Is it possible to protect the environment when many countries require increasing amounts of energy to progress?

In today’s world, where world population, industrial production and economic growth are surging at breakneck pace, energy consumption is expanding and mankind’s insatiable desire for energy, arable land and natural resources are both depleting natural resources and damaging the environment. I believe that economic progress today necessitates mankind’s utilisation of the Earth’s resources and damage of the environment. However, I believe that it is possible to both enjoy economic progress and protect the environment at the same time, especially with advances in alternative energy technology and a greater involvement of the public, government and public firms in the protection of the environment.

There is, largely, a false dichotomy between economic progress and protecting the environment. This is because, among other reasons, of the availability of alternative sources of energy – not that of crude oil or coal – which can power industries and drive economic progress while protecting or doing only minimal damage to the environment. Such technology includes nuclear energy, which use does not emit carbon and where by-products can be stored underground without damage to the environment. Other forms of alternative energy also include that of wind and solar energy, where although some might seem prohibitive and capable of providing only small amounts of energy, may actually allow entire towns to be powered if harnessed and distributed efficiently. This is the case of Saint Daid’s, a town in Southern Wales, which successfully leveraged on such technology to reduce its household carbon footprint to almost zero – a testament to how technology can allow an economy to function and progress while protecting the environment at the same time. However, despite the efficacy of such technology, I conceded that alternative energy sources are no panacea for today’s trade-off between progress and the environment as yet and this is why the world still consumes 85 million barrels of dirty-burning crude oil today. This is because alternative energy sources are still, in general, not as cheap as drilling for oil and hence are not widely adopted. However, I believe that in the near future, with today’s pace in the advancement of alternative energy technology and in order to circumvent the predicted disaster of oil running out by 2050, alternative energy will become cheaper and widely used to the point that it drives economic progress while protecting the environment at the same time – a very possible eventual outcome.

Another reason why I believe that protecting the environment and economic progress is possible and become ever less mutually exclusive is the increase in environmental awareness and desire to protect the environment, whether for altruistic reasons or for self-interest. Today, 30 percent of paper and plastic waste in the United States of America (USA), as stated by the U.S. Environmental Agency, is recycled. This is despite the fact that recycling is often a low profit margin business that requires government subsidies to operate. A 30 percent recycling rate is an achievement that shows how a government can push for both progress and environmental protection at the same time with enough political will. Also, air travel, the bloodlines of the world economic machine, is beginning to become cleaner with the foray of firms such as France’s Climat Mundi, which encourages air travelers and gives them a medium to compensate for the carbon they had caused to be emitted during their flights. This is done by paying an extra but small sum over the air ticket’s price, which then goes to fund tree-planting events and to replace the dirty-burning wood stoves of poor Sub-Saharan Africans with cleaner electric or petroleum stoves. Of course, dissenters would say that such schemes only apply to altruistic people and governments which are few and far between. However, I believe that such choices are increasingly becoming ones that are made based on self-interest as people are feeling the negative effects of environmental damage. For instance, in October 2008, well after the Olympic and Paralympic Games concluded, Beijing re- imposed car quotas because it was in its interest to reduce pollution levels to protect people’s health and to attract tourists and investors. Thus, I believe that self-interest and altruism are, more than ever, leading to “green” decisions being made which protect the environment while not or insignificantly inhibiting economic progress.

The final reason why I believe progress and environmental protection may go hand-in-hand is that of the system of Capitalism and the desire of businesses to maximize profits. The increase in environmental consciousness and the desire of consumers to purchase “green” products and cleaner cars have led to a paradigm shift in markets where companies are now incentivized to produce green products or to sponsor green movements. Companies such as Toyota and Honda have taken advantage of such a change in drivers’ preferences by creating smaller, cleaner cars and hydroelectric cards, leading them to “progress” and turn profits while protecting the environment at the same time, unlike Ford and General Motors, which gas-guzzling cars have led them into business losses in the order of billions of U.S. dollars in 2008. Appearing green is also a trend for companies which are in the service sector. Wall Street research firm Standard and Poors has concluded in 2008 that “green” corporate citizenship adds profits to a company’s balance sheet. This could explain why highly respected Wall Street firms Goldman Sachs and the Bank of America have been sponsoring environmental reform projects in China, ensuring that they do not provide loans to illegal loggers and promoting themselves as “green banks”. Thus, it is seen that capitalism and businesses’ inherent desire for profits can and is increasingly leading to firms both progressing and protecting the environment at the same time. The environmentally sustainable growth of businesses could quite possibly be the wave of the near future.

