ENTRIES
PROFILE
ARCHIVES
TAGBOARD

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Article:

Corporate interests and actions can harm the environment

Economics and globalization affect the environment as the capital flowing into the developing nations are often funding projects that are potentially damaging to the world's environment. Yet, many of these are presented as either development projects or countered as actually being favourable (or at least not harming) the environment.

In the late 1990s attention was drawn to a United Nations (U.N.) project to get corporate collaboration/sponsorship in development projects, supporting human rights and the environment, and being generally more responsible and accountable. However it fell under a lot of criticism for involving corporations that are known to have contributed or caused some of the more severe human rights and environment problems, allowing these companies to attempt to repair their tarnished image, while not actually tackling the problems.

In May 2002, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) released an extensive report saying that, "there was a growing gap between the efforts to reduce the impact of business and industry on nature and the worsening state of the planet" and that "this gap is due to the fact that only a small number of companies in each industry are actively integrating social and environmental factors into business decisions." (The actual quote is from a U.N. News Centre article, 15 May 2002 that introduces the report.)

One sharp example of environmental problems caused by multinational corporations is the drive to extract oil from Nigeria. As the previous link, from this site's section on Africa shows, corporations have even backed the military to harass, even kill, local people who continue to protest at the environmental and other problems the activities of the various oil companies have caused.

The interests of the various big polluters, such as the auto, mining, oil and chemical corporations influenced the Kyoto Global Climate Change Conference outcome.

Corporate interest could be said to be behind biotechnology and genetically engineered food production, which may be counter to issues relating to feeding the world's hungry. The concerns on the environment are therefore magnified.

With increased consumerism, there has been a rise in the number of environmental groups campaigning on various issues such as environmentally friendly products. To varying extents then, environmental concerns are issues that sometimes make the mainstream news. However, a cover story, of Down To Earth magazine from Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment as an example, warns that the latest craze in green and ethical consumerism may just be another way for corporations to exploit people and make money by misrepresenting the facts. As another example of this, EarthDay Resources' annual Don't Be Fooled Awards highlight some of what they call the corporate "greenwashing" that goes on through advertising and lobbying campaigns.

There are countless examples where corporate involvement in various issues could contribute to environmental problems as a result. Corporations are major entities in the world and thus have an enormous impact (negative and positive) on all our lives. And concerns of overly corporate-led globalization contributing to environmental problems are increasing, as reported and documented by countless environmental and social justice groups around the world.

source: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/Environment.asp#Corporateinterestsandactionscanharmtheenvironment

Reflection:

This article is on corporate interests and how its development can harm the environment. It is said that "the capital flowing into the developing nations are often funding projects that are potentially damaging to the world's environment".

It was also argued that these projects did not actually harm the environment. In the 1990s when attention was drawn to a U.N. project that for "collaboration and sponsorship in development projects, supporting human rights and the environment, and being generally more responsible and accountable", it fell under criticism for targeting corporations that caused the more severe human rights and environmental problems.

Just by this example, we can see that different countries and corporations are more interested in finding someone to blame for our problems than to really correct it.

There is no real cause to worry. For all we know, there may not even be an environmental problem. In the later part of the article, it says that "Down To Earth magazine from Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment warns that the latest craze in green and ethical consumerism may just be another way for corporations to exploit people and make money by misrepresenting the facts".

This is a screenshot of a scene in Runescape, which is a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG). The avatars seen in the picture are all controlled by humans behind computer screens. The interesting point is that these avatars are controlled by humans all over the world; however in the game, they all exist in a common world. The game actually simulates an environment, where all the players must familiarize themselves with. In the game, there is no such thing as nationality as everyone is in a common world, a common environment.

MMORPGs allow people to meet and interact with one another in the comfort of their homes. People of different nationalities that have the same interest in the game can befriend each other and form clans. Clans usually comprises of many members and there is no restriction on nationality. As we can see, MMORPGs can virtually erase national barriers.

The bar graph above shows one aspect of economic globalisation - foreign direct investments. There have been a steady increase in FDIs over the years. Therefore, in my post this time round, I shall discuss on the facts and myths of Foreign Direct Investments and its increase in this globalised world.

Foreign direct investment has increased much over the last 20 years. It brings private overseas funds into a country for investments in manufacturing or services. However, although it can bring in impressive growth, it can also cause instability and economic distress, such as the Asian financial crisis. However, despite that, many governments of many poor countries continue to see foreign capital as a means of economic growth. Thus, they have put in much effort and take steps to attract it.

There are some myths to foreign investments. I shall now state 2 of them and show that actually these statements on FDIs are actually not true:

Myth #1 - Foreign Investment helps to create new enterprises, expands markets and stimulates new research and development of local 'know-how'.

This statement is not entirely true. This is because most foreign investments are more interested in buying profitable private firms and taking over existing markets, rather than developing one. Furthermore, instead of building on private capital, it FI undermines the emerging technological research centers.

Also, FI don't really expand the market much. In some sectors, the new foreign owners may have expanded the market. However, in some other sectors like transportation, the new foreign owners have reduced the market by raising charges, even beyond the means of most consumers.

Myth # 2: Most 3rd World countries depend on foreign investment to provide needed capital for development as local sources are not available or inadequate.

Actually, foreign investment is really a borrowing of national savings to buy local enterprises and finance investments. Foreign investors and MNCs directly receive loans from local pension funds and banks. The notion that 3rd World countries need FI because of they are short of capital do not really stand. In reality, the foreign investors actually compete for local savings from a privileged position in the credit market. This way, they are able to hold on to their assets and political influence to secure loans from local lending agencies.

Therefore in conclusion, I believe that FDI will continue to increase in the future. Despite these facts of FDI, most developing countries have accepted the fact that FDI offers a potentially significant source of financing. This is because although this does not really happen much, it does, a little, serve as a relatively stable source of capital. Also, it brings in up-to-date technology, organizational skills and distribution networks.

