I'm not looking forward to school, but I'm not particularly dreading it either. Frankly, right now I couldn't care less. The good thing about school is that it will finally force me to move my huge butt and start doing something productive. I've not been doing anything really productive the last one week or so ever since I came back from Indonesia. It's the lethargy that had set in like a black miasma, that seeped in through my pores and then spread through all my arteries till it became a network both extensive and entrenched.
I don't like the idea of having to re-fit in, to say hi to people I've met only thrice in my life just because I have to be polite, to get tuned back to the grapevine just to know what the hell had happened in my school last semester. All the intricacies of social alchemy. Call me anti-social if you like. I don't wish to belong to any pecking social order. I'm not in the 'in' crowd (in fact I don't think I belong to any crowd) and the fact that I've been away for the entire semester doesn't help. But I'm fine with that. It's not bravado, it's more of having que sera sera as my life philosophy.
But I do think of everyone I've met in the last six months once in a while. They are literally all over the world right now. Little things remind me of them. I wonder where they are, I wonder what they are doing, I wonder what they are thinking and feeling at that moment in time.
We'll keep meeting new people.
Give and take, share a story or a laugh.
Tell them your dreams, your fears.
Your life and love and why.
But don't hold them back, and neither would they.
When it's time to say goodbye you will say it with no regrets.
A tinge of sadness, maybe a few teardrops.
But you'll move on, and you'll keep them in your heart.
Being alone now is not that bad, because you'll always have them.
You'll never be Gossip Girl, but you'll be someone
who's comfortable with being yourself.
And, really, what more can you ask for.
-E.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Random thought #8: I can be very anal about language
Just some common observations:
Common mistake: 'Recieve' or 'decieve'.
What it should be: 'Receive' or 'deceive'.
Common mistake: 'Tommorow' or 'Tomorow' or '2moro' or any other variation which is equally wrong.
What it should be: 'Tomorrow'.
Common mistake: "Do you know where is Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii?"(a real-life New Zealand girl took her parents to court because she was so embarrassed by her name, rightly so).
What it should be: "Do you know where Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is?" because the question is already in the form of "Do you...?" so there should be a difference from "Where is Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii?"
Common mistake:
You: "Do you mind if I sit down?"
Mou Mou Ren: "Yes." And then they do the complete opposite of what they are saying.
What it should be:
You: "Do you mind if I sit down?"
Mou Mou Ren: "Yes, I mind, I happen to be allergic to you." or "No, I don't mind, of course you can sit next to me."
Common mistake:
You: "So you don't think Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is a bloody stupid name?"
Mou Mou Ren: "No, I don't think Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is a bloody stupid name."
What it should be:
You: "So you don't think Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is a bloody stupid name?"
Mou Mou Ren: "Yes, I don't think Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is a bloody stupid name" because they are confirming what you just asked them.
Common mistake: 'Recieve' or 'decieve'.
What it should be: 'Receive' or 'deceive'.
Common mistake: 'Tommorow' or 'Tomorow' or '2moro' or any other variation which is equally wrong.
What it should be: 'Tomorrow'.
Common mistake: "Do you know where is Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii?"(a real-life New Zealand girl took her parents to court because she was so embarrassed by her name, rightly so).
What it should be: "Do you know where Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is?" because the question is already in the form of "Do you...?" so there should be a difference from "Where is Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii?"
Common mistake:
You: "Do you mind if I sit down?"
Mou Mou Ren: "Yes." And then they do the complete opposite of what they are saying.
What it should be:
You: "Do you mind if I sit down?"
Mou Mou Ren: "Yes, I mind, I happen to be allergic to you." or "No, I don't mind, of course you can sit next to me."
Common mistake:
You: "So you don't think Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is a bloody stupid name?"
Mou Mou Ren: "No, I don't think Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is a bloody stupid name."
What it should be:
You: "So you don't think Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is a bloody stupid name?"
Mou Mou Ren: "Yes, I don't think Talula Does the Hula from Hawaii is a bloody stupid name" because they are confirming what you just asked them.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
13 years in Indonesia: what of it?
It's been a while. Well I'm back in Singapore. Attended my second brother's convocation yesterday. He graduated from NTU Business and Finance, so now he's officially entered the working world, faithfully contributing to Singapore's economy and practising corporate responsibility and all that financial jazz.
As for me, school is starting next week and I'm not looking forward to it. I've had several changes in environment in the last six months and going back to school will be weird. But as I said to Yi Wen, something will only ever be weird in the beginning. Sooner or later I'll get used to it and it'll become not weird.
How was Indonesia. I didn't realize how much I've changed till I came back to the country where I grew up. I think the experience of travelling has really changed how I see things. I've become much more aware of the importance of social status in Indonesia, which is not a good thing of course, but a very real thing nonetheless.
