Manifestations of cultural imperialism by America.
For many centuries, culture has been viewed as the set of common ideas on which a society or group rest on. Nevertheless, there is a growing belief that the spread of culture through mass media is unbalanced and thus has led to the term cultural imperialism being applied in society. Cultural imperialism can be defined as ‘the use of political and economic power to exalt and spread the values and habits of a foreign culture at the expense of a native culture.'
The mass media is one of the principal sources of wealth and power for U.S. capital as it extends its communication networks throughout the world. An increasing percentage of the richest North Americans derive their wealth from the mass media. There are over 500 media companies in America, but through many integrations there are only 6 major media institutions and they dominate nearly 98% of the market. The media monopoly seen here is fundamentally anti-democratic in its concentration of media powers.
U.S cultural imperialism has two major goals, one economic and the other political. The export of entertainment is one of the most important sources of capital accumulation and global profits displacing the manufacturing sector. In the political sphere, cultural imperialism plays a major role in dissociating people from their cultural roots and traditions of solidarity, replacing them with media created needs which change with every publicity campaign.
Another manifestation of America’s cultural imperialism is shown in everyday ‘news’. Their strategy is to de-sensitize the public; to make mass murder by the Western states routined and acceptable activities. I see mass bombings in Iraq being presented in the form of video games which my brother plays on his Xbox. By trivializing crimes against humanity, the public is desensitized from its traditional belief that human suffering is wrong. By emphasizing the modernity of new techniques of warfare, the mass media glorify existing elite power – the techno-warfare of the West. Cultural imperialism today includes “news” reports in which the weapons of mass destruction are presented with human attributes while the victims in the Third World are faceless “aggressors- terrorists”. So as anybody can see, mass media can be exploited to the aims of its users to meet their aims.
Internet bringing a new era of American imperialism.
As the internet was invented in the early 1990s by American scientists, some people suggest that it would just become another tool for America to impose its products over the world.
The public is exploring the issue that Internet becomes an American product of capitalism; America is taking the lead in the construction of a ‘Global Information Infrastructure" This view highlights the perpetuation of such domination to ‘a single community world of cultural homogenization where cultural differences are erased and cultural sameness is super imposed’.
Thus the need for Internet gatekeepers to control the flow, transfer and type of media that is imported into their countries.
The term Internet gatekeepers are often seem to be associated with the role of government. Here, government becomes the internet pipeline, which attempts to determine which websites are accessible or not. A notable example is the Chinese government who has built a specific system to control the information flow on the Internet. With this system, called the Great Firewall of China, the government blocks and censors websites which are seen as harmful to the country’s values and image. In a way, it is a form of media hegemony, the media representing the views of the elites, influenced by those who hold economic and political power, supporting those who benefit themselves.
Another point of view- Limitations of Cultural Imperialism.
Every year, the number of Internet users has increased rapidly, it reached 1600 percent in 2001 compared to a decade ago. Additionally, the amount of non-Western content or non-English websites has also increased and thus, it questions the existence of cultural imperialism on the Internet in the future.
Meanwhile, with many foreign cultures on the Internet, some governments seem to have started online regulation or online censorship to ban undesirable web content. It is believed that this action will be followed by other countries, especially Asian countries, to maintain their traditional values and culture. Hence, their culture will not be negatively affected or replaced by the foreign culture.
Some might argue that the large flow of US media into Singapore is a great example of cultural imperialism, and others might beg to differ. Different theorists and scholars have provided their own interpretation of the term cultural imperialism, and depending on the writer, the term could have positive and negative meanings. As we can see cultural imperialism in another perspective, one that a society is brought into the modern world system.
In summary, based on the history of cultural imperialism and America’s invention of the Internet, the Internet is perceived as another tool of Western cultural imperialism. However for others, this is seen as a challenge to maintain and promote non-English culture to the world through cyberspace. The future of cultural imperialism itself is being questioned due to the emergence of non-English websites and restriction to undesirable internet content.
Will US’s media threaten Spore’s identity?
In a country that encompasses a good mix of East and West such as Singapore, it is undeniable that US media is prevalent. As more television shows, radio programs, movies, news channels, internet websites and magazines are being produced in the United States, the same soaring amount of products are being introduced to us locals. Reality TV shows like Singapore Idol and Don’t Forget The Lyrics are simply mimics of American shows. Despite this, however strong the influence of American media, the values and traditions of Singapore, I believe, are twice as powerful. Although US media does arguably affect and influence the general public to a certain extent, it does not threaten Singapore's national identity.
Recognizing the fact that even though there are positive aspects of importing US media into Singapore, there is also a responsibility in ensuring the stability of and reinforcing the nation's values and principles. Our government understands the importance in keeping one's nation's culture, and in an effort to enhance the country's cultural heritage, a set of values was introduced in 1988 by then Deputy Minister Mr. Goh Chok Tong. Aptly named "5 Shared Values," it covers principles such as, "Nation before community and society before self, Family as the basic unit of society, Community support and respect for the individual, Consensus, not conflict and Racial and religious harmony". As the sphere of US media seem to expand in Singapore, the general public still adhere to these values that set us apart from the rest of the nations. :)
Friday, October 24, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Media shaping public opinions
Mass media, whether by print, radio, television, or now online via the Internet, inevitably provides the raw information from which people form their basic insight of the world around them. Without the media, our 'reality' and knowledge of events would rarely extend beyond the countries in which we lived, or that which we experienced ourselves directly.
Think about it. For the vast majority of people, we really only 'know' what is happening around the world because one or two news organizations told us so. For the most part, we have no practical way of verifying everything which is presented to us by the media, and will often assume the information to be fact. The fact that we do not have direct access to much of the world means that it is out of reach, out of sight, and even out of mind. The thus mass media help us create a "trustworthy picture" of the world that is beyond our reach and direct experience.
However, even if the information is true, it still is only one perspective of the 'truth', which is that of the media organization presenting it. According to media hegemony, the press represents the views of the powerful elite, and is easily swayed by those who hold economic and political power. Or that the media will support those in ruling, the administrators and echo the views of these groups of people. For our local press, racial harmony and social security are their markers and rules due to our government that stresses both points. The limitation in this is that this myopic view of the world gives most people only a very limited, media-filtered picture of the 'truth', with little opportunity to consider alternative media perspectives which may also be true, and worth exploring.
Our individual judgments can be heavily influenced by the style and approach in which a story is presented. The presenters’ tone of voice, word selection, choice of questions, all can influence how their story is interpreted by the viewer, and the conclusions that the viewer may reach. Even the order in which the news stories are presented can make a large difference in how the viewer will perceive what is of great importance, and therefore what topics to which they should pay more attention to. That is why global news is often top priority, followed by local news, and then maybe about technology, sports and gossip. Consider, for example, the recent presidential campaign. Who decided which were the important topics for the voters to pay attention to in deciding who to vote for? Was it the individual voter, or the news media?
So in this light, the mass media becomes the gate-keeper, in many ways dictating what topics people learn about, think about, and talk about. It controls the flow of content that is coming into the country and exposed to its people. In this way, the media plays a major role in creating and shaping society's public opinion.