DONE BY: NUR ATIQAH ISMAIL

TA 2D'o6

ECONOMIC EXPERT(:

The line graph aboves shows the increase in US economic prosperity due to free trade. Free Trade's virtues have been praised for 300 hundred years. By allowing everyone equal access to all markets, as the theory goes, they gurantee the most efficient allocation of resources and the cheapest prices for consumers. So, the question comes - can such a theory work in practice? Western rhetoric says it can, and points to international instituitions such as the World Trade Organisation to promote free trade of goods, and the World Bank to provide credit for development projects. However, so long as the West continues to protect its own industries from the international market, its position is arguably hypocritical.

In my opinion, there are many advantages of free trade. I will now state some of the advantages.

1) Being interlocked though trading relationships decreases the likelihood of war. If one is engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship with other countries, then there is no incentive to jeopardise the relationship through aggression. Thus this promotes peace, which is to all of us, a universal good.

2) Maximum global efficiency, and the cheapest prices, can only be maintained by a tariff free international economy. The more efficiently allocated are the world's resources the less waste there is and the more affordable goods will become for consumers.

3) The growth of the developing world is a universal good, because the improvement in the quality of life of millions of people is clearly a moral imperative. Free trade helps countries by maximising their comparative advantage in free trade circumstances.

4) Lastly, another advantage of free trade is that not only free trade in goods that will benefit the developing world. Developing countries gain ready access to capital in liberalised international financial markets. This gives them the opportunity to finance projects for growth and development.

Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that free trade does have a lot of its advantages and helps to increase the world's economic prosperity. Thus I restate my stand that free trade serves as a universal good.

Thanks to the connectivity provided by the internet, distance learning or E-learning is made possible. In addition to being sarcastic, I think that the author of the top most cartoon is being sarcastic. Nevertheless, it gives readers a sense of the potential of E-learning that the internet possesses. E-learning, for us students in the Temasek Academy, is obviously not new.

We have been using the Knowledge Constructor for quite some time already. In my opinion, the knowledge constructor is good example of E-learning as it allows us exchange information and thus learn from one another at our own pace. The use of instant messaging programs like MSN messenger allows us to communicate in real time both with our teachers and classmates. In the event that we have a problem, help is only a few taps on the keyboard away.

In the bottom cartoon, we can see that a frog is being virtually dissected. With the use of interactive animation, computers have not only allowed us to utilize our creativity, but also learn more efficiently as well. Although we do not have to physically go through rather messy experiments, we can still visualize the process and result with the computer's help.

As you probably can see, the internet is the result of technology being applied in the process of globalization. Distance learning is made possible by the internet as it enables us to communicate and share data easily with one another. In my next post,we shall discuss on the negative effects of this ease of data sharing.

Done by: Technological Expert Jonathan Pung

Article:

Sustainable Forests or Sustainable Profits?

The overly corporate-led form of globalization that we see today also affects how natural resources are used and what priorities they are used for.

"It is true that cutting down forests or converting natural forests into monocultures of pine and eucalyptus for industrial raw material generates revenues and growth. But this growth is based on robbing the forest of its biodiversity and its capacity to conserve soil and water. This growth is based on robbing forest communities of their sources of food, fodder, fuel, fiber, medicine, and security form floods and drought."

— Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), p.1

We hear more about sustainable forestry practices by the large logging multinationals. However, what does that really mean? Who is it sustainable for? Society and the environment, or for the logging companies? By replanting trees that will grow quickly and allow them to be felled for "sustained" logging sounds like a good strategy. However, the trees that are favored for this (eucalyptus) require a lot of water to grow so quickly. As John Madeley points out.

"[T]he [eucalyptus] trees achieve this rapid growth by tapping large quantities of groundwater, impoverishing surrounding vegetation and threatening to dry up local water courses."

— John Madeley, Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor, (Zed Books, 1999) p.76.

Madeley continues by describing the impact that the use of chemicals to treat woodpulp from the eucalyptus has on local fisheries and on food production. This has had terrible effects on indigenous people within such regions.

source: http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Biodiversity/Loss.asp#SustainableForestsorSustainableProfits

Reflections:

Though it is not a main cause, globalization is one of the causes of loss of biodiversity. In order to generate revenue and growth in the industry, natural environments like forests have been cleared, causing plants and animals to lose their habitats and the loss of biodiversity.

After this, the article talks about sustainable forests as the way to solve deforestation. The Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) defines sustainable forest management as "the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social funcions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecoystems". In other words, trees that are cut down are replaced with trees that grow quickly so that they can be "felled down for sustainable logging". The trees that are chopped down are replaced and that does not cause a problem.

However in the specific case study, the trees replaced those that were chopped down were eucalyptus trees, and this kind of trees require a lot of water in order to grow fast. They tapped large quantities of groundwater, thus "impoverishing surrounding vegetation and threatening to dry up local water courses". The use of chemicals to treat wood pulp from the eucalyptus has also affected local fisheries and on food production, which in turn creates problems for the indigenous people within the regions.

Environmental expert
Jean Ng
2D'06

Monday, May 14, 2007

The World gets in touch with their inner American



"We are all Americans now, like it or not."
G. Pascal Zachary

"Globalization is in so many ways Americanization: globalization wears Mickey Mouse ears, it drinks Pepsi and Coke, eats Big Macs, does its computing on an IBM laptop with Windows 98. Many societies around the world can't get enough of it, but others see it as a fundamental threat."
Thomas L. Friedman

In the early 19th century, "Americanization" referred to the movement where immigrants were developed into Americans. Today, the term carries a different and yet almost similar meaning. Americanization is now popularly viewed as the globalization by the U.S. of the world. The American economy is an ever-present force in the world today. Pepsi advertisements clutter the streets of every big city in China, Big Macs are being ordered throughout the entire world, and the term "Always Coca-Cola" is being muttered by all of Europe. This is plain evidence that countries all over the world are being globalized. However, is the word globalisation better known as Americanisation?

'The American Way' has successfully managed to infiltrate every aspect of our lives, even in communist countries such as Russia and China. For example, in the aspect of entertainment, China's youth today can not only watch The O.C. or Desperate Housewives on television, but also the newest films direct from Hollywood. There is also an amusement park in Shanghai called the American Dream Park(which duplicates typical American attractions) to cater to them. Additionally, the Chinese can choose to eat at any of 130 McDonald's restaurants placed all over the country. Mainland billboards, store fronts and television commercials all sell the American dream. Nike's "Flyer Qiao Dan," also known as basketball star Michael Jordan actually outranked Mao in a recent mainland popularity survey.

