Can poverty ever be eradicated?

Even in today's world where many countries are experiencing massive economic development, many individuals and nations are still left behind in the bandwagon of poverty. Such is the extent of the situation regarding poverty that as according to celebrity economist Jeffrey Sachs, from the moment you wake up to the time you turn in today, 20,000 people would have died of hunger. And at least 20,000 more will die tomorrow, and the day after, and in the days after that - just because they are poor. In view of this, many non-profitable organisations have held campaigns and activities to raise awareness among the more well-off public, hoping to gain financial support and volunteers to help achieve their cause of eradicating poverty. Governments have also pledged to donate part of their tax revenues to aid this cause. However, looking at past experiences with other global problems, and also that of current events, I truly doubt poverty can ever be eradicated. Instead of thinking about eradication, we should look more towards curbing poverty, minimising it.

As stated in the article "Can a Poor Country Become Rich?" by Kamala Sarup, the fundamental causes of poverty for a nation as a whole lie in geography and culture of its people. However, from my point of view, culture is the most important factor. Though there is no one culture that is entirely bad, some may be counterproductive to economic development since they might be obsolete in today's world. One such cultural which proved to be economically counterproductive was the discrimination of females, providing them less of education and job opportunities then their male counterparts. This reduced the size of workforce of many countries greatly, hence hindering economic development.

In order for nations to eradicate poverty, these "negative" cultural beliefs have to be abandoned. However, looking at past events, old cultural beliefs die hard. Take Mao China for instance. Chairman Mao tried to force the Chinese to abandon their religious beliefs, correlating to culture, dubbing them as the "Opium of the People". Though during his era when religious events were no where to be seen on the streets, many people had continued to keep their faith secretly at home. Today, many Chinese openly show their religious beliefs, hence showing that culture, correlated to religion die hard. Therefore, with such economic counterproductive culture hard to kill, many of the poor nations would continue to live in poverty due to its peoples' beliefs.

Furthermore, the passing of these beliefs is a deadly cycle. When uneducated people strictly stick to their narrow minded beliefs, provision of education would be useless. Seeing that education would be useless, uneducated parents destroy the chance for their children to receive education. Their children in turn, being uneducated, would not see the benefits in education like their parents, would not send their own offspring to school, leading to the vicious cycle.

Next, as we look at the past and current experiences, we would see that eradicating poverty is almost or rather, simply impossible. Drug abuse is a major problem in the world. Even rich nations with huge stashes of resources are unable to eradicate this problem. The only success the world has against the problem today is curbing the abuse of drugs. Some countries turn to legalising drug abuse, but only under certain controls, while others make it totally illegal. Therefore, if we cannot even eradicate the problem of drug abuse, what chance do we have with the bigger and tougher issue of poverty? Therefore, I think the most we can get out of the whole effort is to minimise and curb poverty.

Though curbing poverty is more realistic, we should not stop ourselves from eradicating it for the good of mankind. We should always aim above our goal in order to be able to reach of real goals.

Environment or Economy?

In recent times, many countries are experiencing extreme economic development. However, most of these developments are fueled by natural resources. Deforestation, pollution, poaching and other related activities all stem from economic development. China's economic boom is fueled by coal, which emits a huge amount of greenhouse gases when burned to provide energy. Increasing number of affluent people in developing countries also leads to higher consumption, especially eating rare, endangered and exotic animals. Hence, it seems to be impossible for both successful environmental conservation and extreme economic growth the co-exist. In my opinion, mankind should forgo economy for nature.

First of all, if man continues to destroy the environment to the point that it becomes uninhabitable, economic success would be pointless as everyone would be beyond dead to enjoy the benefits of a good economy. Here's an illustration on how economic growth would lead to mankind's extinction: With increased affluency, more people would be able to afford their own vehicles, thus leading to more greenhouse gases emissions. So much more greenhouse gases is now being emitted and thus more heat from the Sun is trapped in the Earth's atmosphere, which would quicken the rate of the melting of polar ice caps which is already fast. This hence leads to increased sea levels and more floods would occur. In addition, current islands would soon be submerged. Thus mankind would finally drown.

Furthermore, if our ancestors managed to live without an economy during the Ice Ages, why can't we modern humans do that? They did no have an economy a few hundred thousand years ago, thus were not motivated to hunt and pick much more than they needed, unlike modern humans who do these in exchange for more profits. Their 'consume just enough' attitude a few hundred thousand years ago allowed animal populations to recover the losses.