I believe when hearing a conflict between friends, one will be fair and hear both sides of the story and then cast their opinions. Thus we should also apply this same theory when consuming media. Freely hear both sides first, and then depend on the wisdom of citizens to decide for themselves what they believed, and which statements were true and which were false.
However, 'truth' is subjective to the person perceiving it. What is 'truth' to one person, is simply an 'opinion' to another. The media, it must be remembered, has a powerful influence on what an audience will perceive as the 'truth', especially when they repeat the same message enough times. When repeatedly broadcasting on a particular news, locals fully exposed to the media will have a higher chance of taking the same side of the media, as how the media portrayed the issue to be.
This can be illustrated by considering two of the largest media channels in America, CNN and FOX. CNN claims that they are "the most trusted name in news", and "your need to know network". At the same time, FOX claims that they are "fair and balanced." Both these stations and their slogans can easily be refuted by those “on the other side”. But for the public that depends on FOX for the daily dish of news, it IS the truth. Regardless of which of those two networks you might prefer, keep in mind that when they report on international news, they are both American perspectives, with an American bias. Consider for a moment how an Egyptian paper might report the same event that occurs in Iraq.
One man's truth can easily be another man's propaganda.
Think about it. For the vast majority of people, we really only 'know' what is happening around the world because one or two news organizations told us so. For the most part, we have no practical way of verifying everything which is presented to us by the media, and will often assume the information to be fact. The fact that we do not have direct access to much of the world means that it is out of reach, out of sight, and even out of mind. The thus mass media help us create a "trustworthy picture" of the world that is beyond our reach and direct experience.
However, even if the information is true, it still is only one perspective of the 'truth', which is that of the media organization presenting it. According to media hegemony, the press represents the views of the powerful elite, and is easily swayed by those who hold economic and political power. Or that the media will support those in ruling, the administrators and echo the views of these groups of people. For our local press, racial harmony and social security are their markers and rules due to our government that stresses both points. The limitation in this is that this myopic view of the world gives most people only a very limited, media-filtered picture of the 'truth', with little opportunity to consider alternative media perspectives which may also be true, and worth exploring.
Our individual judgments can be heavily influenced by the style and approach in which a story is presented. The presenters’ tone of voice, word selection, choice of questions, all can influence how their story is interpreted by the viewer, and the conclusions that the viewer may reach. Even the order in which the news stories are presented can make a large difference in how the viewer will perceive what is of great importance, and therefore what topics to which they should pay more attention to. That is why global news is often top priority, followed by local news, and then maybe about technology, sports and gossip. Consider, for example, the recent presidential campaign. Who decided which were the important topics for the voters to pay attention to in deciding who to vote for? Was it the individual voter, or the news media?
So in this light, the mass media becomes the gate-keeper, in many ways dictating what topics people learn about, think about, and talk about. It controls the flow of content that is coming into the country and exposed to its people. In this way, the media plays a major role in creating and shaping society's public opinion.
I believe when hearing a conflict between friends, one will be fair and hear both sides of the story and then cast their opinions. Thus we should also apply this same theory when consuming media. Freely hear both sides first, and then depend on the wisdom of citizens to decide for themselves what they believed, and which statements were true and which were false.
However, 'truth' is subjective to the person perceiving it. What is 'truth' to one person, is simply an 'opinion' to another. The media, it must be remembered, has a powerful influence on what an audience will perceive as the 'truth', especially when they repeat the same message enough times. When repeatedly broadcasting on a particular news, locals fully exposed to the media will have a higher chance of taking the same side of the media, as how the media portrayed the issue to be.
This can be illustrated by considering two of the largest media channels in America, CNN and FOX. CNN claims that they are "the most trusted name in news", and "your need to know network". At the same time, FOX claims that they are "fair and balanced." Both these stations and their slogans can easily be refuted by those “on the other side”. But for the public that depends on FOX for the daily dish of news, it IS the truth. Regardless of which of those two networks you might prefer, keep in mind that when they report on international news, they are both American perspectives, with an American bias. Consider for a moment how an Egyptian paper might report the same event that occurs in Iraq.
One man's truth can easily be another man's propaganda.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Attitudinal Barriers to Intercultural Communication
I want to highlight an important aspect of attitudinal barriers to intercultural communication, which is prejudice against other culture not similar to oneself. It is vital in a way that people clam up and refuse to even try to understand people from different cultural backgrounds. This will then lead to social problems that may escalate into something Singapore cannot risk, multi-racial problems.
Personally I feel that it is unfair for them to face this kind of ridiculous treatment because in fact, we Singaporeans are much lucky than them in terms of general well- being. They flock here because of the vicious poverty cycle that entraps their entire family, and that they also need proper food and lodgings.
Locals often view India and Bangladesh workers as dirty and smelly. Well of course, who wouldn’t if they are required to work under the hot sun? They help us do dirty, difficult and dangerous jobs, which us locals are unwilling to do. Every morning, I see the familiar faces that clean my corridors and lift landing area. Sometimes they do give us a nod out of politeness, and I greet them back too. I go Mustafa to shop, Jurong Point and Little India, and even on Sundays too! And during Chinese New Year, my dad will distribute red packets to the usual few that sweep my block area. Maybe for my family, we’re indeed more open and acceptable about foreign workers because we strongly believe it’s only a few black sheep that spoils the market.
My stand on protecting foreign workers is inclusive of china working mums, and Indonesian domestic helpers. There is a rising trend of gruesome murders, and victims highlighted are china working mums who are murdered, limbs dismembered and so on. Thus I think the government must set up more regulations to protect our foreign counterparts, so that Singapore can maintain its image as a safe country. What makes Singapore safe if it does not seem the case for people like Huang Na and Liu Hong Mei, both China PRs who dominated the news highlights last year.
We as Singaporeans being more educated should keep an open mind and look for the best solutions, instead of being angry and threatening to bring up this issue in the next government elections. The government can built more public toilets for them so that they will refrain peeing in public and dirtying our estates. I believe a committee should be set up to observe and address the concerns of the residents and propose a counter solution or proper mitigation measures to allow a less hostile "settling in". I would actually recommend having all of them sited in centralised estates, say 2 or 3 major locations so that we are better able to keep track of them and these 2 or 3 locations which are located in less populated areas would allow less problems to occur too.
Personally I feel that it is unfair for them to face this kind of ridiculous treatment because in fact, we Singaporeans are much lucky than them in terms of general well- being. They flock here because of the vicious poverty cycle that entraps their entire family, and that they also need proper food and lodgings.
Locals often view India and Bangladesh workers as dirty and smelly. Well of course, who wouldn’t if they are required to work under the hot sun? They help us do dirty, difficult and dangerous jobs, which us locals are unwilling to do. Every morning, I see the familiar faces that clean my corridors and lift landing area. Sometimes they do give us a nod out of politeness, and I greet them back too. I go Mustafa to shop, Jurong Point and Little India, and even on Sundays too! And during Chinese New Year, my dad will distribute red packets to the usual few that sweep my block area. Maybe for my family, we’re indeed more open and acceptable about foreign workers because we strongly believe it’s only a few black sheep that spoils the market.