I have a neighbour called Nunung and I knew her since I was a kid. But we never really became friends because of my parents' objections. Before you label my parents as racists, please understand that my mom had the nasty of experience of witnessing a group of indigenous Indonesian (pribumi) rioters looting her father's sundry shop and breaking various things in the process. That really formed her perception of pribumis in general. But my mom treats her workers well. Our house in Bandung, about three hours from Jakarta, doubles up as a carpet and plastics shop. One of her workers has been working for her for more than 20 years, in fact.
I met Nunung several times when I was in Bandung. She was selling some Indonesian delicacies at the mouth of an alleyway near my house. I still smile and say "hi" to her when I see her, but that's it. In a way I feel rather guilty. Once she asked me where I am now and I said I am in university in Singapore. And her expression made me feel uncomfortable. How am I supposed to talk to her when our conversation will just make our differences even more stark? We are about the same age but we live in two different worlds.
I talked to many other pribumis though. The workers in my mom's shop, our maid, our driver, some waiters and waitresses. Generally I have a feeling that some are resigned to their fates. Of course they are conscious of the rich-poor gap in Indonesia, but what they have in their minds is just working hard and earning money for their families. My maid has two daughters, 7 and 3 years old, who are often left at home alone because their parents are away working. The older sister is very independent and often takes care of the younger sister. My maid lives for her two daughters and hopes she can give them better lives.
Another feeling I have is that many Indonesians are disillusioned with the Government. To quote my driver, "no matter which party they choose the result is still the same." Why is corruption so rampant in Indonesia? One of the lingering perceptions is because of cultural traits. Some would cite Malaysia to back this up. But I think this is not true, or rather distorted. What about Philippines and Thailand? As one of the uncles in my tour to Thailand and Malaysia said, corruption would always exist as long as the rich-poor gap is too wide.
Why are the Chinese Indonesians much more affluent than the indigenous Indonesians? Many have accepted this as a way of life, but never ask why.
Let's look at Malaya as a case study. Mahathir Mohamad, in his book The Malay Dilemma, wrote that the Chinese have a naturally strong business acumen because of their ancestry. Their ancestors were often traders who migrated to islands near China because of several natural disasters, most noticeably the floods.
Mass migration of Chinese labour to Malaya was also encouraged by the British in the 1920s to tend to the lucrative rubber plantations and tin mines. The British deliberately kept the Malays as subsistence rice producers because of rice supply issues and also because the British believed that the Malays would be better off with their traditional 'laissez-faire' lifestyles.
The Chinese gradually set up many small shops and became 'middlemen' - the only link between the poor Malays in villages and the larger towns. The Malays felt increasingly displaced economically by the Chinese. Therefore the 1946 Malayan Union proposal, which included a provision for the extension of citizenship to the Chinese and Indians in Malaya, sparked a massive protest among the Malays. The Malays essentially felt betrayed by the British and finally realized that they can only rely on themselves.
What is most significant is that the proposal galvanized the Malay resentment into a national consciousness which is strongly linked to politics. The Malays saw politics as leverage over Chinese economic dominance. Note that many Malays already worked in the civil sector in Malaya, although their position was always subordinate to the British or British-appointed officers. Therefore there is a strong history of Malay involvement in politics. In this sense the Chinese failed to realize the importance of politics because they were more interested in business. This was a mistake they would pay years later.
I believe that we can extrapolate Malaya to the situation in Indonesia. Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch for 350 years. The ethnic makeup also essentially consists of the Chinese and the pribumis. The societal structure essentially consists of two interacting spheres: politics, dominated by the pribumis; and the economy, dominated by the Chinese. Of course there are successful pribumi businessmen and Chinese politicians, but I think we'll benefit more if we look at the big picture.
The so-called Chinese business acumen is essentially the following:
Firstly, the Chinese generally do not invest in aesthetics. Take a look at the millions of shophouses in Indonesia. Some look pretty dilapidated and certainly don't look profitable. But you'll be surprised how much the shop actually earns. Some earn much more than what your average Singapore graduate earns. This is because the Chinese reinvest whatever profits they make into the business, such as buying more stocks of goods.
Secondly, a strong currency in the Chinese business is goodwill. Many Chinese shopkeepers allow their customers to buy in credit. Sometimes they also sell at a lower price. Why? Simply because this would create or maintain goodwill. A loyal customer base is more important than immediate profits.
Thirdly, the Chinese are largely insular. They have a very close-knit business network, which most often than not are Chinese-dominated in nature. The Chinese have a lingering distrust of the pribumis and would very much rather do business with a fellow Chinese than a pribumi. Chinese business is extremely extensive. To borrow some economic terms, the Chinese are deeply integrated both vertically and horizontally. Any commodity you can think of, high chance there is a Chinese somewhere who sells it for a living. This is because they have slowly built up a niche market.