People seek a good life, one that they feel can be found in the American way of life.
After a half century of isolation under the Communist Party, the Chinese are desperate to catch up. "Chinese, young and old, are tired of political movements," says a Western correspondent in Beijing. The American Dream may be frayed at the edges, he adds, but Chinese still want the amenities associated with it: a car, a house filled with appliances, in short, the good life. "America represents an ideal in China," says King Lai, CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising China. "For the Chinese, it's the lifestyle that they aspire to, the spirit of America."

However, some other countries do not agree. For example, the Israeli government announced in November that it may require its radio stations to devote half their airtime to songs sung in Hebrew in order to slow down Israel's cultural shift toward Americanization. A few countries like France and Germany are also making plans to slow Americanization. By raising taxes and tariffs on foreign companies and investors, these countries are making it harder for American companies to profit overseas. Thus while Americanization may be welcomed by some, it is often viewed as a threat to national culture.

Sometimes, misconceptions and wrong judgements are made about the American Way. In a recent French poll of images that come to mind when thinking of America, 67% of those polled said "violence" and 49% "inequality" as opposed to only 20% who said "freedom" and 4% "generosity" (3). In Europe, Americans are stereotyped by globalization as being shallow, spoiled, and shortsighted. Hence although Americanization is rapidly changing the world, it may create wrong stereotypes of America. But then again, is Americanization truly the answer to globalisation in the world today?

Attached is an interesting article of how cultural globalisation may not necessarily be purely Americanization.
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i35/35b00701.htm


- Culturally yours,
Cultural Expert- Gwyneth Liew

The photo above shows the increase in the remittances over the years. As we can see clearly from the graph, it shows that the money sent home by immigrant workers has exceeded foreign aid and equals all foreign investments. Thus, in my post this time round, I will touch on the topic that is one of the most visible aspects of globalisation - international migration.

Increased migration is one of the most significant aspects of globalisation. There is a growing number of people moving within countries and across borders, in search for better lifestyles and employment opportunities. International migration can take place for economic and non-economic reasons. Ever since the end of World War II, most international migration has been motivated by economic reasons- by the prospect of earning higher wages and income abroad. The attitude of the countries of origins of migrants varies. Some see it as an issue of political and social control and seek to prevent, or at least severely restrict, any emigration. Others allow it, but have policies that, intentionally or otherwise, create disincentives for potential migrants. For example, they making it illegal for non-residents to own property, making it hard for migrants to return later. International migration has its advantages and disadvantages, and thus in this post, I shall discuss about the negative claims made about migration and debate it against my opinion to show that migration is afterall, a force for good.

Let us first look at one negative view of migration. Economic migrants leave their countries not because they cannot find jobs but mainly because they are seeking higher income. Thus, they are only widening the gaps in their home countries' labour markets, condemning them to further economic decline to the expense of under-developed countries. Thus, international labour migration further skews distribution of income in the world.

However, if we look in it at a different point of view, we realize that labour is a factor of production that is becoming more and more mobile in the age of globalization, especially with modern advances in transport facilities. It is only natural that labour is moving from areas where it cannot be used to the places where there is a big labour market. Furthermore, some analyses prove that although output in the country of emigration decreases, it increases in the host country in a larger-scale, thus counting for a net increase in the world output. Hence, I do not believe that immigration should not be blamed for further skewing the distribution of income around the world.

Let us look at another claim made about migration. Some say that often migrants move with their families, and thus there cannot be any income for a home country. Also, an unqualified illegal labour force lowers the real wages of local workers and makes the unemployment problem in thier host country worse. Thus some believe that they should instead attempt to improve the situation in poor countries rather than just allowing anyone with the drive to leave.

This viewpoint however, in my opinion, can be debated quite easily. In my opinion, the higher real wages that migrant workers earn abroad and transfer to their families at home can be compared to dividends from successful capital investments. Migrants' remittances to their families abroad and investments in their home country's economy are all gains for a migrant's native land. In some cases, private investments from emigrants is worth 50% of these countries' commodity export income. Thus I think that we should not make a sweeping generalisation and say that migration causes the home country to be at a further disadvantage.

Thirdly, let us now look at another negative point that has been made on international migration. Some say that the immigrants that come to the US and the west European countries are now mostly uneducated people who cannot contribute new technologies or special knowledge. However, in my opinion, international migration do bring new knowledge and technologies to some countries. For example the huge migration from Europe to America in the late 19th century did boost the growth rate in the US, and contributed to its economic take-off. This is not only evident in America - Australia and New Zealand also emerged out of immigration flow. The reverse is also true. Migrants also return back to their countries, bringing along new skills, knowledge and money - all that can invigorate the economy of their original country.

Thus, in conclusion, I would like restate my stand that I believe international migration is a force for good. It should be encouraged and countries should not restrict the flow of migrants. This is one form of globalisation today - and we should accept it with open arms.

(:

DONE BY: NUR ATIQAH ISMAIL

TA 2D'o6

Economic Expert

Sunday, May 13, 2007

The Sino-U.S. Relation and Its Structural Clash

Thursday, 28. September 2006, 09:24:11
By Ni LexiongProfessor,Research Institute of War and Culture,
Eastern China Science and Engineering University
The Global Time (Huanqiu Magazine)
Mar 29, 2004

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04_03_18relationstructuralclash.php

Reflection:

Globalization has given the wide spread of modern technology and increasing economics. Besides the developed countries, there are countries such as China taking the advantages of globalization for their development. And this article talks about the relationship between a potential strong power – China and an existing strong power – the US. Globalization has given a chance for China to bring in foreign technology and investment. And its economic power and political position seems to be rising. And the US has felt the pressure from China. This relationship between two nations then will definitely affect the order of the world.

