Denise’s Weblog

An International Body Where Every Voice is Heard

In today’s globalised economy, countries are dependent on international trade to rise in the ranks. The lack thereof would leave them in abject poverty with little hopes of enjoying the benefits of consumerism.

Ideally, free trade agreements or the World Trade Organization (WTO) should allow trade to happen without barriers.

Ideally, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) should provide outside capital since they (i.e. World Bank) call themselves a “vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries” (World Bank Group par. 1).

But what if the policies and actions are decided by few, powerful nations?

Greenpeace states that the meetings organised by the WTO are by invitation only (Greenpeace par. 2) and this is corroborated by the Inter-Press Service (IPS) which states that “12 or 13 delegations have been invited to these meetings” and these are the meetings that “focused on the contentious issues within the NAMA [non-agricultural market access] negotiations” (Kwa par. 12).

The same site notes that some “closed-door meetings” that took place were of “limited access” (Kwa par. 10). So who speaks up for countries who are not invited but whose progress depends on that aid?

What would happen (or has it already?) should developed nations become threatened by the developing countries’ large population that is ready to work cheap to produce commodities consumed by richer countries? Do they fear an uprising and action from civil militia that would drive their exploitative efforts out if “aid” is provided?

But that is not possible, is it? They have nothing to fear since tariffs now keep imported goods more expensive. As precaution, these wealthy nations also support their flailing local business so these companies, with enough might, continue to invade the poorer countries whose people NEED work. They then use the systems that these countries would have used in the first place if only they had the capital (HELLO WORLD BANK!), to start production.

Soon, these countries leave because of pollution, overpopulation of factories and they leave in their wake, unemployment, stunted economic growth, confusion and severe environmental degradation which the WTO, IMF, World Bank do not or cannot care about because they are concerned with economic progress.

These all ensure that the citizens have no other way to make a living especially since developing countries, crippled by the depleted natural resources, want to crawl up, they take a large debt that is accompanied by political agendas of heavyweights.

Also, without the necessary wealth or industrial management expertise, as that is bought over (Brain drain) by wealthier nations who can pay (Shah par. 1), the developing country continues to chalk up debts and remain under the mercy of powerful nations.

So, does the solution lie in sustainable trade as Greenpeace suggests? Can countries crawl out of poverty with an integration of “environmental, social and economic priorities” (Greenpeace par. 11)? Does this represent the restructuring of economic policies, eradication of unfair labour rules, easing of the burden on the environment, concern for the society that MNCs set up home in and does this mean the implementation of an international body where every voice is heard?

____________________

Works Cited

Greenpeace. “Encourage Sustainable Trade”. Greenpeace International. Greenpeace. 23 Aug. 2008. <http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/trade-and-the-environment>

Kwa, Aileen. “WTO Delegates Following Talks Through News Media”. IPS – Inter-Press Service. 2008.Inter-Press Service. 23 Aug. 2008. <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42926>

Sernau, Scott. Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace, and Sustainability. Boston: Pearson, 2006

Shah, Anup. “Brain Drain of Workers from Poor to Rich Countries”. Global Issues. 2006. Global Issues. 23 Aug. 2008 <http://www.globalissues.org/article/599/brain-drain-of-workers-from-poor-to-rich-countries>

World Bank Group, The. “About Us”. The World Bank. 2008. The World Bank. 23 Aug. 2008 <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,pagePK:50004410~piPK36602~theSitePK:29708,00.html>

Some Less Equal than Others: Singapore’s Starving Sandwich Group

While we discuss inequality and poverty in Africa, Latin America and even the United States, I wonder if we would ever put Singapore under the incriminating microscope.

Singapore might not play home to severe inequality that would make us eligible for appearances in sociological or economic textbooks but we do harbour one class of citizens in which all are equal except some are less equal than others.

We do not have the dramatically poor to juxtapose critically with the dramatically rich but we do have a giant middle class that is so huge and hard to define that we coined yet another term for them – the sandwich group – just for the ease of reference.

It is this sandwich group that possesses so many different qualities and circumstances that those who are there should not be dismissively relegated to one generic term. While many in Singapore’s middle class are comfortable, there are those whose income qualifies them for this title but whose debts and bills leave them with little cash in hand.

