Energy & Ecology: Environmental degradation and its capitalistic roots

Environmental degradation- a term we have all heard, a term we all think we understand, a term that is so commonly used but a term we can never fully comprehend. Why? Because we can get clean drinking water just by turning a tap while others depend on a chemical-laden lake/well as their only water supply. Because the only reason why we can live so comfortably is because somewhere  out there, someone is bearing the environmental consequences for our way of living.

Even so, it would be myopic to simply blame our lifestyle for the environmental degradation suffered by developing countries. After all, we are but mere cogs in the greater economy that functions on the basis of mass production and mass consumption. And yes, I would argue that it is the competitive nature of the capitalistic economy that is responsible for much of the environmental degradation in the developing countries.

To begin, we need to identify the main source of polluters in these developing countries and examine why they are allowed to pollute. The culprits, I believe, are factories built by Multi National Corporations (MNCs). These MNCs flock to set up their labour-intensive factories in these developing countries due to low cost. The governments of these countries also do their best to woo these MNCs, citing low costs. At first glance, this looks to be a mutually-beneficial arrangement. Not only can the MNCs keep costs low, the countries’ economies also benefit from the influx of foreign investments. But when probed deeper, one will realize that one party (the MNCs) gains so much more at the expense of the other. This is because the 2 parties start off on unequal footing. The MNCs clearly have greater bargaining power and flexibility than the governments. This is because the MNCs can easily choose an alternative venue should the conditions offered to them by the government be deemed unfavourable. In a sense, it is a buyer’s market. It is up to the developing countries to make themselves attractive for the MNCs to set up factories, not vice versa. For the MNCs, it is simple, they will just flock to the place with lowest cost. For the governments, however, it is more than just costs. They desperately need these MNCs to inject capital into their flagging economies and for them to create employment for its people. Therefore, I would say that the developing countries are far more dependent on the MNCs than the MNCs on these developing countries. And this, is why there is so much potential for abuse (namely pollution and exploitation of workers) by the MNCs.

The first priority for MNCs is always costs because the capitalistic economy equates low costs with competitiveness. Thus, it is important to realize that they do not pollute because they want to but because it is the result of keeping costs low. After all, it is far cheaper to simply dump waste in the river than to have to spend to deal with it the proper way. The fact is, it takes far more effort and resources to go green and the MNCs are reluctant to compromise their profits for something that does not benefit them.

Hence, this is where the government should intervene. Unfortunately, most developing countries do not insist that MNCs not pollute the environment. In fact, most turn a blind eye to the environmental degradation that goes on. The reason, as mentioned, is the lack of bargaining power of the governments and their heavy dependence on the MNCs. Because the MNCs can easily re-locate their factories and leave behind massive unemployment and environmental damage should the government impose regulations to protect the environment that will add to their costs, for such is the power of MNCs. After all, this is not their country, they are not the ones who will have to live here, why should they bother?

Now, take a look at the developed countries. Most of them do not suffer the same extent of environmental degradation than their developing counterparts, or if they do, it is usually on a much smaller scale. Why is this so? It is because of their capital and because they are not as dependent on the polluting factories built by MNCs.

With capital, the developed countries can afford to go green. They can afford to subsidize or give tax incentives to companies who are environmentally-friendly. However, it is not just about the capital, it also about being concerned for the environment, something that seems to exist only in the developed countries. After all, who would worry over the state of the environment when they are struggling to survive? And that is the fundamental difference between the developing and the developed countries. Environment only becomes an issue when the country is well-off enough to start concerning themselves with issues other than their own survival. In order to be well-off, these developing countries have to attract MNCs and to attract them inevitably requires the environment as trade-off. It seems like no matter what, the environment will still be sacrificed. Because to survive, the country needs capital, to accumulate capital, the country has to sacrifice the environment, to save the environment, the country needs capital. At the end, it is still all about the capital.

This then leads to the question: by the time enough capital is accumulated, will it be too late? Will the environment be degraded beyond recovery? This is the risk that developing countries choose to undertake. In the event that recovery is still possible, it would require substantial resources and may result in loss of economic opportunities. Furthermore, it may take years before results can be seen.

Are these countries determined enough to not succumb to the temptations of short term lucrative profits? Are they patient enough to realize that results may not be forthcoming? Are they generous enough to devote massive resources into saving the environment? Are they strong enough to not bow to corporate pressure? These are all challenges that developing countries will have to overcome by themselves, for the mess left behind by the capitalists.