I believe that it is possible to protect the environment while striving for economic progress, notwithstanding the latter requiring increasingly more energy to accomplish. This, though, is contingent on the fact that the development of alternative energy sources and the increase in environmental consciousness among people, governments and businesses are sustained at the current pace. To do this, I would suggest that more weight be placed on the advice given by the United Nations (UN) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to include the developing nations in Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol and for more countries to adopt the European Climate Exchange’s system of pollution permit trading. With that, the possibility of economic progress and environmental protection will be increasingly close to being realized.

Read More

Environment disasters – who is to blame?

Environmental disasters – a phrase which commonly conjures up images of the devastating effects of the wrath of Mother Nature upon human lies. However, upon further close scrutiny, one would realize that so much more is at stake than a few thousand lives lost. The existence of everything around us is in jeopardy because of environmental disasters. Especially when the diversity and quality of life, with drastic climate changes, rising water levels, and the many varieties of living organisms are wiped off the face of the earth, how much more hits can the planet Earth take from us? While the large majority of the human population is to blame for wasting resources in the daily course of our lies, the main culprit would be the ruthless industrialists who put profit-making on the top of their priorities, regardless of its sacrifices, and mainly world leaders (governments) who have the power and means to stop them.

Drastic climate changes and temperature fluctuations are one of the side effects from the excessive release of greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty years ago (1970s), the earth experienced a cooling effect due to the introduction of aerosols into the market. Now, with refrigerators, chlorofluorocarbon emissions are breaking down the ozone layer. Consumers as well as irresponsible manufacturers are definitely to blame for this climate crisis. Despite knowing that aerosols and CFCs are degrading the environment, educated consumers are still fuelling the market for such products.

Another environmental disaster is a result of what the market consumers have created – the extinction and endangerment of animals. While poachers and private businesses clamour to meet the demands of consumers, they have caused various species of tigers and foxes to be reduced to being endangered species. While polar bears are not yet under that, they might soon join them. With polar caps melting due to the rise in temperature, there have been many reports of polar bears and other mammals drowning from exhaustion when they could not find land to rest on. Instead of rising to protest against green house gas emissions, there are people who actually believe these are coincidences which should be ignored. While environmentalists and politicians like Al Gore are petitioning to save the planet, there are many who mock them through forums and the Internet.

Well-intentioned organizations are partially to blame for their incompetence and inefficiency as well. Despite having regular meetings such as the APEC World Summit, they are consistently forming vague conclusions like “will take a step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. While many private organizations are petitioning, and funding these environmental conservation campaigns, these international environment conservation groups have yet to make any significant impact.

Another environmental disaster that happens frequently is oil spillage. Petrol companies as well as the military are to blame. In 1991, the Gulf War oil spills were the worst in history with an estimated 1.5 million tonnes of crude oil dumped into the sea. The environmental implications were disastrous as many forms of sea life perished and its lingering after-effects can still be observed a decade later. The toxic vapours killed marine life while the oil poisoned the birds when it was ingested by accident. The worst part of all was that the oil spillage was intentional. The countries along the coast dumped tonnes of crude oil into their waters in an attempt to deter US marine ships from entering their habours. The oil slick was 4 inches thick for miles, and the wildlife there has never recovered since. This shows that politics have a part to play in environmental degradation.

The flight to becoming the most affluent between countries has also led to countries refusal to acknowledge that environment disasters are a pressing concern. With a mixture of political and economic reasons, the United States of America refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Despite international talks of sustainable economic growth, many countries are not willing to slow down or compromise their production to invest in environmental conservation schemes.

As Al Gore mentioned in his movie – “An Inconvenient Truth” – if Earth’s resources are depleted or destroyed, life would not be sustainable, let alone material wealth. If a few percent of economic growth must be sacrificed to preserve the only planet we lie on, then so be it. It is such a pity that there are so many parties which do not realize that. If future environmental disasters are to be presented, it would take a lot more than the efforts of a few campaign organizations. The cooperation of world leaders would be needed.

Read More

How far is recycling the answer to the problem of waste?

