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.

 

In the pursuit of wealth

Economics’ theorist, Adam smith theorized that in order for the society to prosper, the market system has to be left alone with minimal intervention by the authorities. This way, people have the freedom to pursue their wealth; no longer will they be bounded by the authorities.

Years later, the effect of it is very much evident in the world. In the previous write up, it has been clearly demonstrated how such theory has brought catastrophic results to the world: The rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer( or just stayed poor). Smith also mentioned about the fact that in order for the economy to prosper, it has to have a division of labor. This largely agreed to the industrial revolution where craftsmanship become obsolete. Rather than having one person taking 10 days to make one product, industrialist rather have 10 person making 20 products in let’s say on day. This new found efficiency got farmers(or those in the agrarian sector) flocking to the cities in search for a better life.

What the farmers got was a rude shock. Long hours, monotonous work and terrible working conditions. This is simply isn’t something that would constitute as a better life if compared to what they had. These farmers-turned-industrial workers were ver expendable in the eyes of their employers. At any time, if given the right conditions(if they decide to demand for better wages or working conditions), they would simply be sacked and a replacement would be found almost immediately. This was due to the fact of high unemployment rate. At the first instance that an employment opportunity opened up to them, it would be snatched in almost a blink of an eye. This was the time of industrial revolution.

Things are not much different these days. Capitalist are still on the search of yielding huge profits for themselves. It does not get circulated among the society in contrary to Smith’s theory. Instead, the capitalist would find new means of creating more money for themselves. How would that be achieved? Firstly, these money-hungry mongrels would scan for a country that would provide very cheap labours. Developing countries would be the best bet for them. Then, using cheap labour, they would produce products that would benefit themselves and the society that they came from at very high prices. However, once the labour in that country gets expensive, they will just jump to another country that will offer them much cheaper labour than the previous country which they had their manufacturing plant in.

This is very evident in a country like ours. Companies which used to have manufacturing plants in  our country island (which contributed to our economic growth) have shifted to countries like India and China when the wages that the labourers here were getting were demanded to be increased. Such is the cruelty of Multinational Companies and the Free Trade Agreement.

If that was not bad enough, these companies even employed child labourers to manufacture their products. Children in Pakistan are stiching the soccer balls that loyal consumers of brands like Nike, are kick about on soccer fields. Furthermore, these children are paid so little but yet, they were put to work under such terrible conditions. MNCs take advantage of these children because poverty had driven these children to work to support their family. They are paid so little yet they are not aware of it. Such is the innocence of the child. An innocence that is being raped.

Adam Smith did point out that his theory might be catastrophic as capitalist take advantage of the masses if kept unchecked. Marx amplified this view in his book. Yet, there is little being done about such a phenomenan. If such an issue was to be resolved, like wealth, enough simply isnt enough. More has to be done about it.

Poverty and our ignorance

Good charlotte – we believe
Uploaded by good_leal

Poverty, is a real problem right now. Approximately 1.2 billion people are living on less than $1 a day. Survival is a distant reality for them right now. Despite all this, our society is rahter ignorant about this due to our comfortable lives. While we might be asking, “where shall we go eat today?” those in the dire state of poverty will be asking “will i eat today?”. Such is the contrast of our comfortable lives and their dire state.

Why are we so ignorant about it? As mentioned earlier, our lives are rather comfortable. Yet, we are complaining that we never do have enough. Is this because of our higher expectaitions which is the result of a higher standard of living? Probably so. In Singapore, we have our own difficulties to contend to. We have our careers that we need to stablise, we have our families which we have to provide for and then we have our debts which we need to clear. Debts that we have accumulated in our pursuit of wealth.

Such is the thinking of a capitalist society. We have too much freedom in wanting to create more for ourselves that we rarely actually think about those who need it more than us. As Adam Smith has theorized, our society is practicing laissez-faire. We, as individuals, have cared too much about ourselves that we eventually forget to give back to the community.

In my argument here, the community is meant as the global community. This concept has been strongly derived by the fact that our country is known as a global city. This is the result of globalization which can be traced to its roots to Feb 1819 when Sir Stamford Raffles founded modern Singapore and turned it from a “fishing village” and into a modern trade hub. This concept is very much alive in the present times with modernization that globalization has brought. High-rise buildings, well-built infrastructure, good housing etc.

