Globalization 2.1

Thank you for having us.

2006-05-25T10:37:00.000+08:00

This has been an interesting assignment. Good work, everyone.

The project may have ended, but globalization will be going on for quite a while. Everyone should know that by now yes.

So long.

Globalization of Poverty?

2006-05-22T00:44:00.000+08:00

Globalization of Poverty
---------by Rochelle Robinson
Poverty is global, and it is globalization that has kept those in poverty all over the world from rising above it. We have been led to believe that globalization is a process that can enrich our local and global economies. Yet nothing can be further from the truth. Its meaning is unscrupulous, and its results, onerous.
Globalization is just another euphemism for capitalism; a system that has had a devastating effect on the poorest of the land. Statistics show that the richest 1 percent of the country own 47.2 percent of all the wealth, while the bottom 90 percent own only 17.1 percent of this country's wealth. Usually, we are left fighting among ourselves for those scarce resources. When the world's largest populations are situated at the bottom of the economic scale while a miniscule number of people hold all the wealth, something is amiss, and that something is the globalization of poverty.

Today, we live with more awareness and concern about global poverty than at any time in our world’s history. More than ever, people can see or read about swollen stomachs of hungry African children, 11 year-old Asian children working in sweatshops, and Haitian families living in mud huts without medical care, electricity, or clean water. At the same time, many of the richest people are global celebrities. Poverty can no longer be kept secret and neither can prodigious wealth. Yet, the growing world recognition of massive disparities between rich and poor does not necessarily mean that economic inequality is worsening or that poverty is spreading.

Ironically, it is the very improvement in the economic well being of hundreds of millions of people that raised the world's consciousness about poverty and inequality. Until a few hundred years ago, almost everyone experienced material poverty. Few saw themselves as poor relative to their neighbors and hardly any were comfortable enough to worry whether other people had enough food, clothing and shelter. Rising incomes created the large middle classes that could worry about the hungry and expose the poor to what they lacked. In addition, economic growth and technological change fueled the expansion and accessibility of mass communication that makes poverty and income disparities readily observable not only in the rich countries but in many poor countries as well.

This growing recognition of world poverty and inequality is significant, but so too are questions about the realities of material hardships and material wealth. What are today's levels of poverty and inequality? Are they increasing or decreasing? The often emotional debate over globalization's role is hardly surprising, given the apparent stakes for organized labor, investors, farmers, and civil servants in rich, middle, and poor countries and the continuing ideological battle over free markets. Other causes of poverty—such as the decline in two-parent families—attract less attention.

Here, I will focus on how the trends of the standard of world poverty have changed over the years and the role of globalization.

It is not easy to determine whether the trends for the standard of world poverty is decreasing or increasing because its meaning differs from one country to another country and the income statistics may not be examined across countries or across individuals.

The most comprehensive recent analysis of trends in poverty and inequality comes from studies by Columbia University professor Xavier Sala-I-Martin (2002). Professor Martin uses data on income gaps between countries and within countries to portray income differences across all individuals in 125 countries, representing 90 percent of the world's population. He adjusts for inflation and for the fact the purchasing power in some countries, especially low-income countries, is higher than it looks based on translating their currencies into dollars or marks on the basis of exchange rates. Professor Martin's poverty measures are $1/day or $2/day per person in 1985 prices (or $1.52/day or $3.04/day in 1998 terms). Unlike some studies, which treat each country as one unit and thus give people in small countries much greater weight than people in large countries, Martin attaches the same importance to each individual regardless of his or her country.

Sala-i-Martin paints a picture of striking progress. He estimates that the share of the world's population in severe poverty $555/year (hereafter I use 1998 dollars) declined by nearly two-thirds between 1970 and 1998, from 17.2% to 6.7%. Using the more generous poverty line of $1,110 per year, he finds an even greater percentage point decline, from 41% in 1970 to 18.6% in 1998. Most of the headway against poverty has taken place since 1980. Even though world population grew by 1.5 billion between 1980 and 1998, the number experiencing severe poverty declined by 160 million people. Still, as of 1998, 353 million people lived below the $1.52/day threshold and another 620 million lived below the $3.04/day threshold. The World Bank's figures are higher, but both sets of poverty figures show marked reductions in poverty since 1980.

More surprising than the declines in poverty are the reductions in inequality. With the 1980s viewed as the "lost decade" for many developing countries, especially in Africa and Latin America, we might have expected a sharp rise in world inequality. Instead, Sala-i-Martin finds that the world distribution of income became more equal since 1980, after changing little change in the 1970s. True, the improvements were modest, ranging from about 5-11 percent, depending on the indicator of inequality. But small gains in narrowing income gaps are a far better outcome than the "explosive" growth in inequality described by the UN and many outside observers. (Quoted from Europe in World Politics)

Could huge numbers of the world's poor really have escaped poverty and could the gap with people in rich countries really have narrowed?

Progress in Asia provides much of the answer. In 1970, 39% of the world's poor lived in China and 37% lived in other parts of Asia. Of the 1.3 trillion people living on less than $3 a day, 85% lived in Asia. The Asian economic miracle of the 1980s and 1990s lifted the living standards of hundreds of millions of people—the majority of the poor. The percentage of those scraping by on $3/day in Asia fell from 48% in 1980 to 16% in 1998. China's bullish performance was quite impressive but so were the improvements in Asia outside China, where $3/day poverty rates declined from 42% to 13% in the 1980-98 periods. Meanwhile, since the 1980s, poverty rates have stagnated in Latin America and worsened in Africa. While Africans accounted for only 16 percent of the world's deep poverty in 1980, they made up two-thirds of the poor in 1998. By the $3/day standard, 64% of Africans were poor in 1998, up from 55% in 1980. Poverty in Latin America—with rates of 2% at the $1.5/day standard and 10% at the $3/day standard—is not nearly as severe as African poverty. Moreover, poverty did fall some in Latin America during the 1990s, though only enough to compensate for the rise in poverty during the 1980s. It is troubling that neither Latin America nor Africa gained on the rich countries or lowered their overall poverty rates in the last two decades.

Continuing growth in populous India and China, where most people in developing countries still live, will mean significant progress in the reduction of world poverty and inequality. But, unless Africa and Latin America fare better than they have in the last two decades, severe poverty will continue to fester and world inequality will increase.

So what is the exactly role globalization played in these developments and maybe the spread of poverty in some areas of the world?

One way of analyzing globalization's impact is to take the long view and assess trends from the perspective of centuries. Jeffrey Williamson (2002) and his colleagues (Lindert and Williamson 2001) have done so and they offer a largely positive verdict. Income gaps did widen in the 1820-1950 period, when rapid industrial development took place in Europe, the United States and other European offshoots, and Japan. Starting from a state of nearly universal poverty, the world became more unequal when some countries developed rapidly while others remained poor. Still, in periods of globalization, income gaps narrowed among countries taking part in global trade, immigration, and investment. By far, the main force closing the gap was large-scale immigration. True to theory, the immigration of 60 million European increased wages in the sending, low wage countries, decreased wages in the receiving, high wage countries, and substantially raised incomes for the immigrants themselves. Trade helped incomes converge as well, boosting the prices received by producers and lowering the prices their consumers and producers paid for imports. Investment was the one component that went against expectations. Flows of international capital moved toward already rich countries, perhaps following the movement of workers and perhaps because additional capital is sometimes more productive in places where concentrations of capital are already present—a phenomenon vividly described by William Easterly (2001) in his thoughtful book on growth.( quoted from Robert I. Lerman’s article)

Overall, globalization helped the poor countries that adopted sound policies and contributed to income convergence among the countries participating in the global system. However, since stagnation continued in many countries isolated from globalization, world inequality still rose.

Globalisation: End of Foreign Policy Part 3

2006-05-22T00:12:00.000+08:00

Non-Governmental Organisations

The traditional autonomy of Foreign Policy has also been challenged by the rise of what are known as non-governmental organisations - often referred to in shorthand as NGOs.

Where once, there were a few hundred, now there are thousands working across the world. Good examples are aid organisations, such as Oxfam or Save the Children, or the human rights organisation Amnesty International.

While individual governments cannot control what these organisations do, their opinions can carry considerable weight.

When Amnesty questions a country's human rights policy, its voice is heard around the world. That's not always convenient for foreign policy. Take, for instance, the recent military campaign in Afghanistan. Amnesty was the first to raise questions about events in Mazar I Sharif, where hundreds of foreign Taleban prisoners were killed by the West's allies in the Northern Aliance.

First, it was the MNCs. Now, it's the NGOs. Ahhh. Save us.

Globalisation: End of Foreign Policy Part 2

2006-05-21T23:42:00.000+08:00

Climate change

Protests in Sweden as President Bush tears up the Kyoto treaty on climate change

The global challenge of climate change is one area where the old certainties of international diplomacy have been stood on their head.

Here, you can forget the so-called special relationship between Britain and America: the two disagree fundamentally on how to tackle global warming.

Britain has been at the forefront of climate change negotiations held under the auspices of the UN, while the United States, the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, has refused to implement the reductions required by the Kyoto protocol.

As if to underline the point, Britain's place at the climate change negotiations has been filled not by its Foreign Office team, but by its environment ministers. At one memorable meeting in November 2000, a last minute deal hammered out by the environment secretary and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott fell apart - he said, because the French environment minister was too tired to sign.

In Kyoto, December 1997 the UN brokered the world's first treaty to tackle global warming. Signatories pledged to cut their greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade by just over five per cent from 1990 levels.

But the USA has dragged its feet on implementing the Kyoto protocol and in March 2001, the new president, George W Bush abandoned the Kyoto treaty altogether, saying it is against his country's economic interests.

The Kyoto Protocol. *Sigh* Do we really have to go through this again? Yes, I know what you are thinking. It has been gone over by the other commentators but I simply cannot let go of it. It just so reeks of, I don't know, politics? Hear ye, hear ye. Of all negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol stood out because Singapore is part of this so-called agreement. In this dire situation, the wanting need to save mother earth has taken a back seat while personal interests and politics comes to the forefront. Globalisation has led countries to join forces and handle the problem together as one, as a global community. In this case, it was the serious issue of emission of greenhouse gases especially carbon dioxide. However, big nations like the United States of America has decided that it would affect their economy and therefore, blatantly refuse to adhere to the treaty. None of the nations to do with the protocal could do anything to the US as any wrong move could escalate into a war. It also touhes on the issue of the sovereignty of a nation and how far one can go to engage the other nation. In my opinion, average nation could do anything to any nation bigwigs as it would be total suicide. The furthest you can go is just to engage in more negotiations or call in another bigwig to handle the situation but that would show the world how weak you are, right?

Economic globalization in Asia

2006-05-21T21:17:00.000+08:00

Economic globalization in Asia

The Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime," has never been more relevant than today.

Globalization, the integration of national markets through international trade and investment, offers infinite possibilities, greater freedom and new hope for the world's poor.

Since globalization emerged in the 1970s, world infant mortality rates have fallen by almost half, adult literacy has increased by more than a third, primary school enrollment has risen and the average life span has shot up 11 years. Due to successful efforts to lower global barriers, international trade and investment has become a primary engine of world growth. And growth is responsible for reducing poverty. Studies indicate that developing countries with open economies grew by approximately 5% a year in the 1970s and 1980s, while those with closed economies grew less than 1% annually.

Chinese foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan said Asia's development process over the past half century, especially in the recent 30 years clearly tells that "the success and failures or ups and downs of Asia are always closely related to the process of economic globalization."

The economic globalization in Asia has definitely brought opportunities and benefits to Asia.

Asian countries, especially those in East Asia, have seized such opportunities as market openness, commodity exchanges, capital interflow and technology transfer. As a result, they have achieved a rapid economic growth, gradually improved the lives of their people and built Asia into one of the most dynamic and promising regions in the world.

On the other hand, economic globalization has also presented Asia with risks and challenges. The extensive and close links of the world economies have increased the vulnerability of Asian economies to fluctuation. The disorderly flow of short-term capital is impairing and even ravaging economic stability and the unequal international economic order has exacerbated the development gap between the South and North. And moreover, the erroneous theories such as "human rights overriding sovereignty", "humanitarian intervention knowing no boundary" have eroded the foundation of the norms governing international relations and threatened the sovereignty and security of developing countries.

All in all, as Tang described, the economic globalization is a double-edged sword. "For most developing countries, it means challenges and pressures more than opportunities and benefits."

To promote long-term development and prosperity, Asian nations need to make efforts to take advantage of the favorable factors of economic globalization while avoiding the unfavorable ones, Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said Friday in Bangkok.