With the rise in world population and consumption, the problem of waste has worsened. In our attempt to curb this problem, solutions such as recycling, using of landfills and incinerators, educational campaigns and regulations have been widely adopted. In my opinion, recycling is certainly one of the answers to the problem of waste. However, inherent problems such as the high cost of recycling and advanced technology have made recycling economically unfeasible especially for the less developed countries. Nevertheless, recycling as compared to other ways to minimize the problem of waste is much more environmentally friendlier and is least objectionable. As such, I feel that recycling must be adopted and used in tandem with other measures such as educational campaigns and laws. These solutions would then be able to complement as well as supplement the limitations of recycling, making the approach to the problem of waste a more effective one.

Recycling can be a feasible answer to the problem of waste but it is mainly targeted at developed countries that possess the necessary advanced technology and are able to afford the high costs associated with recycling. Despite the advancement in technology, recycling today is still an expensive tool as compared to other measures like land filling and incineration. Therefore to less developed nations, recycling is simply economically unfeasible. According to the Genuine Progress Index, a research group that has spent a decade monitoring the recycling programmes in Nova Scotia, recycling cost the province US$18 million a year more as compared to throwing the waste into landfills. Similarly in California and New Jersey, local public utilities authorities have reported that recycling cost the country over half a million dollars more in 1995. Hence to the less developed countries, recycling is simply beyond their reach due to the population’s generally low average income, preventing them from affording recycling programmes in their budgets. Even though recycling may be a feasible answer to the problem of waste to the developed countries, this is certainly not the case for the less developed countries. In this light, technology must improve to reduce the cost of recycling before it can be embraced even by less developed countries.

Recycling can be a viable solution to the problem of waste in the environmental sense because, relative to other methods, it creates less pollution and is more sustainable over a longer period of time. Over the years, the magnitude of environmental degradation has increased, and with global warming, recycling, a method that is environmentally friendly seems least objectionable as compared to other conventional forms of waste treatment. For example, incineration releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide as well as other toxic gases into the atmosphere, accelerating global warming and adversely affecting our health. Similarly, land filling can result in water pollution and affects the ecology negatively. Greenpeace, a world environmental research group, discovered that the major wells in the Philippines contained a high level of metal content beyond the safe drinking limits set by the World Health Organisation. This unfortunate pollution would not have occurred if not for the landfills situated near the wells. The metals buried in the landfills managed to dissolve and seep into the ground water, causing water pollution. In this light, it is rather clear that recycling is a much better tool to solve the problem of waste. This is because studies have shown that for every ton of paper recycled, 17 small trees are saved and air pollution is greatly reduced. An example to illustrate the environmental- friendliness of recycling can be seen in the success of recycling programmes in the United States. The country managed to save 1.3 million tons of iron ore, 8.2 million trees and successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions by two million metric tons in 2004 due to the nationwide recycling programmes that the country implemented. Therefore, in my opinion, recycling is certainly a good answer to the problem of waste especially in today’s world, where environmental conservation is increasingly embraced by most countries.

Recycling is certainly one of the viable answers to the problem of waste in countries with limited land. Recycling as compared to landfills takes up less space and is therefore suitable for countries with a small land area. A good example to illustrate the influence of physical factors on the choice of measures to the problem of waste is Singapore. Singapore has a limited land area but an escalating quantity of waste. There was a 2.09 million tonnes increase in the amount of waste from 1970 to 2005. To make things worse, the lifespan of the Pulau Semakau landfill of Singapore is expected to last till only 2030, and this is provided that the present generation does not generate more waste per capita. Hence the country implemented the National Recycling Programme in 2001 to minimize the amount of waste disposed to the limited landfills, prolonging the lifespan of the landfills. By 2004, the rate of participation by households in this nationwide programme has more than tripled to 51%. Therefore from the example of Singapore, it is evident that recycling is indeed a feasible answer to the problem of waste since it occupies less space as compared to conventional measures like landfills. Hence recycling is certainly one of the solutions to the problem of waste in developed countries that has limited land area.

