Article used: Globalization: A panacea for world economic development?http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/2738.cfm
Globalization is the word that every country has in mind now. Many believe in the benefits that one could enjoy with the arrival of globalization. Indeed, the world income has doubled since 1980, and almost half a billion people have climbed out of poverty. There are further predictions that the number of people living on under $1 a day will halved from today’s one million by 2030 due to globalization. However, no matter how beautiful the figures seem, there is a dark side to globalization- inequality within nations has widened as wealth generated from globalization are not equally distributed.
Globalization had caused the rich nations earning more revenue while many of the poor nations were exploited by the rich nations and in the end, having little growth for them. Forty of the poorest nations have had zero growth during the past twenty years while the rich countries grew on average by almost two percent per capita annually (1980 - 2002). The nation inequality causes more development in the developed countries while the development in the poorer countries remains stagnant. The country did not benefit economically and socially, the standard of living of the citizens did not improve.
The victim of globalization is mostly the developing country. Not only that their economic interest is disregarded, the richer nations relegate the labour rights protection in the countries too. Richer nations hope to get access to the developing countries’ labour forces. In developing countries, farming accounts for 30-60 percent of GDP and up to 70percent of the labour force. Hence, labour rights protection is critical for protecting the citizens’ rights. However, this is not done and social problems arise. In India, the farmer suicide has been a terrible human cost and become a threat to rural development.
In addition, the developing countries face constrains as they negotiated with richer nations for trades with them. For example, during Doha Round of trade talks, the United States proposed that developing countries would have been free to export jet engines and supercomputers to America, but not textiles, agriculture products or processed foods- goods of which the United States produces. The developing countries face limitations to which goods they can export, hence causing them to have a small market where their goods can be sold.
In conclusion, globalization does not benefit the world as a whole as the richer nations dominates the poorer ones, causing limited development that the poorer nations can experience.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?
“‘To pull out a finger of a terrorist in order to save a couple of million lives’ was morally right,” said Mr. Faris, a former chairman of the National Crime Authority with regards to using torture against terrorist in some domestic crime situations.
Indeed, sometimes torture is needed to force the terrorists to give in and provide important information. There may be members of terrorist organizations or criminals that are prepared to face death for whatever they had done. However, that does not mean that using torture as an investigation technique is justified.
The use of torture on criminals or terrorists is morally unjust. What difference is there between a police who dismember a terrorist to get the information they wanted, and a terrorist that set a bomb to harm the public? During his arrest, a terrorist of al-Qaeeda was shot 3 times and nursed to health by the U.S doctors. The terrorist suffered from physical torture repeatedly. Though it is a criminal that we are dealing with, yet we should not forget that a live is at stake. The terrorists and criminals may have committed serious crimes that are unforgivable but we should not use torture as an investigation technique to find out valuable information.
Besides that, the use of torture yields little results. Taking the example in the article “the unofficial story of the al-Qaeda 14’, Zubayah did not give any information regarding another member, Binalshibh. Instead, he was brought to the attention of investigators as he had sent wire transfers to other members of the al-Qaeda. It is also mentioned by Mr. Faris, “If you don’t get the information, you don’t get the information.” Torturing the terrorists or criminals does not guarantee that the terrorists or criminals will give in. They may instead give worthless information in hope to end the torturing. For example, Zubaydah named countless targets inside the U.S to stop the pain. Thus, torturing the criminals or terrorists is not the way to dig information out of them.
Lastly, there are alternatives that not only are productive and moral. For example, instead of dismember the terrorists, the FBI promise of providing better amenities is what causes the terrorists of al-Qeada to cooperate with them. Using a more humanitarian approach to the terrorists or criminals may in turn gain their trust and earn valuable information for the investigation. Moreover, it is an approach that the public is able to accept, as it is morally right.
Indeed, sometimes torture is needed to force the terrorists to give in and provide important information. There may be members of terrorist organizations or criminals that are prepared to face death for whatever they had done. However, that does not mean that using torture as an investigation technique is justified.
The use of torture on criminals or terrorists is morally unjust. What difference is there between a police who dismember a terrorist to get the information they wanted, and a terrorist that set a bomb to harm the public? During his arrest, a terrorist of al-Qaeeda was shot 3 times and nursed to health by the U.S doctors. The terrorist suffered from physical torture repeatedly. Though it is a criminal that we are dealing with, yet we should not forget that a live is at stake. The terrorists and criminals may have committed serious crimes that are unforgivable but we should not use torture as an investigation technique to find out valuable information.