This group calls for the redefinition of what consist of being poor and the urgent identification of the circumstances that have left them as such. Perhaps we will need to look at specific individuals, as humanitarian organisations have done with individual groups in underdeveloped countries, to identify their mentality, the institutions they work with and trust and relate that to their larger environment to see what about the person and the layers of the society can be modified to facilitate the gradual adoption of newer ideals and practices.

The careful study of these individuals is crucial because just like how it is near impossible to get anti-poverty efforts to poorer countries that lack the resources to filter and study their citizens, Singapore cannot assist those who require help if their circumstances are not identified.

Reasonably, it is easy to see why a comprehensive screening system is difficult to establish because it is not the basic income level that is in play here. It is the medical bills, hefty debts and funds lock in property or other investments undertaken that can be credited for their predicament.

I realise that I am inches away from sounding like a fatalistic, discontented uncle at the coffee shop but I venture the supposition that a country as prosperous as Singapore proclaims to be can extend some forgiveness. After all, we do pledge millions – with an optimistic humanitarian outlook – to poor, underdeveloped countries plagued by modernisation and exploited by the greedy mistakes of our colonial ancestors.

Besides, what we need might not be too bad since we are not thinking about audaciously asking that everyone except the upper quintile be put on the dole but simply hoping that the solution lies in proper financial counseling coupled with an extensive and continuous screening process that will ensure financial aid be given to the right people and the middle class be restored with a clearer distinction.

Active Society, Latent Problems

I write this just hours after the National Day Parade and a day after the Prime Minister’s National Day Message and it is hard to discount the already-strong sense of patriotism that I feel for our country.

With that in mind, it is easy to brush me aside when I say that I have, prior to taking this course, seen no severe social ills in our society. I hope this does not mean that I have been cushioned in my snow-globe where all is wonderful; perhaps an aftereffect from being fed understated pro-PAP propaganda masked as national media.

That said, I have allowed myself to recognise that in every seemingly perfect society, which I think Singapore epitomises, there are problems and much as I would love to understand its sources, it is perhaps now more important to look at what social problems (I shudder as I say this) I think we have.

Reading Merton’s supposition that we have to distinguish between “latent” and “manifest” social problems (Skolnick 7), I realise that perhaps our issues are latent – silently gathering ominous potential energy before spewing over with catastrophic repercussions. (But perhaps these horrific repercussions will not take place since many of us (ie discontented taxi uncles, me) enjoy languishing in the comfort we already enjoy.)

So, some latent problems that Singapore harbours (again, shuddering as I say this),

1.) The Poor

While we are mostly comfortable, some are more comfortable than others. So for those who unfortunately fall into the lower end, though comfortable, are perceived and perceive themselves to be poor.

Therefore, this disadvantaged group is still considered disadvantaged since the circumstances in which they live cannot compare with the majority of the population.

However, perhaps the biggest problem we have is not the lower quintile of our society since they can be so easily classified and identified for social welfare.

I think, most importantly, we must take care not to write off the growing “sandwich group” in Singapore. Ms Ermita mentioned that we have a huge and predominantly middle class community. These citizens are perhaps the ones most overlooked in public policy and this can very easily lead to the decline of their position especially because their status straddles the almost haute-couture lifestyle with a middle class pay that would now have to cope with soaring inflation.

In today’s globally humanitarian world, what they do not have when compared to the rest of the population becomes startlingly clear and the discontent and disdain others might feel can begin to well up.

2.) Dipping Birth Rates

Prime Minister Lee mentioned, with a demure smile, that he would love for Singaporeans to enjoy families. While I am not sure if this is so much a social concern than an economic one, I think that since it goes against the archaic but still popular belief that a couple should have as many babies as they are “blessed with”, it can (or must) be identified as a social issue.

With the ample and strategic imports of foreign talent, aided by technological advances and an increasingly metropolitan Singapore, economic worries of human resources and an ageing population will cease.

Besides, “modern” society will promote equality in the household and a household sans children – an exciting concept – will no longer be frowned upon. So perhaps globalisation might not change the problem but will remove or revise the values that gave rise to this.