Technology: CCTV = Security?

Does having CCTV and surveillance cameras staring down at you bother you? Are you concerned about the loss of privacy with the invasion of surveillance devices at public facilities? Or are you like me, already numb to the growing number of cameras discreetly popping up?

 

Apparently, town councils in Singapore are sparing no cost (even though they lost money investing in structured products) to install surveillance cameras at the void decks of HDB flats. The reason, it appears, is that such surveillance devices deters petty crime such as urinating in lifts, vandalism etc and thus enhance the security of our neighbourhoods.

 

It says a lot of our civilized society that we need someone watching over us to deter uncivilized activities such as urinating in lifts (which should never have occurred in the first place). Perhaps this is the result of the way our society is structured, such that for most of our lives, we are under the watchful eyes of authority. Thus when we find ourselves being away from these eyes, we have the urge to rebel, to do what they tell us not to do. In school, have ayou not chit-chatted loudly when the teacher is not in class? At work, are there not times where you slack off because no one is watching? It is the same with CCTVs, they are like teachers in school and bosses at work in that they are there to let us know that a figure of authority is watching, thus we had better behave. Ironically, even schools and workplaces these days are filled with CCTVs.

 

However, according to a London report quoted in The New Paper, “police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any”. This report therefore debunks the common perception that the presence of CCTVs deters crime. This perhaps is due to the nature of CCTVs, that they are mere physical objects which often hide discreetly in one corner such that people do not take notice of them unlike real humans such as teachers and bosses who often make their presence felt. It may also be because people have already become so used to having CCTVs around that it is now a non-factor in affecting their behaviour. Either way, CCTVs are here to stay.

 

Holding the assumption that CCTVs do not deter crime (or even if it does deter), why then are states spending so much on surveillance technology? Simply to perpetuate their control and power over us, if you ask me. According to the same London report, a person “in UK is caught on CCTV an average of 300 times a day”. Therefore, by simply using footage from the CCTVs alone, the state can literally trace your steps. Imagine if they also traced your steps on the internet (which I’m sure they do), the phone calls you make, the electronic transactions carried out (e.g. withdrawing money from the ATM, purchasing goods with your credit card). The state may actually know what you did in a day better than you yourself!

 

It is therefore ironic that technology (cameras, internet, phones etc.) that was supposed to liberate us through ease of communication and access to information is now used by the state to control us. We live in an era of unprecedented technology achievements. However we also live in a time of unprecedented surveillance where nothing is too trivial to be surveilled. A victim of our own achievements? Without a doubt.

 

Stelarc

While researching for this week’s blog entry on technology, I came across the ideas of a man named Stelarc which deeply disturbed me. His main point is that “the body is obsolete” in today’s world and the solution is the use of technology to replace the body.

 

Here are some of his views taken from his website (http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/):

 

“THE CAPABILITIES OF BEING A BODY ARE CONSTRAINED BY HAVING A BODY.”

 

“It cannot cope with the quantity, complexity and quality of information it has accumulated; it is intimidated by the precision, speed and power of technology and it is biologically ill-equipped to cope with its new extraterrestrial environment. “

 

 

“The body is neither a very efficient nor very durable structure. It malfunctions often and fatigues quickly; its performance is determined by its age. It is susceptible to disease and is doomed to a certain and early death. Its survival parameters are very slim – it can survive only weeks without food, days without water and minutes without oxygen.”

 

The body ”as a structure to be monitored and modified – the body not as a subject but as an object – NOT AN OBJECT OF DESIRE BUT AS AN OBJECT FOR DESIGNING.”

 

“Technology transforms the nature of human existence, equalising the physical potential of bodies and standardising human sexuality. With fertilisation now occuring outside the womb and the possibility of nurturing the foetus in an artificial support system, THERE WILL TECHNICALLY BE NO BIRTH. And if the body can be redesigned in a modular fashion to facilitate the replacement of malfunctioning parts, then TECHNICALLY THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR DEATH – given the accessibility of replacements.

 

Death does not authenticate existence. It is an out-moded evolutionary strategy. The body need no longer be repaired, but could simply have parts replaced. Extending life no longer means “existing” but rather “being operational”. Bodies need not age or deteriorate; they would not run down nor even fatigue; they would stall then start – possessing both the potential for renewal and reactivation.

