Technology: Technology controls our lives

The advent of information technology (IT) has affected society on an immense scale. On an inter-personal level, social relations have been greatly affected. For example, in the past, to send birthday wishes one would send dedicated birthday cards or at least make a phone call. With the arrival of Facebook and mobile phone texting, wishes are not as sincere anymore as they are easily dispensed with the click of the mouse or typing of the keyboard. Going online to chat with friends and to read blogs every night is a ritual among people my age. No doubt it is a way to keep in touch with many friends at once with this new found interconnectedness, but it also means that those who do not subscribe to technology are neglected and forgotten. IT may reduce social isolation for people in rural areas, with prospects of opening a world of global contacts and new relationships. It is however, also isolating because people now maintain virtual friendships in virtual communities from the confines of their rooms.

The Internet, an invention of humans, has turned into the inventor – today we have come to rely on the Internet to programme our social behavior. People depend on it as the solution to their everyday lives. Find an answer on Google. Find instant love with an account and profile – it is why the online dating industry is booming. Get a coveted job by buying a degree for US$50 and you can get a prestigious certificate from a university of your choice, if online advertisements are to be believed. Morals have also been altered. Take Google’s new Mail Goggles for example. It restrains one from sending off angry or embarrassing emails and regretting it later by flashing five mathematical sums which he has to answer before the email gets sent. This points to the diminishing of good old-fashioned self-control and self-respect for others.

Governments around the world recognize that computing power is global power. Technology has also become an important tool for economic reasons, and for elites to maintain their position of authority.

One observes that the Singapore state has many investment stakes in the Asian telecommunications industries. This is because with the world becoming increasingly wired, lots of money can be made in providing communication services. SingTel has stakes in mobile companies in Thailand, India, the Philippines, Australia and Pakistan among others; and SingTel’s parent company is Temasek Holdings, which the sovereign wealth fund of the Singapore state.

In North Korea, the authoritarian communist regime utilizes television and radio as a means to maintain its position of power, and to repress and indoctrinate the population with propaganda. All domestic radio and television are controlled by the state. Radio and television receivers are locked to government-specified frequencies. Content is supplied almost entirely by the official Korean Central News Agency, which fawns daily coverage of “Dear Leader” Kim Jong Il. The country’s poverty or famines are never mentioned. After a deadly munitions train explosion in April 2004 in Ryongchon, the KCNA reported that citizens displayed the “spirit of guarding the leader with their very lives” by rushing into burning buildings to save portraits of Kim before searching for family members. The international press was barred from the scene, where more than 150 died and thousands were injured.

Technology is also a means of maintaining inequality. As power lies more in information and knowledge, and less in production, large multinational corporations produce designs, programmes, patents and copyrights that allow them to direct and profit from the production in developing countries. This allows for the immense proliferation of wealth of MNCs while developing countries languish in poverty because cheap labour is exploited by the power elite.

References

Committee to Protect Journalists. 2 May 2006, “North Korea tops CPJ list of ’10 Most Censored Countries’ ”, http://www.cpj.org/censored/index.html

Tan Weizhen. 27 October 2008, “Is the Net minding your manners?”, The Straits Times, pg B10, Singapore Press Holdings

Population and Health: Healthcare in Singapore

In Singapore, the state plays a huge role in healthcare. The underlying rationale for healthcare in Singapore is economic rationality. Because Singapore’s only “natural resource” are its people, the state needs its people to stay healthy and to join (and stay in as long as possible) the workforce and to power its economy.

There is a top-down management of healthcare in Singapore. In primary school, Health Education as a subject is taught to children. Children are taught to eat a balanced diet, exercise regularly and avoid tobacco. There are compulsory Physical Education lessons, and obesity and underweight among students are managed respectively. The National Physical Fitness Award (NAPFA) test was introduced in schools in 1982 at the secondary and pre-university levels and in 1992 at the primary level as an indicator of fitness levels of students. When males reach the age of 18, they are drafted into the defence forces where they will undergo more physical training. In new towns, there are community centres which have gyms and badminton, basketball, and football courts among other sports facilities. In its battle against smoking, the state bans targets to eventually implement a near-blanket ban on smoking in public places, and cigarette packaging in Singapore has mandatory pictures that show graphic images of a cancerous lung, for example.

