It was only after the Industrial Revolution, when industries mass polluted the air, land, and sea, did they see the consequences of their actions. Acid rain, polluted lakes and poisoned aquatic life affected the ecology system, but are ultimately problems because it also affects the human lifestyle in the negative way. Also, with the rapid population growth, food supply is depleting fast. Food is the basic factor for human survival. In the past, no one saw it as a problem because there was abundance of food. It is only now, when globalisation and modernity takes place, consumption increases greatly. We then see that the shortage of resources is a danger to the continual survival of the human race.

The question is, who are we to blame? Are we to blame China, the second largest greenhouse gas emitter, for polluting the air we breathe? Should we blame Indonesia, for burning down their forests and causing haze to their regional countries? They are the developing countries, and they need to use energy sources to run their economy, which is mostly manufacturing industries and needs oil and energy to function. On the other hand, the Americans are the largest greenhouse gas emitters, despite being a developed country. In fact, they are so dependent on energy consumption that they do not support the Kyoto Protocol, in fear of affecting their economy.

We can then see that environmental resources and their consequences are an important part of globalisation – they are a necessity and there is a high demand for them. The problem is, resources like oil are limited and it will not be long before they are drained dry from the Earth. So the developed countries say that we should cut down on our usage of oil and find more efficient ways to produce energy. The developing countries argue and say that since the developed countries too had once gone through the same process of development – burning coal and using oil to feed their manufacturing industries. They also do not have the capital to buy these advanced technologies to create ‘efficient energy’. Why should the developed countries restrict their economic development at their whims? In fact, it might be because of the high income in the West that they are over-consuming environmental resources since the demand is high. Should they not also restrict their own consumption?

The debate goes on. Honestly, no one, or rather, everyone is to be blamed. All of us is in this environmental problem together. If something occurs at one area, it does not only create problems for that country, the problem will also spread and affect the other countries around it. Look at what the forest fires in Indonesia did to us regional countries. Haze brought along the problem of hazardous air and infected lungs. We must always remember that all of us share the same air and ocean. Environmental issues are global issues. And by addressing this global issue, we create a global identity as an individual, promoting the idea that we have to face these environmental problems together (Steven Yearly 1996). A small action can have big consequences. Everyone has a role to play in keeping our Earth a sustainable place for the human race to survive in.

Technology is a powerful social tool that has made vast advancements in our society today. It has also led to rapid social change. Modernity has taken us to the next level of humanity, where science is the basis for all reasoning. Compare this to the 1800s, when religion was the dominating factor that people used as a reasoning tool. In fact, it is what people use to divide the ‘traditional’ to the ‘modern’.

One of the technologies that was invented was the media. And with media, information was transferred with amazing speed. First, there was the radio, which transmitted news and entertainment. Then, there was the television, which gave further enhancement to the meaning of entertainment by moving pictures. Now, we have the internet, which allows us to virtually connect to the world, through email, games and the abundance of information. Is this good or bad? For the traditional, it is bad, because your beliefs are being threatened. Science explains what could not be explained before, and many believed it was God who controlled it. For the modernist, namely the capitalist, it is good, because they will be able to handle production more efficiently and effectively.

Has technology actually solved our social problems? I would say that it might have not fully solved social problems but led to a progress and social development can be seen throughout the world. With globalisation, poverty is slowly being eradicated, and educational levels are increasing. Standards of living are increasing and people are beginning to prosper. But with globalisation, social stratification is getting wider. Those who could not keep up with the fast pace of globalisation is getting poorer. When technology becomes the basis for globalisation, people become stratified by their ‘worth’, if they are able to use advanced machines or not. The poor, having less education and unable to use IT with their more ‘traditional’ mindset, will fall into the lower class, doing more of the manual jobs that are more hands on and earns little income. On the other hand, most of the middle-class and the rich, who are able to afford some standard of proper education, will learn scientific ‘modern’ knowledge and the ability to use IT. They will have the advantage to earn a more decent income. However, why the rich are able to dominate the higher-ranking classes is probably because they are able to afford prestigious schools and universities, which the normal working-class citizen are most likely not able to. By having a prestigious school in your resume, you have a higher status in your education level as well, which firms would readily employ with good pay.