In the extended space-time of extraterrestrial environments, THE BODY MUST BECOME IMMORTAL TO ADAPT. Utopian dreams become post-evolutionary imperatives. THIS IS NO MERE FAUSTIAN OPTION NOR SHOULD THERE BE ANY FRANKENSTEINIAN FEAR IN TAMPERING WITH THE BODY.”

 

“a body directly wired into the Net, that moves not because of its internal stimulation, not because of its being remotely guided by another body (or a cluster of remote agents), BUT A BODY THAT QUIVERS AND OSCILLATES TO THE EBB AND FLOW OF NET ACTIVITY. A body that manifests the statistical and collective data flow, as a socio-neural compression algorithm. A body whose proprioception responds not to its internal nervous system but to the external stimulation of globally connected computer networks.”

 

 

(I really wonder if a person can truly believe in something so ludicrous (in my opinion). Or maybe the above are just exaggerations (I hope)?)

 

This really shows the extent of which technology has infiltrated our lives that the notion of the body is now blurred with technology. For me, technology and the body have always been and will always be two separate entities. I should not be connected to the internet, my computer should be. To even suggest that the body and technology can be one seems like the stuff of Hollywood fantasies (in fact, some of his pictures reminded me of Dr. Octopus in Spiderman2) and that is what it should remain as, fantasies.

 

While I can accept say heart attack patients ‘installing’ a battery to pump the heart, to have the body become part of technology is really stretching it. It is one thing having technological devices in one’s body for medical purposes and another to turn your body into a piece of technology so that you can escape the weaknesses of the body (such as illness, old age and death) and thus be immortal.

 

I guess the reason why I was as disturbed as I was (and I still am) is because Stelarc forces people to confront the beliefs they have with regards to the human body and the human life. One way he does so is to look at the body as if it is separate from you, as if it is a machine to be examined and the results are damning for it is inefficent, non-durable, easily fatigued etc. Thus, the solution to these problems is to incorporate technology into the body, essentially turning humans into machines. This is unlike robots where the concept is reversed, trying to incorporate the body into technology and trying make machines human.

 

I wonder how many people out there subscribe to Stelarc’s ideas..

 

 

ok, I better get back to doing this week’s blog entry.

Population & Health: Outflow of medical workers in developing countries

I remember my time as a temporary staff in the headquarters of the National Healthcare Group (NHG) which is in charge of a handful of hospitals and about half the polyclinics in Singapore. During my time there, I noticed that certain positions in the polyclinics were filled mostly by foreigners. For example, the radiologists (the people who take your X-ray) and the medical technologists (the people who take your blood samples) are mostly Filipinos. In order to practice as a radiologist or medical technologist in Singapore, not only do they need to have the relevant degree, they must also pass certain board examinations in order to be certified by their respective boards.

 

Through some of the conversations I had with them, I found out that being certified by these boards were of utmost pride to their families so much so that the certificate is hung on the wall in the living room by their parents. From their board examination transcripts, I saw that most of them scored 80++% for their board examinations. Even though I do not know the standard of the board examinations nor the percentage of candidates with scores as high as theirs, I believe I can safely assume that they must be amongst the best in their position.

 

If the best and the brightest of these medical workers are clamouring for moves abroad (as seen from the thick stacks of resumes that they regularly send), what does it mean for the people and the healthcare industry back in their home countries?

 

The social consequences of losing talented medical workers include higher infant mortality rates, lower life expectancy and so on. I would argue that these social consequences are more serious than that of the loss of say, businessmen and engineers as such losses would be largely economic. But the capitalistic society is such that the economy is of greater importance than the healthcare industry. As a result, governments of these developing countries which are losing medical workers are likely to be more concerned with preventing the outflow of valuable economic assets in businessmen and engineers than in the social asset of medical workers. Moreover, these medical workers who work abroad also contribute to their home economy in the same way as domestic workers, through the remittance of money. 

 

Also it means that developing countries have to play second fiddle to the developed countries who can afford to pay these medical workers higher wages. In a sense, this is like the core-periphery relationship explored in the dependency theory. The core is made up of developed countries that attract the best human resource from the periphery of developing countries by virtue of the capital they have accumulated which gives them the resources to attract these talents. As a result, these developing countries will always have to make do with second best.

