Oil prices are going up, driving all other prices up. Manufacturing industries face increasing costs of production because of their energy consumption and transportation of goods. In order to sustain their profit margin, these industries are forced to lower the costs of other factors of production like labour resulting in unemployment. Families face increasing prices on the shelves as producers increase their prices to match the increasing costs. With economic stagnation and inflation put together, we are currently facing what economists term as stagflation.

That is not the worst yet. Usually when we have a problem, the state is able to implement policies to hopefully change the situation around. For stagflation, however, it is hard to eradicate once it gets started. In fact, when the state or central banks start to intervene with their policies, they are most likely to worsen the problem. Moreover, we all know the global economic climate now due to collaterised debt obligation and credit default swap leading to a financial meltdown of the global economy. In other words, we are possibly heading towards a depression.

Could this situation get any worse? Yes. We also have at hand a sick planet. With weather effects such as El Niño and La Niña being affected by global warming, glaciers melting faster than before causing rising sea levels, we are facing an impending doomsday. Of course, majority of people are unaware of the global climate and even if they are, nobody gives a hoot about it because they probably think it does not affect them so why bother. Tripled with these are the social problems which we have discussed in our previous lessons. It almost seems like we are living in a hopeless situation and there is nothing that can be done to prevent all of us from falling off the cliff.

The keyword in that sentence is “seems”. We also have at this present age, the best minds, the best technology, the best infrastructure, basically, almost the best of everything. I believe that if we were to put all of these together, we would be able to go against these odds. How is it possible that we are able to solve the most complex of problems and yet leave out the most important ones of this age?

Another thing that would see us rise up again is the community – the people. We have been competing for the longest time – competition for jobs, competition for promotions, competition for survival, etc. Why not, instead of competition, cooperation? I feel that competition mostly only leads to exclusion of a person or a community or a country or a region. We have to start to recognise that we need each other rather than pushing each other off the ladder to get to the top first.

In conclusion, we may have almost the best of everything in our present age. I feel that the thing that is lacking to combine all of these together is the best of hearts. The best is yet to be.

Technology – we see it in every area of our life. In fact, the effect of technology is seen in all of the topics in which we have discussed previously. In inequality, the emergence of widespread use of technology, especially information technology, has caused a greater divide – “the digital divide”  – whereby only those who have access to these technology benefit from it whereas those who do not are even further from catching up. In work and trade, we have the biggest ‘shopping centre’ in the form of the internet where online shopping has been a hit. In women and the family, the women have the choice to decide, in certain sense, whether or not to have a child through contraceptives or abortion. In crime, it has gotten a whole lot more complicated with the internet as a platform for criminals to organise crimes. In war and terror, we see the potential of weapons of mass destruction causing tighter securities in public places. In human rights, people are more aware, through online discussions, of the violation of human rights in their own country and seek justice through protests and riots. In identity, we see again how the internet is a place where people of similar interests are able to consolidate their strength and enforce their identity in society. In urbanisation, we see complicated public transport systems and networks. And lastly in population and health, the advancement in medical researches has given as vaccines to several illnesses which plagued the people in the past.

As a result (and also of many other reasons), technology has been viewed as a double-edged sword. The question is: how then do we make use of the vast knowledge and resources that we have to come up with something which seeks to include everyone in its development and possibly reduce, or even eradicate, social problems?

President of Green for All, Van Jones, seems to have the answer to that. Most of the time, we think of how to use global technology to solve social problems. Obviously, this has its limitations and could have even caused more problems than it has solved especially when the solutions are short-termed. Van Jones’ solution was to use social technology to solve global problems. He believed in a ‘green economy’ which would result in a reduction of poverty and pollution in the situation in America. In fact, as per the Green for All website (http://www.greenforall.org), this green economy, in 2006, “generated 8.5 million new jobs, nearly $970 billion in revenue, and more than $100 billion in industry profits.”

What does this mean to a small country like Singapore? I believe we need to really start putting on our thinking caps and stop relying on short-term solutions to problems which require attention. This not only requires the job of the government but also very importantly, its people. For example, an ageing population cannot just be solved by increasing child benefits to encourage couples to have children. To put it bluntly, the government (paid highly, mind you) has to come up with better solutions and not just to solve problems but to genuinely take care of its people. The people, on the other hand, have to wake up to their senses and start thinking about their current situation and making their voices heard.

