Energy subsidies have been given on the premise that the poor cannot afford purchasing fuel at market prices. Thus, governments have tried many ways of subsidising the poor, be it through a ceiling price, through discount coupons, or even through direct cash rebates. Many countries which have once awarded subsidies have taken them off, for example Thailand. Countries that are still subsidizing their fuel in South East Asia are Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Comparing the intended outcome of subsidies and the realities of the poor in these countries, the question still remains- should we be awarding fuel subsidies to the poor?

In attempting to answer this question, one cannot only approach it from a morality point of view. True, it is relatively difficult for the poor to afford fuel consumption, but think about it- although it targets the poor, who actually receives these subsidies? Subsidies are enjoyed by the whole population once any part receives it! It lowers the price of fuel nationally. With the onset of globalization, the difficulty of exclusion emerges. Globalization brings homogeneity even in the context of fuel consumption. Thus, from an economic point of view, subsidies distort fuel consumption because the cheaper price of fuel induces the people to use more fuel rather than to economize.

                From a sociological point of view, fuel subsidies bring an unnecessary pressure on ecology because the more fuel is consumed, the more the ecology is affected. These effects are both forward and backward. Forward as in, after the increased consumption of fuel, pollution is induced. Backward effects are when the increased consumption causes the producer to further scavenge the earth for oil, and then proceed to deplete her resources. These forward and backward effects could have been less severe if less fuel was consumed. And less fuel would be consumed without subsidies. Then only it would be fair for Mother Nature, who has been carrying the burden of our massive fuel consumption.

                Also, fuel subsidies are given with the assumption that the poor need to be helped- as if they are helpless. This does not help them any further, as they would have no incentive to try to invent new ways of being less dependent on fuel. Currently, it is only the government and NGOs who are working on alternative energy sources. To me, this is a waste, as alternative energy could be sourced out together, if the government had created more synergy together with the poor and rural community. For example, the biofuel project is crafted by governments, and they are ‘forced’ upon unto rural citizens. Why is it that every governmental project is introduced ‘top-down’, rather than bottom-up?

In my humble opinion, fuel consumption should not be subsidized because they create large distortions in the decisions made by all citizens on how much to spend on fuel. Without these subsidies, citizens would spend less on fuel, and the ecology does not have to bear as much a burden as she is carrying now. Also, having less than enough to spend on fuel will induce citizens to source for alternative energy, which then creates an innovative and creative environment, where there is an incentive to seek greater heights.

            I remember when computer classes were introduced in my Malaysian school. It was phenomenal and it sparked the enthusiasm of every student to be present in school. It was 1996, and English classes were occasionally held in the computer lab, where we had to complete certain exercises on the computer. But the amusing thing was, for every exercise we completed on the computer, we had to copy everything down again in our little exercise book. Although there were many blunders and errors caused by our teachers who had not mastered computing skills, these classes played an important role in exposing us students to new technology. It was implemented at the time when many families did not yet own a personal computer, even in my own family.

            Soon after, electronic toys and gadgets such as Tamagochi were introduced. Many children were carrying one, or even two around. Tamagochi is a virtual pet that has to be taken care of everyday- it has to be fed and cleaned, and has ‘life’. This took a huge chunk of time in many young children’s life, and changed the way they related to other children. Their relations were mainly on the basis of their Tamagochi, as their pets could befriend, or fight against one another. Although this brought together children with similar interests, there were many others who were left out.  However, it was banned in school, and so, became an out-of-school experience that children looked forward to.

            Then it came the time where Internet was introduced. It started in 1998, and I observed a proliferation of cyber cafes in my town. Friends spoke about e-mail and IRC (Internet Relay Chat), and I had no idea whatsoever about the topic of their conversation. We continued to have computer classes in school, but it had nothing to do with teaching us about Internet. Thus, peer pressure drove those of us without home internet access to the cyber cafes. And subsequently, this changed the way we spent our free time. Instead of spending free time at home or being with friends physically, we were on the Internet, hooked to online chatting. Internet chatting and gaming were the hot topics. Therefore, those who were in it were ‘locked’ in, as it became a strong addiction, while those not involved were locked out, unable to participate in conversations, and deemed lacking in something.

