the rich benefit from the food crisis. to what extent is this true?

as the world steps into an era of globalisation and urbanization, agriculture becomes less abundant and countries are becoming more susceptible to a food crisis. in the past, countries were able to sustain themselves due to the availability of agricultural products. however, a food crisis presently would have adverse effects on the world, as countries in the world are interdependent, as a result of globalisation. in every problem, it is inevitable that some people have an upper hand in the issue. in this case, i believe to a large extent that the rich do benefit from the current food crisis, as they have caused the food crisis by pushing for biofuels, abusing their authority due to power and through urbanization. the rich here is defined as macro level organisations and developed countries which controls the world economy to micro level businessmen and multi-national corporations(mncs) who obtains a relatively higher income as compared to the others in the country, and benefit means gain an advantage.

due to the rapid depletion of fossil fuels, and to reduce their dependence on foreign oil, countries such as the united states have started the push for biofuels, increasing the strain on the demand of agricultural products such as maize. 'the international monetary fund estimated that corn ethanol production in the united states accounted for at least half the rise in world corn demand in each of the past three years', the new york times reported on 10 april 2008. furthermore, 'the growing diversion into ethanol has also resulted in a 60 percent rise in corn prices in the past two years' (the canadian press, 22 october 2007). moreover, governments in these countries have introduced incentives for biofuels and for those who engage in activities involving biofuels, and this further pushes the demand for biofuels. washington provides a subsidy of 51 cents a gallon to ethanol blenders and slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imports. in the european union, most countries exempt biofuels from some gas taxes and slap an average tariff equal to more than 70 cents a gallon of imported ethanol (the new york times, 10 april 2008). as such, the obvious beneficiaries are the developed countries who are closer to being self-sustainable, the businessmen in these countries who benefit from the the subisdies and tax exemptions, and mncs around the world who will benefit from these due to globalization. thus, the rich do benefit from the current food crisis.

moreover, the tremendous impact on agriculture due to the dominance of richer nations and campanies in the international arena has resulted in poorer countries not being able to determine their own food security policies. richer countries combine unfair trade agreements, have concentrated ownership of major food productions and are able to dominate the world economy through control and influence in institutions such as the world bank, international monetary fund(imf) and the world trade organisation(wto), leaving the poorer nations at their beck and call. poorer countries are made to remove trade barriers, so that the richer countries can benefit, yet these countries hardly remove their, putting the poorer countries at a disadvantage. in addition, the dumping of food, under the pretence of aid, by wealthy nations onto poorer countries, falling commodity prices through competition by the poorer nations to sell primarily to the rich, and huge agricultural subsidies in countries such as north america and europe, which outdo the foreign aid they sent, have combined to cause effects such as forcing farmers out of businesses, and this, reduces food supply to an extent. furthermore, even food in the form of aid is intercepted by the government and those of better quality is being resold to the rich in the country, who can afford these goods, while the poor gets those of poorer qualities. an example of this would be the situation in myanmar. hence, due to corrupt governments, and the dominance of richer nations in international arenas, the rich do benefit from the current food crisis.

furthermore, due to rapid urbanization, agricultural fields are constantly being transformed into cities and industrial zones, at the expense of food supply around the world. in vietnam's bac ninh province, paddy fields are now bisected by a four-lane highway. furthermore, a singapore-vietnamese joint venture will soon build a 1700-acre (700hectare) industrial park and township, turning this rural area into a satellite city. to emphasize the seriousness of this, vietnam is losing about 99,000 acres of rice paddies every year to construction of cities, highways and industrial zones. (time magazine, 'no grain, big pain'). thus, as the food supply around the world continues to decrease, and the number of industrial zones, cities and highways continue to increase, mncs are benefitting through gains in profits.

on the other hand, many agriculture fields are constantly being destroyed due to natural disasters, hence depleting the food supply in the world. this depletion has led to the rapid increase in food prices, which affects everyone, both the rich, and the poor. a 2007 cyclone in bangladesh destroyed approximately 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop, leading to rice price increases of about 70 percent (the daily star, bangladesh, 11 february 2008). also, the drought last year in north central china combined with the unusual cold and cnow during winter will probably lead the government to greater food purchases on the international markets, and this will keep the pressure on prices. thus, both the rich and the poor experiences inflation. however, the effects of inflation on the rich are not as great as that on the poor, as the rich are better able to handle inflation due to their financial capability.