Technology is important because it is intricately associated with globalisation. With globalisation arise the need for economic growth, and the skill to be economically active. In the globalised world, to be skilled will somehow be linked to you proficiency with IT. But if the theory of the poverty cycle persists in society, instead of bringing people out of poverty, it will only make the poor worse off. They might earn more then what they earned before, but with the rising living standards, their salary is still not enough to sustain them in the modern economy. We must remember that when we see statistics, it is the average income per person. If the rich and middle-class become richer but the poor remains stagnant in their income, the overall average still rises, and it does not show the real poverty situation. Like what Marx says, it is to serve the capitalists and the elites self-interests. If there was no outlet, like social institutions, the poor ultimately suffer a worse fate than what they face today, in the modern capitalist economy.

We cannot deny the fact that information technology is important to us. Our lives revolve around information, and our actions are socially controlled by information. That is probably why people who are surrounded with information technology have different values and insights from the people who do not have information readily around them. Information influences our actions. And at the pace of technology now, social change is far more rapid than it was before.

One of the examples of their work was when there Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003. When the doctor in Vietnam saw that his patient that a disease he had never seen before, he immediately contacted the WHO. It is the WHO’s job to then let the world know about the dangerous disease, try to destroy or contain it, and to eventually find a cure for it. It sounds glamorous, the job that they do. It is for the better good for all nations, and it should benefit everyone. However, with the increasing inequality and stratification, the things that WHO do to contain or destroy these diseases will create social problems and effects that are not shown to public.

I do not only wish to refer to only the WHO as the institution, but all health institutions around the world. Even in Singapore, we have the Ministry of Health (MOH), which is ‘part’ of the WHO (but they are not a major role player in it. Notice that only majority of the whites are the ones running the WHO), and controls the health system and security in Singapore. In almost every part of the world, sick people are sent to the hospital. While most of them do recover, some people die, and there is a stigma that is carried along with the term ‘hospital’. Something ‘bad’ has happened to you.

People with communicable diseases are isolated so as to ensure the safety of other people and the population. With this isolation, comes stratification. Just like acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), we are taught that we should try to keep away from these people as they are ‘dangerous’ and transmitting the disease to you. It could be said that it is the WHO which is the one who tells the world about the disease, but the social stigma is created by society. Because people value their lives, we are often taught not to mix around with people who are sick because we would endanger our own.

It is the institutions which influence our thinking and our way of life. They are the ones which tell us what we should do and how we should act. We all think of it as rational movements which will improve our lives. Yet we fail to see that many other individuals’ freedom to live have been sacrificed in order to create a socially acceptable healthy environment to the WHO’s ‘norms and standards’. We should not be isolating them, but rather the institutions should create some awareness of the state of these people, and how to give these people some hope to live in the future. Or do they think that because of our already present stratification, creating awareness would cause more discrimination amongst them? There might be many reasons to this argument, but certainly, I foresee that by keeping the public in the dark, it will create more social problems in the future. When the problem is not addressed, it will get worse as time goes on. Our stigmatisation will just grow deeper unless we are given awareness that these people exist, and that these people does have a right to live as well as any other normal individual. It is the United Nations who created the Human Rights Declaration, yet they believe in total isolation of the diseased. Rather ironic, don’t you think?

A country’s modernity will be judged by the rate of its globalisation and urbanisation. I feel that both will occur simultaneously. For it is when globalisation occurs, urbanisation becomes part of the process as well. And the state or place that has the most rapid globalisation and urbanisation will be deemed as the capital of the country.

Urbanisation has changed many lives, for the good and the bad. It also has different impact on different kinds of people. But ultimately, some things remain certain. Urbanisation has changed the way we interact with people. Like what German social analyst Ferdinand Toennies (1988 [1887]) wrote, there is a shift in social relations from Gemeinschaft, the face-to-face world of community, to Gesellschaft, the more impersonal and institution-mediated world of society (Global Problems, Scott Sernau, 240).