There are several factors the author brought up to argue about the conflicts. These two countries are quite different in their “understanding of a series of cultural values such as freedom, human rights, equality and justice”. And as a nation with advanced democratic political system, the US wants other nations to enter the same systems. In fact, its power in the current system allows it to do this. It has brought insecurity to many nations, so as China. China, as a potential strong power will "eventually challenge the existing strong powers in all hutments of life including politics, economy and military". The author has also used a lot of case studies to argue that how one nation’s confrontation with its opponent will be doubly uncompromising, when a its ideology and national survival are not in conflict. The author also pointed out that thinking each other as a threat will then lead to a confrontation. When the conflict is exacerbated, it may lead to war.

However, besides this pessimistic point of view, the author also said that there are many factors which will contribute to the resolution of conflicts. Based on the Chinese culture and ideology of Confucius, China’s national character tend to avoid conflicts. Most dynasties in Chinese history have the idea of not invading small countries around it and using moral persuasion to influence peoples around boundaries. Many westerners claim that “ancient China seeking imperial suzerainty through moral force is the same as seeking hegemony through moral force”. However, the author believes that China’s behavior is not same as “imposition of one’s own will upon others”.

Also, there is one interesting point that the author pointed out. He said that the appearance of nuclear weapons might be a price for peace today. And with the power which is enough to eliminate its opponent, China and the US may remain a nice relationship.

In my opinion, the final achievement of globalization should be to bring the world a peaceful and democratic unified system. However, during the process, because of the different current cultural understanding and political system, all the nations need to face the conflicts and challenges. The current world has multipolarity, and the wills of powerful countries will then lead to either peace or conflicts. What do we want? I think it would be peace. So the problem once again comes back to the basic topic about mankind. Any mistrust will then lead to suspicion, misunderstanding and finally the political conflicts. So just as I mentioned long time ago, the main point here is still trust and cooperation. It is easy to say, but much harder to do. The future is still a myth.

[[your political expert Liu Sha]]

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Bibliography(In Chinese :p):

http://hi.baidu.com/zyjlr/blog/item/0c119ecad5eb2c87c9176856.html
http://www.teamdo.com.cn/blog/user1/2520/archives/2005/18615.html
http://www.people.com.cn/GB/channel7/498/20000619/109584.html

What North Korea Really Wants

By Robert Carlin and John W. Lewis
Saturday, January 27, 2007; Page A19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601363.html

[please click on the link to see the article]

Reflection:

This article is about the North Korea’s nuclear weapons issue. This is an issue that has last for a long time, and still it has not been solved yet. As a result of North Korea withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003, the six-party talks have been set. Six countries participant in the meeting: the People's Republic of China; the Republic of Korea (South Korea); the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea); the United States of America; the Russian Federation; and Japan. There have been five rounds of talks with only little net progress, until North Korea agreed to shut down its nuclear facilities in exchange for fuel aid and steps towards the normalization of relations with the United States and Japan in the third phase of the fifth round of talks.

So how are this issue and the current events related to globalization? It is quite obvious. One important point of globalization is that it creates increasing interdependence in many different areas, so as the political area. It means that one country’s decision is linked to the move of another. In this case, the North Korea-US relations play very important role.

The primary problem is that the current U.S. administration fundamentally doesn’t want an agreement with North Korea. The Bush administration considers the 1994 Agreed Framework to have been a flawed agreement. It doesn’t want to be saddled with a similar agreement, for if it did sign one, it would then be open to charges of "appeasing" Pyongyang. The Vice President has summed up the approach as: "We don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat evil." - John Feffer

The US is the most dominant power today and it is quite unhappy about North Korea. On the other hand, North Korea wants to get rid of the military threat from USA. In 1994, North Korea promised to freeze its nuclear program while the US promised to provide light water reactors to North Korea. However, both of them seemed not doing what they should do. Once again the issue came out and became even more serious. US applied a lot of political pressure on North Korea on its denuclearization, while the latter then unfreeze its nuclear program again.

As the article pointed out, “the basic problem is that people of both views simply haven't figured out what it is that the North really wants.” The fact is that although we have international organizations conducting international meetings, nations are still the most important roles in the political world. Yes, one country or an international organization can apply pressure on that nation in order to solve certain issue. However, the final decision is still made by the nation itself. In this case, the result of both US and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) applying a lot of pressure on North Korea was that it announced to quit the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” and it had the right to develop nuclear weapons. So at the end, the only way we could solve this issue peacefully is through a “sustained talks in which ideas can be explored and solutions, at last, patiently developed”. And the main point is again the North Korea-US relations.

In the author’s point of view, the current six-party talks are “a microcosm of the strategic world it most fears”. Besides the US, the other three strategic foes seem also “apply pressure and (to Pyongyang's mind) insist on the North's permanent weakness”. North Korea certainly does not want to sign any treaties or agreements under so much pressure, and lets itself appearing weak. And it seems that North Korea is using its nuclear program as a chip for getting more international aids and become more initiative in its diplomacy with other nations.

Finally in my opinion, to achieve the denuclearization, it is important to consider the “strategic relationship with the US”, which North Korea mostly wanted. The final agreement should be signed base on trust between nations. All countries have their own stands as well as their own interests, but the only way we can solve this issue is to know what they want and find out the common will. The final result is then still base on the attitude of the two major nations involved – North Korea and USA. Applying too much international pressure might not be a good thing, and one important thing is to normalize the relations between these two nations.

Bibliography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-party_talks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

[[your political expert Liu Sha]]

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Introduction to clip:
This clip adequately summarizes what mass production actually is. According to the clip, mass production is the name given to the method of producing goods in large quantities at low cost per unit. The mass production process is characterized by mechanization to achieve high volume, elaborate organization of materials flow through various stages of manufacturing, careful supervision of quality standards, and minute division of labour. With precision equipment, large numbers of identical parts could be produced at low cost and with a small work force. Stationary workers in an assembly line concentrate on a single task, performing it at a pace dictated by the machine, minimizing unnecessary movement, and dramatically increasing productivity.

Reflection:
I agree that mass production is indeed synonymous with globalization. Mass production, like everything under the sun, has its own pros and cons. Many people do not realize this, but even our food is made in assembly lines. Take for example the burgers from McDonald’s. One person is in-charge of frying the patties; another is in-charge of putting the patty and other ingredients together in between the bun halves. The finished burger is finally passed on to another person to be wrapped.