            After computers and the Internet, many other electronic must-haves such as the playstation emerged in the market. And then, mobile phones became the ‘entry-ticket’ to being included in conversations. However, all these gadgets were banned in school. Even until today, mobile phones are not allowed to be brought in school. The reason given is, the school does not want thefts to happen, and they are trying their best to avoid social exclusions for those who could not afford them. In my opinion, this has been a smart move by school authorities, because they have acknowledged the potential of technology in distorting the equilibrium in school- where everyone is equal in material wealth, and only differ academically and physically.

Instead of discussing about how globalization accelerates the spread of diseases, shouldn’t we be more concerned about how we can utilize globalization to infuse the whole world with principles of how to lead disease-free lives? It pains me to know that in so many parts of the world, they do not practice basic hygiene. And it pains me even more to know that there isn’t anywhere in the world that is inaccessible. I mean, the fact that we can reach everywhere in this world (putting political embargoes aside) means that all diseases can be eliminated. How? By health education, of course! This means that instead of looking at epidemic crises as the aftermath of a dreadful virus spread, we see it as an undesired outcome. Instead of waiting for the seed to grow into a full-fledged plant, we nip it in the bud. So simple, yet often overlooked.

If we compare the birthplaces of many disease outbreaks, we see a similar feature that connects them. They are mainly birthed out of rural areas where inhabitants either live in close proximity with each other or with nature (Here nature, being flora and fauna). So is close proximity the problem? Certainly not! Rather, it is what activities are being carried out, and how they are carried out. I mean, if we look at the problem of SARS, and even the Nipah outbreak which happened in Malaysia, certainly, the problem began in animals, which transmitted their virus to humans. However, does it mean that rearing pigs are wrong, and we should not rear any livestock? Of course not! That doesn’t make sense or we’ll be dying of starvation, or turning into vegetarians. Rather, the problem lies within the process of rearing livestock. It is not a problem of rearing pigs; rather, it is a problem of rearing pigs wrongly.

So, here is where the role of the state and supranational institutions come in. In fact, there should be a larger, coordinated action within each state. In the context of rearing livestock in Malaysia, the role of the Ministry of Agriculture is particularly important. But they cannot play their role without the guidelines from Ministry of Health. And the Ministry of Health cannot come out with these guidelines without the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment. Thus, there is a need for an effective working relationship between the ministries. Also, there needs to be an efficient dissemination of information from supranational institutions, for example, with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). However, the onus is on the state to carry out their responsibility in educating their citizens.

To sum it up, we have to be forward looking in tackling issues of health and population. That is, we have to be vigilant to avoid future outbreaks by educating citizens in the first place. We cannot afford to be backward looking, where we only act after an outbreak happens and only then research the source of the problem. Instead, we should begin to look into the current practices of citizens, and discern whether they are potential health hazards or not. Then we should invest in new technologies to help them shift forward to a higher level of living with less hazardous practices.

True representation does not equal to a governmental system where the majority is represented. There is a difference between a majority representation, and a majority consensus. I am all for a majority consensus, but never for a majority representation. The problem about a majority representation is because the minority plays no part in making the majority consensus. To me, all groups firstly need autonomy in practicing their own way of life. But, when it comes to decisions that affect everyone, they have to collectively reach a consensus that is agreed on by majority vote.

Here is an analogy- Let’s say that a country is made up of a group of Japanese and a group of Chinese. Logically, the Chinese would not dictate the Japanese as to how much rice they need to use in making sushi, and vice versa. Each group has perfect autonomy to practice their own cultures of preparing food. Now let’s say that there is a rice shortage. Then, the government (which should perfectly represent both the Chinese and Japanese) should come out with a majority consensus on how rice should be rationed out among their citizens. And, because of this true representation, the distribution of rice would be equal because each group takes into account the needs of their own group.

My point is this- that without a total representation of all the peoples in a state, problems are bound to surface. In the case of the imaginary country above, the 2 ethnic groups will be at war against each other. And, unless dealt with justly, they will resurface. This is true for states still caught in ethnic disputes- aren’t they just a continuation of the past? Isn’t it simply a cycle caused by the unjust government? Perhaps, soon history-writers will be out of jobs, as everything that is happening has happened before. All that is different would be the key players in the strife, except that if you looked closer, you’ll see that they would be from the same solidarity group- be it ethnic, religion, or working class.