My stand on protecting foreign workers is inclusive of china working mums, and Indonesian domestic helpers. There is a rising trend of gruesome murders, and victims highlighted are china working mums who are murdered, limbs dismembered and so on. Thus I think the government must set up more regulations to protect our foreign counterparts, so that Singapore can maintain its image as a safe country. What makes Singapore safe if it does not seem the case for people like Huang Na and Liu Hong Mei, both China PRs who dominated the news highlights last year.
We as Singaporeans being more educated should keep an open mind and look for the best solutions, instead of being angry and threatening to bring up this issue in the next government elections. The government can built more public toilets for them so that they will refrain peeing in public and dirtying our estates. I believe a committee should be set up to observe and address the concerns of the residents and propose a counter solution or proper mitigation measures to allow a less hostile "settling in". I would actually recommend having all of them sited in centralised estates, say 2 or 3 major locations so that we are better able to keep track of them and these 2 or 3 locations which are located in less populated areas would allow less problems to occur too.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Groupthink
By Irving Jarvis’s definition, Groupthink is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. Groupthink is quite scary as groups that displayed groupthink symptoms were more likely to produce poor decision outcomes, and in then end failure in achieving their desired outsomes.
In my own simpler terms, it occurs when a collective group of people makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment. This group of people tend to ignore alternatives and take on irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. Due to the illusion of their invulnerability, it creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking in decisions. Often enough, miscalculations; faulty information processing, inadequate surveys of alternatives, and other potentially avoidable errors are most probable in a group experiencing this phenomenon. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.
Groupthink happens to more closely bonded groups. Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink. The closer they are, the less likely they are to raise questions that might break the cohesion. For example, back in my secondary school, I used to have a group of friends which have a certain status standing in school. This led to us engaging in activities that earned us punishments. Details I will not be revealing, but now when I reflect back, we did make some foolish decisions. In some cases, we avoided speaking of sensitive topics so as to not make the atmosphere awkward. But deep down, we know about the flaws of our clan, but maybe just to keep up appearances to outsiders, we create the illusion of infallibility.
By following these guidelines, groupthink can be avoided. After the Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco, John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis. During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various sub-groups, in order to partially break the group cohesion. JFK was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Ultimately, the Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully, thanks in part to these measures.
Current examples of groupthink can be found in the decisions of the Bush administration and Congress to pursue an invasion of Iraq based on a policy of “pre-emptive use of military force against terrorists and rogue nations”. The decision to rush to war in Iraq before a broad-based coalition of allies could be built has placed the US in an unenviable military situation in Iraq that is costly in terms of military deaths and casualties. Thus, based on the consequences diplomatically and economically, one would hesitate to believe that USA had made the correct decision in attacking the terrorist nation.
Another evidence of groupthink at its work is the American press, especially the television news media. US television news is geared more toward providing entertainment than information. When one compares the news Americans received about the “war on terrorism” and “war in Iraq” with the news citizens of other countries received, it is easy to understand why many Americans were keen to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein while most of the world discouraged the idea. The major news networks eagerly voiced almost exclusively the Bush administration’s justifications for the attack on Iraq and ignored the voices of millions who knew that other ways of addressing the issues were still possible. Furthermore, the rapid pace of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News opinion programs makes it difficult for viewers to process information in any depth. Americans need a press that serves as a devil’s advocate to alleviate the ongoing groupthink concerning the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq. Americans need an organisation to be open to alternative decisions and reviews, to act as the role of the ‘critical evaluator’, so as to avoid making global mistakes.
Well, this is my take on groupthink and how it is prevalent in the global news and media. Hope it helps you guys when revising for the upcoming paper. :)
In my own simpler terms, it occurs when a collective group of people makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment. This group of people tend to ignore alternatives and take on irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. Due to the illusion of their invulnerability, it creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking in decisions. Often enough, miscalculations; faulty information processing, inadequate surveys of alternatives, and other potentially avoidable errors are most probable in a group experiencing this phenomenon. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.
Groupthink happens to more closely bonded groups. Highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink. The closer they are, the less likely they are to raise questions that might break the cohesion. For example, back in my secondary school, I used to have a group of friends which have a certain status standing in school. This led to us engaging in activities that earned us punishments. Details I will not be revealing, but now when I reflect back, we did make some foolish decisions. In some cases, we avoided speaking of sensitive topics so as to not make the atmosphere awkward. But deep down, we know about the flaws of our clan, but maybe just to keep up appearances to outsiders, we create the illusion of infallibility.
By following these guidelines, groupthink can be avoided. After the Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco, John F. Kennedy sought to avoid groupthink during the Cuban Missile Crisis. During meetings, he invited outside experts to share their viewpoints, and allowed group members to question them carefully. He also encouraged group members to discuss possible solutions with trusted members within their separate departments, and he even divided the group up into various sub-groups, in order to partially break the group cohesion. JFK was deliberately absent from the meetings, so as to avoid pressing his own opinion. Ultimately, the Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully, thanks in part to these measures.
Current examples of groupthink can be found in the decisions of the Bush administration and Congress to pursue an invasion of Iraq based on a policy of “pre-emptive use of military force against terrorists and rogue nations”. The decision to rush to war in Iraq before a broad-based coalition of allies could be built has placed the US in an unenviable military situation in Iraq that is costly in terms of military deaths and casualties. Thus, based on the consequences diplomatically and economically, one would hesitate to believe that USA had made the correct decision in attacking the terrorist nation.
Another evidence of groupthink at its work is the American press, especially the television news media. US television news is geared more toward providing entertainment than information. When one compares the news Americans received about the “war on terrorism” and “war in Iraq” with the news citizens of other countries received, it is easy to understand why many Americans were keen to launch an attack on Saddam Hussein while most of the world discouraged the idea. The major news networks eagerly voiced almost exclusively the Bush administration’s justifications for the attack on Iraq and ignored the voices of millions who knew that other ways of addressing the issues were still possible. Furthermore, the rapid pace of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News opinion programs makes it difficult for viewers to process information in any depth. Americans need a press that serves as a devil’s advocate to alleviate the ongoing groupthink concerning the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq. Americans need an organisation to be open to alternative decisions and reviews, to act as the role of the ‘critical evaluator’, so as to avoid making global mistakes.
Well, this is my take on groupthink and how it is prevalent in the global news and media. Hope it helps you guys when revising for the upcoming paper. :)
Sunday, September 21, 2008
On 17 August, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong brought up the idea in his National Day Rally Chinese speech, hinting that maybe our countrymen should take things in their own hands, referring to the issue of many young people not being able to find lifetime partners. He gave the example that in Beijing, parents secretly go to “Parental Matchmaking Sessions” to search suitable partners for their children. They exchange photos, educational qualifications,family background and most importantly phone numbers to further contact. PM Lee added that dating and marriage is a personal issue and that the government is in no position to intervene, neither to impose rules. However, the government is able to facilitate and encourage people to give serious thought to marriage and creation of families, 'The Government can only help from the sidelines,' he said. And to my surprise, on the 8th this month, locals did take up initiative to organise a matchmaking session in Hong Lim Park. Dating agency Clique Wise was responsible for the event and it was focused primarily on parents. The response was unexpectedly overwhelming and it did prove a success, paving the way for potential couples.
