunnis and the Shiites) holding differing views of who among them should be in charge of the Saddam household.
The conclusion is that the world must react fast to blatant crimes against humanity, slow against weak and politically motivated evidences. For Myanmar, this is a case of a “mixed bag.” The head of this neighbour’s household, runs the family with an iron hand, but with rich natural resources that aid in self sufficiency, they are still surviving although the majority of the western part of the neighbourhood does not have any relationship with them. Their immediate neighbours however, like Singapore as a part of Asean continue to persuade, interact and hope that Myanmar will change.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
dealing with the outflow of talent in Singapore
Loh also raised a 3-fold solution. 1) The authorities have to stop using the term “foreign talent”. “It implies that all foreigners are talents, and the locals are not,”2) “forget about nationalism and what it means to be a Singaporean”. He added: “Focus on the family — people stay with their families, they miss their families, and not the country state; a pro-family centered policy or work environment would help.”3) And lastly, preserve buildings that Singaporeans grew up with. Said Dr Leong: “These are the places where our collective memories of childhood, courtshipsand friendships were embedded.”
The first part of the solution is definably feasible. Over the past few years, the hype over foreign talent has generated much dissatisfaction amongst the local. People adopted the perception that foreign talents are far superior then them. By removing such terms, it appeals to the Singaporeans and make them feel wanted. It shows their talent is appreciated in the Singapore society too.
The second fold of the solution has its limitation. The development of technology allows long distance communication between kinds. Tools such as the telephone and even webcam are mediums between the family and the member aboard. Thus, this part of the solution is not applicable.
The third fold of the idea largely appeals to the more emotional Singaporeans. Retaining such buildings create a homely and familiar environment for Singapore to settle in. However, the opportunity cost for such a policy may prove costly. Are the economic costs of the land worth it? The land may be better allocated for better uses. Land scarcity is a pressing problem of the island. Thus we should measure such costs before embarking.
The author also mentions that materialistic incentives may help to retain local talents too. Such form of extrinsic motivation would prove effective in the short term. Money to bait local talent would no doubt prove effective. However, we must consider intrinsic motive of the talents. Would they abandon Singapore during an economic turmoil? Hence extrinsic motivation is effective only on the surface
The first part of the solution is definably feasible. Over the past few years, the hype over foreign talent has generated much dissatisfaction amongst the local. People adopted the perception that foreign talents are far superior then them. By removing such terms, it appeals to the Singaporeans and make them feel wanted. It shows their talent is appreciated in the Singapore society too.
The second fold of the solution has its limitation. The development of technology allows long distance communication between kinds. Tools such as the telephone and even webcam are mediums between the family and the member aboard. Thus, this part of the solution is not applicable.
The third fold of the idea largely appeals to the more emotional Singaporeans. Retaining such buildings create a homely and familiar environment for Singapore to settle in. However, the opportunity cost for such a policy may prove costly. Are the economic costs of the land worth it? The land may be better allocated for better uses. Land scarcity is a pressing problem of the island. Thus we should measure such costs before embarking.
The author also mentions that materialistic incentives may help to retain local talents too. Such form of extrinsic motivation would prove effective in the short term. Money to bait local talent would no doubt prove effective. However, we must consider intrinsic motive of the talents. Would they abandon Singapore during an economic turmoil? Hence extrinsic motivation is effective only on the surface
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Are Human Rights Universal?
Human Rights have been formally defined in the 1948 universal declaration of human rights. It consists of 30 different articles which covers different aspects of human rights. However, the articles serve as a guideline for countries and they need not adhere to the settings. Some rules may not be suitable for the society and thus, not all articles of the universal declaration of human rights are universal.Some of the articles go against long traditions and religious beliefs, thus not making it universal. Article 18 states that “Everyone has the rights to freedom of… religion.” This is in contrast with the Muslims teachings which prevent Muslims from converting out of the religion. In 2004, a Muslim attempted to convert in a Christian but had her case rejected over and over again. The incident created a surge of unhappiness amongst the population. Another example is Communism; the Marxist system which countries such as China, Cuba and North Korea have adopted, goes against article number eight which states that ‘Democracy’ is part of a human’s right. As such, it is impossible to bind them to the article as the rule applies only to democratic systems. Thus, I believe that human rights are not universal.Also, human rights are not universal in Singapore’s context. Singapore is a multi-racial society and sensitive topics must be avoided in order to preserve harmony. The government has no choice but to censor sensitive issues which might fan the flames of racism. As a result, the ‘right’ of ultimate freedom of speech is deprived. This is essential to Singapore’s society though it may not be as important in another country's context. Thus, the human rights are not universal as it is inapplicable in such a environment.