It is important for the Asian nations to take an active part in the economic globalization, and to adapt to the international environment of economic globalization.

The Asian countries should give full consideration to their own national conditions, development levels and comparative advantages while pressing forward readjustment and reform, upgrading industrial structures, promoting scientific and technological advances. By doing so, they would be able to steadily increase their aggregate national strength, competitiveness and the capacity to protect themselves from risks. Besides, the Asian nations have learned an important revelation from the financial crisis, that is, to gradually expand regional economic cooperation. Countries in the region should strengthen their cooperation in finance, trade, investment and technology on the basis of equality and mutual benefit so as to take advantage of each other's strengths and attain common development. This is an important way for countries in the region to meet the challenges of globalization.
Tang said countries should share the benefit of globalization which, he believed, should be a process "leading to the common prosperity of the South and North, rather than one of polarization of the world."

In view of the growing accumulation of wealth by a few countries or interest groups and the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the world as a whole, developed nations to fulfill their duties and obligations, further open their markets to the developing countries, offer them financial assistance, and work with them in the reform and improvement of international financial structure and rules, and establish a just and reasonable new international economic order.

Finally, there is a need for the democratization of international relations. In the age of globalization, different cultural traditions, lifestyles, social systems and values of nations should be respected and the principles of sovereign equality and noninterference in other countries' internal affairs maintained.

Global Warming

2006-05-21T19:49:00.000+08:00

Ever wondered why ‘Global Warming’ was termed ‘Global Warming’? Was it because the effect is Global, or was it due to the fact that everyone all over the world is causing this ‘disease’ Mother Earth now face? Either way, it can be argued that both explanations are close to the truth – Globalization has taught us that we are forever interlinked, and thus, chances are, we do the same thing, and no matter who does what, so long that there’s one who does not follow, the effect will still be the same for all of us.

Globalization is change. Change experienced by everyone, all over the world. If such a principle were to hold, then why is the world not really working together to solve such a great problem that could greatly threaten mankind? Globalization has changed our lives, and it will continue to do so. Yet the idea of the “global village” that comes along with Globalization is simply difficult to imagine. In fact, it seems that the different countries in the world would never put aside their differences and privileges to work together. When faced with problems brought about by industrialization all over the world due to Globalization, it makes sense if everyone were to play a part in solving these problems. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

(Definition of The Kyoto Protocol taken from Wikipedia)

Kyoto Protocol is a noble intention, a treaty brought about by Globalization. Thanks to Globalization, everyone is given the chance to industrialize, and in turn, the harm to nature is greater. Its effect can be felt regardless of whether a country take part in the pollution, and thus it is important. The Kyoto Protocol targets are reducing emissions in order to combat Global Warming. But firstly, is everybody accepting the Global Warming exists?

The Deniers

The above cartoons are good examples of a group of people known as the Deniers of Global Warming, and if one were to like to narrow the category, America would certainly fit in. America is known to have signed the Kyoto Protocol but not ratify it for various reasons. It is oxymoronic to even think that America was the one who initiated the Protocol in the first place.
The Deniers basically deny the existence of Global Warming. And in doing so, they could very well undermine the movement which aims at saving ourselves from Global Warming. They are not without backing either. Statistics such as those that claims that the climate and temperature change is just part of the natural cycle backs the deniers up. Either they deny that it is not happening, or they feel that it is self-correcting. In other words, it is not due to our actions. Such ideas are open to all of us thanks to Globalization, but imagine if people were to blindly follow such excuses. Is Kyoto Protocol really nonsense?

Kyoto Protocol

Perhaps one of the biggest flaws of the Kyoto Protocol would be that only Annex I countries are required to ratify it. Annex I countries are countries that are already developed. The idea would be that they already have the necessary infrastructure and background which would make things easier. However, like the USA argues, developing countries DO give out emissions. All are effects of Globalization, and Kyoto Protocol is too. Therefore, why should Kyoto Protocol leave out the developing countries? Isn’t it better to nip the problem in the bud? If we are all part of this “Global Village”, then everyone SHOULD be included in this treaty. Whatever the case, USA has no excuse to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, as it is in fact one of the more influential members of the International Community.

In conclusion, if the Kyoto Protocol is all about combating the major side effect of Globalization, then everyone, regardless of race, size and influence, in the International Community should be part of it as well. If Globalization was the force that brought the world together, it is only right that with Globalization, we ought to remain together to solve the issues brought about by Globalization.

This writer assumes the role of environment and health expert. =)-Teresa

Technology of Mass Devotion – Nuclear Technology

2006-05-21T19:28:00.000+08:00

Nuclear. The issue has undoubtedly raised concerns and worries of the world regarding its use. Many have sworn against the use of this energy for destruction, that is, in the form of nuclear weaponry, deriving from nuclear reactions of either nuclear fission or the more powerful fusion. History has left the world with a scar, reminding us of the doom and devastation the technology has caused. However, with the increase in international conflicts, we are now seeing the rise of regional arms races. A race for power, and yet for deterance. Let us now look into the reason behind this growing and paradoxical necessity.

The Political Factor

Extracted from: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249782,00.html

Response of Dr. Shahram Chubin, the director of studies at the Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP), regarding the dangers of potential nuclear bombs in Iran and the options of decision makers: "I believe that Iran is interested in the weapon. It will provide Iran with status and influence in the region. It will also afford an internal legitimacy – the nuclear program is very much the regime's need to offer its people something instead of a rundown economy and shaky foreign relations. That's the reason they treat the progress of the nuclear program in terms of 'respect' do not allow the enrichment to be done outside Iran."

One of the rather obvious reasons for having nuclear technology would be to gain the power and respect from the other countries. Imagine, having the key to unlocking a weapon, whose small amount has the potential to wipe out an entire city. Countries have used this technology as a warning sign; to deter the enemies, to prevent any unnecessary outbreak of war or to demand respect for their sovereignity. However, many wanted to gain utmost supremacy and power while maintaining peace. This can be seen during the nuclear arms race, the competition for supremacy in nuclear weapons between the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was a time where both governments devoted massive amounts of resources to increasing the quality and quantity of their nuclear arsenal. Stalin saw the need to compete as he realised that the Americans were monopolizing the nuclear market. It was this that had led the Soviets to develop more atomic weapons, to stay on par with their competitors and to allow an equal spread of power in the economy.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm

The threat of nuclear is also the reason behind the rush for the technology. Those within approximately a six square mile area (for a 1 megaton blast) will indeed be close enough to "ground zero" to be killed by the gamma rays emitting from the blast itself. Ghostly shadows of these people will be formed on any concrete or stone that lies behind them, and they will be no more. They literally won't know what hit them, since they will be vaporized before the electrical signals from their sense organs can reach their brains. The aftermaths of such weapons are also horrendous; it will cause the internal molecular structure of the living cells within their bodies to break down as a result of the disruptive effects of the high radiation dose they received. The destructive potential of this weapon is enough to deter many from invading a country that owns it. It will prevent war and help promote peace.

Social/Economical Factor

Taken from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm

Nuclear technology has the power and is already providing about 17 percent of the world's electricity. Nuclear power plants rely on the method of nuclear fission. This process releases an incredible amount of energy, in the form of heat and gamma radiation, when a single atom splits. Need an example? A pound of highly enriched uranium, equal to something on the order of a million gallons of gasoline, can be used to power a nuclear submarine or nuclear aircraft carrier. Many countries have tapped on the potential of uranium to empower themselves. An added bonus would be the fact that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly and more effective as compared to fossil fuels. It will also result in lesser wastage as 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant.

Conclusion We have all seen the devastation caused by the use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the days of World War II. The Chernobyl disaster has also reminded us of the harm of nuclear; a 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that as many as 9000 people, among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, may die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases). Despite history's repeated warnings, many are still continuing their pursuit for this technology due to its equally impressive benefits as well. We can also see that the threat of nuclear knows no boundaries; this can be seen in the Chernobyl disaster, where the effects crosses international boundaries, and the Iranian nuclear conflict, where many countries have their separate views regarding it. Technology has once again made the world smaller.

Obscured by the dazzling display---losers of globalization

2006-05-20T22:55:00.000+08:00

Globalization’s effects on India
----------losers of globalization obscured by the dazzling display

The globalization of the economy refers to the increasing integration and interdependence of all realms of economic life, including trade, finance, production, and consumption. Debates about economic globalization include whether integration has helped or hindered the plight of poor people around the globe; whether jobs lost to 'outsourcing' really contribute to the health of an economy by lowering end-users' costs; whether business and accounting practices and principles developed in one social context can be transferred and utilized productively across national boundaries; and whether government policies should promote foreign direct investment in every sector of the economy or whether some sectors should be protected for the benefit of domestic companies. In this article, we will be looking at the effects of globalization on India, which has a rosy future for economy as the economists predicted.
According to the vital data from the economists, India's economic reforms have all the characteristics of a resounding success. The world's biggest democracy has succeeded in becoming the world's leading exporter of IT services. After the government cut red tape that had been hampering business expansion, average annual economic growth accelerated from 3.7 percent in the 1950s and 1960s to a remarkable 7 percent in 2005. Economic institutes never tire of saying that India's economy hasn't even reached its peak yet. Go by the forecast of Deutsche Bank Research, India's gross domestic product will double in the next 12 years. That would make India the world's third-largest economy by 2020 -- trailing only the United States and China. The confidence of foreign investors is so great that the most important Indian stock index, the Sensex, recently passed the 10,000 point mark for the first time.
However, it is the dazzling display of the nouveau riche proudly flaunting their wealth obscures the losers of the country’s economic miracle.
Many people have lost their jobs as a result of the liberalization and globalization of economy in India. They see themselves as the losers of globalization.
Ramakrishna Murthy, at the age of 52 was unemployed. His company told him that he was way “too old, too inflexible and too expensive”. With a huge and inexhaustible source of young and well-qualified workers, there's little room left for people like Ramakrishna Murthy. Murthy was forced to move out from his apartment the way he was laid off. Now he and his family are living without any kind of appreciable social safety net in an abandoned house that is falling apart on the edge of Bangalore. They struggle to make ends meet with his wife's pay. Murthy’s friend, Dhruva L. Robby, is also on job hunt recently. Unlike Murthy, he was young and had no real attachments. He found a job in Dell Computer Call Center, working 6 days a week for a small wage.
The constant news of stock market successes overshadows the social problems in India's economic wonderland. Salaries for those working in modern service jobs may have risen palpably in recent years, but wages in other sectors have grown at a much slower pace and have, in some areas, even stagnated. That's an unfortunate reality for the vast majority of workers in India, who are faced with an annual inflation rate of more than 4 percent and have to contend with a decline in purchasing power each year as a result. That's a situation that won't change quickly either. Workers in the industrial sector seldom earn more than 7,000 rupies per month, and a daily laborer is lucky to even earn 1,500 rupies in the same period. That's not enough to put a reasonable roof over one's head or to even buy decent groceries. As in the past, child labor is still commonplace and the poorest segments of the population don't have adequate access to healthcare.
The unpleasant side effects of India's push for growth are especially apparent in its booming metropolises. According to the World Bank, they are the fastest growing cities in the world. Despite a plenitude of parks and broad boulevards, the cities are increasingly choking on air and noise pollution. A few rounds in Bangalore's city center on a motorized rickshaw leaves one's shirt darkened with soot and one's eyes stinging from exhaust fumes. The evening rush hour routinely spirals into complete gridlock with countless thousands of mopeds, jitney buses and cars congesting the road. Meanwhile, poor people from the countryside continue to flood into the city of 6 million looking for work. But all too often, they wind up in the slums.
Globalization critics Shok Mitra states that a further opening of the market would result in multinational concerns acquiring the Indian subcontinent. He fears that this will only further harm the country's poorest citizens and lead to growing social and political instability.

P2P. Literally.

2006-05-20T21:55:00.000+08:00

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer

A peer-to-peer (or P2P) computer network is a network that relies primarily on the computing power and bandwidth of the participants in the network rather than concentrating it in a relatively low number of servers. P2P networks are typically used for connecting nodes via largely ad hoc connections. Such networks are useful for many purposes. Sharing content files (see file sharing) containing audio, video, data or anything in digital format is very common, and realtime data, such as telephony traffic, is also passed using P2P technology.

P2P networks. The one of the connectors between us and another party in the cyber world. We depend on such networks mainly for the sharing of files. These include music, videos and other files mentioned above. This method greatly enhances the quality of connectivity among people as well as decreasing the time and effort to send documents to one another.