in addition, rising affluence around the world due to globalisation have caused the growth of the middle class in several countries such as china and india. this has led to the increasing demand for meat, causing the increase in prices of food products such as corn and soybeans, as the use of maize and soybeans to feed cattles, pigs and poultry has risen sharply to meet this demand. the world's total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. however, in 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. also, per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. in the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last twenty years alone (the new york times, 27 january 2008). in this case, like the above point, both the rich and poor suffer due to the increases in price of food products, both from grains and meat.

ultimately, the rich do benefit from the food crisis due to their push for biofuels, abusing of power and authority, and through urbanization. however, instead of exploiting the needs of the poor, the rich should help the poor and face the food crisis together as one. afterall, the rich are part of the cause of the current food crisis. in the short run, the rich may seem to benefit from the food crisis. however, in the long run, if the rich continues to act in their own interests, neglecting the rest of the world, especially the poor, no one will benefit from the food crisis as the food resources in the world are limited and will run out, leaving everyone at a loss.

the rich benefit from the food crisis. to what extent is this true?

focus
how the rich caused and manipulated the food crisis to their advantage, hence benefiting from it.

definitions
rich
macro level: developed countries which controls the world’s economy (WTO, UN, G8)
micro level: businessmen, MNCs in individual countries, higher income group
benefit
gain advantage

yes
1. the push for biofuels by developed countries such as united states.
- due to the depletion of fossil fuels and to reduce its dependence on foreign oil ie. self-sustainability
- incentives provided by governments to further push for biofuels
- eg. ‘washington provides a subsidy of 51 cents a gallon to ethanol blenders and slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on imports. in the european union, most countries exempt biofuels from some gas taxes and slap an average tariff equal to more than 70 cents a gallon of imported ethanol.’
the new york times, ‘the world food crisis’, 10 april 2008.
- eg. ‘the international monetary fund estimates that corn ethanol production in the united states accounted for at least half the rise in world corn demand in each of the past three years’
the new york times, ‘the world food crisis’, 10 april 2008.
- eg. ‘the growing diversion into ethanol has resulted in a 60 percent rise in corn prices in the past two years.’
the canadian press, ‘ethanol demand to push food prices 5% higher next year: economist’, 22 october 2007.
- developed countries benefit from reduction in taxes, and become more self-sustainable
- mncs benefit due to globalization

2. unfair trade agreements.
- main source of income for poorer countries is agriculture
- the dominance of the richer nations and companies in the international arena has had a tremendous impact on agriculture. a combination of unfair trade agreements, concentrated ownership of major food production, dominance (through control and influence in institutions such as the world bank, imf and the world trade organisation) has meant that poor countries have seen their ability to determine their own food security policies severely undermined.
- poorer countries made to remove trade barriers but richer countries seldom remove theirs in return.
- in addition, most poor countries were strongly encouraged to concentrate more on exporting cash crops to earn foreign exchange in order to pay of debts.
- poorer farmers made to give up on their jobs, reducing the supply of food.
- food dumping (while calling it aid) by wealthy nations onto poor countries, falling commodity prices (when many poor countries had to compete against each other to sell primarily to the rich), vast agricultural subsidies in north america and europe (outdoing the foreign aid they sent, many time over) have all combined to have various effects such as forcing farmers out of business and into city slums.
- rich nations benefit from the unfair trade agreements that they set

3. asia's rapid urbanization.
- in vietnam's bac ninh province, paddy fields are now bisected by a four-lane highway
- singapore-vietnamese joint venture will soon build a 1700-acre (700hectare) industrial park and township, turning this rural area into a satellite city.
- vietnam is losing about 99.000 acres of rice paddies every year to construction of cities, highways and industrial zones.
- mncs benefit as they are able to earn profit.
source: Time magazine. "No Grain, Big Pain".

no
1. current food crisis caused by natural disasters
- natural disasters destroy agriculture fields
- eg. a 2007 cyclone in bangladesh destroyed approximately 600 million dollars worth of its rice crop, leading to rice price increases of about 70 percent
the daily star [bangladesh], february 11, 2008.
- eg. the drought last year in northcentral china combined with the unusual cold and snow during the winter will probably lead the government to greater food purchases on the international markets, keeping the pressure on prices.
- both the rich and poor suffer due to inflation, but the rich are better able to overcome the problem due to their financial capability.
source: http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=20080521081510344