The Chinese also dominate the entire business chain, from production to the consumer-end. The effect is that the Chinese created an economic barrier which pribumis find very hard to penetrate. Imagine a pribumi who wants to set up a business in carpets and plastics. He would soon find out that the suppliers and retailers are mostly Chinese. How is he to compete with the Chinese businessmen?
From my analysis so far, it seems that the Chinese are the villains. But is this really true? Whatever success they have so far, they gain it with their own blood and sweat. My dad was born poor, but he slogged day and night (literally) in his plastics and varnish factory, till he was able to send all three children to Singapore to study. Whatever I have achieved so far, I see it as a repayment to him, no matter how incommensurate it is. That's why I don't really like it when people say, "Oh, Eveline, you managed to travel. You're so lucky." I did work hard for the opportunities to travel. Yes, I have been very blessed, that I acknowledge, but being "blessed" and being "lucky" are two different things.
Also, you might criticize me for not doing anything for my country. Why not help the poor pribumis, you might say. I admit the rich-poor gap in Indonesia is definitely too wide. I also admit that there is something that is intrinsically unfair in the system. But honestly, I am not Captain Indonesia and neither do I wish to be. I am always skeptical about pastors who let their children go hungry while they go around feeding others, and missionaries who go to war-torn countries and ending up being abducted and creating a national mess as a result. I do not have a responsibility nor the capacity to care for millions of poor people in Indonesia. As my mom always said, "there are too many poor people in the world." But what I can do is to treat everyone I meet with respect, and if need be, compassion. Kindness starts with small steps, not giant leaps.
As for me, school is starting next week and I'm not looking forward to it. I've had several changes in environment in the last six months and going back to school will be weird. But as I said to Yi Wen, something will only ever be weird in the beginning. Sooner or later I'll get used to it and it'll become not weird.
How was Indonesia. I didn't realize how much I've changed till I came back to the country where I grew up. I think the experience of travelling has really changed how I see things. I've become much more aware of the importance of social status in Indonesia, which is not a good thing of course, but a very real thing nonetheless.
I have a neighbour called Nunung and I knew her since I was a kid. But we never really became friends because of my parents' objections. Before you label my parents as racists, please understand that my mom had the nasty of experience of witnessing a group of indigenous Indonesian (pribumi) rioters looting her father's sundry shop and breaking various things in the process. That really formed her perception of pribumis in general. But my mom treats her workers well. Our house in Bandung, about three hours from Jakarta, doubles up as a carpet and plastics shop. One of her workers has been working for her for more than 20 years, in fact.
I met Nunung several times when I was in Bandung. She was selling some Indonesian delicacies at the mouth of an alleyway near my house. I still smile and say "hi" to her when I see her, but that's it. In a way I feel rather guilty. Once she asked me where I am now and I said I am in university in Singapore. And her expression made me feel uncomfortable. How am I supposed to talk to her when our conversation will just make our differences even more stark? We are about the same age but we live in two different worlds.
I talked to many other pribumis though. The workers in my mom's shop, our maid, our driver, some waiters and waitresses. Generally I have a feeling that some are resigned to their fates. Of course they are conscious of the rich-poor gap in Indonesia, but what they have in their minds is just working hard and earning money for their families. My maid has two daughters, 7 and 3 years old, who are often left at home alone because their parents are away working. The older sister is very independent and often takes care of the younger sister. My maid lives for her two daughters and hopes she can give them better lives.
Another feeling I have is that many Indonesians are disillusioned with the Government. To quote my driver, "no matter which party they choose the result is still the same." Why is corruption so rampant in Indonesia? One of the lingering perceptions is because of cultural traits. Some would cite Malaysia to back this up. But I think this is not true, or rather distorted. What about Philippines and Thailand? As one of the uncles in my tour to Thailand and Malaysia said, corruption would always exist as long as the rich-poor gap is too wide.
Why are the Chinese Indonesians much more affluent than the indigenous Indonesians? Many have accepted this as a way of life, but never ask why.
Let's look at Malaya as a case study. Mahathir Mohamad, in his book The Malay Dilemma, wrote that the Chinese have a naturally strong business acumen because of their ancestry. Their ancestors were often traders who migrated to islands near China because of several natural disasters, most noticeably the floods.
Mass migration of Chinese labour to Malaya was also encouraged by the British in the 1920s to tend to the lucrative rubber plantations and tin mines. The British deliberately kept the Malays as subsistence rice producers because of rice supply issues and also because the British believed that the Malays would be better off with their traditional 'laissez-faire' lifestyles.
The Chinese gradually set up many small shops and became 'middlemen' - the only link between the poor Malays in villages and the larger towns. The Malays felt increasingly displaced economically by the Chinese. Therefore the 1946 Malayan Union proposal, which included a provision for the extension of citizenship to the Chinese and Indians in Malaya, sparked a massive protest among the Malays. The Malays essentially felt betrayed by the British and finally realized that they can only rely on themselves.