I think that it is quite interesting to note that McDonald’s burgers taste and look the same everywhere around the world. How can this be made possible? Fresh meat from farms is processed in factories using the same machinery everywhere around the world. This is the same for bun halves. The patties are fried in the same type of oil and machine for exactly the same duration around the world. Technology has made it possible for people to share information easily, in this case, cooking recipe and techniques.

Mass production as a result of globalization ensures that a quality of a companies’ product remain constant around the world. As mentioned in the earlier post, mass production allows for a product to be produced faster, cheaper and better. Of course, all the benefits of mass production do not come without disadvantages. Mass production has the potential to devalue a product by overproducing it. If a local market is flooded with identical products, their value will drop and they have to be exported to foreign markets for sale. In addition, many people consider working in an assembly as a mundane job. Low-skilled workers displace skilled workers in factories as skill is not a prerequisite for running machines. This result in a total breakdown of a company should the machines fail one day.

Technological expert, Jonathan Pung

------------------------------------------------

comments:

It is an interesting topic. Yes, it ensures that we have products of same quality and just as many modern technology, it saves time. One people is only in charge of a little part of the process, instead of doing all the works in the old days. But then I think there is another problem related to this, which is the loss of many beautiful handicraft arts. Nowadays, few people will like to make handicraft products as their jobs. It is certainly harder than woking in a assembly line that you simply do one thing all the time. This job then requires more skills and experiences. Many artisans started to learn when they are very young and they did this for their whole life. So it does require your passion on it. Also more importantly, it profits less compare to mass production because the number of products is limited. And in fact, many small priducts are cheap also. Of course, some of them do cost a lot and most of they are exquisite. So maybe this is another issue about globalization and our uniqueness.

[[your political expert Liu Sha]]

Monday, May 7, 2007

Introduction to clip:

Economies around the world have been interconnected by advancements in technology. Because of this, consumers are able to enjoy better pricing on products. The power and promise of a globalized is obvious. 5 years ago, an automaker would have to completely design, engineer and build a car all in the same country. Currently, technology has given automakers multiple options on how they want to produce their cars. For example, a car can be designed in Korea, be engineered in America and be built in Germany. All this is made possible by the computerization of design studios, engineering studios, assembly lines and plants, which is a clear result of the advancement of technology.

Reflection:

Thanks to technological advancements, the world is now more interconnected than ever. The result of this interconnection is that manufacturers can outsource easily, making the best use of their funds. The consumer is, naturally, not left out. Greater efficiency spells lower production costs, which in turn gives rise to lower product prices. In other words, globalization has allowed manufacturers to harness technology in order to produce goods at maximum efficiency, which benefits consumers in terms of lowered prices.

Depending on the market conditions, manufacturers can choose different countries to outsource to. Take for example a television manufacturer. Since the Japanese are known to come up with innovative designs; the Indians are known to write computer programs as well as the Americans, but for a lower price; the Chinese are known to provide cheap labour and raw materials; the Singaporeans are known for their silicon wafers and the Germans are known to possess the best machinery; the television manufacturer can combine the niches of all these different countries into its end product, a television. This marvelous feat is achieved with the help of what else, but technology. Orders for silicon wafers from Singapore and raw material from China can be made from the German based factory via email, fax or phone. The designs and computer codes from Japan and India can be sent to and put together in Germany by means of email.

As you probably can see, globalization and technology allows us to harness the cheapest and the best from all over the world. This not only ensures that funds are not wasted, but also products of a superior quality but lower price.
Technological expert Jonathan Pung

Sunday, May 6, 2007

Disappearing Cultural Diversity VS Globalisation of Culture



With globalisation, national borders disappear as a world economy and a global culture emerges. The beauty of globalization is that it has the ability to free people from the tyrannic limits of geography. Just because someone were to be born in China does not necessarily mean that he or she is constrained to simply speaking Chinese, or eating Chinese food or reading Chinese books. Instead, they can choose to eat a Mcdonalds hamburger for dinner (see above), drink CocaCola or watch a Hollywood blockbuster in a nearby cinema. It is globalisation that enables people around the world to experience different cultures, without actually having to leave the comfort of their own country. Through experiencing different cultures, we can enrich our lives immeasureably and enjoy everything that the world has to offer.

However, globalisation of culture occurs at the expense of cultural diversity. National cultures, traditions, customs and myths that determine a country's cultural identity are taking the blow of globalisation. Foreign goods have invaded most countries, and these products are usually from the United States. Many are afraid that when globalisation would soon standardize the world, and it would also annhilate any form of rich culture in a nation during the process. Cultural identities of countries are on the verge of being lost to a global culture as people are already beginning to follow cultural norms of a new imperialism. It would not be long before we all become 21st century zombies, with no sense of identity and soul.

Culture is often understood as the order of life in which people construct meaning through practices of symbolic representation. Language, religion, political and legal system, social customs are the most important components of cultural identity. These also make up a person's identity. Thus a threat to one's culture also becomes a threat to one's core of identity. The global scene is very connected and slowly transforming the world into a single social and cultural setting as different cultures intergrate and merge. Hence, it is feared that the peoples' culture and identity would likely be reduced to uniformity. However, it may not necessarily be the case, as stated in the quote below.

"As a result of increasing cultural contact a number of traditional practices disappear. But at the same time the globalization of culture leads to emergence of new cultural forms" . Pointing this out, everywhere the cultural diffusion creates new practices, worldviews, expressions. In the shadow of this, new transnational communities come into being. "They are more bound together by common interest, social and cultural similarities than by geographical closeness" (J.Breidenbach/I.Zukrigl).

Some countries are desperately trying to keep their cultural identity intact, and one good example would be the government campaign in France. A country that was long famous for its fashion, art, language, dining, and in all domains of the spirit—is now threatened by the invasion McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Kentucky Fried Chicken, rock, rap, Hollywood movies, bluejeans, sneakers, and T-shirts. This fear has resulted in massive French subsidies for the local film industry and demands for quotas requiring theaters to show a certain number of national films and limit the importation of movies from the United States.

It is true that globalisation causes many forms of traditional cultures disappear. But at the same time, it opens opportunities and windows to the different cultures of the world. Culture is ever-changing, and it is inevitable for cultures to disappear in the face of globalisation. It is only a question of whether we are willing to pay the price of our forgotten culture and identity.