Though having economies does have some benefits for the environment, such as people preserving forests for tourism, there are much more harm being done. Therefore for the sake of mankind's existence, we should protect the environment more and not seek so much of economic growth.

Blog Commentary

Having read Eric's blog (http://www.gpfreako.blogspot.com/), I would like to comment on his entry, "Chinese Language In Singapore"

These are his views:
Good day! In this entry, I will be focusing on the topic of the use of chinese language in Singapore.

Since the applications of chinese language into the education system, many people have been debating about the usefulness of it in the Singaporean context and many people have questioned whether Singaporeans really practice the language.

Firstly, I feel that many students practised the language. In school, I can hear many conversations which are conducted in Chinese. There are also many activities which are held in Chinese, like dramas, plays and they have attracted many audiences who enjoy and learn through such activities. Some of my friends enjoy chinese lessons and say they benefited much of it. This rising culture could be due to the rise in Mandarin pop culture in the recent times, where pop icons coming from chinese speaking countries have captured the attention of our young here. Thus they want to follow their idols and learn from them, one way is through mastering the chinese language. Also, some mature youngsters understand the rise in China's economy status from the past, they realise the need to catch up with chinese people and if not, they will lose out to them in the future.

From the above paragraph, I have pointed the reasons for why many students practised chinese language. Although there might be some instances where students dislike chinese, but these are the minorities. I hope that through education, peer and family influences, it will change their opinon of chinese language and try their very best to improve their language skill.

And these are mine:
I totally agree with Eric on the reasons he provided on why the Chinese Language is so popular now.

However, I feel that using Mandarin excessively in Singapore, like using it as a primary language of communication among students in schools as noted by Eric, has its harm. By doing so, as in not primarily using English, but using native languages instead, it encourages students of the same race to conform, and thus inter-racial interaction will eventually be lost, which can widen the gaps between the various races in Singapore. Racial tensions will also rise as people of various races would be suspicious of the other races of what is said since they do not understand their counterpart's native language.

Some argue that by using Mandarin on a regular basis, Singaporean Chinese are constantly reminded of their Ancient Chinese roots. However, the Chinese language in Singapore has somehow morphed into an undefinable form, which has a mix of dialect, malay language, english and predominantly Mandarin. Thus it has really lost its true traditional cultural value. While this may appear as an opportunity for others to counter argue that this form of Chinese will promote inter-racial interaction since there is a mix of various languages, I beg to differ. This is due to the fact that this kind of Chinese language is still predominantly Mandarin, thus ultimately the other races will still not understand what is being said.

Furthermore, many people claim that it is totally right to learn the Chinese language at this point when China is having an economic boom. But what they are forgetting is that, they should not ONLY learn the Chinese Language, apart from English, they should also learn Tamil and some Hispanic languages since both India and South American nations are also developing fast now.

Here's a summary of what I have been trying to point out:
Please use proper Mandarin, in the form that Chinese nationals would understand. While using Mandarin, do keep in mind to use English as a primary language of communication. And finally, do not use the Chinese economic boom as the main reason for learning Chinese as it's very short-sighted and 'conformist-like'. What goes up, must come down.

And I hate Chinese, but at least I still use it in it's original form.

Education is a platform for conformists to brainwash innocent young kids into fellow conformists.
Education is a tool for propaganda, to be used on impressionable young minds.
To provide education for the public is providing ruling parties an excuse to impose unnecessarily high taxes.
But education is also a platform for enlightment.
An escape route for many to escape the cycle of poverty.
Without it, mankind would essentially be still living in caves.
What matters really, is how it is handled by which of people.

And you have just finished reading a random post.

Free Speech 2

In multi-racial, democratic Singapore, the topic on free speech seems to always attract the attention the public. In Singapore, a democratic country, free speech is 'prevalent', however that happens under the watchful eyes of the authorities. Some people claim that the authorities do this to help protect the dominance of the dominant ruling party here. However, some more logical claims by others would be that of preserving the peace and harmony between cultures and religions. Hence from these, I feel that more focus should be placed on social responsibility than leaving free speech unrestricted to allow democracy.