As what Prof mentioned during the lecture, and I concur with him, the technology is a mirror of our society. Basically, the things we do are a mirror of what we are. Thus, if what we are experiencing now is not what we hope things to be, the place to look at is ourselves.

Our class has been privileged to be able to watch some really thought-provoking videos in our lectures thanks to the Prof. It has made me go back home and tune in to my CNN and BBC more than my usual Football Channel, ESPN, STAR Sports or SuperSports. The point that I would like to discuss is something which one of my group members mentioned during our discussion in the lecture – social fears leading to irrational reactions.

In the case of SARS in Singapore, her citizens, well-known for being ‘kiasu’ (afraid of losing), ‘kiasee’ (afraid of dying) and ‘kia bor’ (afraid of being henpecked), were being thrown into fear. We were not allowed to think that it would never happen to us because almost every other day, we see a new case of SARS. Not only so, we started to see the death rate going up due to the virus. Lessons in schools were stopped for more than a week as part of Singapore’s measure in the world’s fight against it. Even a song was composed and aired to educate the public of this terrible virus.

In light of the fears, especially when it could potentially lead to death, Singaporeans showed our good and bad sides. The good side being that there people were bringing food and supplies to the hospital to show their support to the doctors, nurses and other staffs in the hospitals who were fighting on the frontline. These people understood that it was not easy to voluntarily put their lives in such a vulnerable position. Moreover, in the initial stages of the fight, there were reports that the staffs themselves were catching the virus even to the point of death. They were literally putting their lives on the line.

On the other hand, these fears drove people to do irrational things as well. For example, the passengers in a bus did not allow the driver to stop to pick up the staffs from the hospital for fear that they could contract the virus. The first thing that came to my mind was that, “don’t they appreciate what these people are doing?” However, as I thought about it more, I realise that the passengers were actually overwhelmed by so much anxiety that they were not thinking rationally.  It is not that their fears were not relevant as there is definitely the risk that the staffs could have been infected but have they thought of putting themselves in their shoes? I believe there is a certain sense of discrimination in this case and the victims would definitely feel unjustly treated. They are putting their lives on the line and yet this is the way they are being treated.

My point in bringing this up is that I believe we need to see beyond ourselves and the short term. The tendency, especially for Singaporeans, is to just see things from our own perspectives. If we truly want to build up our community and stay strong as a nation amidst crises, we have to be more gracious and understanding which is easier said than done. One of the reasons why we are so much lacking in this is due to the competitive nature of our society nowadays where we are battling for our own survival, so much so that we neglect the more important things in life. If the so-called more important things in life are really that important, why are we trading them off for things that are least important? I feel that it is because we only see things based on the ‘now’ and even if we look to the future, it is a lonely one because all it involves is me, myself and I.

I met up with a close friend over the weekend for some catching up and I was reminded of a few things in our conversation. He is looking to work while pursuing his studies part-time. The thing which he said that struck me was that he definitely would prefer going back to the place where he worked before because the environment was more familiar. I believe that for most people, whenever we are introduced into a new environment, we draw back a little in the sense that we tend to try to observe the people, the surroundings, etc. to get a feel of the environment. We find ourselves in a space which we are not familiar with and we observe to see how we can fit into that space. Of course there are people who have the gift of ‘falling in place’ and just adapting to the environment they are in and more often than not, they are rather influential people.

We will surely have such experiences in life where we are being introduced to a new environment, a new space – first day on a new job/school, facing a new class, etc. Usually, we would try to ‘fit in’ so as not to be left out. As such, we would try to find a clique which we would go to lunch with, go home together, share a common interest, etc. What we see here, like what we learnt in the lecture, is a social space in a physical space. However, what defines this social space? Who is allowed entry? I believe it is down to identities.

Now, we try to picture this in the context of urbanisation. The city is thriving with job opportunities. People from the suburbs flood the cities in the search for a ‘better life’. This process actually brings people together in a smaller physical space as there is more people than before occupying that area. However, more importantly, we must also be aware of the social spaces that are in this area. People face a new environment and are looking to fit in somewhere where they can express their identity.

In Singapore, we see people coming from different parts of Asia – Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, etc. It is easy to understand social spaces because we see them congregating in their small groups in the evenings or during weekends just like that. The identity that brings them together is their nationality because they share the same language and are able to communicate with each other and the fact that they have left their motherlands in search for a job in a foreign place.

