To: Mrs. Frances Ess
These are some questions that I wondered these few days after going through the GP Programme
Social Studies: Globalisation
Isn't globalisation and urbanisation actually westernisation? Countries are actually adopting western style of life in order to globalised, does that mean that in order to be effective, developing western style is the only way?
Social Studies:
Means Testings
What about the case of people who are inevitably unemployed (the disabled, mentally ill, children etc). The government considered only personal income and not family ones, so which case are they considered in? Do they still get subsides? Is it fair to put them in that category?
Geography: Development
Why is Bhutan using Gross National Happiness which was implemented by crowned prince Jigme to assess people's overall needs? What type of indicator is it for standard of living or quality of life or income? Is it effective as an indicator in that way? Why?
The Global Partnership @ Mayflower blog had been a medium in which I had gained many perceptions and facts from each student's contributions from their personal research. It had reached the status of being like a forum, an information hub.
I'm glad about it and hope that it could improve even further.
However, I'd like to say I hope there would be more questions posted in the global partnership at mayflower blog as it seemed that many had posted on the same question and there had been many cases where students had given the same point but just using different statistics and many people replying to the same questions.
Because of that I find that its hard to choose a question to answer due to those question being repeatedly touched and it that many of the points had been said leaving little or none for me to write about it and also give each students its uniqueness for each post.
Dear Chaiyakorn
Thank you for the feedback and the questions that you have raised. We will do our best to upload more questions and reading materials as the days go by.
Food for thought
Globalisation--- Westernisation--- Yes that is why some NGO are against it. I will look out for more reading materials on this aspect for you.
Mean testing --- You can actually provide feedback for the government. I like the questions that you have raised.
As for Bhutan, I really do not have answer to the questions you have raised. May be this wil be a great opportunity fo ryou to answer these questions.
I am glad that you are taking an active role and "plugging into " this programme. The GP Programme depends on the active participation of all studnets.
I am looking forward to the time when you can ask the expert questions face to face.
GP Vietnam 2008
.jpg)
No of visitors
.jpg)
To prepare for the GP Programme in June, Mrs Selva the Vice Principal and three teachers, Mrs Ess, Ms Ng (Humanities Dept) and Mr. Gana (Math dept) visited Vietnam in February.
12 comments:
Name: Jill Lim (11)
Class:4A
I would like to respond to Win's question on Bhutan's way of accessing the quality of life. Its a rather interesting question to ask.
"Gross National Happiness" may seem a weird name to us, but in fact it is an attempt to define quality of life in more holistic and psychological terms than Gross National Product.
As a response to criticism by others that Bhutan's economy was growing poorly, the crowned prince Jigme implemented such an indicator to access people’s overall needs. It signaled his commitment to building an economy that would serve Bhutan's unique culture based on Buddhist spiritual values. Like many moral goals, it is somewhat easier to state than to define. Hence, it serves as a unifying vision for the Five year Planning process and planning documents that guide the economic development of the country.
There is no exact quantitative definition of GNH. It simply refers to the quantiative measurement of happiness and well- being. The concept of GNH claims to be based on the premise that true development of human society takes place when material and spiritual development occur side by side to complement and reinforce each other.
There is this article on 24 March 2008 which states “ No 5Cs? No problem. If life is measured in dollars and cents, then Bhutan would be the poorest country in the world. But if life is measured differently, in peace, joy and laughter, then Bhutan becomes a country of millionaires.” However, I have this question in mind. This world is constantly improving and reinforcing. A country’s economy reflects on the well- being of the people and hence it is vital to the people’s survival. Happiness in a country might be a good thing, but without money, one’s survival might even be a question. Moreover, will Bhutan ever be globalised? It can’t possibly remain stagnant forever. Even time could cause certain improvements and changes and thus happiness isn’t everything right?
Name: Tommy Gunawan (40)
Class: 4A
King Jigme implemented GNH to complement the unique Buddhist culture Bhutan has, base on Bhuddhist values. Happiness can actually be said to be the main driving force for a developing country. It is for happiness that you work hard, increasing the country's economy, so that you can enjoy more in the future. It is for happiness that you strive to achieve better standard of living, to make your life easier and be much more relaxed. It is also for happiness that you strive to improve your quality of life, so that you can, you guessed it, be happy.