What is most significant is that the proposal galvanized the Malay resentment into a national consciousness which is strongly linked to politics. The Malays saw politics as leverage over Chinese economic dominance. Note that many Malays already worked in the civil sector in Malaya, although their position was always subordinate to the British or British-appointed officers. Therefore there is a strong history of Malay involvement in politics. In this sense the Chinese failed to realize the importance of politics because they were more interested in business. This was a mistake they would pay years later.
I believe that we can extrapolate Malaya to the situation in Indonesia. Indonesia was colonized by the Dutch for 350 years. The ethnic makeup also essentially consists of the Chinese and the pribumis. The societal structure essentially consists of two interacting spheres: politics, dominated by the pribumis; and the economy, dominated by the Chinese. Of course there are successful pribumi businessmen and Chinese politicians, but I think we'll benefit more if we look at the big picture.
The so-called Chinese business acumen is essentially the following:
Firstly, the Chinese generally do not invest in aesthetics. Take a look at the millions of shophouses in Indonesia. Some look pretty dilapidated and certainly don't look profitable. But you'll be surprised how much the shop actually earns. Some earn much more than what your average Singapore graduate earns. This is because the Chinese reinvest whatever profits they make into the business, such as buying more stocks of goods.
Secondly, a strong currency in the Chinese business is goodwill. Many Chinese shopkeepers allow their customers to buy in credit. Sometimes they also sell at a lower price. Why? Simply because this would create or maintain goodwill. A loyal customer base is more important than immediate profits.
Thirdly, the Chinese are largely insular. They have a very close-knit business network, which most often than not are Chinese-dominated in nature. The Chinese have a lingering distrust of the pribumis and would very much rather do business with a fellow Chinese than a pribumi. Chinese business is extremely extensive. To borrow some economic terms, the Chinese are deeply integrated both vertically and horizontally. Any commodity you can think of, high chance there is a Chinese somewhere who sells it for a living. This is because they have slowly built up a niche market.
The Chinese also dominate the entire business chain, from production to the consumer-end. The effect is that the Chinese created an economic barrier which pribumis find very hard to penetrate. Imagine a pribumi who wants to set up a business in carpets and plastics. He would soon find out that the suppliers and retailers are mostly Chinese. How is he to compete with the Chinese businessmen?
From my analysis so far, it seems that the Chinese are the villains. But is this really true? Whatever success they have so far, they gain it with their own blood and sweat. My dad was born poor, but he slogged day and night (literally) in his plastics and varnish factory, till he was able to send all three children to Singapore to study. Whatever I have achieved so far, I see it as a repayment to him, no matter how incommensurate it is. That's why I don't really like it when people say, "Oh, Eveline, you managed to travel. You're so lucky." I did work hard for the opportunities to travel. Yes, I have been very blessed, that I acknowledge, but being "blessed" and being "lucky" are two different things.
Also, you might criticize me for not doing anything for my country. Why not help the poor pribumis, you might say. I admit the rich-poor gap in Indonesia is definitely too wide. I also admit that there is something that is intrinsically unfair in the system. But honestly, I am not Captain Indonesia and neither do I wish to be. I am always skeptical about pastors who let their children go hungry while they go around feeding others, and missionaries who go to war-torn countries and ending up being abducted and creating a national mess as a result. I do not have a responsibility nor the capacity to care for millions of poor people in Indonesia. As my mom always said, "there are too many poor people in the world." But what I can do is to treat everyone I meet with respect, and if need be, compassion. Kindness starts with small steps, not giant leaps.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Random thought #7: The Y Files
Why do we say things that we don't mean and don't say things that we mean?
Why do we hurt and get hurt by people we care about the most?
Why do we change when we least expect it and don't change when we hope to change?
Why do we remember the little things that people do?
Why do we forget many things that people do?
Why do we move on so easily?
Why do we get stuck in a rut sometimes?
Why do we know ourselves the most and the least?
Why do we expect others to love us when we can't even love ourselves?
Why do we say "You're wrong." much faster than we say "You're right."?
Why do we see only the good in some people and refuse to see the bad?
Why do we take revenge when the best revenge is moving on?
Why do we hate when it means we still care?
Why do we cry when we are angry?
Why do we laugh when we feel like crying?
Why do we shout when we feel like hiding?
Why do we stay rooted to the ground when we feel like running away?
Why do we run away when we have to stay?
Why do we bring up the past to distract from the present?
Why do we try to forget the past when it is already past?
Why do we remember the past and forget about the present?
Why do we obsess about the future when the present is what we have?
Why do we ask why when there's no why?
Why do we ask why when a full stop is all we need?
Why do we not ask why and just accept things as they are?
Why do some people speak like their mouths are not connected to their brains in any way?
Why do we talk so much to escape the loud silence?
Why do we say 'empty space' when a space is already empty?
Why do we treat some people like space-fillers and think that we are larger than life?
Why do we envy others when others envy us too?