User-Dependancy

P2P networks involve all clients to provide resources, including bandwidth, storage space, and computing power to continue its growth. Perhaps this "user-dependancy" factor is the main ingredient behind its success. As demand on the system increases, the total capacity of the system also increases. Thus, the working principle behind this technology would be the more, the merrier; as the number of users increase, so does the quality of the network, therefore, benefiting every one of the users.

Multiple Sources

P2P networking enables peers to find the data without relying on a centralized index server. This means that a user does not have to rely on one particular source from the server for his/her download as there are many sources available. For example, a download can still continue if a file-sharer is offline and if other users have the same file. This greatly improves the availability of a product. Taking Napster as a case study, its great achievement is due to the fact that it is being empowered by the peers in association with a central index, which made it fast and efficient to locate available content. The peer protocol was just a common way to achieve this. In the case of Napster, having more users would mean that the probability of locating a file increases, increasing the efficiency of work and reducing the time and effort needed to locate the file.

The Disadvantages

1. Unavoidable Attacks

Like many other programs or softwares, there are bound to be those who have different motives of using it. P2P networks, for example, are the victim of irresponsible users who cause harm to the other users. Perhaps the most common attack faced by many would be poisoning attacks. This means providing files whose contents are different from the description for the purpose of making another's life difficult. Such actions are hard to prevent by both the user and the authorities of the network and this poses a huge threat to unsuspecting users. Children, for example, might be misled into downloading what they think is a harmless video, but is in fact a video with undesirable content. In short, it is a place where there is no control on the content and that too much of everything is available. Another common misuse would be the insertion of viruses to carried data. Downloaded or carried files may be infected with viruses or other malware. This abuse is hard to track down due to the huge numbers and there is no means to identify the viruses.

Careful design of the P2P network and the use of encryption will prevent these attacks from occuring. Many P2P networks, such as Ares Galaxy, enables the use of firewalls to help stamp down such attacks for the benefit of the users.

2. The Real Threat - Piracy

The biggest threat of such P2P networks is that they seem to promote piracy, due to the uncontrolled content it receives. Such networks are unable to detect if a file is copyrighted; even if it is, there will inevitably be hackers who will find a way around it and ensure that the file stays available for everyone, even before its release. This is especially the case for audio files, which contain singles from artists. Abusers will find a way to obtain the singles and release them online early, before the actual release of their album. Having the song free of charge would mean that users will no longer have to purchase the albums of their favourite artists. It also means that the hardwork of such artists will go to waste and the long hours spent on recording and song-writing will be fruitless. According to the RIAA, CD sales dropped by 10% in 2001 and a further 6.8% last year, largely because of file sharing. The organisation has been at the heart of the file-sharing controversy, especially music files in the popular MP3 format uploaded onto the Internet using peer-to-peer software. While the RIAA is agressively trying to put a stop on piracy, many have criticised it being an organisation that controls and inflates the CD prices of EMI, Sony-BMG, Universal Music and Warner. Their vicious attacks against music piracy, however, has not lead to any increase in the number of file-sharing users. According to Digital Music News, the average number of users online simultaneously has more than doubled since the lawsuits began, from 3.8 million in August of 2003 to 8.9 million in June of 2005. Thus, many question the effectiveness of such organisations in the stamping down of pirates.

Despite the many fierce battles against piracy in file-sharing networks, there have been artists who tapped on such sharing networks to gain fame and popularity and to allow their music to be heard. Artists who are unknown, and thus most helped by file sharing, are those artists who sell relatively few albums, whereas artists who are harmed by file sharing and thus gain from its removal, the popular ones, are the artists whose sales are relatively high. With the rise in MP3 players, the world will soon see CDs becoming obsolete and MP3 files on the rise. It is then, that this issue will escalate into something more problematic.

The Conclusion

P2P networking has helped many to stay connected with one another. It has also begun to attract attention from scientists in other disciplines, especially those that deal with large datasets such as bioinformatics due to its capability to rely on the computing power and bandwidth of the participants in the network. However, with uncontrolled attacks and piracy problems, networks are facing many threats of termination. It is true that globalisation can bring about connectivity, accessibility and availability but we must also realise that it can be detrimental to the future of other groups of people as well.

http://www.p2punite.org/?q=node/311

A little note

2006-05-08T00:03:00.000+08:00

Hey everyone,

Project Globalization Blog is due sometime soon (unless Mr Ng extends the deadline), so we need to get everything together as soon as possible, hopefully.

Mr Ng, for (perhaps) easier reference, I have categorized the posts by author on the Archives page (hit the Archives tab to view the list). It's still work in progress, so please pardon the untidyness of the list, we'll try to fix it. Ahhhhhhhhh I know, we need bullets.

Social Studies tomorrow. See y'all then.

All kinds of beauty

2006-05-07T23:31:00.000+08:00

"What are our standards of beauty?" Holstein asked. "We begin
to believe that we need to look like the models in a magazine," she said.

Photographs trigger global aspects of beauty, by Esmeralda Tovar for chicagoflame.com

“Hollywood is a place where
they'll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss
and fifty cents for your soul.”
Marilyn Monroe

Marilyn Monroe to me was beautiful. For all her voluptuousness, overt-femininity, pouty-lipped poses, and her flirtatious persona, she was, beneath the cake of foundation and lip gloss, distinctly human, much more than the blonde bombshell the media often protrays her to be, and 40 years after the death of this female so iconic of the 1950s, even the 20th century, there are people who agree. Back in a poll conducted in 2003 she beat out Breakfast At Tiffany's star Audrey Hepburn and another favourite Grace Kelly to be named the Most Beautiful Actress. She is the quintessential Hollywood sweetheart; arguably representing the Western ideal of beauty, at least at that point of time.

The beauty of redefinition

There are in fact many who look in that direction for definitions of beauty. American and European film and fashion industries have seen immense growth most spectacularly after the second World War, and with advances in technology the media has propelled their local scenes onto the global stage for all to admire and perhaps to criticise. This cross-fertilization of cultures flourishes hand in hand with globalization, and the two are so intertwined that it has become impossible to tell, even with the benefit of hindsight, which led to the other.

This increased exposure to different (and mostly Western) standards of beauty have led to, as some lament with regret, a swift change in what the younger, more savvy generations deem attractive and desirable in terms of beauty. A more gracious term would be a fusion of tastes, but for cynics many classical Asian standards of beauty have been swept aside with the onslaught of Western notions of what is beautiful. From India to China to Korea and Japan, the trend is particularly pronounced. The distinctly classic melon-seed-shaped face, elongated eyes, petite noses and small pouty lips which the Westerners love to label 'oriental' is being lost on the generation of the 21st century. This side of the world craves the sharp, angular features and lean figures of the West, while they remain infatuated with the exotic features of Asians. In fact, the most beautiful and unique of faces are often thought to be a marriage of the two, a fusion of both the 'hard' and 'soft' features of the East and the West. Mixed heritages intrigue and excite. The result is an ambiguous amalgamation; the new global beauty.

Perhaps the perfect example of the new global face of
beauty is Saira Mohan, a model who’s scored gigs with Chanel, Calvin Klein and
Victoria’s Secret. She owes her sharp features to her father’s north Indian
Punjab ancestry, but her round eyes and light complexion come from her mother’s
French-Irish-Canadian side. Mohan is just Asian enough to suit Western
sensibilities, while still retaining some ambiguity. “She’s one of those
beautiful women who can easily be Italian, British or Spanish,” says fashion
photographer Atul Kasekbar. “And she can very well be an Indian in a sari.” Or
as Mohan told an Indian newspaper recently: “I capitalize on all the angles. I
am what I am, and if they want to pay me for being Punjabi, great. If they want
to pay me for looking Spanish or Italian, wonderful.” Says Calvin Cheng, Asia
head of Elite Model Management Group: “There is an increased awareness of all
things oriental in the West. And with [the rise] of China, I think this trend is
set to continue.”

The Global Makeover By Fred Guterl and Michael Hastings for MSNBC
Newsweek

The supposedly fortunate ones are a genetic product, its encoded for in their genes; the rest of us have to rely on artifical means, and it sounds every bit as unsettling as Barbie is plastic perfection.

The current trend, say Guterl and Hastings, is in many ways an extension of the longstanding influence of Western images in movies and television, accelerated in recent years by the addition of satellite television and the Internet. But the proliferation of cosmetic surgery has given this trend a new twist. Techniques and technologies of plastic surgery are more widely available than ever before. As prices keep coming down, more and more women—and men—are electing to go under the knife in pursuit of an emerging global standard of beauty.

Indeed, the prevalent trend today is surgery. Plastic surgeons are especially busy in China and South Korea, where cosmetic operations performed go up to millions combined. Nose jobs, brest implants, Botox injections, and liposuction techniques have become more readily available and accessible than ever before. Demands fuel this trend, and technology sustains it. From gawky braces to nondescript bottles of peroxide to sophisticated coloured contact lenses, there are more ways to attempt to emulate the global standard available to us than we notice.

The Beauty of Tradition

African Ndebele women consider long necks beautiful, for every year that a young woman is attractive, she is given a gold ring that is welded onto her neck. Most of us will only speak of it as a myth; something we shall never personally see or experience. That to us is mystical, unfathomable. But to them, untouched by media and modernity, it is sacred and beautiful.

Black teeth are considered beautiful in Kalinga province, Vietnam, where tooth-staining is a traditional ritual.

The practice of the tubug reaches its peak during the sunga (rite of incorporation), a dance ceremony that serves as a venue for boys and girls to select their mates. They dress up to be attractive by wearing their besti (clothing), kiring (beads) and baraker (scarf), and making sure that they have shiny, black teeth. This, for them, is nalawad (beautiful). "The tattoo, the black teeth, plus the adornments, they all complement their indigenous concept of beauty," said Salvador.

The vanishing beauty of black teeth, by Niña Marie SB. Mendizabal

(Take a look.)

Indian beauties in the past are very much different from what we perceive them to be today, the most prominent of them being Aishwarya Rai, or the many Indian top ten finalists in the annual Miss Universe pagent, which often comes under fire for apparently promoting superficial notions of beauty.

When the ancient Indian poet Kalidasa wrote his epic tale of
love between Lord Shiva and his consort, Parvati, his vision of female beauty
had little to do with the half-starved waifs of Western catwalks or the
lean-muscled athletes of cereal boxes. To Kalidasa, Parvati was a soft,
voluptuous temptress. In the centuries since, ampleness has remained a great
female virtue in India. This classical image of beauty is inscribed on temple
walls and depicted in sculpture, paintings and literature, including the famous
treatise on esthetics, the Kama Sutra. The ideal Indian beauty, says Alka Pande,
author of “Indian Erotica,” has always been “heavy breasted, with a languorous
gait, large child-bearing hips, full—in every sense of the term—luscious lips.”

The number of slimming centres and diet pills available are horrific indications of the reversing trend of today. Never mind that the spokespersons on billboards were never fat, so to say Never mind, also, that the grand proclaimations of success stories are dubious. Statistics, even photographs, can be faked. Just like silicon breasts. Anything an inch too wide or a pound too heavy is unacceptable. Waif is the new proportion. Twiggy is the new Rubenesque. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, good for you. The truth is scary.)

All it took was one woman--one Miss World, to be precise--for young Nigerians to get hooked on the new concept of slim. Agbani Darego, winner of the less-well-known counterpart to the Universe pagent in 2001, the first African winner in 51 years, was skinny. Her win was inspirational; it represented acceptance of this new beauty ideal by the world. While Nigerians of the older generations do not find her particularly beautiful, for the younger generation, she is an idol.This is not foreign to a culture where eating disorders are a problem amongst the younger generation, but to Nigera, this is a quantum leap from tradition to modernity.

To anyone who has traveled across the continent,
especially in West and Central Africa, the cultural shift is striking. In the
United States slimness may be an ideal, but many ethnic groups in this region
hold festivals celebrating big women. In Niger many women take livestock feed or
vitamins to bulk up.Among the Calabari people in southeastern Nigeria, fat has
traditionally held a cherished place. Before their weddings, brides are sent to
fattening farms, where their caretakers feed them huge amounts of food and
massage them into rounder shapes. After weeks inside the fattening farms, the
big brides are finally let out and paraded in the village
square.

Globalization of Beauty Makes Slimness Trendy, by Norimitsu Onishi for The NY Times

All kinds of beautiful

L’Oreal, the industry leader in cosmetics, now operates 12
research centers around the globe to understand how the company can fine-tune
its products to the unique needs of different cultures. In September, L’Oreal
opened up the Institute for Ethnic Hair and Skin Research in Chicago, devoted to
African-American beauty, and the company has also done similar work in China.
“We’re fighting against an ideal beauty,” says research spokeswoman Patricia
Pineau. Some experts say that greater travel and cultural exchange among Asian
countries is creating more of a Pan-Asian standard of beauty than a Western
one.