This news caught my eye because I feel that romantic relationships are a fascinating display of human interaction, in which communication plays a vital role, thus the rationale for choosing this particular article for the focus on the facet of interpersonal communication. While studying interpersonal relationships during lecture and how they are classified, I was intrigued by the role of communication and how communication models come into play in reality.
Personally I have no experience of match making or being match-made, but I do know how my reaction will be like if my parents were to interfere with my private life. I understand the motive behind parents when they go to match making sessions ‘on behalf of their children’, but in this generation, acting ‘mei-po’ for their kids wouldn’t help, in fact it will shut off their son’s or daughter’s willingness to keep a lookout for potential partners. I wouldn’t settle my life partner and happiness in such a gateway, because I base my choice of partners on feelings and character, rather than looks, comparable academic qualifications or other ‘practical and rational’ reasons.
Seriously speaking, imagine looking at the other party and introducing yourself, “Oh, you’re from Hong Lim Park? Wow, what a coincidence! Me too! ”
Wth.
If people marry someone that does not meet their expectations, divorce may ensue thus creating more social problems, all the more for those with kids. Actually if we attract more single & well paid foreigners instead, then Singaporeans will not have to limit themselves to locals as marriage partners. HAHA! Those who are left on the shelf can turn to our poorer neighbours in SEA for prospective marriages.
The one reason parents engage in interpersonal communication at the matchmaking session is so that they can gain knowledge about another individual, for social needs that is. Only with engaging themselves actively then they can know who the other party’s children are like. Also, I believe if I was a parent there, I will judge people by the way they communicate too.
Parents who attended the match-make session will have expectations about others there too. Maybe some parents focus on looks, some on academic qualities, or other qualities or character, thus setting a qualitative approach to their communication. There are many factors affecting interpersonal relationships that the parents may form, although it’s just one session, it still can make a difference especially in first impressions.
Talking about first impressions, to a certain extent I believe looks of the possible candidate do matter. It’s natural for parents to choose the best possible for their kids, sieving out the old, bald and corpulent. Although we would like to believe that beauty is only skin deep and therefore a trivial criterion of liking, but its only human nature to be biased toward beauty. It actually exists everywhere in real life, at work or even during childhood.
At work, pretty female colleagues receive more assistance and cooperation in difficult or dispute situations. Physically-striking people also receive job recommendations even when their looks do not have any direct influence on their work scope or performance.
During childhood, people tend to dismiss the disruptive behaviour of comparatively physically attractive kids, and put the blame on those less handsome. Attractive children are given the benefit of doubt. Somehow I totally agree with this point, as I observed that my relatives prefer to play with my baby sister than other baby cousins, as she’s the prettiest of them all.
Another study, however, looked at long-term dating; it found that couples who were more or less well-suited in outer appearances were more deeply involved with each other than were those who differed greatly from each other in physical beauty. Thus the anxious parents will expect a minimum acceptance outlook, and no less than that. Because they already know the outcome when a less than average person was presented to their child as a potential partner. Given the situation for me, I wouldn’t give a second thought to it also.
Parents with attractive photos, whether outdated or photo-shopped, naturally receive more self disclosure from others. Mutually strangers, but it’s a general trend that we will be more willing to interact and associate with good-looking and presentable people, as a physically attractive person most probably will possess other desirable qualities like sensitivity, kindness, interesting, humorous… the list does go on, and conversely parents will definitely avoid or shun those pictures that do not look that appealing to the eye.
Other criterion that may affect interpersonal relationships is the opposite’s competency. We will like to form relationships with those who excel and are competent. Parents during their search for a marriage partner for their children will generate a higher sense of liking for one who graduated university with a Master’s Degree in ______________(fill in the blanks yourself) rather than one only with secondary education.
Alternatively, competency can have a negative impact during the match-make gathering at Hong Lim Park. At times, the higher the competency level of a person will result in lower popularity. One with superior cognitive competency will make us feel uncomfortable and awkward. Thus some parents with children who are extremely accomplished in life may seem to be unapproachable and distant and even superhuman.
Being a history student in JC, a very good example I can come up with now will be that John Kennedy's popularity actually went up after the Bay of Pigs Fiasco. It could be that Kennedy was seen as too perfect. He was young, handsome witty, the author of a best-seller, a war hero, had a beautiful wife and two cute kids. Some evidence of fallibility, like being responsible for a major national blunder, may have made him look more human in the public eye and hence, more likeable.
But in the end, we all still like to be surrounded by competent and able people, thus it will form a prerequisite for the parents, for forming interpersonal bonds.
Looking at match making from a logical POV, it comes with a process of initiation and experimenting, just like Knapp’s Model of Relational Development. The parents are actually screening and filtering out possible future son or daughter-in-laws. I can imagine them trying their best to make favourable first impressions on each other, using friendly and standard greetings. Like in stage 2 of Experimenting, they feel each other out, revealing information and reciprocating intentions. They ask questions about each other family background and then decide whether to further this relationship. It really amazes me to study interpersonal relations in theory and watching it unfold in reality, in this recent match making at Hong Lim Park.
As the process of disclosing information about each other, people discover similarities and differences that might affect the decision on whether to present the findings to their children. People of the same hobbies and interests have the tendency to form relationships as it reduces uncertainties and associated risks involved in the relationship. Back in JC, ruggers tend to match with ruggers, and the trend follows suit for dragonboaters or just with the same CCA. It actually feels better if u chat about the topic that both are familier about, and not jabbering on when the other party is disinterested or completely ignorant what you’re talking about.
Also parallel way of thinking also affects interpersonal relationships. It’s quite logical here actually. Cognitive consistency is important for a relationship to be able to foster and grow. It’s impossible when one do not encourage pre-marital sex due to religion or personal preferences, while the other egg on and supports in pre-marital sex. There will be bound to have problematic issues then. Having similar thinking and values reinforces our own, and thus the approval of each other. Both my boyfriend and I place greater value on family than on relationships, thus in the event when we have to make a choice between both, at least we both can predict each other’s thinking and actions. Thus values, preferences, and beliefs form the foundation of an interpersonal connection.
The determinant of proximity also comes into play during the pairing up of couples. The more we are in contact, the more likely it is possible to develop a relationship. Proximity reduces the costs of interaction, it is easier to talk to somebody sitting next to u than with somebody across the lecture hall. Evidently, the costs here are the time and energy to walk across the space in between, and the risk of getting scolded by your lecturer. And always being in close proximity can generate a positive attitude, being constantly exposed to the person, rather than one that is a total stranger you have not seen before. If applied to the scenario at Hong Lim Park, parents will look for candidates that have a secure job based locally rather than another with frequent overseas assignments and commitments.