Culturally yours,
Cultural Expert- Gwyneth liew

------------------------------------------

comments:

I agree that globalization causes many forms of traditional cultures disappear. Sometimes the foreign cultures are so attractive and the youth are chasing after them but leaving their own traditional culture behind. Globalization allows us to watch Japanese Cartoons, Korea TV series and American movies. But what had been forgotten might be our own culture. For example, I have seen some young Han Chinese showing strong interest in Kimono but do not even now about Hanfu, which is their traditional custom. And in fact, some Chinese think that western stuffs are always better, so as their culture. They see this as a sign of "modernized". However, there is no good or bad in culture. Do we want our unique culture, which is passed down by many generations to disappear? At least I do not want. What makes us different from others? It is the culture. Living in a world with globalizing culture, our own culture will be the sign to identify our uniqueness.

[[your political expert Liu Sha]]

http://www.environment.no/templates/themepage____2122.aspx

This article looks at a specific case study which is Norway. "Norway has a very large variety of natural habitats over short distances. These riches are the combined result of Norway's geographical position, its varied and rugged landscape and some thousand years of human activities." However, man’s irresponsible actions destroy the environment and have begun to threaten these various kinds of natural habitats. The most obvious causes are the destruction of habitats, the introduction of alien species, over-exploitation and pollution.

"Biological diversity is the expression used to describe variation at all levels in the natural world, from ecosystems and habitats to species and also variation within each species, or genetic diversity." In southern Norway, the low-lying areas are under threat because of overexploitation and intensive use. Because of this, more than 3000 species have been placed on the Norwegian Red List of threatened species.

One underlying cause of pressures on the environment is production and consumption. A demand for holiday homes along the coast of Southern Norway results in the destruction of natural habitats to build cabins and cottages. However, even though growing international trade, globalisation of the markets and poor coordination between policies and measures applied in different sectors of the economy can add to pressures on the environment, these technological advances can have positive effects, depending on how they are used.

In the past, hunting and fishing was the cause of loss of species and habitat. However today, it is due to the various purposes we use the land for that destroys the wildlife. "Modern intensive agriculture involves the use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides. Farms on marginal farmlands are being abandoned, and old, species-rich types of vegetation are disappearing as a result. All these developments tend to reduce biological diversity." Also, in the last 20-30 years, the introduction of alien species of plants and animals has had negative effects on the original fauna and flora there. This problem is also evident in oceans, besides overexploitation and pollution.

Climate change caused by human activity may cause certain alpine species in Norway to become extinct.

And how is Norway responding to this threat to biodiversity?

According to the aritcle, "Norway is responding in many ways to safeguard its scenery, countryside, plants and animals and natural resources. Valuable habitats, areas and species have been protected, and this is still important. More recently, the importance of legislation to restrict or ban specific activities has been growing. International cooperation to deal with environmental problems has become more and more extensive during the past century, and is now considered essential. At national level, Norway has adopted the principle that all sectors must take responsibility for their impact on biological diversity, and we are now working out how to put this principle into practice."

Saturday, May 5, 2007



This cartoon is about a man telling his wife that even breathing is now a health hazard. The city that they are standing in is full of smoke caused by factories and cars. The artist is trying to convey the message that the world is undergoing serious pollution, and these gases will ultimately lead to global warming.

The air quality in cities have been dropping over the years, as every where around the world industries are growing, and the number of cars on the road will continue to increase. There is a real problem of too much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, trapping heat and causing a global rise in temperatures, which is also known as global warming. The air in certain cities are so polluted that it has become a health hazard, and it is hard to stop such pollution, because it concerns the city’s industries and transportation.

However, people nowadays should make use of improvement in communication and technology to develop either new ways to counter the waste gas, or other forms of technology that will not produce waste gases in the first place. Global warming is a problem that is faced by the whole world, and every country should do its part to help solve the problem.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

I have stumbled upon this cartoon on the internet when i was researching on economic globalisation. I have chosen this for my reflections this time round as I believe that this cartoon has captured the idea of what I want to bring out in this post, which is that globalisation has brought to an increase in the marginalisation of the poor. (This cartoon shows that as the "rcih person" gets "heavier" or "richer", the cushion will compress even more on the "poor" guy.) I am sure all of us are familiar with the phrase, "the rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer". So therefore in my post this time round, I shall discuss on the pros and cons of globalisation and how the people are affected by the growth of the economy. I will also bring out some points to show that this phrase may not necessarily be 100% true.

Firstly, let us look at the claims made on the disadvantages of globalisation, where marginalisation of the poor is said to have occurred. Some radical view on globalisation is that it erodes global and national solidarity and brings about the increasing impoverishment and exclusion of the "Third World Countries" or also known as the LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries). The poor has been marginalized, according to them. Globalisation is a means for the exclusion and deepening inequality; it is a new form of Western Imperialism which dominates and exploits through TNC (TransNational Companies) capitals and instrumental governance such as IMF and the World Bank.

Globalisation has also been claimed to have intensified global and national inequality. There is an increases economic and social gap within countries. Globalisation is described as an uneven process causing world fragmentation. There has been increasing inequality through trade too, resulting in the amplification of the trade gap. This is evident in a few countries, for example, through increasing globalisation, the value of world trade is 17 times greater than that of 50 years ago. However, Latin America's share has decreased from 11% to 5% and Africa's from 8% to 2%. Globalisation also exploits LEDCs through TNCs. The World Guide has descirbed globalisation as a "euphemism for transnationalisation". This is the spread of powerful companies all over the globe that suits corporate interest best.

Increased global integration means that poorer countries become more vulnerable to the world financial markets. The East Asian Crisis was a direct result of globalisation and has resulted in an intensifying poverty. The crisis shows that even the strongest developing states are at the mercy of global economic forces that serve the interest of the dominant capitalist powers.

Globalisation is a form of disempowerment. International negotiations to reduce and eliminate foreign debt have led to increasing exports of capital and the further indebtness of the countries affected. Thus, the developing and poorer countries will have problems clearing their debt and thus it will make them "poorer". Therefore the LEDCs economies have became worse and this has constrained their development strategies.