Dove has also launched the Campaign for Real Beauty, in support of beauty in all shapes, sizes, colours and ages. In a series of six advertisments of the campaign presents us questions challenging a stereotype about age, hair colour, skin tone, size or body shape. The Dove Self-Esteem Fund has been set up to make donations to groups working to improve women's self-esteem. Dove are currently working with the Eating Disorders Association to educate and inspire young women to feel more beautiful more of the time, through an initiative in schools.

These are encouraging signs amidst a sea of slimming advertisments and fancy gimmicks aimed at the common non-model-esque public. Nevertheless, such efforts are not entirely sufficient to address the superficiality of today's society, ironically a deeper problem to deal with, and it has much to do with the standardization of beauty. As society strives to conform to the global standards of beauty, we abandon traditional and classical notions of beauty unique to our race and ethnicity faster than we realise. We forget too often, that there is more than one kind of beauty.

Image Credits
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybele_malinowski/14108087/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigpru/112339209/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sciamano/91757076/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49503134555@N01/55999616/

Photo montage by Olivia

The writer is proud to announce her retirement from globalization articles henceforth. Please do share your thoughts or criticisms. Thanks.

Need a Messenger?

2006-05-07T19:55:00.000+08:00

MSN Messenger. Microsoft's pre-installed instant messaging client for Windows computers. Arguably the most widely-used instant messaging client, especially by youths and students. In our fast-paced world, sometimes even the rapid response of e-mail is not fast enough. There is no way of knowing if the person you are sending e-mail to is online for contact at that particular moment. Also, if you are sending multiple e-mails back and forth with the same person, you normally have to click through a few steps to read, reply and send the e-mail. This is why instant messaging (IM) has gained popularity. A survey has already proven that 60% of IM users prefer MSN Messenger. With its increasing capabilities and improvements, it is certainly unsurprising and even expected, that the number of users will keep on increasing.

The History
We can all see the many improvements made in the messaging client, from the day it was first released on July 22, 1999. Back then, it only included basic features, such as plain text messaging and a simplistic contact list. Major improvements were evident in MSN Messenger 6 where it has become a whole new system for expressing oneself with friends. This version emphasized the ability to customise the software, with personalised backgrounds, emoticons, transfer files and display pictures and is much like what we see today in current versions. We are also beginning to see the development of Windows Live Messenger 8. It will enable the sharing of folders, PC-to-phone calls and communication while appearing offline. Customization will also be easier with this program.

The Usage
The major use of the software is for instant messaging, although other features which now come as standard include support for voice conversations, webcams, transferring files, and built-in two-player online games. Similar to many of MSN Messenger's competitors, MSN Messenger has included graphical emoticons, or smileys, Flash animations called winks, animated display pictures, styled text, and many more with third-party add-ons. But what do all of these mean to the users?

Voice Conversation/PC-to-phone calls/Webcams
These applications are one of the major improvements made to improve the quality of communication among users. Video Conversations offer face-to-face communication, and a more intimate and healthy relationship. The same can be said for the others. Although this cannot equate to the primitive physical contact, we can see an improvement in the quality of communication as pointed out earlier, from mere text sending to the actually viewing the person. Ordinary overseas phone calls would just be too expensive and too plain; more and more are hooked onto this program as it offers a much greater quality of connectivity.

Smileys, Winks, Display Pictures, Styled Text, Games
These applications help in making the program more user-friendly, for home usage. Smileys, or emoticons, help better express the emotions the user feels. This promotes a better understanding and a much clearer communication. Games are also built-in to add on to the "fun" factor of the program. On top of the mentioned, MSN Messenger allows the maintaining of contacts. Contacts can be classified into 2 groups, the online and the offline. For a more wider classification, sub-groups can be used to enable easier identification and a more organised list of friends.

Technical Applications
These include the Whiteboard, Application Sharing and Remote Assistance. Such programs allow files or documents to be delivered almost instantly, which far outweigh the conventional way of transporting papers. Time, effort and money is saved and can be channelled to other aspects of importance.

The Globalisation Factor
The improvements in MSN Messenger are set to attract more people into becoming users. It is a much faster means of communication as compared to telephones and is enabling a greater transborder data flow. Higher quantity and quality of information can now be sent across borders easily. This rapid connectivity of MSN Messenger is one of the factors that promotes and results in globalisation. Information can now spread much more easier with just clicks.

Globalization & Culture: The Case Against America

2006-05-06T22:49:00.000+08:00

The idea that American culture is encroaching on the rest of the world is not a new one. Richard Pells writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education that, as early as 1901, Briton William Stead published a book with the foreboding title The Americanization of the World. The 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis, MO was billed as a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase. The fair ignited overseas anti-American backlash, however, when exhibits instead tended to celebrate an alleged American cultural, political, and even ethnic supremacy.
More recently, fears that American culture might usurp the rest of the world could be traced to the Marxist social critic Herbert I. Schiller. Schiller’s breakthrough book, Communication and Cultural Domination, was published in 1976, and was a critique of the post World War II influx and influence of American corporation across international borders. In the mid-1980s, the debate again heated up when the dramatic series Dallas gained enormous popularity outside the United States. The show’s mass appeal seemed to validate many of Schiller’s theories, and sparked “cultural preservation” movements in Europe.

Article by Radley Balko for aworldconnected.org

The world 'americanization' is no longer as it was used in the early 1900s. In the 21st century of today the definition 'the conversion and assimilation of American immigrants into Americans' in a cynic's dictionary has expanded to include the rest of the world. For others, the word has become synonymous with globalization; critics view it as nothing more than the imposition of American culture on the world. Activists see it as a fundemental threat to undermine cultural diversity. The rest of us drink Coke, eat Big Macs, watch Hollywood films, listen to Michael Jackson on the radio, and use Windows systems with characteristic nonchalance. Our Mickey Mouse ears are badges of pride. The most visible sign of globalization is in fact the availability of burgers and cola in nearly every country in the world. Leave it to the Americans to brand and globally market it, because we like the convenience.

In fact, the title of this blog, cocacolonization (a portmanteau of the term colonization and the giant soft drink corporation Coca-Cola) can also be used interchangeably with globalization, and implies an inclination towards Westernization or Americanization. While this term is arguably applied more commonly to the cultural aspect--a dangerous invasion of Western or American cultural values, cries Wikipedia--the so-called Americanization of the world is observable even in other aspects. The American economy is an ubiquitous factor in the world of economics, and through large corporations preach the good that is American capitalism. Wars are fought in the quest of American ideals of peace and democracy. The justification is debatable, but the occurances are undeniable.

Yet, to carelessly dismiss or to demonize globalization as mere Americanization is a tragic oversimplification of the complex issue the world is facing. Globalization is much more than just everyone watching the same movies or eating the same food. Its effects, depending on where you're standing, can be empowering, demeaning, or something in between.

Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, quotes historian Richard Steel sometime back in 1998 in a disturbingly indicative piece of the troubles that the world, more significantly America, would and have in recent years come to face.

'...For the rest of the world, we are wild, crazy revolutionaries, with
rings in our noses and paint on our toes, overturning cultures and traditions
wherever we go. "We believe that our institutions must confine all others to the
ash heap of history," says Steel. "We lead an economic system that has
effectively buried every other form of production and distribution -- leaving
great wealth and sometimes great ruin in its wake. The cultural messages we
transmit through Hollywood and McDonald's go out across the world to capture and
also undermine other societies. We are the apostles of globalization, the
enemies of tradition and hierarchy." '

Why those angry men want to kill America, by Thomas Friedman, republished in The Houston Chronicle

Much of the debate concerning the effect of globalization on culture is simply passed for conventional wisdom, so much so that many anti-globalization activists (globaphobes if you like) put global companies such as Disney or Coca-Cola into a little box with a big red cross and the words 'cultural vandals' stamped across the side. Globalization for them is Americanization, a simple, one-sided accusation of the apparent cultural hegemony of the United States as cultural blasphemy. It is a relatively easy argument to sustain, with McDonald's and Starbucks franchised outlets looming in the background, and nevertheless one that makes things a whole lot simpler for them by providing them an identifiable target to channel their discontent and rage towards.

Fears that globalization is imposing a deadening cultural uniformity are understandable, but to say that local cultures and national identities face certain death in light of all-American consumerism may be an extremist stand to take. More often than not, what we deem to be Americanization--cultural imperialism shipped over from across the Atlantic--is but a mere semblance of American culture. Cultural pessimists can simply interpret the somewhat frivolously packaged influence as promoting the commercial at the expense of the authentic, and substituting shallow gratification for deeper satisfaction.

The people who see the silver lining to globalization beg to differ.

If critics of globalization were less obsessed with "Coca-colonization,"
they might notice a rich feast of cultural mixing that belies fears about
Americanized uniformity. Algerians in Paris practice Thai boxing; Asian rappers
in London snack on Turkish pizza; Salman Rushdie delights readers everywhere
with his Anglo-Indian tales. Although -- as with any change -- there can be
downsides to cultural globalization, this cross-fertilization is overwhelmingly
a force for good.

The beauty of globalization is that it can free people from the tyranny of
geography. Just because someone was born in France does not mean they can only
aspire to speak French, eat French food, read French books, visit museums in
France, and so on. A Frenchman -- or an American, for that matter -- can take
holidays in Spain or Florida, eat sushi or spaghetti for dinner, drink Coke or
Chilean wine, watch a Hollywood blockbuster or an Almodóvar, listen to bhangra
or rap, practice yoga or kickboxing, read Elle or The Economist, and have
friends from around the world. That we are increasingly free to choose our
cultural experiences enriches our lives immeasurably. We could not always enjoy
the best the world has to offer.

Globalization not only increases individual freedom, but also revitalizes
cultures and cultural artifacts through foreign influences, technologies, and
markets. Thriving cultures are not set in stone. They are forever changing from
within and without. Each generation challenges the previous one; science and
technology alter the way we see ourselves and the world; fashions come and go;
experience and events influence our beliefs; outsiders affect us for good and
ill.

Cultural Globalization Is Not Americanization, by Philippe Legrain for The Chronicle

The counter argument to Americanization is that globalization is not completely Western- or American- dominated. It may have started out that way, but it no longer is. Observations cited are the increase in Mexican and Chinese takeout outlet in America, and the popularity of Indian curry in Britan, as much as the availability of foie gras and pasta in China or Singapore. We don't watch as much baseball or rugby as much as we do soccer, and Asian martial arts like judo, karate, kick boxing and even pastimes such as yoga and tai chi are taught and practised in various parts of the world.

In the relentless quest to push the blame to America, it is easy to not only neglect the economic and cultural influence of many other countries, but also exaggerate the implications of globalization on the world. Legrain states in the same article that many of such fears are unfounded:

Even though American consumer culture is widespread, its significance is
often exaggerated. You can choose to drink Coke and eat at McDonald's without
becoming American in any meaningful sense. One newspaper photo of Taliban
fighters in Afghanistan showed them toting Kalashnikovs -- as well as a sports
bag with Nike's trademark swoosh. People's culture -- in the sense of their
shared ideas, beliefs, knowledge, inherited traditions, and art -- may scarcely
be eroded by mere commercial artifacts that, despite all the furious branding,
embody at best flimsy values.

The really profound cultural changes have little to do with Coca-Cola.
Western ideas about liberalism and science are taking root almost everywhere,
while Europe and North America are becoming multicultural societies through
immigration, mainly from developing countries. Technology is reshaping culture:
Just think of the Internet. Individual choice is fragmenting the imposed
uniformity of national cultures. New hybrid cultures are emerging, and regional
ones re-emerging. National identity is not disappearing, but the bonds of
nationality are loosening.

People fail to recognise and, in a sense, credit national and ethnic identity. If eating burgers and succumbing to coffee cravings at Starbucks makes one any less French, or Malaysian, or Singaporean, then the weakness must be inherent, stemming from perhaps little faith in one's own nationality to begin with. If anything, cultural globalization is a test of faith. That, and a test of the ability to discern for oneself, to consciously accept and resist foreign influence. To be able to enjoy the benefits and sieve out the harm.

The spirit that pulls through unbattered by external influence is bound to be stronger and more mature. That is something the world should strive for, to break out of dwelling in petty arguments over the pressures of foreign cultures as excuses for weak personalities and identites. Globalization is something we cannot, and cannot afford to resist, nor can the effects be reversed. It simply is a set of circumstances which the 21st century presents us, and humans being the adaptable, resillient species that we are, should make the most out of it.

That, of course, is considering we don't kill ourselves first. Global warming and bird flu are very real problems.