Not only that, but due to the rapid globalisation, many of us have become materialistic since we are more well-to-do than before, being able to afford more luxuries. To support this materialism, work has been one of the important components of our lives. When the men goes to work, whether from rural to city or commuting by train everyday, the time spent with his family is much less than before. Women now are an important figure in the workplace as well. As a result, there is rarely anyone in the house. Children are welcomed back to an empty house and minimum time is spent with parents.

Of course, I am generalising the situation. Some parents do make an effort to spend time with their children. But this has created a sort of individualism amongst individuals. Parents know that spending time with their children is important, but work is also equally as important for it means financial survival. Children realise that their parents have to work, and they have to learn to be more independent. This independence is the limitation in social upbringing, where the family institution plays a less role in moulding the child’s behaviour, but rather his friends or people he spends more time with.

Also, there is the advancement in technology, which further deepens the theory of Gesellschaft. People are more involved in computers and technologies like the handphone, which makes things convenient and efficient. However, it breaks down the social contact between individuals, and people now are more active online then in reality. Emails and instant messages are now the way of communication.

We can take example of the urbanisation that took place in Singapore in the 1960s. Because of new policies that were aimed to increase economic growth, the government tried to break up the communistic families into nuclear families by moving them into HBD flats. While we have been living in our urbanised country and have gotten used to it, we must also realise the individuality that has taken place. While we might know our neighbours, we are not as concerned as for their welfare compared to when the older generation was staying in the kampong. Back then, the kampong community were a close-nit community were they looked after their own welfare. Now, with our over dependence on the government, we are only concerned for our welfare. It is especially ironic since more people are squeezed into a small piece of land, but we have grown to be more individualistic than more communistic.

With urbanisation taking place so rapidly, one might lament on going back to the days where there was less pollution, more greenery and less stress in work. However, we would also have to give up the luxuries of the modern world. Are we really willing to give up the convenience that we have gotten used to?

As individuals, we are influenced by social factors around us. What influences us then creates our character and also our identity. Not only having an identity as a person, but also to let others see who we are and to a certain extent, of what is our worth to the society.

I would say that creating an identity is a deliberate process and is unconsciously moulded into us. From young, every minute detail is important – our social status, our parents, our family, our friends, our religion, our society, our government… there are so many countless more and they all played a part in creating our identity. Your name alone is a form of identity!

One of the most influential components of what moulded our identity would be our family and friends. With family comes religion and social status. With religion comes morals, values, beliefs and ritual practices. With social status comes power, wealth, and respectability. All these would sub-consciously tell or expect you to behave in a certain manner. And these would create you as an individual and your identity. From these expectations, we will then create our ‘norms’ for these groups of certain individuals. The rich will be more refined and more respected in the society because to be able to be rich, you had to be hardworking and smart to earn the money. However, overtime, the hardworking-and-smart component lies at the back of our mind. Instead, we will just feel and focus on the social power that the rich people have. Compare it to the poor, who are deemed lazy, useless and a social problem. They will become the misfits, and it is an irony that they might be working harder than a rich man but earn much less.

Religion, for most people, is introduced to a person at birth. Muslims, for example, are born into the religion. You can convert into a Muslim, but you cannot convert from a Muslim into another. For Christianity, you are baptised at birth but you can choose to follow God or not when you finish Sunday School. However, we rarely see these people converting to another religion. For one, it might because it runs in the family. Beliefs and values of religions differ, and at times, they contradict. Seldom (or never) do we see Christians marrying Muslims, or vice versa, at their own free will. I say this because in the past we do see the Malay Muslims marrying Chinese Christians, which in turn created the Babas, who mostly are Christians but follow much of their Muslim culture like cooking. But in modern Muslim context, when a non-Muslim marries a Muslim, he or she must first convert into a Muslim as well. Marriage is a union where, if you want it to work, both parties must have the same ideals and beliefs. Where religion playing a major role in shaping an individuals identity, behaviour and beliefs, we would want to marry someone who shares the same ideals as us. If we have children, we would also expect our child to follow our ideals and beliefs.