A good indicator of unequal representation in the state would be the prevalence of strikes and boycotts. The fact that solidarity groups need to form in protest of their government by such means prove that they have no say in the process of governmental decision making. If they had a voice in the government, their concerns would have been noted, and, if substantial enough, would have changed the course of the government’s actions. If, however, by majority consensus their concerns were deemed unworthy, they would still have no right to stir dissension among their own groups outside the government. This is because all groups should abide by the majority consensus, assuming that the decision making process is just.

In conclusion, democracy is not just a process of blindly electing people to make important decisions, neither is it one where we can blindly rely on one side to rule another. It is a collective rule by the people, where all groups should be represented, whether of ethnic, religion, or working class. With the absence of total participation, we can anticipate distrust and discontent which will stir dissensions within the state. But when all groups are represented, we have a strong government which will hardly fail.

George Orwell, Polemic, May 1946, “Second Thoughts on James Burnham”

English essayist, novelist, & satirist (1903 – 1950)

 I believe that there is nothing we can contribute to towards the total eradication of war. Seriously, until the world comes to an end, we will always hear about wars, and rumours of wars. World peace, to me, seems like a mere dream; one so unattainable, I wonder who started wish-listing it. Doesn’t war stem from the need to justify our own interests? Isn’t it a signaling tool of superiority and supremacy? I feel that throughout history, war has merely been an adult version of the childish I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong game. And as long as we humans live with a burning need to justify ourselves, we will be living and breathing war.

The significance of winning and losing has always been socially constructed. It has been the fuel of war, where as long as it burns within, we’ll see fire without. And, it doesn’t matter whether a certain war is ethically justified or not, it all boils down to the same premise- the exigency of winning. This explains why war has existed since early civilizations and has prevailed henceforth. It really doesn’t matter how we label them- hot or cold, political or economic, civil or uncivil, it is all a mere attempt to prove who’s stronger, smarter and shrewder. Surprisingly, the very society that labels war also socially constructs the very basis of war.

Take the Iraqi war for example. The United States of America justified their grounds of war as Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. Thus, to prove their stance, they proclaimed war over Iraq. They invaded, captured, and occupied the land but then found no evidence of such weapons. But did they bring the war to a halt and declared an apology? No. If only George Orwell lived in this time and was an advisor to the US government. He would have shared his famous quotation with them- the quickest way to ending a war is to lose it. But then, is the importance of winning a socially constructed frame of mind in America?

The American Dream, written in 1931, is a dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. (James Truslow Adams, The Epic of America). This dream has been one of the mediums in educating young (and old alike) Americans about the importance of development. And in doing so, the message of needing to be better than the others has been widespread. There are two ways in which this dream can be seen in infiltrating minds- one; be the best, and two; don’t let others succeed over you. Thus, this dream can be said as socially constructing the need to win, and never to lose. This dream, taken in its’ essence, has boosted the American economy, but it has unfortunately, also been the basis of war.

To sum it up, war has been a social construction which stems from the need to elevate self to the top. The basis of war has hardly changed from ancient times and, I doubt, will change in the future. It has been fueled by the need to win, and as long as neither party seeks to end it by admitting defeat, wars will prevail.

John Donne, Meditation XVII
English clergyman & poet (1572 – 1631)

Crime is a huge, interconnected circle which you and I, surprisingly, has a part to play. It takes two hands to clap. In the law of Economics, markets reach their equilibrium where supply meets demand. Nevertheless, crime ‘markets’ also equilibrate where supply meets demand. Here, I seek to invite you to come and realize the economic power we have that can influence the markets of crime.

In normal markets, producers only produce demanded goods. Without demand, there is no supply. Using the same analogy, I would say that crime exists because there is demand for it. Take piracy for example. It is a theft of intellectual property, but yet it is still rampant. Why? Because there is demand for it! From the viewpoint of a consumer in Economics, demand is a rational, decision making process to choose a consumption bundle which maximizes your profit while minimizing your cost. So, when an opportunity arises to obtain a good or service where your benefits override your costs, you’ll pick that choice. And voila, I have explained how piracy is sustained. Guess who’s guilty now?

