Damn…

Im in a great deep shit of getting zero for my midterms. All thanks to the confusion on my part as well as others. I’ve already uploaded all the entries. Its just that i’ve uploaded it to a different page. Dont people know how to explore one’s space even for a little teeny-weeny bit?

 Haiz…Oh well. Let’s just hope something can be salvaged out of this. At least there is comfort in knowing that people know that i always do my assignments on time. Heck…on time! Specialist creed 101- We are always late, but then, we are always ahead of time anyway. So…Prof, just give it a check ya? But in any case, i redid this blog so that there wont be any more confusion in the future.

A note to all others who refuse to update your blogs that landed us all in this great deep shit? Please do your work on time ya? You couldnt possibly be even busier then i am. Trust me, i juggle time like nobody’s business. Rugby(school, club), school, assignments, project, work ( 5 times a week) and then the significant other who constantly cries for attention. haiz…plz ppl, consistency is the key here. trust me. or i’ll throw you all into the army. Then you’ll know how to work.

Is it what it seems?

Bertand Russell once said, “war does not determine who’s right- only who’s left”. Indeed, it does. War more often than not leaves a trail of devastation in its aftermath to all those that is involved. Unfortunately, this also affects the non-combatants as well.

Why do people go to war? Many often justify this question by saying that they do it because they want to help a weaker state. That would be a more definite answer to the involvement of American troops in the two world wars. And so it seems that being in a war is alright as long as one believes what he does is right. Unfortunately, that is not to be the latent functions of it all. It seems that dominance, extension of one’s boundaries, ideals and more recently, economic power seems to be the underlying, unexpressed factors that countries like America decided to go to war.

In my encounter with American troops on a bilateral exercise, my curiosity led me to asking them why they are involved in the Iraqi war. They often gave the same reply saying that they are there to help the Iraqi people who have been oppressed by Dictator Saadam Hussein. They want to inculcate the values of democracy hoping that it would free their lives. And every single soldier I asked gave an almost similar response. Perhaps, they have been socialized into this as their superiors have gotten them to internalize these values.

These soldiers signed up for this noble mission of theirs for one particular event: 9/11. This is the overall response that I received when I asked them as to why they signed up in the first place. Many of the soldiers that I have interacted with happen to be “veterans” of Iraqi Freedom. In fact, they happened to be one of the first few when that operation began. Nationalism seemed to have spurred them into action. The collapse of the World Trade Centre seemed to pull Americans together, pulling its young into the ranks to fight a war that is far away from its own land.

As it has been observed in the previous major conflicts around the war, the last war that was fought on American soil was probably the American Civil war from 1861 till 1865. However, the next wars onwards were fought on foreign soils. None of the effects of war ever reached their lands. But why did conflicts affect their actions and decision to enter the war?

One of the main arguments that conspiracy theorist have constructed would be the American government’s interest of economic might. It has been theorized that the presence of WMD in Iraqi was doctored just so that they could convince the international community that their invasion of Iraq was justifiable. However, the conspiracy theory is that they were just in it for the oil. They also could possible gain a new market for the American companies. It has been noted that financially and economically, the year that they entered the war was such a good one. They were in it for the economic gain so it seems.

Did they really want to eliminate these WMDs to protect the world’s populace? Did they want to free the Iraqis from their oppressor? Possibly, maybe they are just another oppressor since they want to instil their ideals of democracy into the people of Iraq. Evidence indeed has shown that every war that the Americans went to benefitted them tremendously. World war two brought them out of a slump that the great depression put them in. Hence, a new war, Operation Iraqi freedom could possibly bring them out of a financial deficit (by the trillions) that the cold war has brought them? Perhaps that is the case. After all, anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.

Bertand Russell once said, “war does not determine who’s right- only who’s left”. Indeed, it does. War more often than not leaves a trail of devastation in its aftermath to all those that is involved. Unfortunately, this also affects the non-combatants as well.

Why do people go to war? Many often justify this question by saying that they do it because they want to help a weaker state. That would be a more definite answer to the involvement of American troops in the two world wars. And so it seems that being in a war is alright as long as one believes what he does is right. Unfortunately, that is not to be the latent functions of it all. It seems that dominance, extension of one’s boundaries, ideals and more recently, economic power seems to be the underlying, unexpressed factors that countries like America decided to go to war.

In my encounter with American troops on a bilateral exercise, my curiosity led me to asking them why they are involved in the Iraqi war. They often gave the same reply saying that they are there to help the Iraqi people who have been oppressed by Dictator Saadam Hussein. They want to inculcate the values of democracy hoping that it would free their lives. And every single soldier I asked gave an almost similar response. Perhaps, they have been socialized into this as their superiors have gotten them to internalize these values.

These soldiers signed up for this noble mission of theirs for one particular event: 9/11. This is the overall response that I received when I asked them as to why they signed up in the first place. Many of the soldiers that I have interacted with happen to be “veterans” of Iraqi Freedom. In fact, they happened to be one of the first few when that operation began. Nationalism seemed to have spurred them into action. The collapse of the World Trade Centre seemed to pull Americans together, pulling its young into the ranks to fight a war that is far away from its own land.

As it has been observed in the previous major conflicts around the war, the last war that was fought on American soil was probably the American Civil war from 1861 till 1865. However, the next wars onwards were fought on foreign soils. None of the effects of war ever reached their lands. But why did conflicts affect their actions and decision to enter the war?