Our government would also have played a role in influencing one’s identity. Firstly, they mandated the law, which would be the guidelines to the countrymen of what was right and wrong in the society. One of the most important things the government tries to do to its people is to make the citizens feel that their country is their ‘home’ country, where they must always be loyal to. Singapore is one of them, and so we have our National Day, our Shared Values, our National Anthem, and our National Pledge. All these will in some ways remind us that we are Singaporeans, whether or not we like our government. Even if we migrate to another country or such, if we are asked who we are, our first answer will be “Singaporean”. It is a label, and it is our identity. By saying a word “Singaporean” alone, it holds the meaning of our culture, our society, and of our Singaporean beliefs like racial harmony. Of course, we must take note that religion also probably played a part in creating the legislation of the laws as well. People convicted of honour-killings in Egypt have a smaller prison sentence compared to if it was carried our in Singapore, where our laws order him to be either sentenced to life imprisonment or death penalty. It is because Egypt is a Muslim country, and generally, family honour is deemed important in their society.

As we grow, we absorb all these factors and they become our markers to what is right or wrong. This will then mould our character, our behaviour, and in which will create our identity. We have different identities in a sense that we have to play different roles – a sister, a daughter, a friend – but these identities are because of our social interaction with other people. Without social interaction, our identities cannot be formed. And with an identity, almost everything will be explained to the other person about who we are – what kind of beliefs we have, what kind of culture we have… and to the other person, it will create some sort of expectation of behaviour of us. Identity is complicated, but it is necessary, for it is what makes us social beings.

Can Singapore allow more freedom of expression?

I start off from the first principles. What was it that I had to do to get this improbable country to become a country and eventually a nation? We were a disparate people, rioting against each other just a year before independence because Malay extremist forces stirred up problems.

So let’s work from the first principles. I have to have a stable, peaceful society. How do I achieve that? I had strict laws against inciting racial or religious problems. At the same time, I made quite sure that everybody’s treated equally. Your religion’s respected.

We also got everybody mixed up in the (housing estates), no longer in enclaves. Every constituency has its quota of the less successful. Everybody has the sae chances in education and we chose a neutral language – English.

Malaysia threw out English and went with Malay. The Chinese and the Indians decided to have their own schools. Now they have got a divided society.

So these are basics which you have got to get right: level playing field, meritocracy, regardless of race, language or religion. That’s part of our national pledge.

Now we’ve arrived, why not we run a liberal democracy? Why should we? I get a clear mandate. The slowest score we ever had was 60 per cent of the electorate. Why?

Oh, because the press is controlled. The press is controlled? Everything’s reported but no crusading on anything is allowed. The Internet is there. You can do what you like. But we try to prevent ourselves from being sidetracked.

Now we’ve got a coherent Singapore. Do we want an incoherent Singapore and have the whole thing come to bits? Think about it very carefully. Next five years, do you want your homes to be worth more or less? A taxi driver, the smallest hawker, has a home worth $150,000. He’s a stakeholder. You vote the wrong government, property prices drop, you are in trouble. You produce the right government, more infrastructure, roads, underground trains, more connectivity, better environment, clean water, drains become little rivulets, you improve your asset. Why should we change that? Because the Western media and political scientist say that’s wrong. Is it?

I have any number of testimonials, unsolicited, from visitors saying “I love your place. I’m going to settle here”. Look at the people who are coming in to settle. We have in the last few years 30,000 Indian professionals who have taken up residence. We welcome them. We have (thousands of) Chinese and Indian companies. Why have they come? It is because we offer them a platform from which they can market their wares throughout South-east Asia and on to China and India. Do we want to risk that?

We can see that LKY’s ego is certainly quite big. Although some of his policies did work and made Singapore a much better living place than compared to the post-war/post-separation period, he has become a little too over confident of himself. Granted, his policies still work today, and it certainly has worked very well. The culture that he intentionally built in Singapore over the years has been educated and ingrained into us. We have become the government pets who ’obeys’ to their every call.