Lastly, the specific factor that will determine the success or failure of their parents’ efforts is whether both individuals reciprocate the feelings of each other. Like how I expect friendship choices to be reciprocated, both parties must receive some form of affections back in return as a form of validation and assurance that both are on the right track. You’ll be wasting time on somebody if he or she does not reciprocate your feelings for them.
In all, coming back to matchmaking, I expect all lasting relationships should be based on feelings, on love, respect and affections, rather than on other shrewd and well-thought-out considerations. When attraction is so fleeting and ephemeral, looking at one’s character and personality will be a more trusting way to search for my significant one. And I really wonder how many will successfully pair off, when at the very start of the session, parents based their search on looks, competency, similarities and proximity.
This news caught my eye because I feel that romantic relationships are a fascinating display of human interaction, in which communication plays a vital role, thus the rationale for choosing this particular article for the focus on the facet of interpersonal communication. While studying interpersonal relationships during lecture and how they are classified, I was intrigued by the role of communication and how communication models come into play in reality.
Personally I have no experience of match making or being match-made, but I do know how my reaction will be like if my parents were to interfere with my private life. I understand the motive behind parents when they go to match making sessions ‘on behalf of their children’, but in this generation, acting ‘mei-po’ for their kids wouldn’t help, in fact it will shut off their son’s or daughter’s willingness to keep a lookout for potential partners. I wouldn’t settle my life partner and happiness in such a gateway, because I base my choice of partners on feelings and character, rather than looks, comparable academic qualifications or other ‘practical and rational’ reasons.
Seriously speaking, imagine looking at the other party and introducing yourself, “Oh, you’re from Hong Lim Park? Wow, what a coincidence! Me too! ”
Wth.
If people marry someone that does not meet their expectations, divorce may ensue thus creating more social problems, all the more for those with kids. Actually if we attract more single & well paid foreigners instead, then Singaporeans will not have to limit themselves to locals as marriage partners. HAHA! Those who are left on the shelf can turn to our poorer neighbours in SEA for prospective marriages.
The one reason parents engage in interpersonal communication at the matchmaking session is so that they can gain knowledge about another individual, for social needs that is. Only with engaging themselves actively then they can know who the other party’s children are like. Also, I believe if I was a parent there, I will judge people by the way they communicate too.
Parents who attended the match-make session will have expectations about others there too. Maybe some parents focus on looks, some on academic qualities, or other qualities or character, thus setting a qualitative approach to their communication. There are many factors affecting interpersonal relationships that the parents may form, although it’s just one session, it still can make a difference especially in first impressions.
Talking about first impressions, to a certain extent I believe looks of the possible candidate do matter. It’s natural for parents to choose the best possible for their kids, sieving out the old, bald and corpulent. Although we would like to believe that beauty is only skin deep and therefore a trivial criterion of liking, but its only human nature to be biased toward beauty. It actually exists everywhere in real life, at work or even during childhood.
At work, pretty female colleagues receive more assistance and cooperation in difficult or dispute situations. Physically-striking people also receive job recommendations even when their looks do not have any direct influence on their work scope or performance.
During childhood, people tend to dismiss the disruptive behaviour of comparatively physically attractive kids, and put the blame on those less handsome. Attractive children are given the benefit of doubt. Somehow I totally agree with this point, as I observed that my relatives prefer to play with my baby sister than other baby cousins, as she’s the prettiest of them all.
Another study, however, looked at long-term dating; it found that couples who were more or less well-suited in outer appearances were more deeply involved with each other than were those who differed greatly from each other in physical beauty. Thus the anxious parents will expect a minimum acceptance outlook, and no less than that. Because they already know the outcome when a less than average person was presented to their child as a potential partner. Given the situation for me, I wouldn’t give a second thought to it also.
Parents with attractive photos, whether outdated or photo-shopped, naturally receive more self disclosure from others. Mutually strangers, but it’s a general trend that we will be more willing to interact and associate with good-looking and presentable people, as a physically attractive person most probably will possess other desirable qualities like sensitivity, kindness, interesting, humorous… the list does go on, and conversely parents will definitely avoid or shun those pictures that do not look that appealing to the eye.
Other criterion that may affect interpersonal relationships is the opposite’s competency. We will like to form relationships with those who excel and are competent. Parents during their search for a marriage partner for their children will generate a higher sense of liking for one who graduated university with a Master’s Degree in ______________(fill in the blanks yourself) rather than one only with secondary education.
Alternatively, competency can have a negative impact during the match-make gathering at Hong Lim Park. At times, the higher the competency level of a person will result in lower popularity. One with superior cognitive competency will make us feel uncomfortable and awkward. Thus some parents with children who are extremely accomplished in life may seem to be unapproachable and distant and even superhuman.
Being a history student in JC, a very good example I can come up with now will be that John Kennedy's popularity actually went up after the Bay of Pigs Fiasco. It could be that Kennedy was seen as too perfect. He was young, handsome witty, the author of a best-seller, a war hero, had a beautiful wife and two cute kids. Some evidence of fallibility, like being responsible for a major national blunder, may have made him look more human in the public eye and hence, more likeable.
But in the end, we all still like to be surrounded by competent and able people, thus it will form a prerequisite for the parents, for forming interpersonal bonds.
Looking at match making from a logical POV, it comes with a process of initiation and experimenting, just like Knapp’s Model of Relational Development. The parents are actually screening and filtering out possible future son or daughter-in-laws. I can imagine them trying their best to make favourable first impressions on each other, using friendly and standard greetings. Like in stage 2 of Experimenting, they feel each other out, revealing information and reciprocating intentions. They ask questions about each other family background and then decide whether to further this relationship. It really amazes me to study interpersonal relations in theory and watching it unfold in reality, in this recent match making at Hong Lim Park.
As the process of disclosing information about each other, people discover similarities and differences that might affect the decision on whether to present the findings to their children. People of the same hobbies and interests have the tendency to form relationships as it reduces uncertainties and associated risks involved in the relationship. Back in JC, ruggers tend to match with ruggers, and the trend follows suit for dragonboaters or just with the same CCA. It actually feels better if u chat about the topic that both are familier about, and not jabbering on when the other party is disinterested or completely ignorant what you’re talking about.
Also parallel way of thinking also affects interpersonal relationships. It’s quite logical here actually. Cognitive consistency is important for a relationship to be able to foster and grow. It’s impossible when one do not encourage pre-marital sex due to religion or personal preferences, while the other egg on and supports in pre-marital sex. There will be bound to have problematic issues then. Having similar thinking and values reinforces our own, and thus the approval of each other. Both my boyfriend and I place greater value on family than on relationships, thus in the event when we have to make a choice between both, at least we both can predict each other’s thinking and actions. Thus values, preferences, and beliefs form the foundation of an interpersonal connection.
The determinant of proximity also comes into play during the pairing up of couples. The more we are in contact, the more likely it is possible to develop a relationship. Proximity reduces the costs of interaction, it is easier to talk to somebody sitting next to u than with somebody across the lecture hall. Evidently, the costs here are the time and energy to walk across the space in between, and the risk of getting scolded by your lecturer. And always being in close proximity can generate a positive attitude, being constantly exposed to the person, rather than one that is a total stranger you have not seen before. If applied to the scenario at Hong Lim Park, parents will look for candidates that have a secure job based locally rather than another with frequent overseas assignments and commitments.
