Nevertheless, initiatives were done by organizations from both the public and private sectors. CapitaLand, for example, corporates environmental protection and helps the unfortunate children in a “Green for Hope” project which encourages the children to recycle and in turn will help them with the money earned from the heaps of recycled materials that are exchanged with. By inculcating in children good environmental habits is probably the first step to a greener future. After all, these children will grow up with the following set of values and hopefully continue to practise the same environmental habits that have been taught, spreading it to people they interact with. Although there have been efforts taken by the government to promote the “green lifestyle” among citizens, it is a pity that citizens have to be constantly reminded to go green, reuse, reduce and recycle. Very few takes the initiative to do the said tasks. You have three huge colour coordinated bins for paper, glass and plastic bottles, drink cans at the roadsides which possibly becomes a constant reminder to all to recycle. More often than not, monetary benefits will also heighten the efforts of saving of the earth while the idea of saving money in billing processes just by saving electricity, i’m sure, have caused parents to constantly remind their children to switch off the lights after use. Funny how the mind works for some. Singaporeans seem to lack the initiative probably because the the destruction is not as visual unlike the destruction which is heavily visual in other countries. Sure, the media do bring it up, and the environmental damages have been screened in all forms of media, but gradually, the people just cease to care. Although there is the minority who do take a stand in going green, but just them constantly pitching in to save the earth is not enough. Perhaps the extreme weather conditions that have been happening lately do serve as reminder to us all that the environment is screwed up, people seem to not care about it as much as those in other countries who really do want to make a difference and save the earth. A minority, or individuals themselves cannot make a difference in the efforts to save earth, but a community or a society as a whole can. Awareness is therefore key, and ongoing interaction, i feel, is the best way to promote good environmental habits.

But what I would like to bring up is how technology may also be a subtle (or not) contributor to gender discrimination. Potentially sounding ridiculous, a woman claimed that Apple is accused of iPhone gender discrimination because it is a phone unsuited for those with long fingernails. In other words, it’s a phone suited for men as the screen responds to the electrical charge emitted by fingertips.

However, a more serious issue is how technology may be the heavy contributor in gender inequality among children in terms of toys and videogames. I think that this is a serious matter because it is during the stages of growing up the young are able to construct and build their own gender identity. If you were to walk into any toy store, one can definitely differentiate the girls’ section and the boys’ immediately. Labels are not needed, because the toys are already being neatly organized and separated. Whether or not a toy carries a masculine or a feminine trait may be easily seen from the appearance of the toys. This direct or indirect labeling of toys may have a negative impact on children, girls especially, in terms of the future because they will grow up with the reluctance to use toys that are labeled as not being for them. Videogames, for instance, are usually catered to boys; hence, girls are left out in the end. Perhaps this may be partly due to the fact that most videogames industries target the male market since they are generally known to be more keen and better at it than girls. Since technology plays a vital role in this modern world, labeling of different forms of technology to carry a masculine trait in the young’s children mind may carry negative consequences especially when dealing with gender equality. True, alternatives are created to deal with the “videogames are only for boys” issue through the creation of games “specially for girls” but is this enough? It is rare to see girls who dare to cross this invisible gender boundary and play or compete with the boys in the videogames. This reinforces the preconceived opinion that girls have limited interests and are only interested in games that involve fashion, make-up, fairytales, Barbie and the colour pink and girls will then automatically perceive all the other games as being for boys.

Maybe some may argue that it is ridiculous to dwell on this toy issue, because they’re just toys and children will soon grow up and be too old for these toys. But Mead (1934, 25) claims that “in the play period the child utilizes his own responses to these stimuli which he makes use of in building a self.” Children will definitely learn from playing, and by restricting girls’ toys to kitchen sets, Barbie dolls and Polly pockets, they will be left out in more mature content which boys are more likely to be exposed to. Coupled with the girly outlook of these games, the contents offered in girl games will lead to the everlasting stereotype that boys are better at using technology than girls, even though technology seems to be an essential part of our daily lives today, both boys AND girls.

As said, I believe that the population, especially the younger generation, has increasingly become risk takers in the society which may probably be the reason why some health issues among teens still persist. Despite the constant media attention that focuses on the health risk that people will be bearing such as the heavy consequences of smoking, eating disorders or even having casual unprotected sex, it still has not abstain them from such activities. Yes, perhaps, it might have struck a cord in them, but little effort is done for permanent abstinence. Some may blame westernization to be the cause of bad influence for Singaporean teens who have involved themselves in risky activities, while others hastily blame parents for the poor upbringing in the children that result those to be part of such activities. Despite the government’s efforts to censor programmes which contain heavy sexual or drug content, the internet is an easy source for such contents. Parents, on the other hand, are the first few people children interact with when they were young thus the values instilled in them, whether desirable by the society or not, are all up to the parents themselves. To some extent, both factors may partly be the reasons, but I think that individualism may actually be a bigger factor as to why the younger generations are increasingly becoming risk takers when it concerns health issues. Individualism is usually link to political issues, self-reliance or liberty, but in a more general sense, individualism also causes people to be risk takers, because they are free to make their own personal choices which also include certain health related decisions.