He’s so confident (or afraid, some might say) that he does not even think that Singapore should move to liberal democracy, because what is going on now is working fine. He trys to instill the fear in us, ‘you choose the wrong goverment you are in trouble’. Basically I think that he is trying to say that the PAP has the experience, has the guts, and has the ability to lead Singapore. They know our need and wants. Are we willing to sacrifice that security of economic stability to someone who is not experienced and might destroy our economy? If we are not willing to sacrifice it, then LKY will not move on to liberal democracy.

I had a talk with my dad not long ago. I asked him if he thought that he was brain-washed by the government with his upbrining. He declined, and paused, saying “You have to understand that my era was different from yours. At that time we were lost, and LKY came and gave us stability. He was the one who made so many lives better by creating economic wealth for almost everyone. That is why I will still support him. He proved that he is capable of dealing with dire situations, and for the better good. Your generation is different. You were born went Singapore was undergoing economic boom, and when there was peace and stability. You don’t have as much linkage to Singapore as the older generation have. Your generation is instead influenced by outside ideals, and you compare it to the stable globalised Singapore. From there, you can make your own ideas and have your own thinking of what the government do is right or wrong. It is because they did not have as much impact in your life as what my time did.”

You starting to think if my dad takes sociology as well? Well he’s a blue-collared worker, and not earning much compared to most average family incomes. But his family was not rich either, so he isn’t picky or choosy on material wealth. But the thing is, LKY made a huge impact to these working classes, and if has influenced their thinking that, maybe there is no other way but his way. They do not want to risk losing what they have earned over these past decades. And LKY has the right to be egoistic, because he knows that these people will vote for him and PAP.

As it becomes our generation to be the working class, things might change. Many of us now are quite against the government (oh yes we all know that!) and what is the government going to do to make us influenced to their system? But we must know that maybe 40% of our generation who don’t learn sociology might just flow throught life as it is; easy and stable. Are the rest of us willing to sacrifice the stability of the past 3 decades to fight what we believe in; a liberal democratic society? Or are we just going to keep quiet, complain in our minds, and say that society limited our actions?

War starts when two countries disagree with each other, or sometimes, when a country thinks that his culture is the most superior and the everyone else are barbarians and should be cleansed of the ‘evil’ in them. At other times, it was for a conquest for a bigger territory, which would prove that he was more powerful than the rest of the other leaders. We can see that, war has always been started by the ‘higher order’, the higher class of people. But one thing is for sure: War uses violence. In ancient China, the emperors declared war in conquest for more land, which would decide his power. The Germans prosecuted the Jews in the belief of ‘racial cleansing’, causing 6 million Jews to die.

Due to globalisation, the growing inter-connectedness and dependency between countries has deepened within this few decades. Thus, we have learnt to be more tolerant of each other and we decide to be more peaceful to each other. Even though our world now seems relatively stable and peaceful, we must know that we are very vulnerable to attacks and fights, because different society has contradictory morals and values. Although it was not an international war, the Vietnam War in 1975 took the lives of over 5 million people who were directly and indirectly involved in the war. And with the bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York, it is not surprising to see America declaring war with Iraq. War gives the nation a chance to fight for its rights and identity. The economic and political power of the country is also given the chance to be shown to the world. Whatever war happens now, it will definitely affect the whole world. Due to the Iraqi war, oil prices went up and caused inflation to the world’s economy.

War brings the most misery and unhappiness to the people who are in the affected area itself. To see people die, getting injured, being tortured and living in fear everyday is definitely not something that is desired for. However, to protect what they believe in and for their rights, individuals are willing to sacrifice themselves to protect their culture and identity. That is why, even though we know war is essentially a negative aspect to society, it still exists. With war, the people in the same society become even bonded as a nation, and solidarity is deepened within the community and to the country itself. Compare Singapore’s generation today compared with the generation that went through World War Two. Generally, people term us as ‘selfish, self-centred youngsters’ who do not appreciate today’s peace because we did not go through the hardship of war. The youngsters of today definitely do not view Singapore as a real ‘home’ compared to the older generation as well.

War can bring the nation together, at a high price of bloodshed. Do we really need war to bring a nation together? We might not… but it is only in times of hardship then will we appreciate what we didn’t cherish before.