Although recycling is one of the least objectionable answers to the problem of waste, it has to be used in tandem with campaigns and laws that tackle the root of the problem – the excessive wastage of resources. The over-consuming societies of the developed world will continue to waste more resources excessively if recycling is not encouraged, made more convenient or appealing as an option. In Singapore for instance, the National Environment Agency (NEA) organizes road shows and puts up posters to encourage recycling. In addition, NEA together with the Singapore Environment Council implemented ‘Bring Your Own Bag Day’ to further strengthen their activities. An additional 10 cents is charged on these days for every plastic bag used, and the money collected is used for environmental projects. Similarly in China, the government has taken a step further to ban the use of disposable plastic bags nationwide due to the massive problem of accumulated unbiodegradable waste caused by plastic bags. In the UK, the British government has passed a bill indicating that charges would be imposed on single-use carrier bags unless retailers take action voluntarily to cut down on the ballooning pollution caused by the use of plastic bags. These are just some examples to illustrate the idea that in order for recycling to be effective, consumers have to be educated and informed on the consequences of excessive wastage of resources and how they can play a role to minimize the problem of waste.

Furthermore, law and regulations should also be introduced and passed to prevent the problem of waste from intensifying. Other complementary measures would be to make using reusable bags and the recycling of materials more attractive, such as saving costs on bags or even making recycling bins more accessible. Hence while I agree that recycling is one effective answer to the problem of waste, it has to be used simultaneously with educational campaigns and regulations as that would complement recycling and mitigate its limitations.

Recycling is certainly a good solution to the problem of waste. However, we must acknowledge that due to the high costs and advanced technology needed for recycling, developed countries are therefore in a better position to embrace recycling as compared to far less developed countries. Although recycling is suitable for small countries with small land area and is more environmentally friendly, it does not eliminate the underlying cause to the problem of waste. Hence recycling should be implemented together with educational campaigns and regulations for it to be most effective.

Read More

How far do you agree that men are more discriminated against than women in modern society?

Modern society is one that emphasizes meritocracy and equal rights for all. Today, women in many parts of the world enjoy much parity in treatment and opportunities. Women, now, have the right to vote, and the right to be educated. It is also common to have highly-educated women taking up senior executive positions in corporations. And women, too, are increasingly becoming a force to be reckoned with in politics. All this, some people would have us believe, has been achieved at the expense of men’s rights. The sad reality is that all women, even those in developed societies, still suffer from discrimination, though obviously in varying degrees, which most men conveniently ignore.

It is undeniable that men do indeed suffer some forms of discrimination. For example, in a divorce case, the judge would most likely grant the mother the custody of the child unless the mother is a criminal or is mentally unstable. The justification for this is that “it is in the best interest of the child” as mothers are considered better at bringing up children, especially the younger ones. This is a gross generalization, and is one obvious example of discrimination against males. After all, a mother-headed family is often far from ideal. One of the main causes of child abuse is the presence in the home of a boyfriend or stepfather. Fathers can be good parents too.

Worldwide, as more women are choosing to postpone childbearing, many governments in Asia, Europe and America are giving out longer maternity leave to encourage more mothers to give birth. In Singapore, for example, mothers are entitled to longer maternity leave, but what about the fathers? Many fathers want to be involved in family affairs too. Should they not be given paternity leave so that they can take care of their children too? In Norway, fathers are entitled to 9-months paternity leave, but in most countries, fathers are not entitled to such benefit. And yet, they have to take care of their families.

In addition, well-groomed males are described somewhat derisively as metrosexuals, and fathers who choose to stay at home to take care of their children are often badmouthed. Where are their rights to groom themselves? To make choices? After all, no one laughs at mothers who choose not to work. No one laughs at women who go to spas or seek beauty treatment. Indeed, men do suffer some forms of discrimination in today’s society. However, in my opinion, these are only minor forms of discrimination found only in developed countries. In many developing countries, women continue to be suppressed. Even in developed countries, the lot of a woman is less enviable compared to that of the male: archaic social expectations of women and the existence of a glass ceiling are common forms of discrimination that continue to plague women.

Although much parity has been achieved in our modern society, women are still expected by society to adhere to the traditional roles of women. In Singapore, for example, society still expects women to aspire to get married, give birth and be mothers. Even as more women enter the workforce, married women who choose not to give birth are often criticized and pressured to reverse their decisions by society. Even in democratic America, First Ladies are expected to fit into the traditional moulds and abstain from any involvement in politics. Hillary Clinton, the former US First Lady, was lambasted for heading the National Health Care Task Force. She and Eleanor Roosevelt, before her, were criticized for expressing their views and taking part in politics. Where are their rights to freedom of speech? Even Tipper Gore, the wife of former vice-president Al Gore, was lambasted for speaking out against violent and pornographic music lyrics in 1985.