So I disapprove of Jill's statement when she said that happiness isn't everything. All the things you is so that you can be happy. Although I agree that GNH is not a good GPI to measure growth of a country, since a low GPI does not mean the country is not developed. It just means the country is unhappy now, perhaps because they're working hard to strive for happiness in the future. A high GNP may not also indicate that a country is fully develop, since it may show that the countrymen is beginning to enjoy their life more with recreational activities, rather than working hard, thus reducing the rate of development.
But does this mean that a country will never be happy, since one have to continuously develop more and more, globalise more and more, and this means one may not have enough time to actually enjoy life and be happy? Which brings to another point:
If development is a race, and Japan, USA, and maybe Singapore is leading the race, with China not far behind, where is the finishing line? When will it all end?
Name: Jill Lim(11)
Class: 4A
I disagree Tommy’s response towards my statement. Since happiness is supposed to be the key driving force for a developing country, then why Bhutan is still not developed or globalised even in the least? Bhutan might not be an uprising economy, but caters for complete happiness in the country, so what’s the point of being happy without a strong economy. Without economic revenue, one can’t survive. It’s a globalised world now. Everything rotates around money. Let me simply put it this way, without money, more problems will be caused than solved. It does not appear to me that the happiness people in Bhutan have attained is pushing the country to further development. Then how come at this point of time, Bhutan is still considered as the most less developed country? The most intriguing thing is that how can a country be satisfied and fulfilling to endure living in such a lowly- developed area? Isn’t there an urge to encourage the citizens to do their part in order to strive for improvement?
However, I do agree with the next query. As we move on to the next century, will countries that are rapidly developing continue to globalise; and those that are less developed remain stagnant? Moreover, why do the rich become richer and the poor gets poorer? Isn’t it fair to the poor? Of course, a person’s wealth may be due to several factors for example access to certain things, but how about for those who have worked hard and never seem to succeed due to the dire living conditions.
Wow, the quality of discussion have suddenly jumps five fold. Great.
Life is not FAIR.
If it is there will not be any poor people in this world
We are all not created Equaly but we can bring about development if we grab all the opportunities we can.
Yes we have not come to this DEEP DEEP question. Development for Development sake? Is it Sustainable?
When do we know the optimal level for develpoment and stop?
Is globalisation really equated to westernisation?
If so, why is yoga so popular in the west?
Why are large corporate firms learning management systems of the lunch tiffin providers running in the streets of India?
Why are there sushi chains in London and Sydney? Why are the westerners picking up and reading war strategies of SunZi? (孙子兵法？）
Why are there local variations of burgers. If it is complete westernisation aka globalisation, shouldn't it be all boring pickled and cheese burgers available only? Oh, wait a minute, that is American, it is not representative of everything west. A French will take offence if you call him an American, like wise we take offence when they mistake us for other being an Asian from a different part of the continent. Furthermore, America and France aren't even on the same continent! Talk about adding salt to injury.
What are all these mumbo jumbo about? The thing is, globalisation is globalisation. It is one big fermenting melting pot, constantly having the contents evolving and morphing. Granted the trends now is that many Asian and other developing countries still look up to the western ways of doing things as the modern and sort after way. The western world is still deemed as the richer and more developed, or estalished part of the globe. But not for long... That is only temporal.
Eventually different countries and individuals and cultures will start to look back into their own heritage and fuse it with the 'newer' 'western', 'modernised'thinking and contribute their own intepretation into this big fuzzy term globalisation.
Look at China and Japan now, they took what is useful for them from the western school of thought and made it their own. Heard of the term Japanisation and Chinlish? They are a form of manisfestion of globalisation itself, which may not necessarily need to link itself with economy and development.
Also currently, the ongoing protests and demonstrations happening on the Olympic torch route, these are all products of globalisation, where people have more access to information, and where people want to voice out, make themselves seen and heard and hopefully count. The interesting thing is, it is not just the more western and pro-tibetian crowd that are protesting and trying to make the world toe the line of western moral issues, there are Chinese supporters in the demonstrations too! And there are yet another group who believe that sports and politics should not mix and urging for calm. It is so confusing that it defies logic and makes one wonder why homo sapiens are termed sapiens where stupidity and rashness is demonstrated more than anything else. But, hey, this is globalisation, where diversity thrives and ideas and thinkings are expressed, hopefully kickstarting the process of thinking and analysis.