Why do we envy others when we are so different?
Why do we think we are so different when we are actually similar in many ways?
Why do we think we are superior to others when superiority is always relative and subjective?
Why do we make a promise and not keep it?
Why do we keep a promise that nobody cares about anymore?
Why do we step on people's heads to get somewhere and call it inevitable?
Why do we think people are being hypocritical when they criticize the way we step on others' heads?
Why do we hurt and get hurt by people we care about the most?
Why do we change when we least expect it and don't change when we hope to change?
Why do we remember the little things that people do?
Why do we forget many things that people do?
Why do we move on so easily?
Why do we get stuck in a rut sometimes?
Why do we know ourselves the most and the least?
Why do we expect others to love us when we can't even love ourselves?
Why do we say "You're wrong." much faster than we say "You're right."?
Why do we see only the good in some people and refuse to see the bad?
Why do we take revenge when the best revenge is moving on?
Why do we hate when it means we still care?
Why do we cry when we are angry?
Why do we laugh when we feel like crying?
Why do we shout when we feel like hiding?
Why do we stay rooted to the ground when we feel like running away?
Why do we run away when we have to stay?
Why do we bring up the past to distract from the present?
Why do we try to forget the past when it is already past?
Why do we remember the past and forget about the present?
Why do we obsess about the future when the present is what we have?
Why do we ask why when there's no why?
Why do we ask why when a full stop is all we need?
Why do we not ask why and just accept things as they are?
Why do some people speak like their mouths are not connected to their brains in any way?
Why do we talk so much to escape the loud silence?
Why do we say 'empty space' when a space is already empty?
Why do we treat some people like space-fillers and think that we are larger than life?
Why do we envy others when others envy us too?
Why do we envy others when we are so different?
Why do we think we are so different when we are actually similar in many ways?
Why do we think we are superior to others when superiority is always relative and subjective?
Why do we make a promise and not keep it?
Why do we keep a promise that nobody cares about anymore?
Why do we step on people's heads to get somewhere and call it inevitable?
Why do we think people are being hypocritical when they criticize the way we step on others' heads?
Monday, July 7, 2008
Indonesia, a home country that is not really like a home
I'll be in Indonesia, my home country, from 8 to 20 July. I'll be updating on the rest of my travel when I come back to Singapore because the Internet connection in Indonesia is as fast as a mule with a limp on all four legs.
Take care, everyone.
Take care, everyone.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Selling your kidneys: a just cause?
If you have been away from Singapore for the last five days, getting your backbones cracked by a Thai masseuse and shouting at a crooked jeans seller who refused to give your money back (more on these later), you would have missed the highly polarized debate on organ trading here.
I've been catching up on reading the newspapers and I think The Sunday Times yesterday was a particularly interesting copy. Do read about it.
Let me just make my stand clear right from the start: I support regulated organ trading. My dad has Diabetes Type II and had also gone for a bypass surgery last year because his arteries got clogged. If anything should happen to my dad and he is in need of an organ, and this organ cannot be obtained from within the family or very close relatives, then I would buy it from a willing third party without much hesitation.
Let's just be realistic. I'm not going to let any of my family members die because of some moral principles based on shaky grounds. Morals might shift as a reflection of the society, but I will only ever have two parents and two brothers.
There are a few common threads of arguments against organ trading:
1. Selling an organ is akin to prostitution.
I find that this argument by a trainee doctor is the most far-fetched. "Prostitution" is defined by various dictionaries as an act of selling something for an unworthy purpose. What is worth to begin with? The very definition of worth is something that is relative, something that has a different value from person to person. How are you going to judge that something is unworthy or not? Do you, as an outsider, even have the right to pass such a judgment?
The second point is that the trainee doctor is basically premising his argument on the notion that nobody will benefit from organ trading, or that the benefit that the parties get is not commensurate with the real worth of the organ. Let's just forget for a moment that worth is hard to determine, as I had highlighted in my first point. This second point is even more ridiculous. If we were to follow the trainee doctor's argument, then there's no point for this debate because there's no need for organ trading in the first place.
It's a no-brainer isn't it. The recipient will have a new lease of life, the donor will have money to feed his family. Both parties obtain benefit from organ trading. Perhaps not relative benefit, because one could argue that an organ is worth much more than $30,000, but the important thing is the perceived absolute benefit to the donor - he can use this $30,000 to support his family for approximately 16 years - and the acceptance of the risk that comes with this absolute benefit.
2. Organ trading is an exploitation of the poor.
This is one of the most compelling arguments against organ trading, but also the most flawed and the most morally righteous. It has a parallel to the prostitution argument, but it is different nonetheless because exploitation is not a synonym of prostitution.