2. rising affluence
- rising affluence due to globalisation, causing the growth of middle class in several countries such as china and india.
- the increasing demand for meat among the middle class is one of the causes of the increase in prices of food products such as corn and soybeans, as the use of maize and soy to feed cattles, pigs and poultry has risen sharply to meet this demand.
- eg. the world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. in 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last twenty years alone.
new york times, january 27, 2008.
- like the above example, both the rich and the poor suffer due to the increase in price of food products, both from grains and meat. however, the rich are able to manage the inflation more effectively due to the financial capability.

is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

same-sex marriage, also known as homosexual marriage, gay marriage, gender-neutral marriage and equal marriage, is defined by wikipedia as a term for a governmentally, socially or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. this marriage is presently available to same-sex couples in seven countries, namely the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, the U.S states of Massachusetts and in dispute in Iowa as of early September 2007. also, Canada and Spain are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. other nations all have residency requirements that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage.

in this present time and age, there are many children around the world - orphans, to be exact - who are in need of a proper family, in need to be loved. and at the same time, gay parents are worrying and fretting over losing their children due to what the world perceives - that children would not be brought up well under the hands of gay parents. this has been proven to be false as most studies have found that outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents are no better - and no worse - than for other children (Post-Gazette, 10 june 2007). so why not allow same-sex marriages and give these orphans a proper home? by allowing same-sex marriages to have the same parenting priviledge as heterosexual marriages, we would be opening up an option that would change the lives of orphans around the world- to allow them to have loving parents just like any other child as the number of available adoptive homes for these orphans would significantly increase.

furthermore, one might argue that having same-sex parents are not among the optimum environment of growing up as a child. however, as stated in the example above, the outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents are no better and no worse then for other children. furthermore, some studies have even showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex. also, the children of lesbian couples have shown to be less aggressive, more nurturing to peers, more tolerant of diversity, and more inclined to play with both boy's and girl's toys. (WebMD Medical News, 12 october 2005). thus, gay parents can raise children just like normal parents do, sometimes even better, showing that their sexual orientation does not affect the way their children are brought up.

however, because the society has been promoting same-sex marriages as ludicrous, people are uncomfortable with the idea of same sex marriages. thus, gay marriages only create controversies, causing more to turn aganist the idea of same-sex marriages. many do not accept gay marriages as they believe that it is immoral. furthermore, gays cause people to create a stereotype that they are promiscuous, and that they are unable to form lasting relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted. more than half of all people in the United States oppose gay marriage, even though three fourths are otherwise supportive of gay rights. this means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights also oppose gays on this one issue. hence, same-sex marriages is not a practical consideration in this age of globalisation as many are against it.

also, gay marriages violate many religions - Christianity, Islam and Judaism. opponents often claim that extending marriage to same-sex couples will undercut the conventional purpose of marriage as interpreted by cultural, religious, and traditional understanding. furthermore, they argue that same-sex marriage cannot fulfill common procreational roles, and/or sanctions a partnership that is centered around sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits. James Dobson has stated in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family, damage traditional family unions, and lead to an increase in the number of homosexual couples.

in conclusion, i believe that same sex marriages is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation, since it is not harmful in any way. however, if it were to be accepted, i believe there should be a limit to it. furthermore, it should be dependent on the country's stand against ie if a country is strongly against same-sex marriages, it should be prohibited to prevent social unrest in the country.

'the mother of revolution and crime is poverty.' (aristotle) do you agree?

poverty is defined as the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support. it is a major problem in societies ever since eons ago, and it, till now, has yet been solved. poverty often leads to resentment, unhappiness, and sometimes, crime.

it can be said that poverty is the mother of crime. in modern times like this, poverty would mean being deprived of the basic necessities to live. furthermore, with constant development of countries, the prices of necessities would continue to increase as countries become wealthier. this leaves the poor at the lower end, and many times, desperation for basic neccesities due to poverty often drives people to commit crimes in order to survive, and these crimes include stealing or other illegal means to make earnings.

also, the poor may think that their poverty is the result of the government being inefficient, and hence, decide to go against the government. an example would be the russian revolution, where the non-noble classes asked for an improvement in their wretched and poor conditions of life. when the Czarist government failed to do so, they revolted for the first time in 1905 and then for the second time in 1917, by which Czardom was finally overthrown.

moreover, poverty may also lead to resentment, causing both crimes to be commited and revolution. due to the large income gap in a country such as the United Kingdom, where the bottom 50% of the population owns only 1% of the wealth, the poor may feel that it is unjust that they are earning less than a ten times or worse than what the rich earns in a day, and hence, anger resulting from such situations may lead to crimes such as kidnaps and murders and at the same time, riots going against the rich.