Lastly, the specific factor that will determine the success or failure of their parents’ efforts is whether both individuals reciprocate the feelings of each other. Like how I expect friendship choices to be reciprocated, both parties must receive some form of affections back in return as a form of validation and assurance that both are on the right track. You’ll be wasting time on somebody if he or she does not reciprocate your feelings for them.
In all, coming back to matchmaking, I expect all lasting relationships should be based on feelings, on love, respect and affections, rather than on other shrewd and well-thought-out considerations. When attraction is so fleeting and ephemeral, looking at one’s character and personality will be a more trusting way to search for my significant one. And I really wonder how many will successfully pair off, when at the very start of the session, parents based their search on looks, competency, similarities and proximity.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Non verbal communication
Having gone through the lecture on verbal and non-verbal communications, I’m more interested in the latter, because as said, it’s undervalued and seldom people place great importance or notices the great extent of which we are affected and influenced by it everyday. Non-verbal communication includes facial expressions, eye contact, tone of voice, body posture and motions, and positioning within groups.
And again, culture and environment affects the way non verbal communications are interpreted. Because of the fact that it is receiver-orientated and he or she tends to base the intentions of the sender on the non- verbal cues he receives, we must be more aware of the signals that we are sending out. Facial expressions and gestures are the most basic types of non verbal communications. I believe all bodily movements have meaning to it, conveying meanings and the interpretations may be culture bound. There is a long-standing stereotyping of hot-tempered and ‘cold’ cultures. An Italian will naturally make use of extensive displays of anger and frustration, maybe waving his hands about and flaring nostrils. But let’s say when compared to his Japanese counterpart, the anger will be seen as less significant. It does not mean that he is less angry, or having a lack of emotions. The lack of display may be due to his upbringing and the culture he is brought up in. So lack of display doesn’t necessarily mean lack of emotions. I mean some people when in extreme anger can remain in silence and not speak for hours too.
In gestures, one good example is the folding of arms across your chest. For me, it seems as though a person is putting up an unconscious barrier between himself and me. But however, if the situation is relaxed and friendly, then maybe I’ll not think so. Fiddling when somebody is talking to you is also not very encouraging for the conversation to continue on. Even when he or she is looking at me, maybe the attention is drifting off or thinking about what to have for lunch. I guess when the conversation is getting boring, people do tend to drift off to their own wonderland. I can recognize boredom in people actually, because I realized their eyes tend to lose focus and look like their in a daze, when they’re still nodding and hmm-ing. It’s kind of irritating at times.
Ok, maybe when girls fiddle with their hair, they’re actually sending out different signals. Women do tend to send out sexual cues to show their interests in the other gender. Commonly it’s the knee pointing, leg-crossing and frequent glances across the room. Some extreme moves are showing childlike playfulness and proximity with they guy that she’s interested in.
Proxemics is the study if space and distance in communication. The distance one stands from another does convey a non-verbal message. In some cultures it is a sign of attraction, while in others it may reflect status or the intensity of the exchange. From what I know, Latin cultures tend to have smaller relative distances compared to other cultures. They are more comfortable being close to each other, while other cultures may feel invaded and intrusive. So understanding different cultures and their habits will eliminate discomfort and form better relationships when we don not meet with misunderstandings with each other.
And do u guys realise that the way we stand and orientate ourselves also shows something? We often stand along, side by side with friends, while being across, face-to face with competitors, like in a stand-off. Well, we don’t see anybody standing with their enemies right? Its really common kind of behaviour when speaking of it, but most of the time we just do not know how prevalent our body language is used everyday.
And I wanna touch a little on para-linguistics, which is another form of non-verbal communication that we as young adults often use, not knowing that it’s actually something we learnt in lecture. When we email, msn, text each other, the emoticons, fonts and color choices, capitalization and other abstract characters are also linguistic elements of non-verbal communication. Now I hope everyone is aware of the extent of how we engage in non verbal communications in our daily lives.
What we do is a means of communication, subject to interpretation by others. Did you ever stop to think that even failure to act is a way of communicating? So after understanding more and recognising the many methods of non verbal communication they are, I believe I’ll be less inclined to offend anyone with my bodily language, gestures or being so close invading into their personal space.
And again, culture and environment affects the way non verbal communications are interpreted. Because of the fact that it is receiver-orientated and he or she tends to base the intentions of the sender on the non- verbal cues he receives, we must be more aware of the signals that we are sending out. Facial expressions and gestures are the most basic types of non verbal communications. I believe all bodily movements have meaning to it, conveying meanings and the interpretations may be culture bound. There is a long-standing stereotyping of hot-tempered and ‘cold’ cultures. An Italian will naturally make use of extensive displays of anger and frustration, maybe waving his hands about and flaring nostrils. But let’s say when compared to his Japanese counterpart, the anger will be seen as less significant. It does not mean that he is less angry, or having a lack of emotions. The lack of display may be due to his upbringing and the culture he is brought up in. So lack of display doesn’t necessarily mean lack of emotions. I mean some people when in extreme anger can remain in silence and not speak for hours too.
In gestures, one good example is the folding of arms across your chest. For me, it seems as though a person is putting up an unconscious barrier between himself and me. But however, if the situation is relaxed and friendly, then maybe I’ll not think so. Fiddling when somebody is talking to you is also not very encouraging for the conversation to continue on. Even when he or she is looking at me, maybe the attention is drifting off or thinking about what to have for lunch. I guess when the conversation is getting boring, people do tend to drift off to their own wonderland. I can recognize boredom in people actually, because I realized their eyes tend to lose focus and look like their in a daze, when they’re still nodding and hmm-ing. It’s kind of irritating at times.
Ok, maybe when girls fiddle with their hair, they’re actually sending out different signals. Women do tend to send out sexual cues to show their interests in the other gender. Commonly it’s the knee pointing, leg-crossing and frequent glances across the room. Some extreme moves are showing childlike playfulness and proximity with they guy that she’s interested in.
Proxemics is the study if space and distance in communication. The distance one stands from another does convey a non-verbal message. In some cultures it is a sign of attraction, while in others it may reflect status or the intensity of the exchange. From what I know, Latin cultures tend to have smaller relative distances compared to other cultures. They are more comfortable being close to each other, while other cultures may feel invaded and intrusive. So understanding different cultures and their habits will eliminate discomfort and form better relationships when we don not meet with misunderstandings with each other.
And do u guys realise that the way we stand and orientate ourselves also shows something? We often stand along, side by side with friends, while being across, face-to face with competitors, like in a stand-off. Well, we don’t see anybody standing with their enemies right? Its really common kind of behaviour when speaking of it, but most of the time we just do not know how prevalent our body language is used everyday.
And I wanna touch a little on para-linguistics, which is another form of non-verbal communication that we as young adults often use, not knowing that it’s actually something we learnt in lecture. When we email, msn, text each other, the emoticons, fonts and color choices, capitalization and other abstract characters are also linguistic elements of non-verbal communication. Now I hope everyone is aware of the extent of how we engage in non verbal communications in our daily lives.