Such chaos, fluidity and non-ability for a good clear definition is the beauty, engima and frustrations that globalisation brings about.
A possible reason for Bhutan's under development could be the fact that since the government has chosen to use GNH to measure the development of the country, they chose to spend their resources on their citizens to make them happy, rather than focusing their resource to develop and globalise the country. This in turns lead to a high GNH which, to the Bhutanese, makes Bhutan considered to be "developed".
With such a perception, it is not surprising that the government is reluctant to change their ways of governing the country. Like I said before, too much happiness can lead to laziness, which thus slows down development.
Name: Melissa/13
Class: 4A
Today's in-class interactive discussion revolving the social impacts of globalisation has set me thinking about a few possibilities.
Previously, Win had suggested that globalisation is actually westernisation. Is this because majority of the global corporations, such as MacDonald's or Starbucks, are western-orginated, or rather, pro-American. What if MacDonalds and Starbucks served Chinese cuisine instead? Then would globalisation instead become " Easternisation "?
Another mind-provoking thought:
Regarding the homogenous global culture that was discussed, does this culture refer to the dominant way of life that people worlwide have adapted to due to the introduction of foreign culture through global corporations (particularly food chains.)?
And can we safely assume that the so called homogenous culture is pro-Western as of now?
Name: Shabnam (15)
Class: 4A
Globalisation seems to show that being connected with the world and adapt to changes by gaining more knowledge fast enough is something that must be achieved.
So, I have been wondering, is producing elites in countries, a neccessity, to be champions in this fast-racing world of globalisation?
Producing highly educated citizens has the negative impacts and the positive impacts.
Singapore is facing an aging population and it is due to the post-war baby boom. In addition to that is Singapore's declining birth rate.(1.24 last year compared to 4.66 in 1965)
A possible reason to that fall is that now females are allowed to pursue further studies and are more knowledgable of what the world has in stored for them in terms of careers and job scopes.
The positive impact is that there are more people involved in the workforce, serving Singapore in one way or another, contributing to Singapore's economy.
Name: Chaiyakorn Srisakvarakul
Class: 4A
The comment leave by me this time will not be speak out my view on my own question after few weeks of exposure on Mrs. Ess Social Studies lesson on the Social Impact of Globalisation.
Isn't globalisation and urbanisation actually westernisation? Countries are actually adopting western style of life in order to globalised, does that mean that in order to be effective, developing western style is the only way?
To a certain extend, yes, globalisation is partly westernisation.
Globalisation offers people who experience a better and faster connectivity. This escalate the level of competition tremendously. Hence, in seach of ways to cope with such challenges, People had to adopt a higher efficiency lifestyle . There can be no wastage of time. Hence, in search of a perfect style or where optimum efficiency is guarantee, people around the world then changes. For example, McDonald as Melissa had said, it does not matter what cuisine the company serve, as long as it promises the customer that whatever they order, they would be able to spend the least time possible finishing the food while still being able to get to one's workplace in time and is full. A new study suggests that adult of working age are more likely to skip breakfast and increase their fast food consumption, and that both behaviors lead to an increased risk of weight gain. This shows that people goes for conveniency in order to cope with their hectic schedule. On my point of disagreeing Melissa's view, take this as an example, kimchi and bulgogi burgers are only offered in Korea and so are the rest of the countries where the meal of McDonalds are altered to suit the taste of the locals. Another example, most of the meal offered by Indian branch's McDonald offers burger with extra Indian spices with are usually taken with curry sauce. These are example which proves that the fact that whatever cuisine McDonald offer, McDonald influence will never be considered 'Easternisation'. What matters is not the cuisine but the portability. The word 'burger' makes a difference as it offers the consumer portability and conveniency which make their lifestyle efficient. From what 'Yun' said of large corporate firms learning management systems of the lunch tiffin providers running in the streets of India, I believe that support my point that globalisation makes people adopt efficient ways of living and managing things, despite its origin. In this way, it is also true that one cannot say that globalisation is westernisation as from this point, it is the east that is influencing the west.