however, poverty may not nessarily cause crime. crime is a result of an individual's moral disposition that attempts to satisfy desire by taking something by force, hence it does not matter if one is rich or poor. it has only got to do with one's moral values. compare a poor person with good moral values and a rich person with poor moral values. the poor person may not neccesarily commit more crimes as compared to the rich one just because he is poor. in fact, the rich commits more crimes than the poor. in 1993, the property loss to theft and robbery amounted to $15.3 billion, but white-collar embezzlement cost about $200 billion. furthermore, street criminals murdered 23,271 people that year, but the decisions of profit-driven corporations murdered at least 318,368 (through pollution, consumer and worker safety violations, etc). moreover, the rich tend to commit more crimes than the poor as they might feel that it is more challenging and they would rather take the risks, since they could buy anything they want.

hence, i conclude that though poverty is the cause of revolution and crime, it is not the main reason and only acts as the catalyst.

singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. on the other hand, szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted? write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

i personally think that szilagyi's view should be adopted. that is, the focus should be placed on social responsibility.

singapore is a multi-racial society, and even though there is freedom of expression here, it should be limited in order to prevent any riots or conflict between any two cultures or religion. singapore is a small country, and racial harmony is one important value here which makes singapore a safe place to live in. furthermore, racial harmony is also what holds singapore together and it is what makes singapore different from many other countries. once this harmony is destroyed, our country would fall apart, making us vulnerable to external attacks which would bring about further social unrest. hence, everyone should be socially aware and be responsible enough not go beyond the limits of their freedom of expression. they should be accountable for what they say and to think about the effects of their words before saying anything, offensive or not, in order to prevent unrest in and outside of the country. moreover, in this technology savvy world, 'whether we like it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another'. a big fuss can be made out of any random casual comment made and if it is offensive to any particular religion or culture, those affected around the world would come to know about it too. this would cause severe undesired consequences globally, just like what happened when the danish papers published offensive cartoons about prophet muhammad. furthermore, 'once messages are out in public, they develop a life of their own and become subject to multiple interpretations, and often manipulation that serves political agendas'. this means that anything we say, when passed around as second hand information which might not be true, can also cause harm. this gives us more reason to be aware of what we are saying and to make sure that it does not offend anyone.

of course, i do not disagree with singer's view that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. freedom of expression, i believe is a basic human right. moreover, with freedom of expression, the government would be better able to lead a country well as its citizens would not be restricted by not being able to express their views or feelings on perhaps a new government policy. hence, freedom of expression is essential to any democracy. however, once this freedom of expression is being abused or misused, it would cause more harm than it would help a country. i would not say that peter singer is wrong by saying that 'we must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred'. however, this would come under respect and social responsibilty already. by denying the existence of God, criticizing the teaching of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, their respective followers(or believers) might get offended and tensions might rise, which as we all know, would cause adverse effects, just like the riots in 1964.

thus, i conclude that even though freedom of expression is essential, respect and social responsibility would come above it. hence, i believe that szilagyi's view should be adopted in singapore's context.

"the death penalty isnt a deterrent; it is murder." do you agree?

death penalty, in Singapore, is used to punish criminals who have committed capital crimes, such as murder, drug trafficking, terrorists activities, treason, and the list continues. however, is execution really the best way to put a stop to these crimes and to punish these criminals?

i beg to differ. i believe that the death penalty is a murder and not a deterrent. the death penalty is used to torture criminals and make them suffer and make up for the hurt they had inflicted on others, in other words, to inflict pain on them, emotionally and physically. while facing execution, whether by hanging, lethal injection or by using the electric chair, criminals have to face the emotional pain of knowing that their lives are going to end soon, and also, the thought of how the execution phase will feel like. during the execution, they experience the physical pain. hence, i think that the death penalty is just a form of murder, but in the legal manner, as it is no different from other forms of murder which are known as illegal in the government's eyes.

furthermore, two wrongs does not make a right. through the death penalty, the criminals do not learn from their mistakes. their lives are just put to an end due to a mistake made, whether in the moment of fury or not, no one knows. the death penalty does not exactly serve its purpose as a punishment, as the pain is just momentary for most cases. their sufferings are just for that minute or two, and their 'debt' is paid. the aftermath of that offender's execution, in turn, is suffered emotionally by his/her family members, as they will be the one experiencing the long run pain instead of the criminals. if one's intention is to punish the criminal and make the person turn over a new leaf, shouldnt the punishment be a long term one, so that the criminal will personally experience suffering and hence, learn a lesson?