‘Women will never enjoy the same rights as men’. Do you agree?
There is no true gauge to accurately measure the rights of women and men. However, we can approximately say that women have largely acheived the equal rights as men. Old catch phrases such as ‘A women’s place is in the home’ has been out of context of this modern society. therefore, i will have to disagree with the statement as women are already enjoying the same rights as men.
Women living in the world know have equal rights as men. They can vote, have the opporturnity to study, fair chance at workplaces. They is no basis in which we can say that women will never enjoy the same rights. futhermore, we are seeing that women's rights are progessing as times progress. women have achieved such rights as mentioned above. Thus why cant we project that women would continue their march to achieve equal rights or mayb even better rights then men.
However, it is dissapointing to see the rate of progress developing countries are going. women in such countries have yet to achieve and adequate standard of rights as compared to the men. For example, India's long tradition of favouring boys leads to neglince of the girl and often abortions. thus the scenario in paragraph are only seened in developed countries
Women living in the world know have equal rights as men. They can vote, have the opporturnity to study, fair chance at workplaces. They is no basis in which we can say that women will never enjoy the same rights. futhermore, we are seeing that women's rights are progessing as times progress. women have achieved such rights as mentioned above. Thus why cant we project that women would continue their march to achieve equal rights or mayb even better rights then men.
However, it is dissapointing to see the rate of progress developing countries are going. women in such countries have yet to achieve and adequate standard of rights as compared to the men. For example, India's long tradition of favouring boys leads to neglince of the girl and often abortions. thus the scenario in paragraph are only seened in developed countries
Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation
Lim discusses the pros and cons of using extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Which do you think is predominantly used in Singapore? What do you think are the impacts on the Singapore society of using such a mode of motivation?
Singapore uses extrinsic motivation more than intrinsic motivation. This is not only seen in the economic sector, but policies on education, family and etc and mostly based on such motivations. Intrinsic motivation may not be as powerful as the opposite as the the value of purpose and experience are often diminished in such a materialistic enviroment. As such, policies have proven to be effective because of the persuasive power of money. In the short term, extrinsic motivation are more effective. However, in the long run, extrinsic movitation are more harmful than benificial.
Social psychologists have observed a phenomenon known as 'the hidden cost of reward', in which external incentives can actually cut away at people's inner motivation for doing what they consider worthwhile.
For example, Singapore places monetary rewards for students who excel in the academic performance. Such baits for students may boost the standard of students. However, it moulds them into a materialistic worker whose motivation is only money. Study should be for knowledge and not for wealth.
However, extrinsic motivation may not work at sometime where intrinsic motivation may work. For example, the goverment provides incentives for people to have children, But, The monetary incentives have not proved to be effective. On the other hand, when the goverment was discouraging having large families, its emphasised on intrinsic motivation which was successful till the extent that it had to be reversed. Thus i feel that singapore is dominated by extrinsic values and its is onli effective for short run purposes.
Singapore uses extrinsic motivation more than intrinsic motivation. This is not only seen in the economic sector, but policies on education, family and etc and mostly based on such motivations. Intrinsic motivation may not be as powerful as the opposite as the the value of purpose and experience are often diminished in such a materialistic enviroment. As such, policies have proven to be effective because of the persuasive power of money. In the short term, extrinsic motivation are more effective. However, in the long run, extrinsic movitation are more harmful than benificial.
Social psychologists have observed a phenomenon known as 'the hidden cost of reward', in which external incentives can actually cut away at people's inner motivation for doing what they consider worthwhile.