When we talk about gangsters and mafias, we talk about how they are the deviance to society, creating disruption in our daily lives and social unrest. There is this particular mafia, however, stands out from the rest as unique and particularly organized compared to other crime syndicates.

In Japan, individual crime rates are low. The small percentage of crime is usually associated with and carried out by the Yakuza, the mafia of Japan. While other gangsters and mafias keep a low profile in order to hide from the police, the Yakuza openly display themselves to the public so that they can be distinguished from normal citizens. While it is true that they are generally discriminated by the public, people also fear them for their capability of violence and their power. The Yakuza do not go round and murder people mindlessly, but they do assassinate those who pay them for a fee, especially for legitimate authorities who wish to avoid violence. In fact, they do have alliances with the right-wing nationalists. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has even turned to Yoshio Kodama, the Godfather of Yakuza, for help before in 1949.

All societies wish to stop having gangsters in their society, which is only natural because they deemed as a threat to society. But what makes it difficult to break up the Yakuza is that the members swear total loyalty to the gang. They have intricate swearing in ceremonies for new members – a sign that he is entering a new family. The Yakuza’s have this system called the Oyabun-Kobun (Father-Child) relationship. The leader is not only the power figure, but also the father to all his comrades under him. His comrades, the children, obeys his every word. This family then creates a new social solidarity, where the deemed misfits or outsiders come together to create their own protection against their societies’ laws. The name Yakuza, which adds up to twenty, is actually the losing hand in the game card hana-fuda. Like what their name suggests, they are the “bad hands of society”, and they are proud of it. For the Japanese, loyalty is an important value in their society. It is probably this value of loyalty that keeps the mafia going and running.

But how morally ‘correct’ can a mafia be? In the end, mafias are a ‘threat’ to society because they go against social norms and laws. Like other mafias, they are the sole providers of gambling, prostitution, weapon handler and drug-trafficking in the country. They are also known for their underhand methods in extorting money from big companies, namely blackmailing them to succumb to their wants and wishes. Mafias portray themselves as inhumane people, just because they do not value other people’s lives or respect the peace that we have. By gambling and drug-trafficking, people get to addicted and some lose all their fortunes and savings.  In serious cases, many turn to suicide when they are mentally unstable. Prostitution degrades the women into sexual objects, and some are beaten brutally and scars the women physically and emotionally. Basically, they are seen as ‘less than human’. By supplying weapons, they promote violence and murder. All these will create havoc in our society, creating fear and instability within the community. When this happens, people tend to become more suspicious and wary of one another, not trusting in anything or anyone from the streets or the even the government. This will create a social problem, because if a community cannot learn to trust each other, the social solidarity breaks down and separates the society.

While misfits turn to gangsters to earn their sense of belonging, they do it at a great risk of losing their morality. Are we to justify that because we have shunned this outcasts, we ourselves created another ‘society’ that is dangerous and deadly? The answer might be yes, the answer might be no, but the discrimination against people who cannot follow social norms are definitely plays a big part in creating this mafias. 

Now, women in modernized countries usually enjoy better privileges than in the past; in less developed countries like Iraq and Africa, however, women usually have no say in their rights. There is a particular society that is interesting to note, that although it is one of the most modernized country in the world, gender inequality still plays a big part in their society. That country is Japan.

Japan is known for its efficiency and diligence in their work. They are one of the world’s leading manufacturing country (especially in cars), and also in electronic gadgets like television, handphones and even the internet. Workers are dedicated to what they do, and swear total loyalty to their company. Once a man enters a company, he stays there for his entire working years. He is whom we call the breadwinner of the house. He will work from morning till night, and when he reaches home, he expects to be tended by his wife.

 The wife is the housekeeper who looks after the house, the kids, and also the husband. With so much tasks in hand, it is not shocking to know that almost 80% of women in Japan quit their jobs once they get married. However, in recent times, the culture of Japan is changing. With the need of a bigger workforce to cope with the expanding economy, the women of Japan started to work as well. By working and earning their own income, it undoubtedly gives them more financial security and thus more power in dictating their own future. Now, many choose to not marry or marry late because they do not like being tied down to domestic responsibilities and staying at home all day.