One of the main arguments that conspiracy theorist have constructed would be the American government’s interest of economic might. It has been theorized that the presence of WMD in Iraqi was doctored just so that they could convince the international community that their invasion of Iraq was justifiable. However, the conspiracy theory is that they were just in it for the oil. They also could possible gain a new market for the American companies. It has been noted that financially and economically, the year that they entered the war was such a good one. They were in it for the economic gain so it seems.

Did they really want to eliminate these WMDs to protect the world’s populace? Did they want to free the Iraqis from their oppressor? Possibly, maybe they are just another oppressor since they want to instil their ideals of democracy into the people of Iraq. Evidence indeed has shown that every war that the Americans went to benefitted them tremendously. World war two brought them out of a slump that the great depression put them in. Hence, a new war, Operation Iraqi freedom could possibly bring them out of a financial deficit (by the trillions) that the cold war has brought them? Perhaps that is the case. After all, anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.

Why do they do it?

Why do people commit crime? That has always been an insidious question that has plagued the minds of many, mine included. A friend of mine used to say, “Why do people do such a thing? Because they can, that’s why.” Such a saying only points out the individual’s choice options to do something. In this case, we might be able to say that that individual has very limited choice. Hence, crime came at a last resort.

Often, criminals are normally those who are in the state of poverty. Even though they might be living in a prosperous country, the system and culture that country has did not benefit these individuals. They have effectively been marginalised by the society.

In Singapore, we have been taught the very important value of meritocracy. In meritocracy, those who work hard will eventually get their rewards. Those who don’t will simply lose out. I would like to invoke this very thought: In a race, how many people can come out first? Can be the champion? Chances are, only one person out of the entire group can be number 1. Only he can be the champion while the rest simply lose (or those who came in second or third might get a consolation prize. Everyone else might just get a certificate of appreciation for their participation). Now, meritocracy is just like a race. Only one winner, the rest are just losers. It’s as simple as that. Although it has brought talented people to leading the country and the economic growth and whatnot, it has also marginalized the rest of the population and especially the worst off into a state of poverty.

I would now like to illustrate how this eventually causes someone to commit a crime. I used to have this Private who was basically in financial hell. He was only receiving around $500 a month in terms of allowance from the SAF. In the Singaporean context, that might just be enough for him to go out with his friends while still being under the support of his parents. Sad to say, both his parents were diagnosed with cancer and he was the only one left to support his family. Needless to say, he had nowhere to turn to. Me and the rest of his commanders tried in every way we could to help ease his burden. But it was simply not enough. Soon, he owed loan sharks thousands of dollars. He eventually started up his own “enterprise”: selling contrabands. But that wasn’t enough. Sometime around this year, I’ve heard from his friends that he was in prison for committing a robbery.

Did he have other choice to support his family? I very much doubt so. I’ve been in contact with him for over a year before I finished my 2 years in the army. And it seems that in order for him to survive, he had no other choice but to resort to crime.

Was it really his fault? Partly yes since he decided to choose crime. But, what other choice did he have. His background entails details of a typical person born into poverty. He was born into a working class family. Even though both parents were working, they couldn’t even afford basic health care which eventually lead them to cancer. He had to serve 2 years of National Service: An institution that robbed him of his time and money in an otherwise job he could have done to support his family in times like this. So why did he do it? Did he have a choice or was it that his choice was sealed up by others?

The Victorian ideal?

In a traditional household, there would be a mother whose sole occupation as a housewife is to care for the children and her husband. There would also be the husband whose role is to go out to work, earn and put food on the table for the family. Of course, the children would be there as well. Fast forward for today and you would see that both husband and wife have wage-earning occupations. Both are professionals. At the very least, especially in the Singaporean context, they would have a maid to take care of their children while they are at work.

How did such a wonderful Victorian ideal become so misconstrued into what it is today? First of all, such ideal did not apply to everyone. It only applied to the rich and at the very most, the middle class who could afford to. Those from the working class had to toil the land. This is in reference to the women who had to toil all day long on their lands since they were basically on subsistence farming. If they didn’t do so, they simply do not have much to eat. Hence, the Victorian ideal was very much an absurd ideal for them. Even if they do not work on their own lands, they would be working for the rich as maids or cooks. None had the time to explore the ideals of become a Victorian lady.

Today, things are not much different than what it was centuries ago. Instead of lands, these women instead could be working in factories. Long hours, monotonous work and poor benefits: the fate of these women has not changed much despite the big news that we keep hearing about how the quality of life has been improving for us all; how feminism has actually helped these women achieve better in life. This was not to be.

Why are majority of the women still stuck in the same vicious cycle? It goes back to the arguments that two very familiar theories have: Capitalism versus Marxism. Because capitalist want more capital for themselves to big a bigger empire for themselves, they would cut costs by doing things like cutting down on labour.

After the Second World War, survivors flocked back to the industries, snapping up their old jobs. These men formed unions and soon demanded for higher wages. Viewing this as a big hindrance, capitalist chose to instead use women labour which are deemed to be cheaper, much more efficient and less intimidating to them. This was fuelled by feminist movements which soon almost had every other woman in the workforce. Offices, factories; blue collared or white collared, women were everywhere in the workforce.

Evolution in the human world often occurs at breakneck speed. The demographics soon changed. Presently, there seems to be more women than men everywhere. Even in the institutes of higher learning. Women population seems to be much more then the men’s. In companies, more and more women are taking on executive roles and even own them (think Mrs Lee Kuan Yew).

What caused all this? Victorian ideals; is it still relevant? I doubt that it even exists. Women’s ambitions have now changed. It might not even differ much then the men’s. Study hard, get a good education, and get a good job and a great career. Perhaps this is the new Victorian ideal.