The state also has imposed the Central Provident Fund act on working adults such that they set aside 20% of their monthly salary. The money accumulated can be used for hospitalization and withdrawn in old age. This creates a self dependency among the population for their health needs.

From the Sernau reading this week, “an ironic relationship exists between health and population: The sickest populations… have the highest rates of population growth. As a result, seeing each person as unique, precious, and worthy of great investments of time and money goes hand in hand with slowing population growth”. This can be observed in the 1960s. The state implemented the stop-at-two policy in order to curb the rapidly expanding population when there was polio, tuberculosis and cholera, and the state also introduced vaccines. These diseases have been eradicated since then. Shifting the population into HDB flats was also a huge step in improving the health standards because squatter settlements were a breeding ground for diseases.

The healthcare system in Singapore also demonstrates the class inequality that exists. Private (and better) healthcare is available only to the wealthy, while the middle and working class are able to afford public healthcare. If one goes to observe the polyclinics in the heartlands, a long queue of elderly people starts forming even before the opening time to obtain cheap healthcare. On the other hand, private hospitals are situated near the upper class districts to cater to them – Mount Alvernia Hospital at Lornie Road, Mount Elizabeth at Orchard Road, Gleneagles Hospital at Napier Road.

With globalization, we also see the proliferation of health products. Multinational gym companies such as California Fitness have set up branches in Singapore. These are actually reactions to the modern lifestyles of sedentary jobs and fast-food diets, which are products of globalization and capitalism. Health products are also enhanced by the media, which often expounds the image of slim people as beautiful people.

In the field of palliative healthcare, more specifically on the talk of legalizing euthanasia here, a reason cited during feedback sessions with public has been “financial burden”. It is perhaps a veiled protest against the high costs of healthcare. Rather, I feel it reflects how morals in society have degenerated with the spread of capitalism. Everything has an economic value placed on it – old and disabled people are perceived as de-valued because they are expensive to take care of.

References

Agence France Presse. 9 March 2005, “Singapore to extend smoking ban to pubs, bus shelters”, http://www.singapore-window.org/sw05/050309a2.htm

Khalik, Salma. 22 October 2008, “Euthanasia law: Let’s take it slow and easy”, The Straits Times, pg A2, Singapore Press Holdings

Urbanization: Urbanization in Singapore with the focus on housing

When Singapore became independent in Singapore in 1965, the state embarked on an economic programme of industrialization. Urbanization and its public housing policy was the main means to accomplish this. Farming was seen as having low value and removed, and the population was moved into Housing Development Board flats to pressure them to work in wage-paying jobs, instead of being able to rely on their families’ welfare, and so as to pay off their house installments. The arrival of new towns meant the arrival of the now standard spatial separation between places of work leisure and home. About 90% of the population lives in HDB flats today.

Established settlements which had to be demolished in order to make land available for new housing estates were justified by an ideology that ‘land is scarce’ in Singapore. Communities of urban squatters or semi-rural villages tended to be racially homogenous, for example Malay kampongs or Chinese shophouses. Destruction of these estates meant the destruction of ‘racial’ residential areas and their attendant cultural practices (Chua and Kuo, 1995). The dispersions have the worst consequences for minority groups. Since quotas for each of the three races for each HDB block are controlled, this deprives minority groups of certain social supports that can be fulfilled by their respective members. For example, working Malay Muslim parents find it difficult to entrust childcare responsibilities to non-Malays because of stringent rules on food and gender relations. But this is justified by the state’s interest to encourage inter-racial understanding.

As with other urbanized countries, we can also observe the class inequality in different urbanized areas of Singapore.

Although HDB flats look similar from the outside, if one looks within the blocks, different estates house different types of residents. Chinatown, more specifically Kreta Ayer, though beside the Central Business District, retains its population of elderly and poor people, setting a contrast. I also see similar circumstances of destitution in Tiong Bahru, Whampoa and Kallang. Along Kallang River, there are even vagrants who sleep on benches and bathe in public toilets.

One also observes that the best schools which cater to a lot of the upper class are situated in the Bukit Timah area, while neighbourhood schools are located in the heartlands and cater to the middle and working classes’ children’s educational needs, further exemplifying the concept of core and periphery.