Despite their new found power, women in Japan are still at the disadvantage in their society. In traditional Japan, they believed in the Confucius teachings, where they believed that the men should be educated and working while the women should stay at home and tend to the domestic work in the house. Even though times have changed, this Confucian teaching is still deeply entrenched in their society. Women, unless in a self-started businesses, usually do not or never get high positions of rank. Also, their average pay is lower than of the men. They even have terms for these men and women who work. Women who work in the office are called Office Ladies, while the men are named Salarymen. Just by giving this term to them, we can already see the gender roles that they are expected to perform to. The men are the ones who must bring home the money. Office Ladies are selected for their looks and the most that they do are administration work.

Sometimes it’s interesting to wonder why the women won’t speak up for themselves, like what the Americans have done. I have read a book that says Japanese people don’t express their wishes as an act of humbleness. Instead, it is the other party’s job to actually pick up every expression and tone of the speaker’s movement to guess what the speaker actually wants. “The worst thing a man can say is that he has to tell his wife what he wants”. Maybe it is this ‘value’ of theirs that prevent the Japanese women from speaking up. But it is also increasingly noticed that they are resisting silently. Many women choose not to get married, despite them being called “wagamama” or selfish in Japanese as a whole. Also, although being a divorcee carries a stigma, the rates are still rising. Many of these divorces are initiated by women who are tired of being in a loveless marriage, which is so common because the husband has to work very long hours and is rarely at home to accompany them.

Sure, majority of Japanese women are still traditional – they quit their jobs after getting married and look after the house. However, with the recession and the lack of trust in the government, Japan’s once strong mutual bond as a community is starting to break down. The new generation X has their own new values, and it will not be surprising to see the women gaining their stand and having more rights in the Japanese society.

As societies grew and the economy expanded, humans also changed the way they divided their roles in the workplace. This is because they wanted to find the most efficient way of producing goods at the lowest cost. This gave way to “The Division of labour”, whereby in a single product, many people partake the roles in producing the good.  Economists like Adam Smith and Weber agreed that the Division of Labour was particularly effective and efficient; it would lead to tremendous economic growth.

Economic growth to society is of course beneficial. But do individuals actually gain from the Division of Labour? Emile Durkheim says that with Division of people, a ‘bond’ is created between these individuals because they have an ultimate aim, which is to create a finished product. These individuals need to work as a team and do their job well and efficiently in order to finish the product. In that sense, they somehow ‘rely’ on each other. However, as Karl Marx explains, the Division of Labour exploits workers. The individuals who have individual roles now have only one skill. This specialization is somehow dangerous because if the individual falls sick, or something happens to him, no one else can take over his role as well as he can. To the economy, specialization is good because you can do your part efficiently and finish the job fast. But as an individual, mastering only one skill is dangerous because your opportunities (for other jobs) are limited. Furthermore, we know that if a person is known to be working in a production line, it is usually because these people have either little education or are not well-educated. They are bound to be controlled by the higher status capitalists who are aiming for profit and the problem of class in equalities are likely to rise.

Trade gives the society more variety of goods to choose from. Over the years, trade has increased alongside with consumption. Now not only do we have our local products, goods from overseas are also available in stores. The range is so wide that we have a hard time choosing which is better to get. We also notice the price difference. Products from China are generally cheaper than products from London or America. This is the new Division of Labour, where companies now outsource to countries where labour is cheaper and abundant, like China. This might be also due to the standard of living (SOL) in different countries. In America, where the SOL is high, individuals also demand higher wages to meet with the higher SOL. In China, where SOL is low, wages in the production can be as low as less than a dollar per hour[1] compared to US $7 an hour. This might seem like exploitation to us, but to China it is the norm because things there are not as expensive as US[2] (although the inflation now might change things).

Competitiveness seems to be the key word here. What makes a company successful is by the profit it earns. It is what gives power and authority to the company in the economy. While every capitalist aims for it, they also forget about environmental and social issues. While minimum wage and regulations can be imposed, they act as disincentives for these companies to work. Work doesn’t seem to be ‘working for the economy and society’ anymore, but for the self-interest of earning profits and money. Money is indeed the root of all evil.