The rich benefit from the current food crisis. To what extent is this true?

There is constant speculation on the various causes of the global crisis. The developed countries and their multinational corporations (MNCs) are identified as the main culprits due to their constant manipulations on the free market system. Are the rich really the ones who orchestrated such catastrophic series of events to obtain unfair advantage for themselves, or is the effects of Globalisation and the rise of the developing countries to be blamed? I agree with the statement that the rich will benefit from the food crisis as the unfortunate turn of event was mostly caused by the one sided advancement of the developed countries who neglected the poor to achieve their aims.

Faced with record high oil prices and possible conflicts with oil producing nations, developed countries seek to find new viable sources to sustain their energy needs for continual growth and self-sustainability. Biofuel is seen as the ideal solution for the United States and they aim to divert a quarter of its maize to ethanol production by 2022. What they did not take into consideration was that such a policy will cause a huge increase in demand and price of corn. The growing diversion into ethanol has resulted in a 60 percent rise in corn prices in the past two years. While the prices of food products still remain largely affordable to the rich, the poor find themselves unable to cope. The number of people plunged into hunger increases day by day as the rich continue in their quest of achieving energy self-sustainability. The rich definitely stands to gain in this context while the poor suffers without both energy and food.

The dominance of the richer nations and companies in the international arena allowed them to manipulate the market achieve large profit margins. The combination of unfair trade agreements, concentrated ownership of major food production, dominance in major finance institutions, such as the World Bank, IMF and the World Trade Organisation, meant that poor countries have seen their ability to determine their own food security policies severely undermined. Poorer countries made to remove trade barriers to receive financial help but richer countries seldom remove theirs in return. Food dumping under pretext of aid by wealthy nations onto poor countries, coupled with falling commodity prices due to competition from other poor countries, have all combined to force farmers out of business. This further worsens the food shortage in the poor countries while allowing the rich to receive economic benefit. The rich stands to gain by driving the domestic producers of the poor countries out of business while allowing their MNCs to establish monopoly.

The rising affluence level in the world might also be a factor of the current food crisis, and in this case, the rich might not necessarily gain. Higher incomes enable more people to eat higher on the food chain. And with the rising long term demand in countries like China and India, where millions of increasingly prosperous people are eating more, countries must import food from other others to meet the demand. The World Bank estimates that by 2030 more than a billion consumers in the developing world will have sufficient income to eat a middle-class diet.To produce 1 pound of meat takes up to 7 pounds of grain. So with developing countries’ meat consumption expected to double in a generation, demand for grain will grow much faster. The large-scale reform of consumption patterns is unlikely. And for consumers from poorer nations, eating richer diets is one of the long-sought benefits of development. The rich do not stand to benefit and might even lose their dominant position on the top of the world.

The current food crisis is severely affected by nature. The current food crisis is also caused by natural disasters, and both the poor and the rich will suffer. Natural disasters can disrupt the production of crops. For example, a 2007 cyclone in Bangladesh destroyed approximately 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop, leading to rice price increases of about 70 percent. Also, the drought last year in north-central China combined with the unusual cold and snow during the winter will lead to greater imports, hence keeping the pressure on prices. Hence, both the rich and poor will suffer from the increase in food prices as it is a necessity, though the rich are better able to cope with the higher prices. Climatic changes might also be a cause of concern. The continual rise of temperature might severely affect harvest everywhere, falling by a fifth in South Asia alone. The cost of adapting the food system to climate change could be tens of billions of dollars, far exceeding available resources. The both the rich and poor will definitely not benefit from it.

In conclusion, the food crisis will have an impact on both the rich and the poor. However, the poor will be the ones to suffer the most as the increase in food prices represent a larger proportion of their income. On the other hand, the food crisis will only benefit mainly the rich as it was caused by the advancements of them.

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle) Do you agree?

A revolution is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. Variously defined revolutions have been happening throughout human history. They vary in terms of numbers of their participants, means employed by them, duration, motivating ideology and many other aspects. They may result in a socio-political change in the socio-political institutes, or a major change in a culture or economy. Crime is defined as deviant behaviour that violates prevailing norms, specifically, cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave. Poverty in this sense may be understood as a condition in which a person or community is deprived of, and or lacks the essentials for a minimum standard of well-being and life. These essentials may be material resources such as food, safe drinking water, and shelter.

Poverty does lead to crime and revolution to a certain extent. when people face extreme poverty and lack the essentials for minimum standard of well-being and life, and in the process lose their moral righteousness, they will turn to crimes for the easy way out. Robbing, stealing or even capital crimes such as kidnapping are examples of the crimes they might be tempted to commit. This being said, only those who have lost or have no moral righteousness will commit such crimes. However, many poor people do not have the ability to have decent education resulting in them not being educated of what is right or wrong. Together with the negative influence from the parents and surroundings, the young might also be tempted to commit crimes and the vicious cycle continues.

When poverty occurs on a large scale, people will be easily influenced by revolutionaries who claim that they can give the poor a better life and provide for their daily necessities. The only possible solution is to overthrown the incompetent government. An example is the 1911 revolution in China. The democrats convinced the poor people (the majority of the population) of change and a better life. Together they overthrew the old monarchy system, but, as we all know, the change did not arrive as they had expected.

However, poverty is not the only cause of crime and revolution. Mass Media is also a major cause of crimes. Media portrays villians as cool and hip characters, thus causing many youngsters to idolize them and to a certain extent, mimic them. Examples of such media include movies like the Oceans series which features professional thieves. Those movies also gives youngsters a false impression of the ease of carrying out the crimes. Besides mass media, there are many other causes of crimes such as materialism and family upbringing.