there are many other more efficient ways of punishments, other than capital punishment. an example is rehabilitation. i believe that rehabilitation should be favoured upon the death penalty, as through rehabilitation, they are being counselled and their mindsets are being changed, hence, these offenders will be able to turn over a new leaf. furthermore, however tough and cruel one can appear, that person will still have a soft side to them. as the chinese saying goes, everyone has a heart of compassion, it's just whether they want to show and express it or not. thus, i believe that rehabilitation is more effective then capital punishments.

besides, criminals are not given a chance to change when a death penalty is imposed on them, and this is unjust to them. to err is human, everyone makes mistakes, hence everyone should be given a chance to repent and start afresh. these criminals should not be judged upon just because of a mistake they had made. moreover, human should not play God and make a decision to end someone's life. we do not have a right to command anyone's life. thus one should be given an opportunity to change for the better instead of just putting them to death.

in addition, the death penalty is irreversible in the miscarriages of justice. if someone is given the death judgement and is proved to be innocent later, who is going to take the blame for his death? in this case, a life would be lost, just because of a human error and carelessness.

on the other hand, the death penalty do serve a deterrence purpose. when one is executed, it serves as a warning to advocate the public that as they would face the undesirable fate of no return. also, this will induce fear in the public as no one will want to die young, thus, they will think twice before committing the crime because of the punishment. of course, those who are bent on committing crimes will not be bothered. there fore, the death penalty will only deter some and not others.

in conclusion, i feel that the death penalty should be abolished and other effective means should be used instead. death is murder, not a deterrent.

consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is necessary/unnecessary.

censorship is a rather controversial issue as we all have our own opinions regarding censorship. however, i personally think that censorship is vital.

censorship is necessary to protect the young and innocent. im sure no one is willing to see their children watching something morally wrong on the television, neither do they want their kids to get influenced by extreme violenece portrayed in shows. it is important to protect these children from young, so as to ensure they do not learn the wrong things. they are in a stage where they cannot make a decision towards what is right or wrong, and hence, they tend to believe whatever is shown on the television, fictional or not. hence, censorship is necessary to make sure these children grow up with the correct values and mindset.

also, censorship is necessary to avoid sensitive issues such as religious and racial issues. this is essential especially in a multi-racial country like Singapore, so as to maintain peace and order in the country. Singapore is very vulnerable when it comes to racial and religious conflicts and tensions as that would practically mean the collapse of the country, it being small. thus, to ensure no race or religion is being looked down upon or being criticised and for the interests of the country, it is necessary to have censorship.

furthermore, censorship is needed to protect national interests and the government in Singapore. there would be chaos in the country if political secrets are being divulged to the public, or even if someone goes against the government using the media. yes, some would say that the government might be corrupted and so on and so forth, but arent they the ones who lead the country and ensures peace and order in it? hence, some, if not all credits goes to the government for us being able to live in a safe and peaceful country. thus, censorship is crucial.

however, censorship causes us our freedom of expression. every human being should have the right to say whatever they want to and not be limited by any rules and regulations. with censorship, we are being restricted and stopped from expressing our thoughts and emotions.
on the other hand, as much as i believe that freedom of expression is important, i think that us being restricted by censorship due to the above mentioned issues is only right to guarantee morally right citizens and harmony in the country.

also, censorship is unnecessary as there are other sources of information available and what is being censored will be exposed sooner or later. in this IT savvy era, the internet is enough for one to search for any information under the sun. and hence, whatever is censored can be found out easily just by a few clicks.
however, how many more people actually bother to search the internet for the information that was being censored as compared to the amount of people who engages with media, ie listens to the radio and watches the television? i believe it's minority. hence censorship is still necessary to an extent.

therefore, in conclusion, censorship is necessary in the media to protect the interest of the country, and more importantly, the people.

eugenia :D
sweeetseventeen
dancer(:
cedarian
ajcian
childofGod
twelvejune

let my heartbeat be my heart's cry let me live to serve your call
in my life, Your will be done

mine(:
aloysius
bobby
brenda
cicillia
colin
geraldine
jacqueline
joshua
katherine
kianzuo
kenghuang
marion
royston
shimin
steph
terry
weihao
weijie
weixun
weizhe
yuanyin
zhiwei






March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
July 2008



layout: +
fonts: +
brushes: + +
image: +