The writer assumes the role of a commentator on globalization and its effects on global and local culture. If her stand seems somewhat incoherent it is only because she is in the process of forming her own opinions on the matter. The key, she supposes, is to keep an open mind and be optimistic. The sources cited in this article are undeniably impressive, and everyone should go read the actual articles by real writers. Thanks for reading (if anyone is).

Recommended reading
Can pop-cultural imperialism be stopped?
by Brigitte Pellerin

Cultural Globalization Is Not Americanization
By Philippe Legrain

Why those angry men want to kill America
By Thomas L. Friedman

Globalization & Culture: Americanization or Cultural Diversity?
by Radley Balko

Going Global and the Environment

2006-05-06T14:50:00.000+08:00

article: Going Global from the shortrun.com
Quote:

Most protestors come with a purpose; to protect the environment, to prevent child labor, to protect industries. Others claim that globalization will exploit weaker nations or steal markets from the richer. The sad thing about all of this is that the protests do little to aid their causes and in most cases, actually end up hurting the world in general. To see what I mean, let me give my take on each of these issues. (Granted, I am strongly biased in my opinion.)
The environment. Let me start off on the right foot, I strongly believe in protecting the environment, and I hope I can make this evident. Increasing trade will hurt the environment. Where's the argument? Businesses tend to hurt the environment so we should make sure that growing nations like China will not grow so they won't hurt their environment. There is some truth to this argument. The industrial revolution in Britain churned up so much smoke and soot that the trees were lined with black soot. It had disastrous effects for the environment and for the health of the English population. What happened? Progress happened, simply put, and the British passed a certain level of income. This development led them to stop worrying about the bare necessities like food and clothing, and they began concerning themselves with other goods such as clean air and water (yes clean air and water can be thought of as goods; they are called public goods.). Economists can show that for pretty much every country, this is true. Once individuals in the country reach a certain level of income (now it is around 4-5 thousand), they began to spend more on public goods. It makes intuitive sense that if I can provide for my family, I am more willing to spend to protect the environment. This trend pushes the idea that we should allow all nations free access to the global economy so that they can grow and develop. The richer a nation is, after this 4,000 to 5,000 income level, the more concerned it will become about protecting the environment. Therefore it is vital that the developed nations aid the undeveloped through freer markets.

The argument the author of the article is presenting is that globalisation is essential in order for us to protect the environment. It is said that although globalisation brings about industrialisation and thus harm to the environment, economies prosper with globalisation. Therefore with the economy prospering, there would be enough resources for the protection of the environment.

In my personal opinion, this cannot possibly be the case. It can be agreed that globalisation is a phenomena that we cannot stop, but being so, it does not necessarily mean that it is beneficial to all parties involved. However, it has well become acceptable that globalisation brings about industrialisation and economic growth, as well as the destruction of the environment. The destruction of our natural environment is ironically, global too. With the world knit together, the world would suffer together. Therefore if (for example) globalisation allows China to prosper, it will, in the process, cause irreversible harm to be inflicted onto the environment. Such dangers are already apparent – almost 20% of China is turning into a desert. If we wait till a country has fully developed before action is taken to save the environment, the effect might have very well become permanent before anything is done. Moreover, there are many countries all over the world, with many different countries undergoing industrialisation and such under the influence of globalisation at their own pace, chances are there would be many sources of pollution etc. at any one time. While one country cleans up, another continues harming the environment. Either way, the environment continues suffering.

In addition, it is not necessary for a country, after undergoing industrialisation, to care for the environment. Globalisation has brought everybody to harm the environment, but there are groups like Greenpeace fighting to preserve the environment. Treaties have been drawn up as well. A famous example would be the Kyoto Protocol, which even Singapore has ratified. Yet one important country has failed to ratify it – the country which produces the largest amount of pollutants into the environment – the United States of America. And their take is precisely the effect of globalisation, which is the fear of falling behind. Should they cut their emissions by their industries, USA would fall behind other countries. As the Kyoto Protocol only requires developed countries to ratify it, China and India are not covered. And as China and India are rising, they would pose as much threat as any fully developed country. Progress is often linked with globalisation, and as such, USA needed to maintain their position. As a result, the environment is very much neglected, even as a country reaches full development.

In conclusion, globalisation has brought more harm than good in terms of the environment. The competition brought about by globalisation spells bad news for the environment, despite there being international environmental groups. This problem, though caused by globalisation, could possibly be salvaged through globalisation – on the condition that the world is truly one. That, in my opinion, has not happened as although we are connected, countries still view another as opponents, and not as counterparts. Perhaps this could be corrected in the near future by globalisation.

The writer takes the stand of an environmental and health expert. –Teresa

Language imperialism: The window to the world?

2006-05-03T23:59:00.000+08:00

The rampant imperialism of the English language contributes to the building of
an ivory tower invisible to its inhabitants. They are so convinced that no
serious thoughts can be conceived outside their culture they deem it unnecessary
to learn other languages. In Britain, only a quarter of state schools make
modern languages compulsory at GCSE level. A generation of linguists is about to
be lost and with it the country's capacity to understand a different world.
University language departments will close, the Foreign Office will find itself
short of competent staff and British academics will declare themselves the last
true intellectuals, in blind ignorance.

Commentary by Agnès Poirier for The Guardian.

Whether or not it is blind ignorance that translates into the apparently unconscious subscription of linguistic Darwinism of the intellectual community in Britain, it has become an undeniable fact that the the expanding role and usage of increasingly standardized language is at once a product and a factor of the phenomena that we have all embraced and come to love, globalization. The promotion of a global lingua franca is primarily classified within the context of cultural imperialism, bringing to attention the ubiquitous connection between the two. Culture forms language. Language forms culture. Language is both the symptom and the cause; the product and intisgator of perhaps the more pessimistic viewpoint of cultural hegemony. More than a means of of communication of ideas, it is a weapon, making language and linguistic dominance the cannons of cultural warfare. Without a language, a culture is defenseless, exposed to larger, global forces and susceptible to steady weathering. In many instances the displacement and neglect of native languages is a direct indication of the displacement and neglect of the culture itself.

In this war of globalization (if it can be thought of as a war between local and global identity) it is those dominant cultures that are emerging strong and on the offensive that will ultimately survive. It is not until one considers the flipside--the cultures that made way for this dominance--that one sees the poignance and futility of the idea that traditional cultures cannot co-exist in light of globalization. The ability to ensure the relevance and usefulness (a devastating degradation and might I add, deadening of) a language is to be able to fight for the survival of one's nation and culture on the global stage. It is a immensely difficult task, and the odds are as always, stacked against the minorities.

Language imperialism by definition is essentially the transfer of a dominant language to foreign people. As with imperialism and colonization in the 19th century, it is a demonstration of power, although not necessarily in the original millitaristic sense. In the 21st century this takes on new meaning. With globalization the demonstration of power is no longer confined to millitary might (although with the rise nuclear weapons this is still a major factor), but has expanded to include world economic and political power as well. It is also a matter of prestige; more often than not the dominant language is regarded as innately superior and an alleged proponent of several values. This is evident in the rhetoric used by the British Council, founded in 1934 with the intent of 'cultural propaganda' (a crude way of putting it) or the promotion of the English language, relying mainly on the key fundamental tenets of English applied linguistics and its teaching methodology. Many of these arguments have been described as fallacies, as highlighted by the article on Language imperialism on Wikipedia:

English is best taught monolingually ("the monolingual fallacy")
the ideal teacher is a native speaker ("the nativespeaker fallacy")
the earlier English is taught, the better the results ("the early start fallacy")
the more English is thought, the better the results ("the maximum exposure fallacy")
if other languages are used much,standards of English will drop ("the subtractive fallacy")

The article also identifies the arguments of proponents of the English language as being:

English intrinsic arguments describe the language as God-given, rich, noble and interesting. These arguments usually assert what English is and other languages are not.
English extrinsic arguments point out that English is well established: there are trained teachers and a multitude of teaching material. There are also abundant immaterial resources like knowledge of the language.
English functional arguments emphasise the usefulness of English as a gateway to the world.

While the idea that English is the gateway to the world because it is useful is somewhat circular in nature, it is undeniable either way. It is impossible to pinpoint exactly when English emerged as the singular, dominant language, as it was spread over a gradual period of time.

The article on International English on Wikipedia loosely identifies the beginnings of the globalization of the language as such:

The language of England came to dominance throughout the island of Great
Britain during the Middle Ages and in Ireland during the 18th century and,
especially, the 19th century. In the modern era, printing led to the gradual
standardisation of English, and particularly the use of the prestige dialect of
the English ruling classes.
The establishment of the first permanent English-speaking colony in North
America in 1607 was a major step towards the globalisation of the language.
British English was only partially standardised when the American colonies were
established. Isolated from Britain by the Atlantic Ocean, the settlements
evolved a distinct standard form of American English. In particular, Noah
Webster's reform of American-English spelling in the early 19th century gave
rise to the main division in English spelling that exists today.

In short, the English language spread as a result of British military and mercantile expansion in the 19th century, although it would be slightly after that that the written language was standardized and consciously acknowledged as an international language.

International English is the concept of the English language as a global means
of communication in numerous dialects, and the movement towards an international standard for the language. It is also referred to as Global English, World English, Common English, General English or Standard English. Sometimes these terms refer simply to the array of varieties of English spoken throughout the
world; sometimes they refer to a desired standardisation.

Article on International English, Wikipedia

As America quickly overtook Great Britain after the second world war, International English was consequently American- rather than British-dominated. Today, majority of the competent English speakers are not native to the language, showing the extent of its reach. Along with the language, American culture has also made its way across the world and settled itself comfortably in foreign lands.

Back in the 19th century while developments in mass communications were rapid, written English was increasingly introduced to the world at large. As the film industry grew in influence after sound was added to moving pictures, spoken English was next. Broadcasting and advertising industries increasingly Hollywoodicized countries beyond American borders. Pop music and rock and roll found their way onto the airwaves, and thus began the mass appeal of music, packaged and sold to the masses who accepted all that was seen as popular.

But while the argument regarding the extent of the loss of unique cultures in the world as well as the rise of a single, dominant culture rings true, the standardization of language is not without merit.

The existence of modern mass communications has made it possible to set up international bodies and organize events on a global scale. The United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union all have several official languages, but practical realities nearly always dictate that English is the one most used. The use of several official languages means that documents have to be translated from the original language into other official languages, but this is often viewed as a waste of time and money. In a sense the convenience of using one standardized language presides over the recognition of the importance of several languages.

Computer-based technology has led to a massive extension in the use of English, both in computer software and on the Internet. Computer languages are based on English, and English is the language normally used to communicate with the user. Theoretically with the use of the internet it is possible to contact anyone in the world as long as one is sufficiently proficient in English. This way, a common language breaks down cultural and linguistic barriers, allowing increased interaction and communication of ideas, which by default is not necessarily bad.

We should not, however, take the pre-eminience of the dominant position of the English language for granted. With the rise of the Chinese language, and possible developments in machine translation technology (making immediate and automatic translation a reality and thus reducing the need for standardized language), the English language faces the risk of progress.

Obviously dealing with globalization and its effect on culture, more specifially in this response, on (the standardization of) language. All sources respectively cited. The writer is very, very, very tired. The ideas and argument cannot, of course, be claimed as original, rather it is a condensation of the argument in attempt at a coherent presentation of both sides of the coin. What else. Oh, all comments and criticisms welcome. Thanks.

Jobless, ruthless, rootless, futureless, voiceless, and meaningless?

2006-05-03T03:16:00.000+08:00

Globalisation refers to the process of global integration of the economies of nations by allowing the unrestricted flow of goods, services, investments and currencies between countries. Nation states pursued globalization in the hope that this would lead to prosperity. They believed that globalization would bring them agricultural modernization, industrialization, urbanization, and hyper-consumerism resulting in increases of per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Unfortunately, such developments have often been accompanied by increasing social and environmental destruction throughout the world.
The process of globalization is having unprecedented impacts, both positive and negative, on life at the individual, village, town, city and national levels.

For example, greater openness to global economy, on one hand, enables us to weather economy crisis and spurs economic development. Greater foreign investments spurred employment and resulted in the reduction of poverty. Countries like China and India benefits from globalization and boost their economic growth.

On the other hand, the opportunities connected with the globalization process are often overshadowed by the one-sided pursuit of economic growth and global competition. As it summarized in the figure, six forms of growth are identified as leading to unsustainable development.

Jobless growth results when economic output increases amidst high unemployment and underemployment.