Besides that, the use of torture yields little results. Taking the example in the article “the unofficial story of the al-Qaeda 14’, Zubayah did not give any information regarding another member, Binalshibh. Instead, he was brought to the attention of investigators as he had sent wire transfers to other members of the al-Qaeda. It is also mentioned by Mr. Faris, “If you don’t get the information, you don’t get the information.” Torturing the terrorists or criminals does not guarantee that the terrorists or criminals will give in. They may instead give worthless information in hope to end the torturing. For example, Zubaydah named countless targets inside the U.S to stop the pain. Thus, torturing the criminals or terrorists is not the way to dig information out of them.
Lastly, there are alternatives that not only are productive and moral. For example, instead of dismember the terrorists, the FBI promise of providing better amenities is what causes the terrorists of al-Qeada to cooperate with them. Using a more humanitarian approach to the terrorists or criminals may in turn gain their trust and earn valuable information for the investigation. Moreover, it is an approach that the public is able to accept, as it is morally right.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
New Media- Power to the people or threat to stability?
I agree to a large extent that with New Media, it brings power to the people rather than threatening stability.
Firstly, with New Media, people are engaged in the politics in their country. For example, in Africa, the Media and Guardian hosted a blog for all politicians in recent local elections. This resulted in many comments from the citizens and helped to encourage debate. With New Media, citizens were more involved and their voices are heard. Now, the government have to think and make policies not only based on the comments of the ministers in the government but also the general public. Besides that, the opinions of the public can be found easily on a political issue. In this way, governments can then take an approach or make a policy that suits the citizens' needs the most and reduce discontentment in the citizens to the minimum.
Secondly, the people are given new ways to express and share their thoughts and opinions without having to fear that their comments will be totally censored by the government. How is this so? In the past, people have to get through the newsletters to share their thoughts to the public. Hence, censorship on letters that opposes the government can easily be imposed. However, with the presence of new media, people share their views using the web which the government have difficulty in controlling censorship as there are great numbers of users.
Though new media brought power to the people to have a say in the politics, it does bring threat to stability.
New media provided many route for informations to reach people. However, some of the informations may cause conflicts to countries. One example is the use of new media by terrorists to manipulate people's mind. It is common to find satellite dishes in Iraq today. People are more accessible to various ideas no matter it is morally correct or not. Hence, terrorists could put up false informations and try to influence the mind of the people. In turn, it threatens the stability of the country as some joined the terrorists and carried out terrorists acts in the country if they were influenced.
The threat of stability may come from the citizens themselves. One example is the incident of a few teenagers in Singapore making racist remarks in their personal blogs. The rise of new media does provide platforms for everyone to voice out their inner-thoughts. However, this poses danger as there are users who abuses their rights and causes unnecessary conflicts. In the example given above, conflicts regarding racial issues may rise up due to the remarks made by the teenagers. Thus, to a certain degree, new media brought threat to stability too.
Firstly, with New Media, people are engaged in the politics in their country. For example, in Africa, the Media and Guardian hosted a blog for all politicians in recent local elections. This resulted in many comments from the citizens and helped to encourage debate. With New Media, citizens were more involved and their voices are heard. Now, the government have to think and make policies not only based on the comments of the ministers in the government but also the general public. Besides that, the opinions of the public can be found easily on a political issue. In this way, governments can then take an approach or make a policy that suits the citizens' needs the most and reduce discontentment in the citizens to the minimum.
Secondly, the people are given new ways to express and share their thoughts and opinions without having to fear that their comments will be totally censored by the government. How is this so? In the past, people have to get through the newsletters to share their thoughts to the public. Hence, censorship on letters that opposes the government can easily be imposed. However, with the presence of new media, people share their views using the web which the government have difficulty in controlling censorship as there are great numbers of users.
Though new media brought power to the people to have a say in the politics, it does bring threat to stability.
New media provided many route for informations to reach people. However, some of the informations may cause conflicts to countries. One example is the use of new media by terrorists to manipulate people's mind. It is common to find satellite dishes in Iraq today. People are more accessible to various ideas no matter it is morally correct or not. Hence, terrorists could put up false informations and try to influence the mind of the people. In turn, it threatens the stability of the country as some joined the terrorists and carried out terrorists acts in the country if they were influenced.
The threat of stability may come from the citizens themselves. One example is the incident of a few teenagers in Singapore making racist remarks in their personal blogs. The rise of new media does provide platforms for everyone to voice out their inner-thoughts. However, this poses danger as there are users who abuses their rights and causes unnecessary conflicts. In the example given above, conflicts regarding racial issues may rise up due to the remarks made by the teenagers. Thus, to a certain degree, new media brought threat to stability too.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?