What we do is a means of communication, subject to interpretation by others. Did you ever stop to think that even failure to act is a way of communicating? So after understanding more and recognising the many methods of non verbal communication they are, I believe I’ll be less inclined to offend anyone with my bodily language, gestures or being so close invading into their personal space.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Blog Entry 1-Legalising Organ Trade in Singapore
Two days ago, on Thursday, 4th Sep 2008, ailing retail tycoon Tang Wee Sung, age 56, whose purchase of a kidney through Wang Chin Sing as the middleman for $300,000 was exposed, was fined a total of $17,000 and jailed a day. The district judge sentenced Wang, 44 years old, to a 14-months jail term in the illegal kidney-for-sale case. Although the Indonesian kidney sellers were not forced into the trade, the judge said they were poor and Mr Tang was a 'clearly vulnerable' victim 'who was in desperate need of a transplant to save his life'. From The Straits Times, Sep 6, Saturday, “Judge Ng added: 'The intricate web of cross-border transactions and elaborate arrangements carried out smack of it being a syndicated operation.'” He also noted Wang had not told Mr Toni and Mr Sulaiman, the 2 donors involved, about the health risks they faced and now Mr Toni were suffering the after effects of post-donation.
After reading this article in the news, I was appalled by Wang’s greed and manipulation of the weak and economically-deprived. With desperation built in on both sides of the equation - deathly ill 'buyers' and desperately needy 'sellers', he exploited the situation to his advantage. Just a little statistics first, Singapore is ranked fifth in the world in terms of incidence of kidney failure. According to a news report, at least 3,500 people in Singapore have kidney failure; 600 are on the transplant list. But they have to wait almost a decade for a cadaveric donation, meaning that the donors give up their organs after they are deceased. Cases such as Wang are not isolated in Singapore as there are also medical middleman pocketing thousands just by referring patients to doctors, or by bridging the gap between patients and donors. Almost everything that is bad can be traced back to money. Currently, the only country in the world that allows organ trade is Iran, where they call it ‘organ-sharing’.
The news has raised issues about legalising organ trade in Singapore, creating a fierce debate about whether Singapore should have a system that manages the buying and selling of organs. The local public has urged the government to officially permit organ trade, providing their respective arguments to support their stands. In relation to Communication concepts that I learnt in week 2, many varying perceptions surround the issue of organ trade. I was intrigued by the sensitivity and ethical elements that are involved, and how different variables like selection and perceptual errors, social network, psychological state and the environment influences groups of people in interpreting the pros and cons of organ trade.
Like for the free-thinkers who are for organ trade, they fail to see the consequences it will have on the social and economic values on our country. They do not realise that even with a system regulating an organ market in Singapore, there is no assurance that the black market will be totally wiped out. It is just like how loan sharks can still thrive even with many banks and authorised money-lending schemes around, or how underground bets still thrives alongside The Singapore Pools. Thus the perspective taken are skewed and laden with perspective errors due to oversimplification and ignorance.
Naturally for those on the waiting list, they would definitely campaign for legalisation of organ trade. In a desperate and life-threatening state, their psychological state, priorities and motives placed them in favour of organ trade too. In the shoes of the middlemen, their agenda is to take advantage of the situations of both donor and patient hence has no moral concerns or qualms about this thriving medical business.
And considering the economic situation of the hopelessly poor, I believe those people's decision is also 'weakened' by their economic predicament. If they had another way out, they wouldn't go to extreme means and risking their health for the rest of their lives. Thus this is where the environment such as physical setting and external factors easily come into play to influence and make biased one’s POV in the issue of legalizing organ dealings.
My point of view that legalising trading of organs should be implemented and the process by which I come to make sense of this issue are largely based on my social network. By social network, I refer to self-beliefs, religion preferences and habits of family and friends.
In Buddhism, the decision for or against organ donation or trading very much depends on the individual’s decision. There is no right or wrong choice, but however there are also rituals and rules guarding against the need to ‘disturb’ a dead body. In my religion, more emphasise is placed of entity conscience and of letting family members know about my wishes in relation to organ donation or trade after death. I honour those bonded to holy conventions, which overlook their ethics and offer their bodies to the advancement of medical science and technology and to prolonging another being’s life.
It is important to not omit the multi-racial strand in Singapore that comes into the foreground in every ethical issue raised. According to the Muslim Religious Council, as long as “it is done with respect for the deceased and for the benefit of the recipient" Muslims have no restrictions on organ transplants. Similarly to Bhuddism, Hindus are not prohibited by any religious commandments from donating their organs according to the Hindu Temple Society of North America. This act is an individual ruling and decision about what to do with their organs after they die. Under “Church of Christ,” the listing states very simply: “Organ transplants should not be a religious problem.”
The Catholics view organ donation as an act of charity, fraternal love and self sacrifice. Transplants are ethically and morally acceptable to the Vatican. Pope John Paul II in a recent statement said, "Those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His life for the salvation of all, should recognize the urgent need for a ready availability of organs for transplants a challenge to their generosity and fraternal love. Since the basic race groups locally share similar perceptions, then I believe we have come to a successful communication and reading, at least in relation to religious views.
I support organ trade because I recognise the advantages it can bring to both parties involved. This can be the only way out for people that are trapped in the vicious economic cycle, or in critical life-threatening situations. Why should anyone die on the waiting list because his family and friends are not equipped with a compatible kidney? And if our government cannot alleviate extreme poverty in some families, it should not create more obstacles for the people to fish for methods to survive. I lost my grandfather to diabetes and kidney failure 10 years back, so I personally identify with the desire for family members to purchase an organ to save their loved ones. My grandfather fought with the disease for a few years, having to take insulin shots twice daily. Given the chance to relieve the pain and prolong his life, everybody in my family clan will unquestionably take it up. Singapore has the best medical technologies available to extend life. Eighty percent of patients successfully receive correctly matched kidney and heart transplants in Singapore, thus I see no reason why the government if capable of implementing a fully regulated system, is holding back its resources and not helping its people.
If the government has some form of control over organ trading, it would prevent the middleman from exploiting the would-be donor. I’m not implying things are simple but the Singapore authorities are good at tying up loose ends. Singapore can front the lead and set a good precedent for the global world by legalizing organ trade.
Last of all, how I perceive organ trade can be attributed to my environment that commercialisation is all around. Like how commercialism has tainted the ideals of sportsmanship, of winning for its own sake and fair play, legalizing organ trade is actually another extension of widespread commercialisation over all spheres of our lives. In the organ trade, it is a business driven by the simple market theory of demand and supply. It’s the nature of these markets to reduce everything including human beings and even their reproductive capacity, to commodities. Women unable to conceive themselves, look for surrogate mums who rent out their wombs for money. And with the globalisation of the economy, the circulation of body parts will transcend national boundaries. And the movement of flow, from the way I see it, will inevitably will be seen from South to North, from poor to rich, from black and brown to white, and from female to male bodies, just like the movement of global wealth and resources. It is a phenomenon not surprising due to the globalisation, commercialisation and mass media perpetuating information.