Essentially, Singaporeans do have lead a luxuriously comfortable lives. The pursuit of the ever elusive 5cs(Car, Condominium, Country Club membership, Credit card and Cash) by each and every Singaporean has brought about this realization: what about those who dont even have enough to eat?

www.bbc.co.uk/.../gallery_angola.shtml?select=16

According to Don Reeves in Poverty in a Global Economy, poverty is “the involunatary lack of sufficient resources to provide or exchange for basic necessities”. What could be the possible causes of this horrible phenomenan. In the modern times, it is probably war. The picture on the right shows three Angolan children standing outside their homes. They do not have enough to eat and certainly safe place to live in due to the ongoing civil war; a war that was started by the westerners and continued by the locals to fight for control over the country and essentially its very valueble resources: namely, diamonds.

Would this have happened if it wasnt for colonizations or globalizations? It probably wouldnt have. While some countries did benefit from it, many others did not. The only reason that Singapore did not suffer the same fate as many of the African countries did was because it does not have any valuble resources to be exploited to begin with. Yet, we choose to be ignorant about it and go about with our daily lives without even giving a second thought to it. Above, is the hyperlink to the video from the famous band, Good Charlotte with their song We Believe. It might probably answer a few questions as to the how and what about poverty. It’s lyrics, might probably inspire the rest of us Singaporeans to do something about it.

We Believe

The impact of globalization – Mohd Fadzil

 Globalization can be loosely defined as the exchange of ideas, culture, values and even trade between countries and region. It has been in existence ever since mankind learned that the world (or at least theirs) was much bigger than what they can see until the horizon. With their incessant thirst for knowledge, they travelled far and wide, bring their own values and even goods with them in that fruitful hope of exchange for something new.

Such idea about globalization has not changed much since then. The only significant difference was in the way it was being carried out. Technology is one of the main culprits that significantly improved globalization over time. The ease of such act is so apparent that it is normal for us to have friends from the other side of the world that we would visit as often as how we would our neighbors. Technology too had significantly increase the rate of change that globalization had brought about. Today, we more than willing to readily accept ideas, values and trade from foreigners and at the same time exchange them for ours. Everyone else who viewed it as alien nature were ostracized greatly and deemed to be backward or undeveloped. Since the founding of modern Singapore, this seems to be the status quo.

Why is Raffles founding of Singapore much more popularly known as the founding of modern Singapore? In its own rights, it was the civilization of a much backward country (according to the British) by inculcating modern British values and technology. It was in this era where The Enlightenment was rampant in the European states where reasoning is much more powerful than simply accepting events and occurrences as a state of nature. With this, the British set out on a noble expedition to civilize countries by colonizing them.

At the very same time, they also had hoped to benefit from trade from all things like spices (India), Silk and tea (China). The founding of ‘modern’ Singapore was simply to benefit them even further as the country was smack right in the middle of the trade route in between those two countries. So, the colonization of Singapore was simple a means for the British to profit even further by making the country a hub of trade. No doubt we too benefitted from this especially in the modern times. With this, we benefitted not only from trade but also from the aspect of education, multiculturalism, technology (one that is constantly changing at a brutally fast pace but yet we are still able to be on top of things) and many other vast improvements that was brought about by this noble act of the British.

Would we have been able to survive the times if we were still going about things on our own ways? Would we be what we are today without the (or any) help of western powers? How would we likely turn out to be if we continued to be what we are? These questions can be answered by the history of Japan. For many years, Japan had closed its doors to any foreign influences. For centuries, they practiced their cultural tradition without any interference. However, upon the arrival of a US warship and its expedition, the technological superiority that the fleet had was simply too great for them to ignore that they decided to accept the foreign influences from a foreign power in order for them to gain technological superiority over that foreign influence itself.

Such impact that globalization has brought about is indeed far greater that any problems that it could have caused. Everyone benefits from this in the big picture. Even though social problems like poverty and low birth rates tend to creep up as a result, the benefits outweigh any social problem that it has brought about.

 

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!