Politically, although women make up more than half of the population, women are still under-represented. Presently, women only make up 21.7% of all legislative seats globally. Indeed, influential women politicians like Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice and Gloria Arroyo do exist, but they only make up a minority. And many, like Gloria Arroyo and Sonia Gandhi are able to hold so much power merely because of their families who were previously active in politics. It is heartening to see developing countries like Afghanistan making headways in granting women equal rights. Afghanistan, for example, voted for their first female provincial governor in the recent polls. The new Cabinet even has three female ministers. Sadly, such cases are merely isolated ones. Domestically, while we have ten female Members of Parliament, only two are Ministers of State, and none are full ministers. Clearly, women are still seen as less competent politicians by society even when women have the same or high educational qualifications.

Economically, while equal rights to pay and work have been largely achieved in the developed world, women still earn much less than men even if they have the same qualifications. In Singapore, for example, 2003 statistics show that women earned an annual income of US$15,322, while men earned an annual income of US$31,927. In addition, although women are becoming increasingly highly educated, the presence of glass-ceilings denies women the right to attain higher positions. In Singapore, for example, only 6% of the top local companies have at least one female director. In comparison, 60% of the top 1000 companies in USA have at least 1 female director. In many countries too, granting of flexible working arrangements and maternity leave is given lip service and many women continue to be sacked when they are pregnant. Needless to say, in developing countries, the situation is worse. Women are often confined to the house and denied the right to work. Hence, women often make up more than half of those living in extreme poverty.

In today’s modern society where the emphasis is on equality for all, society has made much improvement in terms of granting equal rights to women. In this rush to achieve sexual parity, it is undeniable that this improvement has been achieved sometimes as the expense of men. However, discrimination against men is relatively insignificant. Women, worldwide, continue to suffer far greater forms of discrimination socially, politically and economically. To claim therefore that men are “more discriminated against” than women in modern society is therefore nothing short of ludicrous.

Read More

Minorities always suffer. Is this necessarily true in today’s world?

In any society, it is inevitable that there will be a minority population. Globalisation and the relentless progress of technology have combined to diminish the physical geographical boundaries of today’s world. Migration rates have increased, enabling heterogeneous societies to be established all over the world. Many minority populations lament the perceived discrimination and suffering they face in societies, which cater to the majority for convenience’s sake. However, in the midst of their self-pity, they fail to recognize the myriad of opportunities and advantages available to them, by virtue of being the minority. Minorities do not necessarily always suffer as the onus is on them to turn their situation around and gain the upper hand.

Governments and authorities do institute policies which favour the majority simply because it is more convenient to do so. However, if the minority are able to harness their community spirit and work around the system, they are the ones who stand to benefit. In Malaysia, the Chinese make up a relatively large racial minority, constituting 15% of the population. Yet, the Malaysian government has insisted that the school curriculum be taught in Bahasa Melayu, including subjects such as Science and Mathematics. The Chinese are deprived of the opportunity to learn their native tongue, and have to grapple with a foreign language. Their community leaders recognize the value of preserving the Chinese language among future generations, and hence, set up Chinese community schools which have produced trilingual students proficient in English, Chinese and Bahasa Melayu. As a result, the Chinese have an upper hand in language skills. Now that the Malaysian government is back-pedaling on its language policy and introducing subjects taught in English, Chinese students have an advantage and are able to outshine Malay students. As such, minorities are not necessarily constrained by rigid, unfriendly policies as they prove themselves to be resourceful enough to transcend such restrictions to turn the tables on the majority.