Secondly, I believe that it is because much of the world was colonised by the western power, that they were technologically advance at that time that result in the present adopting western lifestyle that are labeled as an impact of globalisation. These western countries had made a foundation in the upcoming globalisation impact around the world by the introduction of their languages and lifestyle through the countries they colonised. Hence, the fact that after independence, much of western influence still lingers in the colony and that the western nations were still super powers at the dawn of globalisation(arguably around the first world war) were probably the fact that western influence plays a great part in globalisation where eastern nations at that point of time were not as technologically advance as western nation. To be globalised, it is required for a nation to have a certain standard of communication and transportation technology. Because of the fact that the western were the one who bring globalisation to the eastern nation from its colonisation period(The period which many contries gain independence is also the period of the dawn of globalisation) caused people to misconcept westernisation to be same as globalisation. In fact, globalisation is only the increase efficiency in the lifestyle but the fact that as what Mrs. Ess said that "Chinese are wearing suits and ties in formal occasion instead of their traditional costumes" are probably only the impact of colonisation, not globalisation.
Hence, I conclude on my believe that globalisation is the impact on the world on the increase in efficiency of lifestyle, regardless of adopting method from western or eastern culture and that eastern nation adopting western culture is NOT an impact of globalisation but an impact of previous western colonisation. That is what I believe, please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you.
It is intriguing of the fuss created by the term Globalisation.
Globalisation like many big themes of life; love, logic cannot be defined. So why bother drawing a line of where it starts and stop?
Globalisation is not westernisation nor easternisation, it just cannot be defined and is based on each’s personal perspective.
Globalisation is basically developing, developing, developing. Man created this term to distinguish this competition in a global scale and any other competition. It’s a rat race, with no end, just timeless competition to outdo each other and emerge top. But what is top today may change in the future, thus fuel the competition till time ceased to exist.
To be more globalise is not to follow others, if so, how can one be on top of another? To do so, it is to take what is beneficial and infuse it with one’s own culture. But more importantly, it is creativity. You have to spark creativity to be two steps ahead of others. To create what will be useful for the country is to have foresight of developing the correct areas for the future will determine the country’s “ranking”. And whether
The country can only give you the ladder, but if you wish to climb out of the well, it depends on one’s willpower and hunger for power. Only having the willpower and hunger for power then would one be out of the well and emerge as victors. So do you have what it takes, to be Globalise?
Dear all
Thank you for all the comments. Based on the quality of your thinking, we can move one level up in this discussion. Generally you all are ready to do general paper in JC.
Now focus on teh quality of your thinking. Do not cut and paste ideas, create new knowledge. This discussion will be useful to you next year when you are in JC . Trust me
After reading comments posted by both Jill and tommy, i think i would agree more with what tommy had said, that happiness is everything. Without happinesss, one would not have the strive to work hard for the country. After all, what all men do now is to gain happiness.
As bhutan, is a small country in india, nearing china. It has very little people, thus that's one factor i think why in bhutan, they used GNH.
With small number of people in a country, less problems would arised, and less conflicts formed. Even if someone wants to make trouble for the country, with small number of people, he would have little power to continue to make unrest and make people living in fear, unlike countries like china, the tibet incident, which causes a stir to many people in china and countries that is related to china.
With that, brings me to another point, bhutan have not actively joined the globalisation era yet. It gives me a picture to the period before globalization, where people are not yet mordernized, they are more "innocent" and they seem to be contented in their lives, they are peace lovers, just like majority of people of bhutan.
Not only the people, even the ruler of bhutan, prince regime. He's like the total opposite from george bush, who always do all sorts of things for the benefits of himself. Even the prince himself, listed as most popular visiting royals, is a humble man of good character and a peace lover.
I would like to further elaborate my opinions on why happiness is necessary for a country. Bhutan uses GNH to rank its development, this shows that bhutan has achieved one aspect of development, which is quality of life. What matters is as long you are happy. What's the point if a country being very well developed, but majority of people are not happy, then what's the point of living?
Perhaps, to those people out there striving hard amidst the competitors around you and what modern world has results in, you could take a break and find true happiness.
If we can go back in time, perhaps to be like bhutan, people are more happy, though they are developing slolwy, but the results are worth it, compared to developing so rapidly, and more problems are created than being solved. There's no wrong in developing slowly, as now we are in rat race, we do not know when to stop, so why hurry? Slow down and find happiness, the meaning of life. Then the world would be more peaceful.
Post a Comment