I believe danger comes when we start to draw lines or form boundaries or worse still, place different groups of people on a scale because we have a pre-conceived notion about them. This is especially easy when we simply classify ourselves as locals and them as foreigners. This could result in the foreigners being dislocated from the society because of our treatment of them and just being seen as people who come here to build our roads and buildings. There seems to be no air of friendliness towards them but a sense of as long as they do not disturb me then it is ok.

My conclusion to the matter of people and spaces is that we cannot do with boundaries or erect walls just because of different social spaces/identities. It is easy to say but we really need to understand that all of us come under the same physical space – the Earth – and all of us are human beings. We are losing this understanding because increasingly so, we are becoming more and more self-centered in this world, building for ourselves narrower and narrower spaces that at the end of the day, the only one that remains in the space is ‘me’.

I had an interesting exchange with Prof because something struck me during his lecture on identity. He shared on resistance identity and how it is described to be the excluded excluding the excluder. I believe that it does not necessarily just have to be the excluded but like his previous point, being under oppression. And before I asked the question above, I asked if he would consider Singapore’s opposition parties in this category. After discussing for some time, his conclusion was that the identity of the opposition is not being forged strong enough.

Firstly, we have to see that the society that we have become is one that is absolutely pragmatic and this I personally believe is the work of the government. Majority of the citizens choose the government based on what benefits or rewards they have to gain from their choice. Much of these are seen in what the government has already brought them. For example, the current government can boast about winning the bid for the Youth Olympics, bringing the F1 to Singapore, etc. However, because the opposition parties have not been in power, they have no grounds as such to win over the citizens.

This brings me to the next point about the entry of opposition parties. In my opinion, the current government has very intelligently adopted the ‘blue ocean strategy’ (to find out more about this, you can visit http://www.blueoceanstrategy.com although I don’t really know whether they had purposely took it from here) whereby competition is made irrelevant. There is no point of entry whereby opposition parties can come in. As one student puts it, opposition parties are either assimilated or systematically removed. Coming back to the pragmatism of the society, most citizens would rather choose a system that is tried and tested rather than giving it one who has little or no experience because it would directly affect their lives. It is not even giving them a chance not to mention allowing them to fail and learn.

The last point, and the most crucial if I may add, is the influence of the government in many important areas affecting the lives of its citizens. One of the most prominent would be the media – from newspapers to television to advertisements at the bus stops, etc. The recent article on JBJ’s death received bitter comments from readers on the editorialisation and it really opened my eyes to view the papers in a different light. In fact, the newspaper has also mostly talked about the negative things in other countries so that the positive things of our country are outstanding. The not-so-good things of our country are not brought to light and even if they are, the words used are carefully chosen so that the situation would not seem as bad as it is or the truth may be compromised. To me, half-truths are as good as lies. Another area would be the education system in Singapore. It would be unfair to say that I have not benefitted from the system in Singapore. However, I have come to realise that the subjects which are made compulsory to study (e.g. social studies) could actually be ways in which the government seek to bring up its name and make people feel that they just owe their votes to them.

Finally, why would I say that the Singaporean identity is under oppression? First and foremost, we need to ask ourselves, who should be the one to forge this identity? If it is the people, is it the case now? With the government so much influencing key areas, are we who we are because of who we really are or is it because of what the government want us to be so that they can remain where they are? I hope this barrage of questions will at least spark off something inside us to start questioning our situation in Singapore.

“We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.” As Singaporeans, we have been ‘trained’ from young to recite these words (whether or not we really mean it is another thing although I do feel goose bumps when it is recited on National Day). Questions have been raised with regards to the democracy of Singapore but I think that Singapore is living up to be what she pledges to be – a democratic society.

One area which people have questioned is the usage of the speakers’ corner at Hong Lim Park. Recently, there has been a revamp in the procedures for registration to speak. In the past, it was a tedious process to go through just to hold a speech at the place. Now, all it takes is to register online at the National Parks Singapore website. Of course, the topic has to be approved before the person gets to make his/her speech otherwise it could possibly be something to upset the society, be it the majority or minority. The taboo topics are on race and religion which is fair enough as we have pledged to be one people regardless of race and religion. I just wonder if the topic was on the government, would he/she be allowed to speak on it, even if it was an area for improvement?