Ruthless growth is forcing millions of people to live in poverty, constraining them from developing as full human beings while a few individual billionaires/millionaires enjoy an income level equivalent to the combined income of the millions in poverty. Globally, for example, the 1999 UNDP Human Development Report estimated that the $140 billion combined asset of Bill Gates and the two other top owners of Microsoft is more than the combined gross national product (GNP) of the 43 least economically developed countries and their 600 million people.

Futureless growth results from the destruction of nature through improper mining practices, use of pesticides, insufficient and improper environmental planning for the construction of dams and a range of other ecologically unsound development projects.

Rootless growth refers to the cultural decay and loss of meaning and identity which often accompany economic growth fueled by globalization and the entrance of materialistic lifestyles of industrialized countries.

Voiceless growth is economic growth racing ahead of direct human rights and democratic processes and participatory governance essential to modern societies.

Meaningless growth results when some combination of the other five forms of undesirable growth blocks the creativity of the human spirit. The resulting loss in creativity, perspective, meaning, hope, and morality necessarily expresses itself in suicide, violence, drug addiction, crime, corruption and other social ills.

iPlague

2006-05-01T17:15:00.000+08:00

Watch the ad: http://www.apple.com/ipod/ads

Look around, in any crowded buses or trains, and you will find passengers plugged to the music through their white headphones. Many will be able to recognise such people as the sophisticated and "cool" users of the iPod, one of Apple's proudest inventions that has caught the world by storm. This technological wonder is not only gaining dominance among the MP3 market, but is fast becoming a necessity for every individual around the world.

Ever-Improving Design

The iPod's stylish and popular reputation is not only due to Apple's widespread marketing campaigns, but also because of the continuous technological improvements that follow it. Like other MP3-producing companies, Apple has been continuously improving each iPod models to build an identity for the brand. The design of the first-generation iPod proved to be a success which has driven the brand into high recognition and reputation. It was a product that lived up to Apple's slogan, "Think differently"; although superseded by nonmechanical "touch" and "click" wheels, the circular controller design has become a prominent iPod motif. This was improved further, as seen in the second and third generation which introduced more user friendly functions. These include their more compact size and easier connectivity via the USB wire. Sales rocketed even higher with the invention of the fourth-generation, which offers picture display and a larger storage space. Finally comes the fifth-generation iPod, the all-in-one devices that plays music, displays pictures and plays videos. Other notable improvements include the reduction of minor audio defects, such as hard-drive noise being heard through the headphone jack, as well as an increase in recording quality to 44.1 kHz stereo, 22.05 kHz mono. It can be argued that effective advertising and celebrity endorsement made the product a succes, but it is also due to the rapid improvements, which attracted many into investing in the item. All these improvements took place faster than any other MP3s available and this helped pave a way for the build-up of the product's reputation through mass marketing. However, hardware improvements and mass marketing could not guarantee success for iPod; user-friendliness is another factor in which Apple has tapped on for the growth of its product.

Change in listening habits

This is a function which none of the MP3 makers has stumbled upon. The creation of this transfer software has soon lead to its improvement and the birth of an online one-stop music store for the product: the iTunes Music Store. Advertised that any song was 99¢, the music bought from it can be uploaded onto the iPod and the store has become the dominant online music service, helping the sale of iPods. Today, the store has sold over 1 billion songs and 15 million videos. There has been controversies however, that the company is trying to gain a vertical monopoly by forcing its iPod users into using the software to purchase and transfer the songs. Regardless of the validity of the claim, we know that the software has made the transfering and pruchasing of songs easier, instead of the usual purchase of an album and burning its songs. This has its disadvantages, especially when the listener is forced to buy the album even though he prefers only one or two of its songs. With the creation of the iTunes Music Store, people can now purchase of legal music and choose the songs that they want. Copying thousands of songs to an iPod is a lot easier than burning stacks of CDs. A wider freedom of choice is given and this proved to be the product's strongest pull factor.

There are also new ways to parse a collection. The iPod can be ordered to play songs by year or genre, or by keywords in the title (“red” or “sun”). It’s also possible to really drill down; for examlpe, selecting just prog-rock epics that run at least 20 minutes and include album art. Best of all is shuffle mode; let the iPod be the DJ and see what it comes up with. This can produce a delightful and unexpected combinations of tracks. Shuffle can also make the iPod seem uncannily prescient—somehow, it selects just the right song at the right time.

The Unhappiness

The growing number of iPod users has raised alarms on the eventual result of this technological revolution; will Apple monopolize the entire technological market, just like how it does with the invention of the iTunes Music Store? Will we see a standardise way of listening to music? Will musicians be forced to produce singles instead of albums, clamping down on creativity? Are we seeing the death of other MP3-producing companies? The questions and doubts are endless. With Anti-iPod campaigns and posters, many are already battling globalisation and its harm in creating a central powerhouse that will eventually monopolize an entire area of growth.

The Conclusion

The advertising and commercials will be useless if the product does not differ from any other MP3s on the market, or if the product does not offer any technological benefits at all. It is in fact the main ingredient, which is catalysed by mass marketing, to form the product into a cultural icon. Almost everyone uses it; from the pious parish vicars to impious punk rockers. We might feel that the product is beneficial and that it is wise to invest in it. However, there are long-term effects if everyone were to make blind purchases of it. With over 3 million-plus owners, we might just be seeing the emergence of a company that might revolutionize our lifestyle, not just technologically, but socially as well.

The Black Death

2006-04-29T14:48:00.000+08:00

(painter unknown)

Imagine if globalization did not exist. Would we all then be healthy and happy citizens?

Perhaps one of the first and most characterized examples of the interconnection of Globalization and Health would be the Black Death of mid-14^th Century in Europe. Then, almost 30% of the European population was killed in 2 years by Bubonic Plague. What fueled the spread of this horror was trade, the interconnectedness of this world.

It is most commonly believed that the bubonic plague was originally endemic in populations of infected ground rodents in central Asia, as it was a known cause of death among migrant and established populations in that region. However, it is not entirely clear where the fourteenth-century pandemic started. The most popular theory places the first cases in the steppes of central Asia, though some speculate that it originated around northern India. From there, supposedly, it was carried east and west by traders and Mongol armies along the Silk Road, and was first exposed to Europe at trading ports in Sicily. - Wikipedia

Whichever the case, it is evident that the disease, carried by fleas on rodents, was allowed to spread across the globe by trading ships, which stopped at different ports in different regions, allowing the dissemination of the disease. There was no way to put a stop to such – to contain the plague would mean that countries would have to ‘isolate’ themselves, a tactic which would certainly cause them to incur severe losses. Many economies survive on trade and industry. It was simply impossible for trade to halt in any region, therefore the disease continued to spread and spread.

The Black Death even hundreds of years ago resembles what we are facing now. The world is just too interconnected. Just like the spread of bubonic plague cannot be contained to any country, the spread of our modern day SARS, Bird Flu, HIV etc., cannot be contained as well. Globalisation resulted in the breakdown of borders and barriers, and thus the spread of illness comes along with it. As globalisation has allowed us to travel abroad easily, it has allowed us to carried germs and our diseases to other countries around the world, and thus spread it to people even across the globe. After all, being connected to each other, the amount of suffering as depicted in the painting would probably be widespread.

But as I like to argue that Globalisation has fuelled the spread of diseases, I would once more point out that only Globalisation can save us now. With globalisation, the spread of ideas is made faster, and therefore discoveries and scientific inventions made in one country would be available to all. And this means cures. The world would work hand in hand to combat the epidemic. Any epidemic.

In conclusion, I guess we have to accept that Globalisation is here to stay. Perhaps, and imagining is all that we can do, had there been no globalisation, sickness and diseases would have spared some of our countries and its people. But since there is Globalisation, what’s left to do is simply just working together to combat the ills of Globalisation. A double-edged sword many would have imagined and a double-edged sword it would remain.

If globalisation did not exist, we probably would have then allowed disease to wipe us out individually anyway.

the writer plays the role of the environmental and heath expert

[painting from http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/csepa/mhall/IGS/Plagues/PIA/plagues_in_art.htm , others from Wikipedia ]

-Teresa

McGuggenheim: Fast Food Architecture?

2006-04-29T12:55:00.000+08:00

Front view of the Guggenheim in Bilbao

The hotel museum in Las Vegas (which is rumoured to be considering a
reproduction of the Sistine chapel on the roof) is only one of a series of joint
ventures that Krens is pursuing in an alliance with the Hermitage that is aimed
at forging a whole new paradigm, what Krens calls an "international museum".

In return for the Guggenheim helping the Hermitage renovate the General
Staff building in St Petersburg adjacent to its present state appartments in the
Winter Palace, for instance, the Hermitage will make its unique collection of
old masters and French impressionists available to the new Guggenheims in Las
Vegas and New York, and vice versa. This treasure-sharing arrangement will also
encompass Bilbao, the Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin and a second Venice Guggenheim.
The tie-up with the Kunsthistorisches museum in Vienna - renowned for its
collection of Brueghels and other European masters - converts this "marriage of
opposites" into into a menage a trois.

Article by Mark Honigsbaum for The Guardian.

To be honest the negative association of the Guggenheim museums with the supposed McDonaldization of architecture needed some convincing for it to be estalished in my head, simply because I have fallen just a little in love with each of the five--Frank Lloyd Wright's geometric Guggenheim in New York, Frank Gehry's titanium-clad Guggenheim Bilbao, the waterside Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, the romantic sandstone building of Deutsche Guggenheim in Berlin, the Guggenheim Hermitage gallery space in Las Vegas--all at the same time.

Created and run in various countries worldwide by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, they are every bit as aesthetically appealing and thought-provoking as the art they house. The buildings themselves are bold statements of architectural triumph; some of them can even claim more recognition than the art itself. And, if it is possible to bring these triumphs to places around the world, packaged in illuminiscent, alluring, curvaeous titanium beauties, I say why not?

Yet, the critical response to the management-trained director of the New York Guggenheim Thomas Krens' franchise and commercial approach to art is understandable if not justifiable. Never mind that most of his detractors are of rival museums or that their concerns are centred around the apparent 'for-profit mentality' they claim Krens suscribes to. Their argument--'McGuggenheim!'--appears to coincide with the latent and increasing distrust of globalization's impact on architecture.

It is a war of words. Newsweek conceeds that his 'aggressive, global approach may be what high culture needs to survive in our world'. The author of the article takes a harmless dig at Krens' being unavailable for comment due to his 'scouring the globe in search of new 'alliances' and 'migratable cultural resources''. Whichever way one puts it, however, the world has become increasingly conscious of the impact of global architecture in the local city scene and skyline, accounting for the onslaught of simplistic, standardized and repetitive boxes in all reverrence of modernist, brutalist architecture.

An unideniable truth

Art and architecture are direct assertions and manifestations of culture. Architecture mirrors society's aspirations and beliefs and represents its attempts to master the land--to tame the elements and mold geography to suit itself. It is an instinctive curiosity about other, different places that compels us to travel; to discover the personality and character of a certain place. It is this reason we fly over half the world to foreign lands--Rome, Greece, Tunisia, Panama, Mexico, Bangkok, Venice--to experience the locally distinct culture through its the lifeblood of its society: not just its people, religious beliefs, but also the architecture, sometimes especially the architecture. The same reason why the Guggenheim in Bilbao attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors from all over the world.

The most public of all art forms, buildings, were once shaped by site, climate, history, native culture and locally available materials and construction technology. Globalization has rendered such stylistic limitations and concerns almost unecessary and obsolete. It is no longer unusual for a building in London or Shanghai to be constructed with a sophisticated glass and metal curtain wall made in China or Germany and granite and marble imported from Spain or Zimbawe. Once this would have been considered prohibitively expensive, but today shipping materials globally has become routine. Glass, aluminum, stainless steel, copper, titanium and natural stone are readily available. If they cannot be acquired locally, they can be imported.
With the increasing sharing of materials all over the world, there is the imminient risk of architecture becoming increasingly standardized and globalized. The central business district of Singapore could be anywhere. This, as it appears, is the inevitable consequence of the rise of so-called 'global cities'.

Panoramic view of Shanghai

Skyline of Seattle, Washington

There is a general acknowledgement (although not explicitly stated) of the importance of safeguarding and promulgating established indigenous architectural traditions, forms, decorative motifs and technologies to preserve historical continuity, cultural diversity and preservation of geographic identity.

The interconnected world, however, calls for the quick and efficient dissemination of new forms using new technologies and materials in response to changing functional needs and sensibilities. Commerce, transportation, communication and information become priorities; something that translates into a need for internationalized, innovative architecture transcending local conventions and constraints. In fact, architecture today can also be used to symbolize a state, with governments and companies employing architecture for corporate and state identification. The Esplanade was a step in the Singapore government's proceedure to propel the island into the regional cultural and entertainment scene. The next benchmark to look out for would be the Integrated Casinos. Frank Gehry's design propelled the city if Bilbao into international forums and global notice. Such is the power of architecture in a time where the global stage means more than ever before.