Governments will implement policies that protect the minority, because it is the majority who will re-elect the government in democratic societies. This short-sighted concept would lead to a well-fed, complacent majority, and allow the hungry dissatisfied minority to exploit the situation and succeed. The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir, implemented the ‘bumiputra’ or ‘princes of the land’ policy during his tenure. This policy gave Malays priority when entering universities, starting businesses, owning land and a whole host of other processes. His aim was to give the native ‘princes of the land’ a head start in life, and ensure they would have a comfortable livelihood. Naturally, the implementation of this policy led to the disgruntlement of many Chinese. Meanwhile, the Malays were content and satisfied that their government would provide for them, and settled back to enjoy their blissful lives. The discrimination spurred the Chinese to work even harder than before, and gave them a strong motive to succeed. They grabbed whatever remnant opportunities the complacent Malays had passed on, and made the best of them. In present day Malaysia, it is common knowledge that the richest and most successful people are the Chinese. Dr. Mahathir himself has expressed regret at the implementation of his myopic policy, and before stepping down in 2003, slammed the Malays for their lack of hunger and desire to succeed. Therefore, for minorities, the suffering, prejudice and discrimination they face can be a form of motivation to improve their lot in society.

Although governments and societies tend to favour the majority, most want to be seen as tolerant and accepting of diversity. Nobody likes to be accused of discrimination. Minority populations could exploit this potential source of embarrassment, and manipulate government policy and societal perception to be more considerate and pliable toward them. In France, a Muslim schoolgirl was vehement in her fight to be able to wear her Muslim headscarf to school. She saw it as an expression and celebration of her faith. Muslims are a religious minority in predominantly Catholic France. Her story attracted international attention, and placed France in the glare of the media spotlight. It was revealed that while the Muslim girl was not allowed to wear her headscarf to school, practitioners of other faiths were not permitted to accessorise themselves with such open displays of their faith either. However, France was desperate to maintain an esteemed profile in the eyes of the world. Neither the French government nor the French people wanted to be seen as intolerant and elitist, and the French courts finally relented and allowed the girl to wear her headscarf to school. Therefore, minority groups can leverage on the media-consciousness of most governments to secure recognition of their rights.

Minority populations can find safety in numbers by banding together to establish communities with strong bonds among members. This will lead to the forging of community spirit, and create a heart-warming enclave that gives support and strength to its members. Homosexuals are a sexual minority in the human race. They have long been discriminated against by proponents of ‘family-first’ movements, Bible-toting Christians, and anybody and everybody who finds their behaviour unnatural. However, in San Francisco, America, homosexuals have established their very own community, to create an environment where all its members can feel comfortable in, and engage in their activities without fear of hate crimes and discrimination. They organize Mardi Gras parties, and celebrate their diversity, providing protection and support for all its members.

Unfortunately, minorities still remain an easy target for violence and discrimination. It is easy for the majority to band together and blame the minority for a myriad of perceived crimes. This sad story has repeated itself many times in history, from the farms of the American Southwest to the ghettoes and slums of Nazi Germany. Most recently, it has emerged in Singapore, when junior Minister Balaji Saladisavan blamed homosexual man for the AIDS scourge. It is sad that such discrimination and intolerance still exist, but it is likely that as society matures as a whole and accepts heterogeneity as a mark of a progressive community, minorities will not be prejudiced against and hated, but rather welcomed and celebrated.

Minorities do have a historic legacy of discrimination, and in some instances it continues to this very day. Yet, they must use their own resourcefulness, diligence and quick wit to be able to turn their situation into an advantage. The oppression and discrimination showered on them should only serve to motivate and spur them on to succeed.

Read More

It is definitely more advantageous to be a diverse society than a homogenous one. Discuss.

It is the first century, and globalization is, or rather has been for a few years now, all the rage. Cultures are being dissipated all over the world, encouraged by the advancements in technology that would have left our ancestors absolutely lost in amazement. People are travelling worldwide thanks to the ease and affordability of transportation, going to places previously unexplored and settling down in countries they would never have dreamt of. It is in this context then, that I would assert that a diverse society, being a product of the above-mentioned trends would be more advantageous than a homogeneous one. This so-called advantage might be understood in terms of the benefits, socially, economically and politically, that it confers upon the society itself, allowing it to eventually better weather the forces of globalization today and make itself continually poised to tackle the future of uncertainty.

The diverse society might firstly be interpreted as one which, through welcoming the inflow of foreigners from all over the world, has become a place in which both the native citizens of the country and the people hailing from countries abroad work and live together on common land. In such a case, the diverse society might be said to be more advantageous than one which has remained close to outsiders in that it is able to benefit from the different set of skills that these very foreigners bring with them. A clear example of this would be Singapore, which, through incentives from the government, finds itself to be a very attractive place to foreigners. People come not only to impart their specialized skills, such as research in the biomedical industry, but also to add weight to our work force and help take on jobs that most Singaporeans might spurn. Examples are Bangladeshi workers in the construction industry and the Chinese waiting on tables at hawker centres. In this instance, a diverse society, consisting of people who bring with them their wealth of knowledge as well as people willing to undertake otherwise unpopular tasks, would be more economically vibrant and viable than a homogeneous one.