Giddens (1999) claimed that “acceptance of risk is also the condition of excitement and adventure” which is usually what most teens seek in their life and this can explain the comparison on the generation’s view in health issues now and then. I feel that the idea of following rules or matching up to the society’s expectations no longer appeal to them. Being different is commonly associated to the choices and decisions that they take, and gradually, it becomes a social trend among teens to be different and risky, or in other words individualistic. Coupled with peers who generally share the same sentiments as them, it will be tough to control how they should view certain health issues that still persist today. It is saddening to think that the only way the generation realize how serious the heavy consequences that they may face in the future is only when they are the ones who will bear it in the end.

As much as i wanted to scream in rebuttal vehemently, that will only seem extremely rude and will probably cause me a great deal of trouble. There may be job discrimination in terms of requirements that employers state in their job advertisements but that has been tackled with since. Perhaps, the man said it out of anger becasue his sons did not get the jobs they desired but if the malay population were to have the same mindset as him, then nobody will be bale to prove this stereotype wrong. If most of the individuals in the community were to think that it is futile or useless to work hard, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy in the end. Nobody works hard, nobody gets to achieve greater goals.

A country may be urbanized or developed but the main concern would probably be whether the people have the ability to follow the pace of its development. What i believe is that it all comes down to education, especially when economies have become more knowledge based. In addition to that, education is what determines your position in the society and the jobs that you get; it is the root for the division of labor in the society. This division of labor will either be appreciated or criticised. For my father’s friend’s case, it is most definitely the latter as he categorizes the undesired jobs as “bad jobs”. As a country develops rapidly, the demand for education and educated people heightens. More jobs are based on the vast field of knowledge one possesses. In the end, the ones with lower education gets left out, and the opportunities for the unskilled decreases drastically due to the constant rise of educated labor.

Some may argue that the rapid growth of technology and innovation is the cause for the widening gap between the rich and the poor, thus the poor gets left behind. This is agreeable to some extent but the fact is, this development will not pause for people to catch up. It is not the people’s choice whether or not they want to be the followers of the growth of the country or otherwise. Moreover, it is probably stereotypes or perceived opinions my father’s friend hold that causes some of us to be left behind in the midst of this rapid developments and urbanization. If individuals were to have the same opinion as his, development of the country will then be pointless. As cliche as this may sounds, but true nevertheless, it is never too old to learn. Education may not be the vital aspect for the growth in other countries, but in singapore, it is.

The idea of westernization may be a contributing factor, while some may feel that the upbringing of the child is probably a greater contributive factor to this matter. However, i feel that it is probably ongoing socialization that plays a huge part as to why the feel that the importance of religion is rather insignificant. Some of us may have this stereotyped view that when we see and individual who does not fast, or does something morally wrong, we simply wonder whether they have been brought up correctly by their parents. However, i feel that it will eventually be the child’s choice as to whether he wants to embrace the religion, or choose not to be as religious as how he is expected to be by the society. And this i believe highly depends on the influence he gets from the society or the environment he is in because those two aspects direct and mould the individual gradually. But what scares me more is perhaps, how some of the people view the obligatory task of fasting as some ritual. 

Speaking of which, to what extent must a ritual be followed? Recently, there was an article on a couple beaten to death during a “cleansing” ritual in Malaysia. They were promised that after they are being pounded by their close relatives, they will faint but only to wake up rid off any illness. It baffles me that one might go to the extent and actually believe that such rituals exist. Such rituals probably do reflect on how a society is. Although there is a positive effect to the practice of these rituals – share common bonds or the build of solidarity among those who share the same sentiments in the particular religion/ritual – such rituals may probably lead to a deterioration in morality for both individuals as well as the society as one indulge oneself in a ritual that is known to cause harm both physically and mentally. Some may argue that those who go through rituals deemed to be more religious or one of those extremists and that people seek comfort, or even truth from these rituals, but i feel that it lies more on the fact that these people fail to see beyond the appearance and the reality behind these so called rituals. Perhaps proper education may help deal with this problem but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the socialization process. It is the people who have the capability hence influence is prone to happen. It is the step to break the practice of the ritual which has probably been going on for a long time that is the toughest, especially when the ritual is acknowledged by the society as a norm.

But I guess the question would be, did the parents even think of Anna’s own rights when she was born? She was brought into the world with only one purpose, which is to save her sister. She wasn’t given a choice. Her first surgery was done when she was just three years old. Anna suing her parents was also a move to tell them that she should have her own rights over her own body, and that she should have more reasons to live besides just saving her sick sister.