A watershed architectural trend which began in the 1920s would later become a basis for modernist architecture. The International Style was based on systematization and standardization, mass production, economies of scale, functional logic and aesthetic composition devoid of both ornament and sentiment, a result of the attempts before that to integrate traditional precedents with new social demands and technological possibilities (International Style, Wikipedia). The quintessential function over form ideal.

The globalization of architecture is evident in most cities today. The infusion of several architectural styles represent the mosiac of culture that has resulted from world interconnectedness. Extensions made in recent years to the Supreme Courts of Singapore have resulted in a stark clash of architectural styles, both modern, classical and even futuristic, evidenced in the large dome-shaped structure (that I believe defies any kind of logic) behind the original Supreme Courts building.

Swiss Re, London

Anti-globalization proponents argue that the influx of international ideas and goods displace or diffuse diverse native cultures. The people on the other end of the spectrum advocate systematixation, flexibility and interchangeability with the increased emphasis on speed and efficency. The tension resulting from this polarization of views has had the world split in half (nearly) about the all-encompassing force that overwhelms and underlies our way of life as we know it. But arguing about it does not stop it from occuring, nor does it mean that adherence of one policy should completely compromise the other. It is naive to put progress in chains in order to promote the preservation of cultures around the world, rather, they should co-exist simultaneously, and what should be done is to find a balance between the two. As the world moves towards sustainable architectural concepts and futuristic designs, we should not neglect the remnants of the past, and this is an undeniable truth regardless of whether architecture specifically is concerned.

Image Sources:
Guggenheim Bilbao
Shanghai panoramic view
Seattle skyline
Swiss Re tower in London

This writer assumes the role of a commentator on globalization and this phenomenon's resonating effect through the 21st century world with regards to culture.

Photographs duly credited.

Cultures on the Edge: Vanishing diversity

2006-04-23T23:33:00.000+08:00

Years later, colour is still what takes me south-by-southeast to Asia -
colour and life and light. The Buddha-, Shiva-, Allah-laden light of
1,000-year-old temples, the rain-like light of Burma and Cambodia, and the
rocket-pulverized dust of Afghanistan where tribal wars continue to rage.
Wherever you go in that part of the world, there is the riot of life carried out
in the streets and bazaars. And, like the overpowering weather, there is
religion that controls life with a force the West hasn't known since the
Renaissance.

It is this unbroken continuity with the past and ancient beliefs that
still takes me back to Asia, and it's a quality unique in the world. In India in
particular, where millions have no home but the streets, virtually every life
event is carried out in public: prayer, eating, sleeping, nursing, crude
dentistry, even bodily functions. In the secular West, where nothing is sacred,
everything seems hidden; yet in Asia, where nothing is hidden, everything is
sacred.
Source: http://www.culturesontheedge.com/gallery/exhibits/steve_mccurry/index.html

Steve McCurry begins his book with powerful words, because it is only words that carry such ardent passion and strength, is justice done to the culturally diverse and spiritually-rich environment he attempts to present to the rest of the world. A series of intricately-documented photographs and patiently worded personal insights into the lives of people there can only tell so much of its story. The rest is left to the human mind-- inexperienced and foreign-- to wonder and to weave fascinating tales of a land little explored.

In today's world it should almost be a priviledge to be carefully shielded from the rest of society by a unfamiliar mist. Globalization has rendered any part of the world incapable of progressing without embracing global thought in terms of politics, economics, and technology. With the diffusion of politicial ideas and systems, the dissemination of infomation through a extended cyberspace network, and the sharing of capital and goods through trade have made it inevitable that along the way, some native cultures should have already been misplaced, or forgotten as newer, perhaps more practical concerns take centre stage.

The penetrating effects of globalization in terms of culture have taken root without notice, however, and it is only with the sudden realization of the erosion of traditional values and practices that the extent to which external influences have taken hold in an area become obvious.

If there is a biological web of life, there is also a cultural and spiritual web of life--something people have taken to calling the 'ethnosphere'--the sum total of all the thoughts, beliefs, myths, and institutions brought into being by the human imagination. It is what can be thought of as humanity's greatest legacy, embodying everything we have produced as a curious and amazingly adaptive species. It is not the number of nuclear weapons we possess, or the extent of development our country has reached, but what society should be measured by should be the flourishing of unique culture. The ethnosphere is as vital to our collective well-being as the biosphere. And just as the biosphere is being eroded, so is the ethnosphere--if anything, at a far greater rate.

With the assault of global businesses and franchises preaching a new subculture to be accepted by all part of the world as local culture, it is easy for traditional cultures to fade away. Products of world-known brands such as Nike and Adidas promote what can be considered a global culture. Teenagers from all over the world wearing the same type of shoes, drinking the same type of soda, smoking the same type of cigarettes; it helps people identify with one another.

Then again, how much closer can we feel to someone half the world away?

When asked the meaning of being human, all the diverse cultures of the world respond with 10,000 different voices. Distinct cultures represent unique visions of life itself, morally inspired and inherently right. Those different voices then become part of the overall repertoire of humanity for coping with challenges confronting us in the future. As we drift toward a blandly amorphous, generic world that globalization welcomes; as cultures disappear and life becomes more uniform, we as a people and a species, and Earth itself, will be deeply impoverished.

The steady loss of languages, reportedly declining at the rate of one every two weeks, is indicative of the demise of cultures. Language is not just a body of vocabulary or a set of grammatical rules, but also is the vehicle through which the soul of each particular culture comes into the material world. Out of the 6,000 languages still spoken on Earth years ago, less than half are currently taught to schoolchildren.

We hear of reports in the rise of Americans and Europeans studying Chinese due to the key influence which China, arguably a rising superpower, now affects global economies and politics. What proportion of the statistics choose to learn the language or embrace the culture because of its inherent beauty and age-old cultural traditions? I view with much contempt the motivations of people who attempt the language; the belief that such manoveures will put them in favourable positions in the future. Language has become but a single-dimensional tool in which people communicate in the world; priority goes to that which is the most widely used and accepted.

What this means is that we are living through a period of time in which, within a single generation or two, by definition half of humanity's cultural legacy is being lost in a single generation. Whereas cultures can lose their language and maintain some semblance of their former selves, in general, it is the beginning of a slippery slope towards assimilation and acculturation and, in some sense, annihilation.

The whole notion of modernization and globalization then appears to be based on something of a false assumption: the idea that if the rest of the world follows the dictates of a 'successful' development paradigm, they will achieve the level of material well-being that the 'success' brings.

It is neither change nor technology that threatens the integrity of the ethnosphere. It is power-- the crude face of domination. In every instance, these societies should not be labelled as failed attempts of modernity. They are not archaic, destined to fade away, but rather they are dynamic, living, and vital cultures that are being driven out of existence by identifiable external forces. Whether it is diseases that have come into the homeland of the Yanomami in Brazil, or the fact that the Ogoni in the Niger Delta find their once-fertile soils poisoned by the local petroleum industry, or whether in Sarawak the forest homelands of the Penan have been destroyed, there is always an identifiable element. This is both discouraging and encouraging, for if human beings are agents of cultural destruction, we can also be facilitators of cultural survival.

It is a myth that the inevitable twin effect of globalization is cultural diffusion. It only appears to be that way because we allow it to be so. But till there is concerted effort from societies all over the world we can only watch as the myraid of cultures elude us in our race for continual progress.

This response was inspired by a certain website that the writer chanced upon, Cultures on the Edge, an online site to raise global awareness about threatened cultures around the world. Its gallery allows visitors a brief glimpse into South Southeast, a book by Steve McCurry, examining the state of world culture today in various parts of Asia through photography and personal experiences. McCurry is a renowned photographer whose coverage of many areas of international and civil war including the Iran-Iraq war, Beirut, Cambodia, the Philippines, and the Gulf War have won him several awards. The rest of the website contains numerous articles and photographs pertaining to the erosion of traditional culture in face of larger political, cultural, and economic forces.

This writer assumes the role of a commentator on globalization and this phenomenon's resonating effect through the 21st century world with regards to culture.

Photograph credited to Steve McCurry.

A slight distraction

2006-04-23T00:22:00.000+08:00

After the debate finals, everyone was clamouring for food. So, we went to Heartland Mall desperately hoping that we could get something to eat. We arrived there just as all the makan places were closing. Oh, and Heartland Mall was closed.

The Debates Chaiman: Heartland Mall's closed at 10. I will never get used to this country.

Ahh, the poor Malaysian. He has much to learn about this concrete jungle. We walked around hoping for some food. Hawker center's closed so we walked and walked and walked. It took me quite a while to notices the all too famous golden archs. It was akin to heaven or so my mind thought.

Thank God for globalisation, I said. And I could have sworn that Melody said something along the lines of glorious golden archs. Absolutely delusional by then, I would eat anything edible even though it's from McDonalds.

I think I hear Olivia muttering. She's anti-McDonalds, right?

Oh, Temasek Academy won the Debate Finals. Take that, VIPers.

Earth Day 2006.

2006-04-22T14:27:00.000+08:00

22nd April 2006.
Today is Earth Day!
Each year marks the anniversary of the birth of the modern environmental movement in 1970. It is a movement to connect and unite people all over the world to take good care of our environment. 'The fight for clean environment continues'...

Not many people are aware of such a day, even though it has its roots all the way back to 1970. Global warming and climate change still continues. People are still harming our environment despite calls for them to stop. There's Kyoto Protocol, the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, the Montreal Protocol, the Antarctica Treaty etc. Thousands of international organizations like GreenPeace. All united by a common goal - to 'save' the Earth.

Mankind has progressed, but at the cost of our environment. With technology like ships and airplanes that link us, pollution is ever more evident. Accidents such as oil spills endanger lives of many marine creatures, and the chemtrails left behind by the airplanes contribute to global warming. The thing about global warming and any other change in our environment is that they are not limited by borders, meaning that it can spread and affect everyone on Earth. Take for example, Indonesia's haze problem. It is not only limited to Indonesia, but the winds take it to Singapore, Malaysia and sometimes even as far as the Philippines! The melting ice caps will cause the sea levels to rise, and it will affect low lying countries like Holland, and perhaps even Singapore. As such, it is rather fitting that we unite and do something about pollution and such. But of course there are countries shirking responsibility in the name of economics, business and politics [*coughs*]

As we celebrate Earth Day 2006, let us remember how globalisation has allow us to connect with each other and work together for a better Earth. But let us not forget how globalisation has allowed our technology to be shared and harm Earth.

This writer still assumes the role of environmental and health expert. =)
-Teresa

Globalisation of Obesity.

2006-04-22T13:54:00.000+08:00

With reference to the article, The Globalisation of Obesity, 11-13-2005, from Globalisation101.org

The Globalisation of Obesity.

Indeed, globalisation has contributed to the problem of obesity all over the world, according to the article, in 2 major ways. The first would be that globalisation led to technology and ease of migration, which changed these people’s diet. The next would be that globalisation had allowed fast food restaurants and so called ‘junk food’, to spread all over the world, which also affected people’s diet.

We all know what McDonald’s is. What is even weirder to note, is that, according to a survey of 7000 people from 6 different countries by Sponsorship Research International [Haywire Priorities, TODAY, Wednesday, April 19, 2006, page 3], nearly 80 per cent identified McDonald’s arches, as compared to the only 54 per cent that succeeded with the Christian cross. Such a result, though we might find weird and disturbing, is not surprising. McDonald’s is everywhere. There is a McDonald’s restaurant in almost every district in every country. Take a walk down Chinatown, and you would notice [to your delight?] that there are 3 branches in just that stretch of a few kilometres. One would think that Chinatown, an area mostly viewed as nostalgic and still holds most of the elements belonging to the past, would be spared from the ‘onslaught’ of the McDonald’s ‘empire’. Of course, there is McDonalds are not the only culprit. But the fact is that fast food is not our native staple diet, and that its appearance over the globe has changed the way things used to be. Just for convenience sake in our fast paced lives, many turn to McDonalds and other similar fast food chains. Had McDonalds not enter countries outside the US due to globalisation, we might not have incorporated fast food and soft drinks as part of our lifestyle. If each country was on its own, we might just be eating our rice and vegetables. But of course this is not possible. For if we were to isolate ourselves, and every other country similarly, Singapore might have a problem getting food supplies to feed her people. Therefore the food which possibly influences us and affects our health cannot be stopped without totally isolating ourselves, something which we cannot afford to let happen.