 

Therefore, according to this relationship, the only way to prevent this outflow of medical workers is to accumulate capital such that the difference between the remuneration of the same position is minimal enough to justify staying put. This may also be why most countries today only began to focus on the healthcare sector after the economy was reasonably developed, with the state accumulating enough capital to allocate more resources into the healthcare sector.

Urbanization: Old school vs. Singapore style

Urbanization is a phenomenon that goes hand in hand with globalization and capitalism. It is also usually associated with rural-urban migration as many of the social problems typically seen in cities have to do with the cities’ inability to integrate migrants into the community. This essay will attempt to explain rural-urban migration the initial way, the evolved Singapore way and the social issue of integration. In this essay, the term “city-dwellers” will refer to the incumbents of the city. The term “foreign workers” will refer to foreign workers who are typically on Work Permits and draw a minimal salary.

 

Why do people from the rural areas flock to the cities? The main reason, I believe, is the pace of change and growth in the cities. They can see tangible growth (e.g. building of infrastructure) in the cities that is not seen in the rural areas. They see signs of wealth when the city dwellers don smart formal wear and travel with cars. They see factories that demand labour being built. In short, they see hope for a better life for them and for their families in the city that they do not see in the rural areas. Unlike the rural areas that experience relatively minimal change and growth over the generations, the pace of growth in the cities is astounding. Therefore, they believe that they too, can be like the city-dwellers and live in affluence.

 

However, reality always has its way of crushing dreams. While the cities continue to grow in infrastructure, these migrants see that these facilities are not meant for them but for the city-dwellers. They, instead, have to live in overcrowded slumps with living conditions that may be worse than the rural areas. While the city-dwellers continue to don their smart suits and drive bigger cars, these migrants can only watch. Factories are still being built, the demand for labour is still high but these migrants now have the additional knowledge that the pay is paltry. The city continues to grow faster than ever but they now realize that while they contribute to the growth with their labour, it is the city-dwellers and their bosses (the capitalists) who enjoy the fruits. By now, these migrants realize that it would be more realistic to scrimp and save so as to have enough money to send back home rather than to dream of a life affluence. The end result is social problems like crime and inequality.

 

Now, think of Singapore. Does certain aspects not sound uncannily similar to the fate of foreign workers here in Singapore? The crucial difference between the old school style and the evolved Singapore style is the expectation levels between the migrants and the foreign workers. The migrants thought that they would be able to emulate the affluent lifestyles of the city-dwellers. The foreign workers however, came to Singapore on a work permit and therefore are likely to know that they will not settle down in Singapore. Rather, Singapore is just a place for them to earn their money to send back home. These foreign workers will not dream of being able to make it big in the same space as the Singaporeans. Instead, they usually have their own vision of using the money earned here to help them live more comfortably back home. Because unlike the migrants, these foreign workers know clearly that they do not belong in Singapore (be it by their own knowledge or emphasized to them by the locals). This realization in turn eliminates most of the social problems that would have arose like those that plagued cities with rural-urban migration.

 

It seems like the Singapore style has got all holes covered hasn’t it? Cheap labour that contributes to growth, foreign workers who know their place and do not have unrealistic expectations, it all seems too good to be true. Well, it is too good to be true. Because like rural-urban migration, there is the problem of integration. It’s great that they are working for such low wages, great that they know their place, but not so great if they are living next door.

 

(the next paragraph is with reference to the issue of housing of foreign workers in Serangoon Gardens)

 

Truth is, to the locals, these foreign workers are seen as just that, workers. They are accepted when their identity is workers but not when they assume other roles (e.g. neighbour). What is it that bugs the locals? Is it the foreign? Or is it the workers? Imagine if they were foreign expatriates or local workers, would the reaction be the same? I believe it is the lethal combination of being a foreigner and a worker at the same time that caused the issue to become a problem. Because not only are they foreign, their occupation consigns them to the lower social classes which the locals, I presume, would rather not be associated with.

 

If the old school style failed to integrate migrants who were from the same country, what more the Singapore style with foreign workers?

Politics of Identity & Globalization: Restrictive Identities, Clashing Identities, Globalized Identity

Who are you? This question seems straightforward enough. But when you pose this question to people, some can answer immediately while others may give you an incredulous look and take some time considering before they can answer you. And if you happen to try this out in Singapore, you may be surprised at the number of people with “no comments”. Such is the conundrum of identity.