"Exploitation" is defined by various dictionaries as an act of using something unfairly for one's own gains. It means that as long as A derives more benefit from a transaction than does B, then A is exploiting B. If that's the case then nearly every single thing that we do in our daily lives can be called exploitation, can't it. Your iPod was assembled in factories in China where people are paid peanuts per hour. You bargain ferociously for that shirt in Thailand to save 100 Bahts, which means a lot to the seller but is only worth about $4 to you.
Everything you have, in actual fact, is the end product of exploitation, no matter where the exploitation occurs in the long chain of production. So why should you take the moral high ground and label organ trading as an exploitation of the poor?
You might come up with the following sub-arguments:
a) It doesn't make sense to compare organ trading with buying an Ipod or a shirt with a Thai elephant print on it. Those are commodities, this is organ. Something that has to be surgically removed from someone's body.
Does it matter what form the object of exploitation takes? Since I can't explain it better than Ms. Michelle Tan Su May, here I quote her excellent opinion piece, which was published on The Sunday Times:
"Mr Jeffrey Chan said organ sales are wrong because they are 'exploitation of the poor'. Let me ask him this: If you were told that you could have someone abandon their children for years to come and live in your house and to wash your dirty underwear, to wait on you hand and foot, and to clean up your bedridden relatives' faeces, for up to 16 hours a day at 60 cents an hour, wouldn't you think such a situation sounded inhumane and unacceptable? Yet that is what our foreign domestic workers are forced to accept by coming here to work in Singapore."
"Do they like it? No. Do they have a choice? Yes and no. They could stay at home and have nothing to feed their children. Or they could come over here in the hope of a better future eventually for their children. Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are desperate. By the same token, Mr Chan would have to argue that we ban the use of domestic workers because it is also exploitation of the poor."
b) How should I know that something I bought was the product of exploitation? Why should I care? I can't possibly care about every single minute detail of everything.
You're basically premising your argument on the notion that it makes a difference if the act of exploitation is direct or indirect. If you don't know that buying something is an abetment of the exploitation of someone, or if you are too far removed from the exploited person, then you are absolved of guilt.
To give you credit, if you were to argue this way, you can then point your finger at the recipient of an organ and say, "Hah! You jolly well know that you're buying something that is below its worth, and you're only separated from your donor by a middleman! You're exploiter extraordinaire! You're capitalist bastard! You're the enemy of Das Volk!"
But do remember that exploitation exists in every nook and cranny of our daily activities. Exploitation is everywhere. Like what I had highlighted in my first case, it is pointless to debate relative benefits because the society is intrinsically unfair. The very fact that the rich-poor gap exists is the best example of this unfairness.
My point is, society functions on the acceptance of exploitation to varying extents. You might sell your iPod for only 5 bucks to your friend, and everybody else might scream bloody exploitation, but say you really need that 5 bucks at that moment and your iPod is the only thing you have, does it really matter to you whichever way they label your action?
What is important to the donor is not the actual worth of his kidney, but the market worth. Even if he was told that his kidney is actually worth a million bucks, he would still settle for $30,000 because if he isn't willing to sell at that price, somebody else will.
3. Organ trading is a slippery slip down the slope.
Mr. Alan John, Deputy Editor of The Straits Times, said:
"Instead of today's illegal syndicates, will we raise a breed of organ-matching agents who will source the region for donors and reap their cut of the money changing hands? And after we've okayed selling kidneys and livers, do we stop there, or move on to sticking price tags on blood, sperm, eggs, skin and bone marrow? After all, as with kidneys, we have more than we need."
I think we must always look at the purpose of such transactions and the existence of possible alternatives. If say someone is in desperate need of AB- blood, which belongs to only 0.8 per cent of the world population, are you going to forbid the person from buying the blood? What are the odds that these 0.8 per cent of the world population are going to donate their blood willingly to a stranger? How would you even find them in the first place? The most logical way to obtain the fastest result is to advertise, with an offer of money. People are seldom altruistic. If paying someone to donate his blood means saving a life, why not?
You could argue, when saving a life is concerned, it is quite clear cut. But what about other non-life-threatening cases where the choice is not so obvious?
Granted, this is where it becomes tricky because then it would concern the quality of life. Buying sperms or an egg, for example, is not a matter of life and death. But what it entails are the completion of a family, the emotional fulfillment of a paternal or a maternal role, the continuation of a lineage.
Same with skin. You can argue that a first degree burn victim still has his life, so what's there to complain about? What to complain about, are a lifetime of fear of being seen in public, a lifetime of shame, a lifetime of economic deprivations because no company would hire a badly disfigured person.
I find it demeaning, and ultimately self-defeating, to ban body part transactions based on a hazy moral principle. You let them sell their kidneys, the next thing you knew people will be selling every single spare part of their bodies. So better to ban transactions for everybody.
But you can't put everybody under the same umbrella labelled as The Law. Every individual case is different, as I had illustrated above. The decision to allow or disallow body part transaction, in my opinion, should be made on a case by case basis. The Lady of Justice is blind, but this blindness should not extend to individual plight based on a shaky utilitarian imperative.