You could argue, of course, and provide excuses to justify your ‘need’ for piracy. Perhaps, you’re not yet financially independent and to obtain an original product would mean living far above your means. But, do you realize, that the same ‘justification’ process that goes through your mind is the same of that that goes through the mind of a criminal? Scary, but true enough, that crime happens because of this justification process that leads some to demand, and others to supply. And when all of us ‘justifiers’ come together, we make up a market of crime- where supply meets demand, and where the higher demand gets, the more suppliers supply.

 So now we know how intertwined we are in this whole web of crime. We are not that innocent after all. The problem with our ignorance is because usually, in discussing crime, most of us speak from the platform of the other side of the world, as if crime originated from an alienated other part of the world, which we have nothing to do whatsoever with. We have been stereotyping and generalizing, as if we only breathe and consume oxygen and nothing else. But now we know the roles we play in this crime ‘market’. We are all key players in the economy, who demand and supply goods and services. And in doing so, we are either enhancing, or disintegrating markets in the economy.

Honestly speaking, we can’t control how others supply or consume. Most of us are powerless in determining the supply side of crime. But, why can’t we begin to act out according to our means? We know that without demand, there is no supply. So let’s stop demanding for what is offensive. In public policy, I’ve learned that governments can choose to target either the demand or the supply side. When either demand or supply changes, the market equilibrium will change. So let us believe the economic power we have, and change the current ‘equilibrium’ we have in the crime market.

To sum things up, we have to believe that crime -substantial or petty, organized or amateurish, is crime, regardless of how governments define felonies. It is not a point of us segregating crime into different magnitudes. Rather, it is more important that we play our respective roles in the increasingly interconnected economy we are now living in.

I was struck by the simple, yet heart-wrenching words of this child in the video that we watched. This is real life proof of how the current trend of working women is affecting families worldwide. And I believe that this is the heart cry of many children who have ‘lost’ their parents to the workplace.

You could argue perhaps, that this is a different case- that she has a single parent, and things could have been different if she had both sets of parents. But I beg to differ. It doesn’t matter if a child has one, two, or even three parents (if that was possible). As long as parents are absent from their families because of work, they have lost their children.

When both parents work full-time, the responsibility of child-raising is shifted to someone or something else. This someone could be their grandparents, domestic workers or even childcare centres. However, I’m appalled that nowadays, parents have the audacity to leave their children in the ‘care’ of computers and television. Isn’t it common knowledge that family shapes the worldview of every child?

Coming from a single-parent background myself, I consider myself to be very blessed to be where I am today. My father passed away when I was 6, leaving my mother to feed 3 children, aged 6, 8 and 10. So she started to work, and left us in the care of a babysitter during the day. However, after a few years in the workforce, she decided to quit working and became a full-time mom.

Every night, she cooked dinner, and even when she didn’t, we went out and ate as a family. That was how she shaped my worldview on family-that is, a family sits together for meals. Mealtimes are the only time where we can meet and communicate with each other. Until now, this is what family means to me, and I find it rather strange when I come to know of families who do not have meals together although everyone is in the house.

To me, parents shoulder the responsibility of teaching and training their children. And this only happens when enough time is spent with their children. Sometimes parents equate the provision of finances with showing love to their children, but in fact, love equals time. Children need time with their parents. And when I say time, I mean quality time -the giving of undivided attention to their children, which excludes time spent sitting next to each other while the parent is making, and answering business calls.

Of course, work is important, but I feel there is a need for a clear dichotomy between work and family. Work should not be locking women in and shutting men out. To me, women bear the responsibility of nurturing their children. If they work, it should be only part-time, or on a temporary basis. Current financial difficulty is nothing compared to future emotional and spiritual security. And that only comes with quality time spent with children from young. I live to testify this truth. Honestly, my financial difficulties in the past only brought me more security now, because my security is not based on my material gains, but on who I am really inside.