For example, Singapore places monetary rewards for students who excel in the academic performance. Such baits for students may boost the standard of students. However, it moulds them into a materialistic worker whose motivation is only money. Study should be for knowledge and not for wealth.
However, extrinsic motivation may not work at sometime where intrinsic motivation may work. For example, the goverment provides incentives for people to have children, But, The monetary incentives have not proved to be effective. On the other hand, when the goverment was discouraging having large families, its emphasised on intrinsic motivation which was successful till the extent that it had to be reversed. Thus i feel that singapore is dominated by extrinsic values and its is onli effective for short run purposes.
Monday, August 11, 2008
‘Women will never enjoy the same rights as men’. Do you agree?
A right is defined as a legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something, or to obtain or refrain from obtaining a thing or recognition from civil society. Rights serve as rules of interaction between people, and, as such, they place constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals or groups.
Firstly, I would like to make a point that women and men should not be compared in such a general manner. Both sexes are on earth for different purposes. However, if comparison should be needed, specific rights like voting and education can be examined in detail. In these 2 cases, women have already achieved both.
Women of today have yet to enjoy the same rights as man but improvements have been seen. For example, women are still not allowed the same pay as men who are of similar ranks to them in a workplace. The root of this problem is to society, a woman should be at home, taking care of children and not out there in the working world. The income difference maybe expected to serve as deterrence to women, encouraging them to remain a housewife. However, this mindset is starting to change. Vice versa, men are starting to accept the fact that they too, do play a role in bringing up and caring more for their children. This is a mindset problem that is gradually changing as the years go buy. Therefore, I disagree that women will never enjoy the same rights as men.
Another point is that women have already proven themselves capable to handle the intellectual demands both in politics and the workplace. Women are starting to appear one by one in parliaments and also take on major roles such a CEO of a company. For example, Fumiko Hayashi already a president of the BMW Company has been proposed to be president for the retailer Daiei. This is important for Japan as they have been rather against the idea of women working instead of remaining at home. Step by step, it is certain that equality of rights can be reached one day between men and women.
It may seem discouraging that even in developed countries like Japan are still experiencing a disparity in rights between men and women to the less developed countries but the important thing is that changes, though slow are underway and that the day when rights are equal between men and women is not very far.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
are there circumstances where human rights may be curtailed?
Human rights refer to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.
I beg to differ with Grace’s views. Although we only have one source of newspaper, we can still gain access to different news medium in the form of the internet and magazines like Newsweek and Time. Our human rights are not totally curtailed but our excess to the most mainstream news are slightly controlled for the good for the nation as a whole. Our nation’s stability and progress has shown that it is the right thing to do. By allowing total freedom of expression, it may result in more bane than boon! Also, there exists opposing voices in the parliament, that of opposing parties and thus, I feel that the people’s voice is and will be heard by our policymakers. Thus in this case, our freedom of expression is being curtailed but it is beneficial to us.
According to article 3 of the universal declaration of Human Rights, all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. However in Singapore, women are spared the pain of caning when found guilty of charges deserving of the corporal punishment. In this case, women are protected. Thus, human rights may be curtailed for the betterment of us. Thus, we should not resent.
I beg to differ with Grace’s views. Although we only have one source of newspaper, we can still gain access to different news medium in the form of the internet and magazines like Newsweek and Time. Our human rights are not totally curtailed but our excess to the most mainstream news are slightly controlled for the good for the nation as a whole. Our nation’s stability and progress has shown that it is the right thing to do. By allowing total freedom of expression, it may result in more bane than boon! Also, there exists opposing voices in the parliament, that of opposing parties and thus, I feel that the people’s voice is and will be heard by our policymakers. Thus in this case, our freedom of expression is being curtailed but it is beneficial to us.
According to article 3 of the universal declaration of Human Rights, all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. However in Singapore, women are spared the pain of caning when found guilty of charges deserving of the corporal punishment. In this case, women are protected. Thus, human rights may be curtailed for the betterment of us. Thus, we should not resent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)