All right, that concludes my opinion piece. I got carried away, so please pardon the length. All the views above are mine, unless otherwise stated.
I've been catching up on reading the newspapers and I think The Sunday Times yesterday was a particularly interesting copy. Do read about it.
Let me just make my stand clear right from the start: I support regulated organ trading. My dad has Diabetes Type II and had also gone for a bypass surgery last year because his arteries got clogged. If anything should happen to my dad and he is in need of an organ, and this organ cannot be obtained from within the family or very close relatives, then I would buy it from a willing third party without much hesitation.
Let's just be realistic. I'm not going to let any of my family members die because of some moral principles based on shaky grounds. Morals might shift as a reflection of the society, but I will only ever have two parents and two brothers.
There are a few common threads of arguments against organ trading:
1. Selling an organ is akin to prostitution.
I find that this argument by a trainee doctor is the most far-fetched. "Prostitution" is defined by various dictionaries as an act of selling something for an unworthy purpose. What is worth to begin with? The very definition of worth is something that is relative, something that has a different value from person to person. How are you going to judge that something is unworthy or not? Do you, as an outsider, even have the right to pass such a judgment?
The second point is that the trainee doctor is basically premising his argument on the notion that nobody will benefit from organ trading, or that the benefit that the parties get is not commensurate with the real worth of the organ. Let's just forget for a moment that worth is hard to determine, as I had highlighted in my first point. This second point is even more ridiculous. If we were to follow the trainee doctor's argument, then there's no point for this debate because there's no need for organ trading in the first place.
It's a no-brainer isn't it. The recipient will have a new lease of life, the donor will have money to feed his family. Both parties obtain benefit from organ trading. Perhaps not relative benefit, because one could argue that an organ is worth much more than $30,000, but the important thing is the perceived absolute benefit to the donor - he can use this $30,000 to support his family for approximately 16 years - and the acceptance of the risk that comes with this absolute benefit.
2. Organ trading is an exploitation of the poor.
This is one of the most compelling arguments against organ trading, but also the most flawed and the most morally righteous. It has a parallel to the prostitution argument, but it is different nonetheless because exploitation is not a synonym of prostitution.
"Exploitation" is defined by various dictionaries as an act of using something unfairly for one's own gains. It means that as long as A derives more benefit from a transaction than does B, then A is exploiting B. If that's the case then nearly every single thing that we do in our daily lives can be called exploitation, can't it. Your iPod was assembled in factories in China where people are paid peanuts per hour. You bargain ferociously for that shirt in Thailand to save 100 Bahts, which means a lot to the seller but is only worth about $4 to you.
Everything you have, in actual fact, is the end product of exploitation, no matter where the exploitation occurs in the long chain of production. So why should you take the moral high ground and label organ trading as an exploitation of the poor?
You might come up with the following sub-arguments:
a) It doesn't make sense to compare organ trading with buying an Ipod or a shirt with a Thai elephant print on it. Those are commodities, this is organ. Something that has to be surgically removed from someone's body.
Does it matter what form the object of exploitation takes? Since I can't explain it better than Ms. Michelle Tan Su May, here I quote her excellent opinion piece, which was published on The Sunday Times:
"Mr Jeffrey Chan said organ sales are wrong because they are 'exploitation of the poor'. Let me ask him this: If you were told that you could have someone abandon their children for years to come and live in your house and to wash your dirty underwear, to wait on you hand and foot, and to clean up your bedridden relatives' faeces, for up to 16 hours a day at 60 cents an hour, wouldn't you think such a situation sounded inhumane and unacceptable? Yet that is what our foreign domestic workers are forced to accept by coming here to work in Singapore."
"Do they like it? No. Do they have a choice? Yes and no. They could stay at home and have nothing to feed their children. Or they could come over here in the hope of a better future eventually for their children. Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are desperate. By the same token, Mr Chan would have to argue that we ban the use of domestic workers because it is also exploitation of the poor."
b) How should I know that something I bought was the product of exploitation? Why should I care? I can't possibly care about every single minute detail of everything.
You're basically premising your argument on the notion that it makes a difference if the act of exploitation is direct or indirect. If you don't know that buying something is an abetment of the exploitation of someone, or if you are too far removed from the exploited person, then you are absolved of guilt.
To give you credit, if you were to argue this way, you can then point your finger at the recipient of an organ and say, "Hah! You jolly well know that you're buying something that is below its worth, and you're only separated from your donor by a middleman! You're exploiter extraordinaire! You're capitalist bastard! You're the enemy of Das Volk!"
But do remember that exploitation exists in every nook and cranny of our daily activities. Exploitation is everywhere. Like what I had highlighted in my first case, it is pointless to debate relative benefits because the society is intrinsically unfair. The very fact that the rich-poor gap exists is the best example of this unfairness.