In conclusion, let us focus on building up families, rather than on storing up capital gain and watching families breaking down. If Singapore really values its’ people, and considers them as resources of the country, then families should come first before work. Would you want to see Singapore poor in the future? Then just allow the current marriage and divorce rates to increase exponentially. Workers are only human, and they certainly will work joyfully even without emotional security.  

We have been taking work for granted these days. I feel that here in this part of Asia, we have grown up with a blueprint of how life should be- 3 years in kindergarten, 10 years of primary and secondary schooling, 4 years in university, and then WORK. The only variation allowed is perhaps in the number of years and in which field.

Sometimes (if we don’t take sociology courses, or if we just don’t like deep thinking), we don’t think about the social significance of work. For now, let’s take a good look at work and what is it actually about.

‘Work’ is defined as the supply of physical, mental, and emotional effort to produce goods and services for own consumption, or for consumption by others.*A Dictionary of Sociology*. And ‘occupation’ is work done in exchange for a regular wage, or salary.

However, to me, work isn’t just about supplying our labour for money. I mean, that definition would only apply for animals. Humans have feelings and emotions. They have their needs and their wants, and I particularly agree with Abraham Maslow’s 5-level hierarchy of needs.

According to Maslow, our human needs have to be fulfilled from the bottom-up. This hierarchy comprises of: (1) physiological, (2) safety, (3) social, (4) esteem, (5) self-actualization. The lower-order ‘deficiency needs’ (1 to 3) have to be met before the higher-order ‘growth’ needs (4 and 5) can be satisfied. *A Dictionary of Human Resource Management*

Thus, when a person starts working, his main agenda is to meet his physiological needs- i.e., to provide for his food, shelter, and basic needs. And after this need is met, he goes on to the next ‘level’. Now, looking at work through the lenses of the developed and under-developed countries, I would say that most workers in developed nations would be on level 4, waiting to elevate themselves to level 5, while in under-developed nations, they are struggling just to meet their level-1 need. Of course, in both nations, there will be a small fraction on lower or higher levels than the rest of their community. And I suggest that, this is the cause of social problems- workers not having their needs met, no matter where they come from.

We can compare these levels within a country, or even across countries, but personally, I feel that we should first compare levels within a country. Wouldn’t a worker on a lower level first compare himself with another on a higher level in his own country? I doubt that he would compare his wages to another of his kind in a different country. Only when he gets on a higher level, he will compare his wages to someone holding a similar job as his in a different country. And here is where trade comes in.

Trade is the activity of selling goods or services in order to make a profit. *A Dictionary of Business and Management*. When a higher-level worker knows he can receive a higher wage in another country, he ‘sells’ his service to them, and is compensated with a higher pay. Fair enough, it benefits him, but how about the local workers of his level? Well, to answer this, it depends on your school of thought. If you’re an Adam Smith believer, you’ll say that’s efficient. If you’re a Karl Marx fan, you’ll say that this causes alienation. For me, I like how Max Weber puts it- just have the right work ethic, that is, work with frugality and diligence!

In conclusion, work and trade plays a crucial part in our social institutions. Thus, on a macro level, we have to know where our citizens are at in the hierarchy of needs. And on the micro level, the most important thing is to have the right work ethic!

Lecturing his students on perfect economic theories, and yet seeing the despair and the destitution of the poor people living around the campus, Muhammad Yunus decided that something was terribly wrong with the economic and social system of Bangladesh. He then embarked on his dream- for the total eradication of poverty in the world.

While visiting the village of Jobra in 1976, he realised that the main predicament of the poor was the unavailability of credit to purchase raw materials. They had to rely on money-lenders and middlemen who charged exorbitant fees. Gathering more information, he found out that there were 42 other people in the village, who needed a total of 856 taka- which was less than $27.

Taking things into his own hands, he forked out $27 from his own pocket and lent it to the villagers. He then approached Janata bank, the largest government bank,for help. However, he found out that banks do not lend money to the poor because they had no collateral. Also, it was generally assumed that the poor will not be able to repay their loans because they would simply use the money for their food and never have the means to repay.