A characteristic of urbanization is the immigration of people from the rural areas to the city. In Singapore’s case, foreigners come to Singapore to work. Expatriates are treated with envy and resentment, while blue-collar workers from South Asia are looked down on.

Foreign workers usually live in dormitories in industrial areas such as Tuas, Woodlands and Kaki Bukit. But in September, the Government’s plan to site a dormitory for foreign workers in the private estate of Serangoon Gardens caused a major furore among its residents. They described the move as one that will “create security and social problems and spoil the ambience of the estate” and petitioned to protest against the plan. In the end, the state compromised by giving the dormitory space to male and female workers from the manufacturing and service industries rather than the construction sector, and constructing a $2-million road that is away from the estate. This shows Singaporeans’ intolerance for blue collar workers. Even though Singaporeans know they are needed to build our houses and roads, they prefer to be ignorant when it comes to providing shelter, a basic human necessity, for these people.

References

Chua Beng Huat and Eddie Kuo. 1995 “The Making of a New Nation: Cultural Construction and National Identity”, in Chua Beng Huat, Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge, pp 114

Lim, Lydia. 7 September 2008, “Why I did not sign the petition”, The Sunday Times, pg 4, Singapore Press Holdings

Tan Dawn Wei. 12 October 2008, “The ‘Them And Us’ Divide”, The Sunday Times, pg 27, Singapore Press Holdings

Globalized Identity – Singapore Identity, Women in South Korea

What is identity to me? I’ve been brought up thinking I’m Singaporean, Chinese and Taoist. These are the most common, basic identifications we are given living in Singapore, perhaps internalized by the government.

I however feel that the Singaporean identity is mostly one united by desire for economic gain. It has existed since the PAP came into power. When we were unceremoniously booted from our merger with Malaysia, the state had to form an identity for the nation-state (as opposed to the people having a common identity and thus forming a nation). It thus formed one that is committed to economic achievement and pragmatism, which has existed till today. The state has created a sense of national pride in Singapore as country which rose from a third world to a first world country, with nothing but the people’s hard work and the state’s administration. This has also developed a shared identity of worrying about jobs and our children’s studies.

The ideology of multiculturalism prescribed by the state (with me being Chinese) which accords equal status to the various races has functioned as a powerful force against ethnic discrimination, thus fostering solidarity. There is a shared fear of racial strife, which occurred in the past.

I feel the state though placing a great emphasis on the material chase, also emphasizes practice of religion in our daily lives. This is because organized religion is “the opiate of the masses”. Religions usually teach conservative values. As such, citizens will be docile and obedient, willing to listen to the state’s policies even if the policies would affect us negatively.

I read an article that was deeply interesting. It was about how neo-Confucianism in South Korea serves to sustain a legitimizing identity in women in South Korea through plastic surgery.

In South Korea, parents offer their children cosmetic procedures as high school graduation presents. 62% of women have undergone cosmetic surgery before. This is built on neo-Confucianism, what I interpret as Confucian fundamentalism suited to our modern times. In Confucianism, the ever-flowing life force called Chi permeates everything. That which flowed through your ancestors’ bodies now flow through yours. But only males have Chi; females are mere receptacles of it. Women are only valued for their bodies as the means of reproducing the larger body – family, society.

Today, neo-Confucianism is the essence of the Korean identity and the state ideology. With consumerist desires and the Korean War idealizing Caucasian bodies as perfect and Asian bodies imperfect, women pursue plastic surgery. As they have internalized the notion that they are bodies and have no selves, and the larger body is more important than themselves, they go under the knife to express sameness; to look alike, not different. The pressure on women to conform to neo-Confucianist rules has turned into pressure to follow this new rule of bodily self-improvement for the unity and stability of the larger body and social harmony. The closer one is brought to the Caucasian ideal, the better her prospects in finding a better job and husband.

References

Ho, Andy. 9 October 2008, “Korean women’s plastic pressures”, The Straits Times, pg A29

Democracy & Human Rights: Democracy and human rights in Singapore

Ever since the People’s Action Party seized power in 1959 after an electoral process, they have continued their single party domination unabated ever since.

From my personal observation, they have today become an authoritarian democracy to keep them in power and to ensure the country’s political and economic stability.