The problem of obesity is not only a country’s own. Take for example the number of obese citizens in USA on the rise. Obesity comes about due to our bad eating habits involving processed foods with high levels of fat, sugar and salt. This means that fast food outlets are not the only contributors to this. The various factors which results in their obesity [though mostly fast food] are present in almost all societies, thanks to Globalisation. Therefore, we too are at risk. To combat this, we need international cooperation. Globalisation has resulted in the increase in obesity, yet in order to combat this problem, we cannot condemn globalisation, but instead, we should use it to our benefit. For example, we have our World Health Day on every 7th April. On this day around the globe, thousands of events mark the importance of health for productive and happy lives.

What would be heartening is for countries to put aside their differences and come together to think of ways to prevent the rise in obesity. Rules and regulations might help, and perhaps an exchange in culture and lifestyle might help too. Whichever the method, globalisation has indeed affected the health of people around the globe, and thus we should make full use of globalisation to combat it.

This writer assumes the role of environment and health expert. =)

-Teresa

All About WTO

2006-04-16T11:10:00.000+08:00

All About WTO, originally uploaded by strausser.

The only international organization dealing with the global rules of trade
between nations. Its main function is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly,
predictably and freely as possible.

Find out more: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm

A (little) preamble.

2006-04-15T01:44:00.000+08:00

shadows, originally uploaded by .alton.

The world has since seen four years since the tragedy. To many of us it has become but a poetic idea, carelessly dismissed as a barbaric act of terrorism, a crass display of searing footage, statistics, photographs, a haphazard collection of lives shoved in sideways to construct a poignant tale. The causes of which were, and still are furiously debated, and its reverberations on the world something to be studied in the future with the benefit of hindsight--an unabsorbable nightmare condensed into two pages of a textbook. Just another event in the larger scheme of things.

For months afterward the disaster was the lead story in every newspaper in the world. Aid poured in in the form of medical workers, volunteers, as did the condolences, from countries all over the world.

I can tell you I watched it on BBC, I can quote you statistics, important pronouncements, dates, but then again so can millions of people. What I cannot convey, is the grief of loss. I cannot tell you I had any particular emotional connections with the tragedy. I have never visited the World Trade Centre, nor do I have relatives or friends living in New York. The fact remains, however, that despite all of this, I have found myself inextricably (and inexplicably) emotionally involved in all of this.

To some extent it has affected me on a personal level. I'm sure many can say the same, even without any direct or obvious links with what has happened.

Because the world is a small place.

Because painfully raw human emotions cross any number of geographical and cultural boundaries.

Because the memory what happened that Tuesday morning would remain a blot in the history of not only the United States but of the world, a reminder to all of us; saying that in order to make sense of this terrifying new phase at the turn of the century, we must break down the barriers that divide us.

And because it is impossible to remain detached and aloof as one watches the live broadcast as, in the space of 92 minutes, two of the world's tallest buildings come crashing to the ground in an act of planned destruction.

Millions of people across nations-- anyone with access to cable, or even just a television-- and feeling the same fear, shedding the same tears, all at the same time. There is no need for direct emotional connections, because hatred, fear, sympathy, shock, disgust, sadness and love are intangible and free from human-defined political, geographical or cultural borders. After the shock fades away, there are the reports of people plastering the streets with hastily-produced posters, displaying photos and descriptions of missing friends, family and loved ones - particularly as they have had to resort to such basic methods in a thoroughly modern city. One has to be moved by the tears of Americans trying to understand the violence that had been unleashed across their country, taking numerous innocent lives, and shattering the hearts of the ones left behind.

Besides announcing the face of one city's tragedy, what the media has done is to project the increasingly real problem of terrorism. Something that does not respect borders. After 9/11, New York could be anywhere.

Many people liken the World Trade Centre attacks to that of one sixty years ago, in 1941, on Pearl Harbour. I beg to differ. It is not just the fact that the number of innocent casualities were multiplied, or that the motivations behind the second attack are far more disturbing, but also because this disaster has been reported through a huge number of personal accounts on the internet, as well as in the media, through books and newspapers that are available everywhere. This means that we are able to gain a uniquely human perspective on events, more so than at any other time in history.

Ultimately, though, it all comes back to the fact that these events have made me appreciate how small the world really is. As individuals, many of us may not have any direct connection with what has happened, but the untold thousands of lives lost-- in a country that sends and receives people from all corners of the world-- means that the effects could reach surprisingly close to home.

It is a relatively simple task of just labelling the various observable trends of globalization, a 21st century phenomenon, like worldwide trade and economic activity, or the diffusion of culture across borders (cultural homogenization if you like). What is more important is that we realise that individuals are no longer confined within the barriers of the human heart. It may take a disaster this alarming in magnitude to show the people of the world, globalization is not necessarily about the things we can see, or predict, but also about the finer details of the human race-- the ability to think and feel for one another, but it should be done. And to be able to do so regardless of nationality or ethnicity, is in itself admirable progress of the 21st century.

This writer assumes the role of a commentator on globalization and this phenomenon's resonating effect through the 21st century world with regards to culture. All thoughts and ideas are original.
Photograph credited to Alton Thompson, on flickr.com.

Globalisation: End of Foreign Policy Part 1

2006-04-14T23:45:00.000+08:00

This article found on the BBC site aptly describes the effect globalisation has on politics.

The challenge of globalisation

Whether or not Foreign Policy is any more dead than history, the challenges of globalisation are very real.

It's been estimated that by the mid 1990s, nearly 40,000 multi-national companies accounted for one fifth of the total global economy.

There is a sense that giant corporations such as Microsoft or Shell are beyond the control of any individual state. That feeling of powerlessness in the face of huge multi-national conglomerates helped fuel the violence of anti-globalisation demonstrations around the world, from Seattle to Genoa. The targets of the demonstrators' anger are international organisations like the G8 group of industrialised countries and the World Trade Organisation. Often, on the streets, well-known global retail brands are also hit.

MNCs. Multi National Companies. They are on everywhere. Bilboards, newspapers, airwaves and even your pair of socks. MNCs are here. IN YOUR FACE. Well, only an ignorant is wont to not notice it them. Muahaha. Moving on, multi national companies have sprouted and appeared like bunnies in the heat. Why,they account fo a fifth of the total global economy. Gamer speak: pwnage. And since moolah is almost everything the government wants, and MNCs generate income for the economy, it is almost easy for MNCs to be able to set up shop. In fact, governments like Singapore's are wooing them. They're income generators.

It all seems too good to be true doesn't it? There has to be a catch somewhere.

Well, MNCs are usually private companies. That means they are not tied to any country and they are not bound by any regulations except for those set in the business world and their company. They are able to do anything they want and nations are usually unable to stop them. They generate the nation's income. They provide jobs. They are GIGANTIC multi national corporations. They control the economy and they play by their own rules. This affects the political arena. Concessions will have to be made for the MNCs. Obviously this will affect the citizens who feel neglected by their government. Sure, everything may work out for these monsters but will it always be good for the people? The sovereignty of a nation may be affected by a Microsoft or a Shell as they are unable to stop the private corporation. If they were to impose a ruling on these MNCs, the corporations might just take flight to another country and leave the nation's economy to tatters. MNCs do play politics. Take a look at google. You type a certain vulgarity, you will arrive at a certain Anti-Republican page. I am not going to substantiate on this point. Rarr. Sorry for bringing that up.

On a side note, does money really make the world go round?

Globalisation in TJC: Computers, Data and Politics.

2006-04-13T16:45:00.000+08:00

The age of information. That's the era that we are living in. The time where data means everything to an economy, government and country. Every data has to be received and sent fast and accurate.

The industrial revolution has long gone and remnants of it will soon be deem obsolete. The current information revolution has had governments vying for the top in the area of technology. Everyone is building a superhighway for information. Data manipulation generates money for the economy without harming any natural resources (not directly, at least). In this point of time, it seems that more money is equivalent to more power. Having the best technology and infrastructure will generate income as it will attract foreign investors.

SO, how can this turn into something political? Think about it. Everyone starts directing their attention to data mining and data manipulation, and the next world superpower might be the nation that has the best technology and infrastructure as having the best technology and infrastructure will enable a country to invent more machines, weapons, and discover new things.

Anything could happen.

aishah has assumed of th political commentator. she sincerely apologise for this skimpy article. what would you expect when the screen keeps freezing.

Recycle bins and globalization

2006-04-12T14:41:00.000+08:00

Think about it. How much our lives have been changed by the recycle bins?
Before they are spread, we threw all kinds of rubbish in one dustbin and did not bother to sort out them. In this case, many materials like cans and paper, which can be recycled, were wasted.
But after they are spread all over the world, our rubbish becomes more useful. We threw the materials which can be recycled into separate recycle bins. You can see the two recycle bins in the picture. The left is a recycle bin for drink cans and the other one is for waste paper. Those aluminum and steel cans are then sorted and baled locally and exported overseas. They are recycled into a range of products including drink cans, fencing wire and reinforcing bars. Waster paper are sorted, shipped overseas and recycled into newspapers, files and other paper grades.
These recycle bins are known to be first introduced in California and then they were spread and brought ease to people as well as contributing to protect our environment.
All these are the power of globalization. Other countries’ culture, product, fashion, politics, and the way of their life spread all around the world. It is globalization which causes many of us teenagers to listen to J-pop and many of the adults to watch the Korean drama “Da Chang Jin”.
Globalization is around us, here and there even without our realization.

Globalisation in TJC: Technological Thirst

2006-04-09T20:20:00.000+08:00

Vending machines. We depend on them to quench our thrist especially after all the drink stalls are closed. It was indeed globalisation that had brought this revolutionary technology to our country. The first modern coin-operating devices were vending machines that dispensed post cards introduced into London, England in the early 1880s. As a result of globalisation, it has crossed borders and is widely available throughout every country in the world. Common items sold through it include drinks and snacks, which followed suit after cigarettes in America. This movement took place 1920s and 30s and went on to other continents such as Asia where businesses through it boomed. A majority of Japanese vending machines carry needed items such as drinks. Being an ever-needed source of energy, it has become the main and must-have item in at least one vending machine in an area.

Besides the common items sold through it, there is also a similarity in its locations in every country. Such machines are known to be located near exits, entrances and break areas (In the case of TJC, the study area and canteen). Trial and error has proven that these locations bring huge benefits to the investor. As a result, many across the world are doing the same and here, we can see that globalisation has standardised both the items and the location of the vending machine. Although owners are free to experiment with the type of products and locations, he will run a risk of not gaining as much profit as he would, if he were to have followed the standardised way of running the vending machine.

The popularity of these automated "shops" is perhaps due to it being readily available, commonly found, user-friendly and idiot proof. Thus, it is not surprising that globalisation has brought the product to Singapore and the world; this ever-occuring process is the inevitable result of a common need for a better life.

Globalization in TJC: Ubiquitously lurking

2006-04-09T19:14:00.000+08:00

Simple, everyday signs we ignore are in fact traces of globalization. With increased connectedness of production, communication and technologies across the world, even signs are standardized and easily recognized everywhere. The exit sign is commonly green. Danger signs are red. The initals 'WC' mean its a toilet door. Many of such have become applicable in nearly all countries (most places have toilets, anyway), and important messages such as 'stay away from the guzzling gas tap!' have been, for conveinence's sake, been simplified and reduced to the extended use of basic colours and geometric shapes. Traffic lights are an example.

For many people, holidays (and sometimes work) take the form of travelling overseas to foreign lands. Although we may not speak the language, we understand the use of the colour, recognize the signs, and are able to save ourselves from possible embarrassment, inconveinence, and danger.

So yes, globalization is all around; you just have to look.

Globalisation in TJC - Art & Globalisation

2006-04-08T11:35:00.000+08:00

Batik on Silk

What is the significance? The art of batik painting originates from Indonesia and it refers to a generic wax-resist dyeing technique used on fabric. The word 'batik' itself has Indonesian origins, and it means to dot. In addition, this batik painting is done on silk, which is known to originate in China.

Due to the fact that Indonesia is located on the trade route between the North and the South, as well as from the West to the East, it was often visited by foreign vessels and the exchange of goods, which include these beautiful batik cloth, took place. Most importantly, silk from China was made available to the Indonesians as well. This form of art then spread to different civilisations all over the world, and thus made famous.

In conclusion, this batik painting on silk, which can be seen on the corridor from the computer labs to LT2, illustrates Globalisation, for the art itself does not originate from Singapore, and was the result of globalisation.
So the next time you see some beautiful art piece, take some time to not only appreciate it, but also to think about the influences and origin of the art piece. You'll be very surprised. =)