 

But beyond the question of who we are is the more pressing query of who or what determines who we are. For as far as I can observe, a lot of our identities are given to us and we, for the large part, can only work around them. For instance, a large part of who we are is actually already determined the moment we were conceived. What our names are, what race and ethnic group we belong to and to a lesser extent, which religion we practice, just to name a few. Moreover, identities like race, ethnic group and birthplace are unchangeable.

 

In addition, most of these identities require us to behave in accordance to the values, norms and beliefs that they represent. So we end up working within these values, norms and beliefs or in other words, boundaries that these identities determine. But we hardly ever think of identities as restrictive because it is something that we have come to accept as right, something to be proud of, something we have always known, the way we have always lived. In short, something we have taken for granted.

 

And as we grow up, we will assume more identities; from gender identity to sexual orientation to who or what we choose to affiliate ourselves with. Like the afore-mentioned identities, these identities also have certain individual and social consequences because what society expects from people of these identities will affect their behaviour and influence their decisions.

 

The phenomenon of globalization has changed the complex of identity to become, well, even more complex (pardon the pun). With greater interaction of people, ideas and knowledge, there is now a greater clash of identities (simply by virtue of bringing so many different identities together) and conversely, a greater overlap of identities. We realize how different people from different societies can be yet at the same time marvel at how, despite these differences, we are remarkably common in our quest for a better life. In fact, the differentiating factor is the means through which people use to achieve the end.

 

It is anyone’s guess if the impact of the clash of identities will outweigh the efforts to establish a globalized identity. My own guess is that while effects of the clash will be felt more strongly, it will only serve to hasten the establishment of a globalized identity or at least, the need for one. What’s yours?

Democracy: No power, no choice

Each of us has one vote (not now for me, but in time to come). That vote, once casted, we will have to live with for the years ahead. Is that fair? To even ask this question in the first place is ironic given that democracy is supposed to be about being fair, that all are given a voice through that vote.

 

But sometimes, that vote comes back to haunt us. Because of the way democracy works, potential candidates woo votes with promises. From promises to withdraw troops from Iraq to building lifts in old flats. Whether these promises are fulfilled is another matter altogether (though they are most of the time to prevent backlash from the public).

 

What if these candidates renege on their promises after being elected? What if they do such a terrible job at managing the country that majority of the population wants them out? What can the general public do? Pretty much nothing other than to keep complaining in hope that the government will buck up or wait till the next round of elections roll along(which may take years). Well, they can also go on the streets to protest, demanding that issues be handled their way instead of the government’s or even to demand for certain members of the government to step down.

 

Even so, there is no guarantee that things will turn out the way the public wants. While the American congress bowed to public pressure with regards to bailing out Wall Street(even this is temporary, I’m sure the government will still bail them out eventually), the ex-president of Taiwan refused to budge despite the hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese who thronged the streets demanding that he steps down. The point here being, once the vote is cast, the people are essentially powerless to change anything. And that is the catch of democracy, it legitimizes power but handicaps the people. Therefore, it is ironic that what is suppose to be ‘people’s rule’ where power is in the hands of the majority, in fact turns out to be power to the selected few.

 

However, this is also not to say the government should always do what the public demands. For like what the PAP always likes to say, the government is there to make the right decisions, not the popular decisions. And that is part of the reason why PAP is so successful in maintaining power, they are usually able to convince the people that they are making the right decisions.

 

Singapore’s version of democracy, unlike other countries, doesn’t give her people much choice. It is pretty much PAP or PAP. While not discounting the opposition parties in Singapore, PAP is still by far the most dominant party and they probably will remain so in the years to come. Can you say Singapore is not democratic? No, we all have our voting rights though you probably won’t get to vote if you are in a constituency with a PAP strong-hold (read: Tanjong Pagar). But the problem with having one dominant party is that if the party fails, who else is there to take over the mantle as the ruling party?

 

At the end of the day, while the fundamental principles of democracy remain, how they are carried out varies from country to country as governments modify it to suit their needs. As for Singapore, we are democratic- we just don’t get to choose.

 

 

War & Terror: About Terrorism

I used to think that terrorists are all a bunch of crazy people who gets a thrill out of seeing people die. But as I learn more and more about them, I realise that far from being crazy or under-priviledged, most terrorists are well-educated sane beings. Quite a proportion of them are even engineers and doctors! Now, that bewildered me even more for if they are educated enough to become professionals, surely they must know better than to engage in terrorism?