Based on the article " Great Lies of the American Free Press", it is said that the media focuses on popularity, prejudice and profits instead of people and public interests to determine the news that they report. Hence, to a large extent, the media cannot be relied to convey the truth.
The first word "popularity" suggests that the media selected their reports so that they will not lose their readers, viewers or even advertising dollars. As such, they need to report issues that draws public attention and in turn, generate profits to the corporation. As cited from the article, the Iraqi War is one that was "fueled by corporates-controlled media's lust to boost profits". The more Iraqi War was promoted, the more will the media have viewers and readers who want to know more about the updates of the war. Hence, the media can never be relied upon to convey the truth as many times, the media's reports was determined by the profits they would earn from a news.
Besides popularity, the media also practice prejudice when they select their news. As mentioned in the article, the author of the article once wrote to his local newspaper regarding 'bad faith' standard in America which was censored. This was so as the local newspaper was afraid to offend the local police department. As a result, awareness of the arrant nature of 'bad faith' standard was not put across to the public. Most importantly, what seems to be a good chance to amend the 'bad faith' standard was thrown away as the article was banned. The act of censorship to prevent themselves from being involved in problems greatly reduced the media's credibility in their ability to convey the truth to the public.
The last point, profits, is another factor that controls the news that was reported. Individuals could have been bribed by the government to say in favour of the government policies. One such example found in the article is that pseudo-journalist, Maggie Gallagher was paid $21,500 by the federal government of Health and Human services to encourage marriages. Besides individuals bribery, another way of profiting is through acquiring a bigger share of the marketplace. Thus, media spoke in favour of the government under Bush dictatorship. In such a case, it is highly doubtful that the media can be relied upon to convey the truth.
However, it is necessary to note that media does not stand on the three points mention above all the time. There are times where media's reports were due to other factors like public interest. Taking the media in Singapore as an example, factual reports were made and the public was constantly updated on the situation of SARS in Singapore. Even after the declaration of Singapore being SARS- free officially on 5 June, the media did not cover up another new case of SARS when a 27-year-old researcher, who contracted SARS in September, was infected in the Environmental Health Institute Laboratory where he worked. The public was notified about another SARS patient and thus they were alerted about taking measure to prevent catching SARS virus. Hence, the media can be reliable in conveying the truth to the public.
The first word "popularity" suggests that the media selected their reports so that they will not lose their readers, viewers or even advertising dollars. As such, they need to report issues that draws public attention and in turn, generate profits to the corporation. As cited from the article, the Iraqi War is one that was "fueled by corporates-controlled media's lust to boost profits". The more Iraqi War was promoted, the more will the media have viewers and readers who want to know more about the updates of the war. Hence, the media can never be relied upon to convey the truth as many times, the media's reports was determined by the profits they would earn from a news.
Besides popularity, the media also practice prejudice when they select their news. As mentioned in the article, the author of the article once wrote to his local newspaper regarding 'bad faith' standard in America which was censored. This was so as the local newspaper was afraid to offend the local police department. As a result, awareness of the arrant nature of 'bad faith' standard was not put across to the public. Most importantly, what seems to be a good chance to amend the 'bad faith' standard was thrown away as the article was banned. The act of censorship to prevent themselves from being involved in problems greatly reduced the media's credibility in their ability to convey the truth to the public.
The last point, profits, is another factor that controls the news that was reported. Individuals could have been bribed by the government to say in favour of the government policies. One such example found in the article is that pseudo-journalist, Maggie Gallagher was paid $21,500 by the federal government of Health and Human services to encourage marriages. Besides individuals bribery, another way of profiting is through acquiring a bigger share of the marketplace. Thus, media spoke in favour of the government under Bush dictatorship. In such a case, it is highly doubtful that the media can be relied upon to convey the truth.
However, it is necessary to note that media does not stand on the three points mention above all the time. There are times where media's reports were due to other factors like public interest. Taking the media in Singapore as an example, factual reports were made and the public was constantly updated on the situation of SARS in Singapore. Even after the declaration of Singapore being SARS- free officially on 5 June, the media did not cover up another new case of SARS when a 27-year-old researcher, who contracted SARS in September, was infected in the Environmental Health Institute Laboratory where he worked. The public was notified about another SARS patient and thus they were alerted about taking measure to prevent catching SARS virus. Hence, the media can be reliable in conveying the truth to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)