However, despite all these claims that the poor are constantly marginalised, there are advantages of globalisation.

Globalisation has increased world prosperity and organisational efforts to stabilise the world economy has significantly improved. Figures have shown that global poverty has fallen more than in the last 50 years than in the last 500. The welfare of the people in most regions has also significantly improve over the past few decades.

Globalisation promotes development in the LEDCs as well spreading technology and knowledge of MEDCs (More Economically Developed Countries). Globalisation also has brought about huge amounts of benefits. The emergence of a single global market, the principles of free trade, capital mobility and global competition has allowed the diffusion of prosperity and wealth. New opportunities and possibilites have been opened up. Contrary to the view that it makes LEDCs more vulnerable, increasing global integration actually means that there are better organisational structures put in place to deal with the world political, economical and social problems.

Global market civilisation has also been reinforced by the policies of the major institutions of global economic governance. Such examples are the IMF, World Bank and the G7. Global governance, the World Bank, has restructured the LEDCs economies such that they can manage indebted economies.

Therefore, in conclusion, I do agree that globalisation has made "the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer". However, we should not limit our viewpoints until there and be narrow-minded. There are many advantages of globalisation that has, without doubt, increased the political, economical and social aspects of the countries today.

DONE BY: Nur Atiqah Ismail, TA 2D'o6 (:

ECONOMIC expert (:

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Article: http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/lurgi.htm

Globalisation has allowed it to become easier for people to move from one place to another around the world; people from different parts of the world are able to interact with one another more frequently as compared to the past. The activities that we engage in also cause us to come into contact with animals that carry viruses. These viruses may remain dormant in us, but it may also evolve such that it can survive in humans. Because of these two factors, the spread of disease has grown over the years.

The various human activities have made humans come into contact with carriers of viruses that were originally not found in humans, and lead to the mutation of these viruses, making them able to thrive in human beings. For example, Marburg and yellow fever viruses, were originally infections of monkeys; Rift Valley fever was an inherited infection of mosquitoes; and hanta virus was maintained in rodent populations. The increase in human activity and interactions with animal hosts of viruses allowed opportunities for humans to host viruses that were not originally found in human beings.

Thus, the spread of infectious disease has been increasing over the years, not just because of the increase in human interactions across the world, but also because of human activity which introduces man to viruses that were not found in humans before.

It is possible for us to make use of the improvements in communication to develop and find cures for such diseases. We can build upon each other’s technologies and ideas to produce an antidote for such viruses as quickly as possible. But without globalisation in the first place, will there even be a need for us to find a cure for all these infections and diseases?

Environmental expert
Jean Ng
2D'06

Article for economic globalisation:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17436057/site/newsweek/


Reflections:

The global economy has expanded tremendously ever since 1960s. In my opinion, there are 3 powerful trends that has caused this to happen and changed the whole global economic landscape.

Firstly, there is an increasing power of information and communications technologies. Next, countries have opened up their markets for economic expansion and thirdly, more and more multinationals are seeking out new markets and workforces. In short, these 3 powerful trends can be summarised into one word: globalisation.

World trade has exploded since the early 1960s. Between 1970 and 2004, the share of exports relative to global output has more than doubled and is over 25%. Furthermore, China and India has opened their economies and pursued an export-led strategy. In 2004, the global economy grew 4.7 percent, says economists at Goldman Sachs. Asia, excluding Japan, grew by 8.2 percent; Latin America by 5.6 percent and the United States by 4.4 percent. These are some evidence to show that the global economy has expanded ever since the 1960s.

However, with the current "explosion" of global economy, one of the biggest question to us is: is the global economy is stable? In the article above, the author has mentioned that "good times don't last forever. After all, the 1960s was followed by a decade of malaise."

In my opinion, this in an unanswerable question. This is because shocks are unpredictable. Therefore, we are not able to predict the stability of the global economy, mainly because we do not know what will happen for us to be able to guard against.

There are risks, however. For example, higher currencies for Europe and Japan could weaken their export competitiveness. This is because a higher currency will tend to make a country's exports more expensive and its imports cheaper. The United States, Europe and Japan already contribute to half of the global economy. Thus, if these three countries were to go into recession, other countries might follow.

Furthere, a good economic system needs a strong political framework. However, if we just look at the framework for the global economy now, we can tell that it is unstable. 20 years ago, only the United States and its Cold War allies contribute to the global economy. All the three policy objectives- economic, military and foreign- were overlapped. However, in today's context, the global economy now includes India, China and the former Soviet Union. Thus, more problems will arise as more countries are involved in the growth of the economy since there will be more personal objectives from each of the countries.

However, this can be proven wrong as globalisation has causes global cooperation and dependance. For example, the SARS outbreak has shown some global cooperation between countries.

In conclusion, I believe that the global ecomomy will continue to expand ever more greatly over the years in the near future. There have been questions raised about the stability of the global economy, but I believe that as long as countries continue to have a strong economic, political and social framework, these risks have a lesser potential to develop. It is probably too early to worry about such an outcome, let's all just enjoy the growth of the economy! (:

DONE BY: NUR ATIQAH ISMAIL, TA 2d'o6(:

Economic Expert

Monday, April 23, 2007

Globalization is key to immigration issues
Deseret News (Salt Lake City) May 22, 2006 by John Florez

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060522/ai_n16412487

[Please click on the link to see the article :)]

Reflection:

Globalization had made it easier to do business in other countries, but then it also creates more competitions. For example, as we known, China and India are taking their advantages of low paid labors and cheap goods. This then definitely affected business of many big countries. The United State is one of the countries suffering this kind of issue.

Then here comes a problem, the illegal immigration. Many people are worried about the stressful competitions. Some businessmen will use illegal immigrants who are willing to work with cheap wages, so that they can get more profits in their business. This is definitely going against the immigration law. On the other hand, this also shows that as the world is globalizing, our policies, which used to guide our life, now need to be changed. As the article mentioned, the American policy is not working very well. It has failed to involve governors, local law enforcement and, most important, the Mexican government, in order to solve the exodus of poor Mexican to America.