In addition, a diverse society might be seen to be one in which minority groups are accepted and treated with respect, facing little or no discrimination and being allowed to live their lives as freely as the “majority”. In such a society, homosexuals, the disabled, and even the poor, who might not count strictly as the minority but would nevertheless often be marginalized, would be able to find their wants and needs being recognized and even met. Such a society would also find itself being the melting pot of people with varying religious beliefs, such as Buddhism, Christianity or Islam. In this case, a diverse society would be more advantageous than a homogeneous one, in that this accommodation of people of different beliefs, cultures and lifestyles, would allow for the growth of a tolerant and open populace, one that is mature enough to accept differences and live and unselfishly, in harmony with possibly radically different people.

Politically, a diverse society might be interpreted as one where alternative political views are allowed to be expressed, where people of conflicting political beliefs are allowed and even encouraged to engage with each other, where the word of the government is not simply tacitly accepted but instead challenged and argued against. In the United States for example, political parties abound and the variety of political beliefs and values can be seen in the recent presidential elections in which candidates such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain all appealed to different crowds due to the differences in their political assertions. A diverse society, in which there is constant dialogue and engagement with various political views, is thus more advantageous than a homogeneous one in which only one view is espoused and alternatives are not entertained; in such a society, the incumbent is always being questioned, forced to always be on his feet.

Yet, in some instances, diverse societies might be seen to be in fact less advantageous than homogeneous ones. One instance when this might be true would be where the very diversity of the society, in terms of cultures and beliefs, leads instead to the tearing of the social fabric holding society together, resulting in social problems and discrimination. In Indonesia, for example, the presence of different cultures of even the natives themselves has led to unhappiness for example on the part of the Acehnese, who, despite government efforts to increase their wealth and living conditions, constantly see themselves as being separate from the rest of Indonesia and, in fact, even seek to be a separate state. In Singapore too, the very welcoming of foreigners has led to much unhappiness among the locals who view these outsiders as competitors for jobs as well as university places. These thus show that to some extent, a diverse society in terms of people with different cultures and lifestyles might not be more advantageous than a homogeneous one.

Moreover, a diverse society in which alternative political views are encouraged and tolerated might experience political instability, with the government in power unable to garner enough support and respect of the people to be able to be effective in policy-making. This would lead to the inability of the society to progress, as alternative views and opposition voices constantly object to the government and prevent the improvement of people’s lives. However, despite these instances in which a diverse society might be less advantageous than a homogeneous one, I would still maintain that in general, the variety and openness accorded to a diverse society is more beneficial to the society itself, than homogeneity would be. This is so as the above mentioned disadvantages of a diverse society are not the norm, and in the light of today’s globalised and fast-changing world, the diverse society would undoubtedly be better able to position itself to accommodate these changes and to suitable adapt itself to the future.

Read More

It is definitely more advantageous to be a diverse society than a homogenous one. Discuss.

In the face of globalization, a term that describes the ‘flattening of the world’ due to increased connectivity between countries and individuals that would have otherwise been separated by physical boundaries, it is apparent that the idea of a homogeneous society is fast becoming reality. Instead of celebrating the unique traits that each diverse society has to offer, it seems that globalization has increasingly rendered cultures gland and uninteresting, causing them to take on similar traits. While some may fervently argue that this cultural consequence is but a small price to pay for the enormous economic benefits that globalization promises and delivers, I strongly believe that it is much more advantageous to be a diverse society than a homogeneous one. This essay will aim to discuss the economic, social and political benefits that a culturally rich society can potentially generate.

One obvious advantage of a diverse society is quite simply that of an increased variety in cultural traits and traditions. With the presence of a complex multitude of differing cultural groups, each offering their own unique brand of cultural practices and identities, it is almost impossible for one to be able to resist the chance to experience the intoxicating, dynamic blend of these vastly different cultures. This is one phenomenon that governments of diverse societies have observed, which they have translated into every capitalist’s dream – the tourist dollar. By marketing their countries or states as a destination bursting with cultural variety and brimming with people from all walks of life and backgrounds, they are able to establish themselves at the forefront of cultural diversity, and lure the ever-willing tourists who are hungry for a taste of authentic cultural richness.