Up-to-date, the Human Organ Transplant Act “bans the supply of any organ or blood for valuable consideration” in Singapore. However, government ministers recently hinted that a certain procedure allowing organ trade will be put into practice in the upcoming years. There will be no serious ethical clashes among racial groups as the spectrum of positions taken by the various religious organizations listed above strongly support and view organ donation as “an act of charity, fraternal love, and self sacrifice.” Together with The Republic’s capability, competency, leadership, low bribery rates and infrastructure to facilitate such transactions, I personally believe that there is no good reason to prevent organ trading, provided the transaction is carried out within a well-defined framework.
After reading this article in the news, I was appalled by Wang’s greed and manipulation of the weak and economically-deprived. With desperation built in on both sides of the equation - deathly ill 'buyers' and desperately needy 'sellers', he exploited the situation to his advantage. Just a little statistics first, Singapore is ranked fifth in the world in terms of incidence of kidney failure. According to a news report, at least 3,500 people in Singapore have kidney failure; 600 are on the transplant list. But they have to wait almost a decade for a cadaveric donation, meaning that the donors give up their organs after they are deceased. Cases such as Wang are not isolated in Singapore as there are also medical middleman pocketing thousands just by referring patients to doctors, or by bridging the gap between patients and donors. Almost everything that is bad can be traced back to money. Currently, the only country in the world that allows organ trade is Iran, where they call it ‘organ-sharing’.
The news has raised issues about legalising organ trade in Singapore, creating a fierce debate about whether Singapore should have a system that manages the buying and selling of organs. The local public has urged the government to officially permit organ trade, providing their respective arguments to support their stands. In relation to Communication concepts that I learnt in week 2, many varying perceptions surround the issue of organ trade. I was intrigued by the sensitivity and ethical elements that are involved, and how different variables like selection and perceptual errors, social network, psychological state and the environment influences groups of people in interpreting the pros and cons of organ trade.
Like for the free-thinkers who are for organ trade, they fail to see the consequences it will have on the social and economic values on our country. They do not realise that even with a system regulating an organ market in Singapore, there is no assurance that the black market will be totally wiped out. It is just like how loan sharks can still thrive even with many banks and authorised money-lending schemes around, or how underground bets still thrives alongside The Singapore Pools. Thus the perspective taken are skewed and laden with perspective errors due to oversimplification and ignorance.
Naturally for those on the waiting list, they would definitely campaign for legalisation of organ trade. In a desperate and life-threatening state, their psychological state, priorities and motives placed them in favour of organ trade too. In the shoes of the middlemen, their agenda is to take advantage of the situations of both donor and patient hence has no moral concerns or qualms about this thriving medical business.
And considering the economic situation of the hopelessly poor, I believe those people's decision is also 'weakened' by their economic predicament. If they had another way out, they wouldn't go to extreme means and risking their health for the rest of their lives. Thus this is where the environment such as physical setting and external factors easily come into play to influence and make biased one’s POV in the issue of legalizing organ dealings.
My point of view that legalising trading of organs should be implemented and the process by which I come to make sense of this issue are largely based on my social network. By social network, I refer to self-beliefs, religion preferences and habits of family and friends.
In Buddhism, the decision for or against organ donation or trading very much depends on the individual’s decision. There is no right or wrong choice, but however there are also rituals and rules guarding against the need to ‘disturb’ a dead body. In my religion, more emphasise is placed of entity conscience and of letting family members know about my wishes in relation to organ donation or trade after death. I honour those bonded to holy conventions, which overlook their ethics and offer their bodies to the advancement of medical science and technology and to prolonging another being’s life.
It is important to not omit the multi-racial strand in Singapore that comes into the foreground in every ethical issue raised. According to the Muslim Religious Council, as long as “it is done with respect for the deceased and for the benefit of the recipient" Muslims have no restrictions on organ transplants. Similarly to Bhuddism, Hindus are not prohibited by any religious commandments from donating their organs according to the Hindu Temple Society of North America. This act is an individual ruling and decision about what to do with their organs after they die. Under “Church of Christ,” the listing states very simply: “Organ transplants should not be a religious problem.”
The Catholics view organ donation as an act of charity, fraternal love and self sacrifice. Transplants are ethically and morally acceptable to the Vatican. Pope John Paul II in a recent statement said, "Those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His life for the salvation of all, should recognize the urgent need for a ready availability of organs for transplants a challenge to their generosity and fraternal love. Since the basic race groups locally share similar perceptions, then I believe we have come to a successful communication and reading, at least in relation to religious views.
I support organ trade because I recognise the advantages it can bring to both parties involved. This can be the only way out for people that are trapped in the vicious economic cycle, or in critical life-threatening situations. Why should anyone die on the waiting list because his family and friends are not equipped with a compatible kidney? And if our government cannot alleviate extreme poverty in some families, it should not create more obstacles for the people to fish for methods to survive. I lost my grandfather to diabetes and kidney failure 10 years back, so I personally identify with the desire for family members to purchase an organ to save their loved ones. My grandfather fought with the disease for a few years, having to take insulin shots twice daily. Given the chance to relieve the pain and prolong his life, everybody in my family clan will unquestionably take it up. Singapore has the best medical technologies available to extend life. Eighty percent of patients successfully receive correctly matched kidney and heart transplants in Singapore, thus I see no reason why the government if capable of implementing a fully regulated system, is holding back its resources and not helping its people.
If the government has some form of control over organ trading, it would prevent the middleman from exploiting the would-be donor. I’m not implying things are simple but the Singapore authorities are good at tying up loose ends. Singapore can front the lead and set a good precedent for the global world by legalizing organ trade.
Last of all, how I perceive organ trade can be attributed to my environment that commercialisation is all around. Like how commercialism has tainted the ideals of sportsmanship, of winning for its own sake and fair play, legalizing organ trade is actually another extension of widespread commercialisation over all spheres of our lives. In the organ trade, it is a business driven by the simple market theory of demand and supply. It’s the nature of these markets to reduce everything including human beings and even their reproductive capacity, to commodities. Women unable to conceive themselves, look for surrogate mums who rent out their wombs for money. And with the globalisation of the economy, the circulation of body parts will transcend national boundaries. And the movement of flow, from the way I see it, will inevitably will be seen from South to North, from poor to rich, from black and brown to white, and from female to male bodies, just like the movement of global wealth and resources. It is a phenomenon not surprising due to the globalisation, commercialisation and mass media perpetuating information.
Up-to-date, the Human Organ Transplant Act “bans the supply of any organ or blood for valuable consideration” in Singapore. However, government ministers recently hinted that a certain procedure allowing organ trade will be put into practice in the upcoming years. There will be no serious ethical clashes among racial groups as the spectrum of positions taken by the various religious organizations listed above strongly support and view organ donation as “an act of charity, fraternal love, and self sacrifice.” Together with The Republic’s capability, competency, leadership, low bribery rates and infrastructure to facilitate such transactions, I personally believe that there is no good reason to prevent organ trading, provided the transaction is carried out within a well-defined framework.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)