My point is, society functions on the acceptance of exploitation to varying extents. You might sell your iPod for only 5 bucks to your friend, and everybody else might scream bloody exploitation, but say you really need that 5 bucks at that moment and your iPod is the only thing you have, does it really matter to you whichever way they label your action?
What is important to the donor is not the actual worth of his kidney, but the market worth. Even if he was told that his kidney is actually worth a million bucks, he would still settle for $30,000 because if he isn't willing to sell at that price, somebody else will.
3. Organ trading is a slippery slip down the slope.
Mr. Alan John, Deputy Editor of The Straits Times, said:
"Instead of today's illegal syndicates, will we raise a breed of organ-matching agents who will source the region for donors and reap their cut of the money changing hands? And after we've okayed selling kidneys and livers, do we stop there, or move on to sticking price tags on blood, sperm, eggs, skin and bone marrow? After all, as with kidneys, we have more than we need."
I think we must always look at the purpose of such transactions and the existence of possible alternatives. If say someone is in desperate need of AB- blood, which belongs to only 0.8 per cent of the world population, are you going to forbid the person from buying the blood? What are the odds that these 0.8 per cent of the world population are going to donate their blood willingly to a stranger? How would you even find them in the first place? The most logical way to obtain the fastest result is to advertise, with an offer of money. People are seldom altruistic. If paying someone to donate his blood means saving a life, why not?
You could argue, when saving a life is concerned, it is quite clear cut. But what about other non-life-threatening cases where the choice is not so obvious?
Granted, this is where it becomes tricky because then it would concern the quality of life. Buying sperms or an egg, for example, is not a matter of life and death. But what it entails are the completion of a family, the emotional fulfillment of a paternal or a maternal role, the continuation of a lineage.
Same with skin. You can argue that a first degree burn victim still has his life, so what's there to complain about? What to complain about, are a lifetime of fear of being seen in public, a lifetime of shame, a lifetime of economic deprivations because no company would hire a badly disfigured person.
I find it demeaning, and ultimately self-defeating, to ban body part transactions based on a hazy moral principle. You let them sell their kidneys, the next thing you knew people will be selling every single spare part of their bodies. So better to ban transactions for everybody.
But you can't put everybody under the same umbrella labelled as The Law. Every individual case is different, as I had illustrated above. The decision to allow or disallow body part transaction, in my opinion, should be made on a case by case basis. The Lady of Justice is blind, but this blindness should not extend to individual plight based on a shaky utilitarian imperative.
All right, that concludes my opinion piece. I got carried away, so please pardon the length. All the views above are mine, unless otherwise stated.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Unstrung
Nowadays nothing really surprises me anymore. I think if you accept that humans are volatile beings and their emotions are always fluid, never solid, you'll be less conclusive of what someone can or cannot do.
That's why I think the gun laws in America are a joke. They are basically premised on the notion that humans are rational creatures who would only use the guns for self-defense, never for aggression.
Even a 'usually' rational person can be subject to moments of insanity. Homer coined the word "unstrung", which in this case would mean a temporary disconnect between action and rational thinking. It just takes a second for someone to lose control and pull the trigger. And that means a life lost, a family broken, many other lives affected.
And you think that after the shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech and University of Illinois, people would learn. But they never learn. The gun lobby has been in bed with every single American Government since the beginning of time.
All right, this is the last post for the next few days. I'll be in Thailand and Malaysia from 2nd to 6th July. See you again and have a nice life.
That's why I think the gun laws in America are a joke. They are basically premised on the notion that humans are rational creatures who would only use the guns for self-defense, never for aggression.
Even a 'usually' rational person can be subject to moments of insanity. Homer coined the word "unstrung", which in this case would mean a temporary disconnect between action and rational thinking. It just takes a second for someone to lose control and pull the trigger. And that means a life lost, a family broken, many other lives affected.
And you think that after the shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech and University of Illinois, people would learn. But they never learn. The gun lobby has been in bed with every single American Government since the beginning of time.
All right, this is the last post for the next few days. I'll be in Thailand and Malaysia from 2nd to 6th July. See you again and have a nice life.
Why do heartaches exist?
If you say because they make you stronger, wouldn't most people prefer to remain weak?
If you say because they show that you're alive, surely there are other ways of knowing you are alive?
Heartaches exist simply because happiness exists.
Stop asking "why me?" and just live.
Just live because heartaches are not forever. They'll become scars. You'll never forget them but by then you'll stop asking why. And when you stop asking why maybe someday you'll be able to think about it and laugh.
If you say because they show that you're alive, surely there are other ways of knowing you are alive?
Heartaches exist simply because happiness exists.
Stop asking "why me?" and just live.
Just live because heartaches are not forever. They'll become scars. You'll never forget them but by then you'll stop asking why. And when you stop asking why maybe someday you'll be able to think about it and laugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