In multi racial Singapore, inter-racial relations might appear to be good, however they are very fragile. The relations are like a porcelain vase, beautiful on the outside, but fragile and hollow on the inside. It can all the smashed and destroyed in a moment of carelessness. Hence, it is important for individuals to be socially responsible and not express any racist views which may stir up racial tensions and finally discord within Singapore. Though that restricts free speech, it can still preserve the peace and bring along progress and prosperity to Singapore.

What is most important to a nation is basically the welfare of its citizens. And that is basically the objective of using the system of democracy. Hence, it can be said that democracy without absolute freedom of speech is still democracy, at least in Singapore, as it can be seen that it can still improve the welfare of citizens.

Hence free speech is not exactly essential for democracy. Thus more emphasis should be placed on social responsibility

Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?

I agree that any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified.
Punishments exist in legal systems for 2 main reasons. The first, to help victims of crimes address their grievances. The second, is to deter criminals from committing crimes, hence in a way maintaning law and order.

Many argue that some harsh punishments that are in place such as the death penalty, infringe into human rights. The death penalty as argued is infringing into the criminal's right to live. However, many forget that the death penalty has proven to be useful in many countries. The death penalty had managed to cause the homicide rate in the US to decrease since it was used again. Hence proving that harsh and brutal punishments do act as a deterrent to criminals.

Furthermore, if the crminal still commits the crime with these harsh, supposedly inhumane punishment in place, then the criminal really deserves to be punished. He must be a real fag to commit the crime even though he knew about these hefty consequences waiting for him, thus he deserves to be punished.

Therefore, any punishment is justified if it is effective in maintaining law and order. And if you do not want to receive such torturous punishments, do not commit any crime, especially in Singapore. Don't even think about littering.

Free Speech

Article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619549,00.html

Recently, the spotlight has been shined on free speech. The issue has indeed receive a high level of scrunity by societies and governments across the globe, especially after last years outrage within the Muslim communities after a cartoon illustrating the Prophet Muhammed was published in a Danish newspaper. While Muslim communities protested, the cartoonist and his supporters claimed it was his right to have freedom of speech. Thus should freedom of speech be abolished in this world to prevent more conflicts in this world? Well, I think it should be the case whereby people can have a freedom of speech only to some extent, while offensive and totally groundless biased opinions be filtered out.

The problem of freedom of speech is especially prevelant in Western countries. People take the notion of freedom of speech or expression especially serious there. They greatly value their rights even when the odds are against them. Take the United States for example, whereby schools are being sued by students and their families over the infringement of their rights to express what they want. Redwood Middle School in Napa, California was recently sued by some parents over rules regarding student dress codes that prohibited the total freedom of expression. Amid claims that the rule were for safety reason, the parents still defended their child's stand and continued to pursue the case. Hence it shows that the westerners take their rights seriously, and can even become unreasonable when they feel that it has been infringed upon. This is all due to the First Amendment in the US which allows the freedom of expression in the US, empowering the average American to sue anyone who had infringed on it.

Therefore, in order to really restrict freedom of speech to non-offensive or groundless biaseness, people should be given less power. By doing so, they would then abid by the rules. Hence, moderately restricting rights is the way to go. Maybe by giving people too many rights, they might unknowingly abuse it.

How to fight racism...

Racism is widespread across the world. Almost all races, less so for Whites (who are usually the antagonists), have been victims of racism. Racism occurs due to the triggering of primal instincts of wanting to be the best, thus any differences between groups of people can be the subject of arguments. And race is the most common one since it is the easiest to observe. Thus how do we fight racism, especially in Singapore? The Singapore government approaches the issue with the weapon of censorship, blocking out any racist views on the TV, books or internet. I for one, beg to differ. I would rather fight fire with fire.

Though racism is a delicate issue with a tendency to spark off racial riots or disunity within Singapore, I feel that only through the use it can we totally eradicate the problem. By allowing people to express racist views openly, it allows individuals of the race being victimized to clear doubts and remove any stereotypic views on their racial group. In the long run, the mass will have a clearer view of individual races and become immune to racism. Thus racism will become just like a dog which can only bark but not bite.

Also by treating racism as a taboo by attempts to avoid it will only make it a more potent force in causing discord among different races. By cringing to racist remarks, we are showing racists people that their views do impact us greatly, thus more racist views will appear. However, by accepting and not shying away from the racist remarks, racists will see that we are not really affected by it, and the thrill in being racist will be gone together with future racist views.

Hence the best way is to fight fire with fire. Censorship would not be as effective as using racism to fight racism. The End.

Reference: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Racism.asp