Angered by how banking systems were tailor-made for the literate and rich, Muhammad Yunus then set in his heart to start a credit system that served the poor and not vice-versa. Thus, he started the Grameen Bank in 1976. In 1983,Grameen Bank became established as a formal bank which provides small, collateral-free credit to rural poor people, mainly women, for income-generating activities. Borrowers had to form groups of 5, and they were accountable for each other. Repayment was based on peer pressure, and in a sense, the collective responsiblity of the group served as the loan collateral.

The underlying premise of Grameen Bank is - in order to emerge from poverty and remove themselves from the clutches of usurers and middlemen, landless peasants need access to credit, without which they cannot be expected to launch their own enterprises, however small these may be.

Since then, he has proved the masses wrong. He debunked myths about the poor being unable to use money effectively and being unable to repay their loans. As of July 2005, Grameen Bank disbursed $5.0 bilion in loans to 5.0 million borrowers, 96% of them women, with a repayment rate of 99%. And Grameen’s concept has since been taught and implemented in other countries, for example Bolivia, Mexico, and even in United States. In 2006, Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize.(Source:http://www.grameen-info.org)

Here is an excerpt of Muhammad Yunus’ speech:

Poverty is not caused by the poor people. Poverty is caused by the system we built. Poverty is caused by the policies that we pursue. So if this is my conclusion, I have to prove that it’s true.So I built Grameen Bank, as an institution, a bank, but a different kind of bank… Other banks create poverty, but this bank gets them out of poverty…I’m always asked,”You talk about having a poverty-free world, are you crazy?Even the richest country in the world, United States, they have poor people there.” I said, Look, no matter how rich you get in the present system,you have poor people. So I’m trying to change that system, and in that system, there will be no poor people, because people are as capable as anybody else.

Here is a man who observed poverty his nation, and though they were not in the class of his own, he humbled himself and made sure that they were alleviated out from poverty. Because of him,many are standing on their feet today.

Let us first look at the issue of integration. Globalization seeks to integrate economies into one, but the complication arises when we are dealing with heterogenous societies. In the 16th century, colonialization was mainly carried out by homogenous societies, for example Britain and later, Japan. In their efforts of integrating nations into one, they focused on the easiness of integrating economies for trade, but failed to look into the social and political context of the nations. Thus, they enforced their economic,social and political institutions on the colonies, on the excuse of bringing their colonies into civilization. In my opinion, they had pre-conceived ideas that their respective institutions, as a whole, would be effective and efficient in their new colonies. Little did they knew the effect they had on the whole society, which were not seen until later on.  

Looking at the current scenario, we see more of social and cultural integration than economic integration. Culture now is not defined only along racial and ethnic lines, but rather, by a group of people who are marked by their similarity of interest and behaviour. For example, now we have the hip-hop culture, the jazz culture, youth cultures, and so on. But then again, there are many sub-cultures in a culture itself, so it’s not appropriate to classify people into different groups, because one can be a member of few cultures. My point is that, most of the social problems that we see now are due to cultural integration. The reason why we cannot get everyone to agree on what is or what is not a social problem, is because everyone views the ‘problem’ differently, based on which culture they are coming from. 

To imitate something good about a culture and then to implement it in our own is not wrong. But the problem begins when someone takes an element from a different culture and tries to ‘implant’ it into an absolutely different culture inappropriately- inappropriate as in, not fitting into the social climate and temperature of the society. It’s like taking a strawberry seed and trying to plant it in the scorching Sahara desert, hoping that it grows into a strawberry jungle.

Globalization has given us many seeds, but we decide where, and how we want to plant the seeds. Ancient globalization has given us many economic seeds, and we are still living with the consequences of the good and bad choices made, for example, now we have poverty and inequality because of the landlord-tenant system in the past where the poor were exploited. But today’s globalization is giving us many social and cultural seeds, and we are still living in times of decision-making. What and how we plant right now will affect our future generations to come.

However, with today’s globalization, things are so much more to our convenience. Knowledge are at our fingertips, and we can effectively access the pros and cons of developing a new system. We can hire specialists and we have an abundance of social scientists to consult with. I feel that ancient globalization has paved the way for all of us to be where we are at right now. Thus, there is no reason why we can live in our own private world and choose to do nothing about current social problems, nor could we try to be ignorant of how our current decisions can cause social problems in the future.