As for revolution, the most important cause should be the incompetence of the government. With an able government, people still believe that changes will be implemented to aid them. When the government is unable to do so, people will lose faith in the government and the missing ingredient to a revolution is a brilliant public speaker who can stir up emotions of the population and claims to bring the nation out of the poverty trap.

In conclusion, poverty is only a factor of crime and revolution. It is not the sole cause.

June Holiday Blogging

After reviewing both articles,I am in agreement with Szilagyi 's point of view that more focus should be placed on social responsibility,and this is especially so in a country like Singapore,where a multi racial society exists.Diversities across cultural and religious beliefs hence calls for a need for individuals to be more sensitive and therefore be more socially responsible as well,for their own words and actions.


As prompted by the second article,which is more important for the democratic advancement of a country - the freedom of expression for people,or the protection of collective interests of the people?In my opinion,it is the latter.Granted that people are allowed freedom of expression,I believe it would only result in eventual racial tensions and conflicts within Singapore,due to the many different races present.Although it is virtually impossible to ensure that all races live in harmony and are at peace with one another,there is still a need for people to be tolerant of each other.And that,ensures the protection of collective interests of the different races.If people in Singapore cannot even live in harmony,it is then pointless to even discuss about advancement of the country,regardless of which aspect.Hence it is essentially crucial that the interests of the people/minority races are first considered before freedom of expression is even to be mentioned.The consequences would be disastrous if everyone were to free to express their opinions,for people are often insensitive about racial issues.


"We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock." - Peter Singer
It has been evident that freedom of speech/expression does not resolve any problems,but only result in more controversies forming.If standing up and claiming the existence of God is nothing but illusionary would work,religions would have crumbled eons ago.On a more relevant context,if the different races in Singapore were to voice out their discontent about one another,it would only further aggravate any racial tension,and not resolve the problem at hand.Hence,the statement that Peter Singer has made,is wrong in my opinion,as freedom of speech/expression only results in more roadblocks in the democratic advancement of societies.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is controversial. Merits and demerits of capital punishment makes it hard to decide whether to abolish it or not. While many first world countries have abolished the death penalty, countries such as Singapore still continue with it as it acts as an effective deterrent, and it allows the guilty to pay for his crimes.

Capital punishment deters future crimes. It serves as a warning to those who are going to commit a capital offense and makes them think twice about doing so. Less people will commit the crimes in fear of being executed and hence a decrease in the crime rate of capital offenses.

Many might argue that capital crimes, such as murder and drug trafficking, occurs when the guilty is desperate and had no other ways to solve their problems. In my opinion, this is not a valid excuse. What rights do you have to cause harm to the innocent even when u are desperate? If u can't solve your problem, why don't u take your own life instead? End your torment and don't inflict pain and sufferings to the innocent.

I would agree that a death by electric chair or gas chamber is inhumane; a shot to the head is faster and more cost efficient. however, besides that, many propose life sentence as a substitute for the death sentence. personally, i would rather prefer to die without dignity than to live a life without dignity in darkness, and living life with no sense of purpose. What is the point of living when there is no freedom, no happiness for the rest of the lifetime. The wait for one's death is torturous, yet it is inevitable. Be it the death sentence or life imprisonment, one will still have to die.

Hence, my point on the case is that mandatory death sentence should be abolished, and convicts will be given the choice of taking their own life or life imprisonment. There is no denial of human rights as it will be their personal choice to do so.

Censorship

Censorship. Is it a must or a thing of the past. Censorship is used to protect youths from being exposed to undesirable materials. Yet, censorship is also seen as a restriction to the freedom of expression. The million dollar question; should censorship be allowed? What are the merits and demerits of censorship?

Censorship serves as a barrier to sieve out undesirable materials such as pornographic or gory animations. Adults and parents fear for the innocent minds of their children will be corrupted when exposed to undesirable media. Censorship protects youths and help to develop socially responsible adults in the future.

Censorship also serves to protect the government and country's interest. Incidents such as the danish cartoon would never have happened if there was proper censorship. Sensitive issues are not know to the general public to prevent outbreak of violence or displeasure. Information on imminent terrorist attacks are not disclosed to the public to keep them calm. Censorships help countries maintain peace.

However, censorship is a restriction on the freedom of expression. Singers express their thoughts in songs, only to find parts of it edited by the censorship board. People feel that they have the rights to know what is going to happen even if it will cause them great unrest. Others feel that censorship should be banned to allow the society to gradually accept the progress.

On the whole, I feel that censorship is necessary to as it prevents the corruption of society and self.

GP Task 2

I do not know how to appreciate art. I do not see the need to use nudity as a form of art. How artistic can nudity be? In my opinion, the only difference between art and pornography is how the audience sees it. What considered as art to one may arouse the sensual pleasure of another. To the latter, the form of art evolved into pornography. The definition of art varies for different people, hence it is impossible to regulate artistic media. What the censorship board consider to be pornography may face strong objections from the art-loving general public who wishes to appreciate the beauty and purity of nudity. However, if they lower their standards, conservative public will blame the censorship board for allowing such disturbing images to be seen. There is no clear line between art and pornography hence the censorship board will forever be blamed for the decisions they make, despite their noble aims to satisfy the wants of the people.

GP Task 1

The media has the ability to manipulate the ideas of people. By only showing people the information they want the people to see, the media changes the opinion of the people, making them assume what they see is true. The general public will have no idea what is happening in reality. Hence the media is able to prevent the people from getting the true picture and supports whatever cause the media wants them to. Personally, i feel that the fact that that the the media abuses its powers to achieve its aims is totally unacceptable. the public have the rights to know what is true and should not be kept in the dark about the harsh reality. It is necessary for the people to support their soldiers in war, but using it as and excuse to cover up the atrocities they committed is violation of the rights of the people.