So that brings me to the crux of this entry, what pushed these well-educated, sane beings into terrorism? As I researched to find the answer, I realised that they are actually strikingly similar to the dislocated men in urban areas that we learnt in the previous lecture on crime.

Even though these would-be terrorists are well-educated, they also faced discrimination(racial and religious) and inequality in the form of verbal or even physical attacks, and are made to feel unwelcomed as they try to assimilate into a new society. For some of them, even though they may have their degrees, their qualifications are not recognised and they end up with low grade jobs with menial wages.

For many of them, they took the plunge to move into a new country for better socio-economic opportunities. But more often than not, settling into a new country is almost always tougher than expected. It is in the face of these difficulties that they attempt to seek solace in people who are in the same circumstance. From then on, they find that they all face the same problems of inequality and discrimination. This is even though they are clearly as qualified as their colleagues, thus a deep sense of frustration and injustice develops. Here on, the next step is terrorism.

However, it must be said that jumping from a deep sense of frustration to terrorism is indeed a huge leap and most people stop at the stage of frustration. Few make that final step towards terrorism for this usually happens by chance, that perhaps someone in the group has connections to a terrorist. Either that or the sense of injustice is so strong that they radicalise themselves into terrorists. These terrorists usually claim to be from a certain terrorist group(e.g al-Qaeda) though more often than not, while they are inspired by them, they do not have actual links to the group.

What makes these terrorists so dangerous? Answer: their educational background. Most if them as I mentioned earlier are trained in engineering which gives them the capabilities to build bombs. For example, Osama bin Laden, the most infamous terrorist in the world, is reported to have graduated with a civil engineering degree. And Mohamed Atta, the man who was at the controls of the first plane which struck the World Trade Center, has a degree in architectural engineering.

These examples are not to show the destruction prowess of engineers but the fact that even with the level of education these men had, they still chose to turn to terrorism, a decision we see as irrational. Why is this so? This question is especially pertinent as our society is one where individuals are encouraged pursue education as if it is the Holy Grail. Moreover, this is also a society where education is seen as the solution to all social problems. Therefore, these examples serve to show that education, by itself, is no guarantee against terrorism. It is the social conditions that influences and directs people. And in this case, the social conditions directed these people towards terrorism and their knowledge gained from education, instead of liberating them from terrorism, became a tool to be used for terrorism.

It is my belief it is these social conditions of inequality and discrimination that pushes individuals towards terrorism. Thus, instead of pushing the blame to terrorist groups, we should perhaps examine our own society and the results may be rather surprising: that we may be the real culprits after all.

Crime & Globalization: Cybercrime

We have learnt in lecture how crime is a product of society and how globalisation contributed to crime. The type of crime illustrated in the lecture is largely crime that cause grievious hurt to human lives and property. But the type of crime I will be discussing is slightly different, unlike the usual crime, this type of crime isn’t conducted in the ‘real’ world but in a virtual one even though the consequences are equally real. Yes, it is cybercrime.Cybercrime only came into existence with the birth of the World Wide Web. The most prevalent objective of cybercrime is for the money, not unlike that of crime in the real world. However, there are certain conditions of the internet that in a sense, contributes to the prevalence of cybercrime. Firstly, the perceived annoymity that the internet allows. You can be anyone on the internet, maybe someone famous or even a person of fiction. This perceived annoymity then gives criminals a sense of security that they cannot be caught. Secondly, rather similar to the first condition is the perception that it is harder to trace a cybercriminal than a real world criminal. In actual fact, these conditions only hold true for those with the technical expertise to fulfill these conditions.

The targets of cybercriminals are also radically different from the usual victims. These victims are usually relatively more well-off, since the main mode of scam/theft is through credit cards or the transfer of money through bank accounts, not the type of things one would associate with those who are struggling to make ends meet. The culprits of such crime, one would assume, will need to have some level of technical expertise at least in using the internet. Once again, not something one would associate with the profile of the criminals shown in lecture.

Therefore, with cybercrime, we are no longer looking at the poor targeting the poor/middle class because they are unable to make a living but that of a group of people with some expertise in using the computer(which therefore means that they should be able to get a job if they wanted to) targeting a similar group of people. Some examples of cybercrime include fraud(e.g ‘Nigeria’ scams), stealing of personal information/data, hacking, introducing viruses and so on.