Globalization creates the structural basis of one of the largest migratory flows in the history of humanity. People consider the right of mobility, to travel and change residency, to be an irrevocable Human Right. This right permits all human beings to freely seek opportunities to better their lives and those of their families. In fact, many people choose to go to the developed countries such as US or Canada for a better life. As one of the effects of globalization, it creates the flow of technology, economy and most importantly labors and human talents. This do helps us to develop our country, but at the same time, it brought problems such as illegal immigrations and loss of talent people. Many countries including Singapore are having their policies to attract foreign talent to come and help to develop their countries. But this is not beneficial for those developing countries which want to hold the persons of talent, just as those countries facing illegal immigration issues.

So, what can be done to upgrade the policies in order to solve this kind of problems? The key word is again globalization and international cooperation. Immigration issue is not a problem that faced by one country itself. It is an issue between two or more countries. Therefore, we will need cooperation between countries to solve their social and economic problems. Two countries need to come out with certain policies which both of them accepted, thus, it can help to balance the wants of both.

Yes, globalization is the key to immigration issue. It can be considered as one cause of immigration issues. However, we would need to use the power of globalization to solve the problems. We will need the leaders to work together for the common will of all nations.

[[your political expert Liu Sha]]

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Globalization and the end of nuclear weapons

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2001/02/21_roche_globalization.htm

*some part of the article*
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why are some in the abolition movement now saying that the abolition of nuclear weapons is a remote, receding, and unrealistic goal?

Why are governments still being allowed to claim that the outmoded strategy of nuclear deterrence has even a shred of credibility or morality?

Why are the nuclear retentionists not being driven to obscurity by the sheer force of the legal, moral, political, and military arguments against the possession of nuclear weapons?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is not the resources that are lacking, but the political will. Let us remember such contrasts when we think of globalization and building a common ethic for a culture of peace. Elimination of the instruments of violence, beating swords into plougshares, making the transition from a culture of war, maintained and advanced by the huge war machine human industry has built up over many centuries, would be the greatest legacy we could ever leave to future generations. This must be our resolve.
Policy-makers must rid themselves of the idea that peace and security can be bought only with weaponry. We need to foster and promote the transition from a culture of war, violence, and discrimination to a culture, an ethic, of non-violence, dialogue, and tolerance. It will have to be based on collective efforts from a variety of partners inside and outside of government. It will depend upon the ability to raise people's awareness of the fundamental human security needs and rights affecting the daily lives of millions.

A transformation of human consciousness, as great as the transformative power of globalization itself, must occur.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The public seems precariously unaware of the present nuclear danger. Let us bring the basic facts into sharp focus. Today, eight nations possess some 32,000 nuclear bombs containing 5,000 megatons of destructive energy, which is the equivalent of 416,000 Hiroshima-size bombs. This is enough to destroy all major cities of 500,000 population or greater in the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam, Australia, South Africa, and Cuba.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why then is there no real action for elimination on the part of all the Nuclear Weapon States? Because the political will has not yet been developed.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reflection:

This article actually talks about the relationship between nuclear weapons, politics and globalization. As the author mentioned in his article, the abolition or elimination of nuclear weapons depend on the political wills of many countries.

The political globalization leads to the forming of many international organizations. We can often see that government leaders of different countries meet together to discuss about political or security issues. This is because, as an effect of globalization, all the countries are being linked together. Thus, the problem in one country is no longer the problem just for itself, but for its neighboring countries and many countries which may have the same stand on politics with it.

Now, the abolition of nuclear weapons is a very hot topic because it relates to the serious security issue. We all know that nuclear weapons have huge power and are very harmful for people. However, many countries are still developing nuclear weapons and thus it has become an issue that the UN concern about. And in fact, many countries are concerned about the security issues due to various reasons. But we can see that still many countries keep their nuclear weapons.

In my opinion, the globalization gives many countries the chance to co-operate and help each other. But at the same time, it also gives them the chance to compete with each others, especially for the developed countries and some countries which are developing very fast. And the competition is in many areas and they are all somehow related to the political issues. There was a news article earlier this year which talks about China sending missiles to destroy its satellite. Some actually think that China did this to show its military power. I think the reason why many countries keep their nuclear weapons is similar to this. They may want to show that they have strong power.

So as the author said in his article, in order to abolish nuclear weapons and create peace, we also need the help of globalization. Because of the effect of globalization, there will be spread of consciousness to this issue. Thus, it will affect the reaction of several international organizations and countries. As the author said “It is now the responsibility of civil society to put a worldwide spotlight on the recalcitrance of the NWS governments and show them that human consciousness has moved beyond them.”

[[your political expert Liu Sha]]

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

This is our first post. We took some pictures which show the globalizations in TJC.

First picture shows the banner which was being placed under TRC. This is actually the banner for the tourism club. As we know, their job is to take people from other schools or even other countries to see TJC and Singapore. They actually had accompanied exchanged students from China, Japan and other countries to see our school. They also introduced them many places of interests in Singapore. This is a part of globalization as people from different places get to know about each others and their cultures.

The second picture shows a poster from E-club. It is a poster for booking the newest book of Harry Porter. This actually shows globalization. Harry Porter is a series of books written by British writer, but now people from many different countries all like it. This is a cultural globalization as people from different countries and different cultural backgrounds tend to have the same interest. So students in TJC are same as other teenagers who like Harry Porter and want to get the new book first.

The third one is a poster of the “TJC overseas outreach program 2007”. It shows that students also have chances to know about people in other countries. They can take part in this kind of program to know more about those poor’s living conditions, and they can also help them by putting in their efforts. In this case, students will go to Yunnan and Cambodia to build school and library for the local students. This shows that as an effect of globalization, we now know more about the world than just our own town.

The fourth one is our school canteen. We can see that we actually have different stores which sell different kinds of food. We have Chinese food, Indian food and Malay food. We have more choices because we have different styles of food provided. This is also a part of globalization.

The last one is taken at the car park. We can see that there are many different cars. They are produced in different countries using the materials provided by different companies all around the world. This is a good way to show the economic globalization.

The Big Five :D

Cultural expert: Gwyneth
Technological expert: Jonathan
Environmental expert: Jean
Economic expert: Atiqah
Political expert: Liu Sha

Post of the week: 30th April - 5th May, Atiqah