In the case of Anna, her rights were infringed upon by her own parents. But maybe when it comes to family, it is difficult to practise your own rights especially with regard to family matters or problems at hand. Family loyals comes first, before personal rights. Filial piety is also another contributing factor. To be raised by your own parents, and also inculcated with values of the family, there is a stronger need to serve the family first. To practise human rights perhaps thus becomes a second priority, with family loyalty topping the list. In one of my modiels, we learnt that a person will internalize another’s opinions during socialization and the opinion of a generalised other crops up at the back of the person’s mind before his own actions take place. When one wants to have his own freedom in decisions, or whatnot in a family, he will always consider the opinions of his family first that it may even come to a point where he has to forgo his freedom just to please the rest of the family members. One may argue that it is natural for a person to prioritize family first before personal needs, but what if the situation is similar to Anna’s case? I think the extent to which a person prioritizes family needs before personal freedom depends on the environment that he/she is raised in, as well as the people or community he/she is part of. The extent as to the freedom that one seeks also depends on the blood ties or the degree of the relations. Individuals feel more responsible for members not only those of the same blood but probably also from the same ethnic group. Solidarity among the people is prevalent with or without a choice. Some may have felt the need to conform while others are just comfrotable in the presence of the same group of people. It will definitely affect the way a person thinks. Despite the need to fight for their own rights, they will still consider the consequences of such fronts will affect the perople close to them, or those in the same community sharing the same beliefs and values. Hence in a way, this also affects the way a person decides on whether their personal needs and rights should be met before others or the other way round.

Most of us are not involved in the war directly, nor are we around to manufacture weapons for the use of war. However, it is safe to assume that every one of us is concerned with the situation in areas where acts of terrorism and war are rampant. In any case, we in Singapore do not have direct relations with anyone involved in international disputes nor acts of terrorism. Even so, we do feel a need to keep in touch with this global dilemma.

We, oblivious as it may seem, might actually be influenced by the media as well as the social groups around us. We are forced to have an opinion about war and its consequences. In a way, the society or social group that we belong to influences our train of thought and hence, our opinions might not reflect accurately on what we are actually thinking. We are involuntarily being pulled on the social bandwagon. At the same time, we are exposed to numerous social entities. Thus our opinions vary accordingly. On the one hand, diversifying relationships and having different ideas on one matter is commendable as we are exposed to the varied opinions around us. On the other hand, in the case where there is an ever changing set of opinions, our own opinions might then be muddled up to a point where we will face difficulties to hold on to a fixed idea.

As such is the situation with the notion of war and terrorism. On top of the exposure from these entities, our views of war are also influenced by the media. Thus, with these differing ideas at bay, we have a variety of notions available for us to believe in. However, this does not necessarily translate to any one of them being the one that we strongly believe in.

Hence, concern is undoubtedly omnipresent in oneself with respect to such notions. But how much it concerns us, what we think of the differing ideas, and what we personally feel about it would be vital in determining our actions. In any case, we could be the follower to the already prevalent notions of war and terrorism. On another note, we could already be part of the group, and we are the ones to influence and inject others with our opinion on the matter.

On a final note, the gist of the matter on war and terrorism is that it is relatively a subjective matter at hand. One might feel that war is necessary, whereas another might find it to be objectionable. So too is the case in terrorism. On a personal note, I feel that the difference between war and terrorism is how the media portrays them. Guns, bombs, and conflicting ideas; all are prevalent in both war and terrorism. The difference between them is how we conceive them to be.

Maybe Singapore is what it is today, because a healthy upbringing for children is still prioritized. Although every family has a different set of values based on the religion and customs they practise, the fundamental ones are usually similar. Schools, on the other hand, strengthens and reinforces the fundamental values taught to the children. As they grow up, these values are inculcated and instilled in them. In a way, our opinions or views are moulded by schools or other education institutions and we have no choice but to abide to them because what is being taught is law. We follow, so in a way, ethnocentrism exists, because the values that we learn are right and what conflicts or collides with these values is deemed as wrong.

The definition of crime itself is different in every country or in every society. What is deemed as a crime in Singapore may not be in other countries. For example, in some countries, voicing out about the government may be viewed as a critic, but in Singapore, it is viewed as a crime. Being conservative may be a contributing factor but the strict laws or the heavy consequences that one has to face when a crime is committed is probably a greater contributing factor on why Singapore is able to achieve in being one of the countries with the lowest crime rates. The government that sets the agenda and heavy punishment is issued to those who fail to follow the rules. William Gibson referred Singapore as “Disneyland with a death penalty” where Singapore is believed to have the world’s highest rates of execution. Despite the movements done to be a less strict country, such as lifting bans to once prohibited acts like bungee jumping or dancing on bars, regulations are still strict as ever. When rules or laws are broken, there is a tendency that they are reinforced, reminded or new laws are implemented with a higher price to pay. News are published, or the media plays a role in sending the message to the public.