But to think that cybercrime is all about the money would be underestimating the power and influence of the internet. This is because the internet is also where propaganda takes place. One example would be that of religious extremists using the internet to radicalise neutral believers. Others may use the internet to incite racial hatred/conflict. It is through such means that problems such as terrorism is globalised into a world problem. Because anyone who has access to the internet and who allows himself to be radicalised is now a potential terrorist in the making.

What makes cybercrime so different and difficult to tackle is that unlike crime in the real world, cybercrime does not know what geographical boundaries are. That also means that there is now an unprecedented pool of potential-victims for the criminals to exploit. The non-factor of geographical boundaries also creates a problem for law-enforcers because they are usually bounded by geographical boundaries. This implies that international cooperation and a lot more effort is needed to nab cybercriminals. While there is increasing international cooperation between law-enforcers of different countries, it is still far from efficient due to the amount of red tape involved and that is assuming that cooperation takes place. As with anything that involves more than one country, there is always the issue of politics. What if the countries involved are not on friendly terms? Cooperation would then be much more troublesome if possible at all.

What about the government’s role in preventing cybercrime? It’s not easy because the fact that the internet has been largely unregulated works against the government, for people, having had a taste of an unregulated internet are highly unlikely to welcome regulation which would be seen as censorship. This is especially so in today’s society where cries for liberalisation and freedom of rights and choice have never been louder.

 

Overburdened Women and Displaced Men: of Breadwinning and Homemaking in the Local Context

Before I begin, I must emphasize that the men and women I am referring to in this article are people who have the necessary educational qualifications to allow them to make a decent living.

As we have learnt, the roles of men and women have changed with time and globalisation which in turn has changed their relationship from one of interdependence to one of increasing independence especially for the women. This change has been so dramatic that there is now little separating women and men other than outward appearance and biological differences.

In the past, biological differences were the basis of the different roles that women and men undertook. Men, being physically stronger, were the hunters, the fishermen, the breadwinners. In contrast, women, being physically weaker, were tasked with the arguably less physically-demanding job of the homemaker. The biological fact that women are the ones giving birth also contributed to/ complemented their role as the homemaker as for most of nature, the young are taken care of by their mothers.

But times change and so do roles. Biological differences that used to characterise the different roles of women and men are now made redundant through technology(e.g. automation) and the changing needs of the economy. Manual labour is now the least valued kind of labour, what the economy and companies are looking for is the quality of what you have in your head instead of how developed your limbs are.

The result is the blurring of the economic roles of women and men, especially with the increasing availability of education to women. Women are now as capable of providing for themselves and their family as men and are more crucially, expected to. It is expected that after graduation, all should look to find a job, regardless of gender. And when a woman gets married, she is expected to continue working. It is an expectation taken for granted in today’s society which is slightly surprising given that not so long ago, family was supposed to be the foremost priority in a woman’s life.

But what is interesting is that while economic roles of women and men are becoming increasingly non-gender specific, the same cannot be said of the homemaker role. While our society expects women and men to be equally capable of gaining a livelihood, they also expect women to fulfill their duties as the homemaker. In contrast, the men have less of such worries as their primary focus is still on providing for the family. The result is overburdened women but not-so-displaced men. In fact, I would argue that a man’s role in the local society has hardly changed, not to mention being displaced.

And that brings me to the role of maids in our society, a form of help that society allows overburdened women to seek. Their predominant role is to take over the role of the traditional homemaker that local women are unable to fulfill together with their economic responsibilities. In the event that the above happens, there is then almost no distinction between the role of the man and the woman in the familial setting with the exception that women are still the ones giving birth. But this privilege is only available to those who are able to afford it for our government do not help overburdened women by subsidizing the employment of maids, instead they choose to preach work-life balance(easier said than done).

The difference between why the economic roles have become non-gender specific while the domestic role has not is tough to explain. Perhaps while the change in economic roles of women was bred out of necessity(to survive), the need to change the domestic role is relatively less pressing and some may argue that there is not even a need to change, thus resulting in the lack of change of the domestic role. Or perhaps it is related to how we are still a largely patriarchal society as most of our political and corporate leaders are men. But there are signs that change is taking place, from the traditional egoistic, domineering stereotype of men to terms like the Sensitive New Age Guy(SNAG) which refers to men who are, as the term suggests, more sensitive to the emotional needs of their partners, family etc.

Even so, the pace of change of the domestic role still pales in comparison to that of the economic role, which is why women today are overburdened. Unless, of course, you can afford a maid.