In Singapore, general elections are very much a democratic process. But the issue is that majority of the constituencies are won by a walkover; there is hardly any opposition parties to contest the incumbent. This is a stark contrast to the days of pre-independence, where the political scene was full of fervor. This can be due to Singaporeans being socialized from a young age into fearing to challenge the PAP. Over the years, many opposition leaders such as Chee Soon Juan and the late JBJ Jeyaratnam have been successfully sued many times by the PAP for defamation.

The constituency of Potong Pasir is one of the last bastions of opposition presence. It is presided over by veteran opposition leader Chiam See Tong’s Singapore Democratic Alliance since 1984. As a result, the estate is underdeveloped compared to other constituencies in Singapore. Roads have potholes, only one bus service plies the estate and there is a lack of sheltered walkways for residents. The estate is neglected because it is not under the rule of the PAP.

If one equates democracy with civil society, Singapore definitely does not qualify as a democracy. The state rules with strict laws and limits on freedom of expression.

Under Singapore law, any public protest of at least five people without a permit is deemed illegal, meaning demonstrations seldom occur (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP4BVw4tGYmwMGtdLfjp0YQyZlAQ). The only state-designated outdoor free speech venue is Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park. Speakers must register with police and abide by a list of rules which forbid discussion of religion or topics that might provoke racial tension. The venue does not attract many speakers nor listeners.

In 2005, the state decided not to open the Buangkok MRT station with the other stations on the North-East Line due to an insufficient population base in the area. A group of grassroots leaders lobbying for its opening placed eight cardboard cut-outs of white elephants near the MRT station in protest, to coincide with a visit by Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. They received stern warning from the police.

The state’s uptightness on protests has also irked international bodies. During the annual International Monetary Board and the World Bank Fund meeting held in Singapore in 2006, protesters were only allowed to protest at a designated indoor area, and an undisclosed number of civic organizations were barred from entering the country. This was despite the World Bank and IMF having invited these groups to attend and requesting that outdoor protests be allowed. In their defence, the state stated that it did not want to compromise the security of the nation as protests could be used as cover by terrorists.

This brings me to another point. In light of post-911 terrorist threats, the state has stepped up its use of the Internal Security Act (ISA), and in turn reduced human rights. The ISA allows the indefinite detention of suspects deemed as threats to national security. In December 2001, thirteen suspected Islamic militants, believed to be members of the Jemaah Islamiyah group, were detained under the ISA for allegedly plotting to blow up the US embassy and other diplomatic missions in Singapore. Some of the ISA’s aspects have been criticised by human rights groups as draconian (www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020413a1.htm). However, the state has to enforce the act in order to prevent damage to national security.

There is hope yet, though. In August this year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called for the ban on political videos and outdoor demonstrations to be eased as part of a gradual liberalisation of society.

Even then, Singaporeans in general strangely have a lack of motivation to air dissatisfactions or their views, and have an insouciance of the political scene. This may be because Singapore has prospered over the years and is politically stable under the PAP. Multiple parties competing for control may be highly democratic, giving voices to many voices and groups, but the government may be weak and based on shifting coalitions and complex electoral alliances (Sernau, 2006). And also, marginalized groups lack the knowledge of their rights. The citizens also have a fear of speaking out against the ruling party, as mentioned earlier.

One more interesting point is how the state even seeks to control the citizens’ money. From the age of eighteen, Singaporeans have to set aside 20% of their monthly income and accumulate till retirement when funds can be withdrawn. In between, the fund can be used to buy HDB flats built by the government. This may actually be a plot to make Singaporeans buy flats built by the state.

References

Agence France Presse. 12 April 2002, “Singapore to raise public awareness
about Internal Security Act”, Singapore Window, http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020413a1.htm

Agence France Presse. 21 August 2008, “Seven charged in Singapore over IMF-World Bank protests: activist”, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP4BVw4tGYmwMGtdLfjp0YQyZlAQ

Arnold, Wayne. 12 September 2006, “Singapore tightens cordon on protest”, International Herald Tirbune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/08/news/sing.php

Au Yong, Jeremy. 26 September 2008, “Whatever happened to the white elephant station”, The Straits Times, pg A36

Sernau, Scott, 2006, Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace and Sustainability, Pearson Education