To say that fear is instilled in the public so that crimes are prevented is true to some extent. In the west, the people may be used to the chaos happening in their country, but in Singapore, their goal is to be a peaceful and harmonious country. When a crime is committed, it not only affects the individual, is also affects the society as a whole as social implications will surface. Hence, harmony is also achieved by silencing opinions or views that may oppose or clashes with the norms or beliefs which are already being set by the government. Regulating the media is already an example. The censorship board plays a role in making sure that programmes and films shown will not spark any negative or conflicting thoughts in the public, which explains why some films are banned such as “Arabs and Terrorism” or films on homosexuality too. To continue to be a peaceful harmonious country, films on terrorism may be banned to avoid any views brought up in the film to surface among the public which in turn may cause discrimination, while the case of the ban of films on homosexuality only reemphasizes my point that Singapore is after all a conservative country.

Like how gay sex is being banned, so are other acts or themes that are deemed to not be Singapore-friendly.

It is a pity, on the other hand, that the importance of sustaining a happy and healthy marriage is slowly and gradually diminishing as both genders would rather pursue goals in their career; make it big and obtain the highest status in the corporate world. Perhaps, in defense, one may argue that nothing is free in the world and that they work for a good future but the demands of work as the common theme should not be an excuse to failing marriages or delayed marriages.

Although some may argue that single parents can do just fine in raising their child single handedly, it is undeniable that a single parent will have difficulties fulfilling both a father’s and a mother’s role simultaneously. Pressure is inevitable, especially when there is a need to juggle between work as well as family. The full burden of having to work to their limit each day will definitely be overwhelming. It will be even more pressurizing when one realizes that the salary earned is not enough to cover the household as well as their children’s expenses. In the video Prof Sulfikar showed in the lecture, the documentary showed how the single parents suffered a lot with the heavy responsibility that one has to carry but only showed snippets of how the children felt when they had to spend most of their time alone.

Although the environment in every single parent family is different, I think that the children in most of these failed marriages are usually the ones who suffer the most. The lack of time spent and the deprivation of love will definitely affect the children because interaction with the family is vital when they are still young in order to instill in them the fundamental morals and values as they grow up. Perhaps, children from divorced families will still be able to spend time with both their parents following a timetable that the parents themselves have come up with but it will still affect them in some ways nonetheless. For single parents, although child care services are provided, being cared by a complete stranger is different from being cared by your own parents. Also, children from these broken families are usually disadvantaged especially when it comes to economic issues and are more likely to involve themselves in illegal activities as a form of escapism.

Violating whatever rights they have, freedom and basically their childhood, many children, especially in third world countries are being forced to work. The children have no choice because their families depend on the low wages they earned to live. Child exploitation occurs in various third world countries due to poverty. However, it is a relief to see that efforts have been made by ordinary people and even the celebrities to end child trafficking. Radiohead, for example, has joined MTV EXIT campaign which aims to end the exploitation and trafficking of children by making a video that shows a comparison in living conditions of a child who lives luxuriously and a child who lives to work in a factory slapping on soles for shoes. When interviewed, they hoped that this will create a global awareness that every one of us actually plays a role, albeit unknowingly, in child trafficking and exploitation. Like what Prof Sulfikar mentioned in his online lecture, one of the problems of free trade is that people are so focused in their role as consumers that they ignore the workers who are oppressed with the extreme work conditions. In this case, we never question whether these goods were done by children oppressed in poor living and working conditions. Besides awareness through media, World Vision has tried to create awareness in the form of art through art exhibitions in Australia carrying the theme ‘Stop Child Labor’. They have made trips to help abandoned children, orphans, those who are vulnerable to child trafficking and whatnots by sheltering them as well as educating them for future preparations.

The worst form of child labor would probably be child sex exploitation. Although child protection agencies have put in efforts to curb the problem, it still exists. Technology, the form which has eased our lives tremendously, has also eased the exploitation of children through online child prostitution by posting ads that cater erotic services for men. But what is mind-boggling is perhaps there are a handful of underage girls who are actually willing to cater such services for money. Reasons given vary from not having enough money for the payment of bills to wanting or needing attention that one can get from the opposite sex. It’s ironic how these girls are volunteering themselves to sell their body for materialistic purposes while children in third world countries are being sold for sex without being able to defend themselves. The young celebrities on the other hand are wearing rings as a promise to have abstinence and stay a virgin till they’re married or also known as purity rings. Influential teen artistes like the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus are already seen with these rings, which hopefully brings the message across to teenagers who look up to them. Although it is good to see how these young celebrities are being good role models to the youths, and will hopefully change the mindset of those girls who voluntarily sell their body for the good money, trend or not, it takes more than just purity rings to practise abstinence before marriage.