The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has definitely made the most out of the nation’s melting pot of different cultures and races, launching a campaign very aptly titled “Uniquely Singapore”. The campaigns banks heavily on the colourful cultural scene that Singapore enjoys, with posters depicting children of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian heritages sharing a bowl of ‘ice kachang’, a Singaporean ice treat, with huge smiles and satisfied faces. STB’s strategy to market Singapore as the Southeast Asian country with the distinctive edge of having a harmonious society has worked wonders. The Straits Times, a Singaporean newspaper, has recently reported that tourism rates in Singapore have increased, with a large percentage of tourists hailing from China and Japan, both of which are largely homogeneous societies without any significant cultural diversity. It is thus fair to conclude that the presence of cultural variety presents countries with the huge potential of amassing economic benefits when handled accurately.

It is also important not to neglect the social benefits that a diverse society is able to cultivate. While racial and cultural tensions are expected and almost a given in areas where distinctly different groups of people coexist, careful management of these situations can not only alleviate such notions of dissatisfaction between groups, but can also lead the people into becoming more tolerant and forgiving towards the habits and practices of an individual from another cultural background. With enough education and exposure, people gain a deeper understanding of belief systems and traditions other than their own and it is likely that people will also become more open towards differences. The result is a harmonious and friendly environment for all to live in.

Singapore has been fortunate enough to be able to maintain this peaceful and tolerant state following the devastating racial riots in 1964. Having experienced for themselves the sheer horror and bloodshed that racial animosity is able to inflict, Singaporeans have since adopted a much more open stance towards their fellow citizens of different backgrounds. The government has also done its part to stimulate healthy interaction between members of different cultural groups, for example allocating a designated quota of different racial groups that are allowed to occupy a block of Housing Development Board (HDB) flats, Singapore’s most common mode of housing. With constant interaction and deeper insights into the different cultures, Singapore has truly created a culturally acceptive atmosphere that will most certainly continue to permeate even the latest of generations.

These advantages are undoubtedly the results of the painstaking efforts of the government and other political parties that have ensured that culturalvariety does not degenerate into cultural revulsion. Indeed, the presence of cultural diversity and the resulting need to manage the associated benefits and problems are tricky issues that make the government stronger and more capable of tackling any future diversions that may head their way. As much as globalization brings about a homogenizing effect that blends the world into a landscape of uninspiring cultural similarity, minority groups will almost always be present, and it is of utmost importance that these groups are not marginalized and unrepresented in the political front. In fact, the presence of a strong, or fair political showing in the Parliament by members of the minorities are usually indications of a healthy political scene that takes into consideration the welfare of all different kinds of citizens, and is not merely concerned with meeting the needs of the majority.

The presidential campaign of the United States (US) candidate, Obama, is considered by many to be revolutionary, a change that may completely transform the face of the US, and even global politics. Being an African-American, he is their representative and spokesperson. Should he be elected as President of the United States, it is almost expected that this group will be given its fair share of the spotlight in political debates, and that its welfare will be treated with much more respect than before. Closer to home, the Singaporean political scene already has established members of different backgrounds and races, representing the four major groups in Singapore. It is a system that has helped Singapore achieve economic and social prosperity following its independence in 1965, and is a prime example of how governments can be strengthened by cultural diversity.

Despite the many advantages that a diverse society can bring to the table, some naysayers continue to believe that a homogeneous society is the answer to the elimination of social and cultural tension. Yet, in their naïve belief that creating a community of people with the same background and the same belief system is key to harmony and the solution to problems arising from diversity, they forget that what needs to take place first if the elimination of the minority: Hitler ‘cleansed’ the world of Jews in the WWII and Rwanda is entangled in the bitter civil war between two of the biggest tribes, each vowing to exterminate the other. The loss of human lives calls into question the perceived ‘benefits’ of homogenization, and the uninformed belief that a homogeneous society has more to offer than that of a diverse one. With careful planning and management, I believe that having a culturally diverse society will give countries a much-needed edge in the increasingly globalised future.

Read More