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

WAR – Is the prospect of World War III thinkable?

World Wars I and II claimed millions of victims, caused suffering to even more, and massive destruction occurred. However, these statistics do not matter to many countries and societies which still continue to engage in destructive conflict and war. Will another World War ever occur?

The root cause of World War II was the madness of Adolf Hitler. He wanted to expand Germany and had a plan for world domination. In addition he had allies in Japan and Italy and the democratic powers were passive in allowing Germany to build up its military strength and to recover from WW I.

In my perspective, I do not think WWIII will occur.

Globalization and the increasing economic dependence between countries make war too risky and too expensive. There is a conditional loyalty that exists that maintains this social order. Countries that commit atrocities will attract international intervention, usually led by the United States, but it will not lead to war. This can be seen from the human rights abuses by the Burmese junta on protesting monks and civilians which only attracted strong diplomatic urges from the United Nations and US, and no use of force.

Terrorism, which is “the deliberate targeting of more or less randomly selected victims whose deaths and injuries are expected to weaken the opponents’ will to persist in a political conflict” (Turk, 2002) is today’s major problem in the evolution of war. More specifically, a war of ideology is taking place between the US (and the Western world) and Islamic terrorism. The conflict between the two adversaries had been ongoing for years before it came to a head on September 11, 2001. Since then the US has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, purportedly to eliminate terrorism. Islamic terrorists have also carried out various bombings in Madrid, London and Bali to target Westerners. As allies of the West, some Asian countries also become potential targets of terrorist attacks. One may argue that this may lead to a world war. I believe a world war is already taking place, because the world is against terrorism, but it is not a total war of mindless destruction. Instead, because of the enemy is always in hiding and its operations clandestine, a war of total devastation may not happen.

The number of countries with nuclear capabilities is ever-increasing. Countries include the US, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan. As a legacy of the Cold War, a sense of insecurity exists between these countries that one will mount an attack on another, especially since George W Bush’s administration exercised a policy of pre-emption – attacking an adversary in expectation of what might be done in future – in attacking Afghanistan in 2001. A nuclear war may abruptly erupt. But I believe these countries proliferate their nuclear weapons only as a form of deterrence, having the weapons to ensure the other side did not use theirs to in a stalemate of mutually assured destruction.

Therefore, as seen from above, a third World War may not arise even with the global threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

References

Fuller, Richard, 2006, Causes of the Second World War, http://www.rpfuller.com/gcse/history/6.html

Turk, A. T., 2004, "Sociology of Terrorism." Annual Review of Sociology