And that brings us to the next point on the freedom of speech in Singapore. Recently, a lawyer by the name of Gopalan Nair was sentenced to jail for disorderly behavior and hurling abuses at police officers. In his quest for justice, he was stating how the government is involved in the job of the court. Honestly speaking (I hope this does not get me in trouble), I began to seriously question myself whether or not that was true. Is the government ruling by law or are they the ones coming up with the law? I learnt recently of the potential pitfalls of democracy which are dictatorship, corruption, public manipulation, etc. I’m not saying that we are heading that direction but just questioning myself if that is the case. We have seen the People’s Action Party (PAP), a name I feel aptly chosen as it seeks to represent the people of Singapore, in power for many years in Singapore. In the years that they have been in power, Singapore has enjoyed prosperity and progress (as in the pledge again).

In light of that, there may still be some flaws here and there but like everything else, it is a work in progress. Nothing will ever become perfect because there is always ways to improve it. We cannot deny that a big part of why we have enjoyed what we have so far in Singapore has to do with the government. When the citizens vote, they definitely have to think through their choices and if they just go through the motion, they are not standing up for what they believe. My point is that the society that we have in Singapore is still very much democratic and the government that is chosen is the decision of the people.

In the most recent economics lecture, we were taught about the Nash equilibrium which is a situation in which economic actors in interacting with one another choose their best strategy given the strategies that all the others have chosen. A good example would be to look at the prisoners’ dilemma:

	Prisoner B Stays Silent	Prisoner B Betrays
Prisoner A Stays Silent	Each serves 6 months	Prisoner A: 10 years Prisoner B: goes free
Prisoner A Betrays	Prisoner A: goes free Prisoner B: 10 years	Each serves 5 years

 

We all see that the best scenario, not on individual basis, would be for both to remain silent which would result in both of them serving 6 months. On the other hand, if both decide to betray, they would each have to serve 5 years. Let us now consider the best strategy on the individual level. In fact, the best strategy for each of them is to betray the other party. Take the case that B stays silent. The better option for A would be to betray because he would get to get away scot-free. Similarly, if B chooses to betray, the better option for A would again be to betray because he would definitely want to serve 5 years rather than 10. Therefore, the best/dominant strategy is for A to betray and the same is for B (try it out).

What I find is interesting about this is that it is not only applicable in economics context but also in our daily lives. More often than not, we are selfish and choose the best possible option to benefit ourselves. Because of this selfish nature, we would always want things to go our way by hook or by crook despite the fact that cooperating would clearly be the best option. We might even want to dominate over others so as to do the way we want it to. Take the example of a family. Parents may have a certain mindset on the path which the child has to take whereas the child sees himself taking another route. What usually happens is that the parents choose to dominate over the child’s life in the sense that everything is decided for him – which group of friends he should mix with, what subjects to take after Secondary 2, where to go after O levels, which course to take in university, even what career to take or worse, which girl to marry. I am not saying that parents should not be involved but I believe that, especially after a ‘certain age’, there should be decisions which the child should make himself/herself because it is after all his/her own life or else the child might turn out rebellious since he/she would also want his/her own way. What can and should be done is for both parties to learn to cooperate by sitting down to discuss about these issues instead of forcing it down the throat of each other.

How does this then apply to war and terror? Looking at World War II, we see two forces that wish to exert their power through a huge region so that the world’s influence would be in their hands. First of which is Germany who, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, sought to re-establish a Third Reich so that they could control valuable resources in North Africa and the Middle East. The other party, Japan, sought to extend her rule in Asia under the leadership of Japanese Emperor Hirohito. In the first case of Germany, the Nazis could have been satisfied even if they did not owned all the land but the majority of it so that they would be the one in power. Relating to what was stated in the earlier paragraphs, we see that it is the case whereby not only do they have their own agendas, they want the world to have the same agenda as them and are willing to effect the use of violence to force it down the throats of those who go against them. Needless to say, it resulted in many deaths.

Although it may sound quite moralistic or even sweeping to put it to such a simple root cause, I feel that if we were to question to the end of the matter, this is what we will get. I end off with a quote by Plato – “only the dead have seen the end of war”. Our selfish desires are powerful enough to kill. The question is, do we allow them to be that powerful?

I am one who is passionate about influencing the lives of our youths. The thing that catches my attention is the rising delinquency rates in Singapore. I believe that one of the ways we have to look at this social problem is to start with the family which is the basic unit of society. How is it that although there is such a thing as ‘moral’ education in school but this problem still exists? I think this goes to show that we definitely need more than the schools to educate them. We need the family.

Very unfortunately, because of the rising living standards in Singapore, parents have to work even harder to support their children’s education. More families have both parents working as a result in order to save up for their children. Consequently, the care of the children is left to the maid or grandparents or childcare centres or even left on their own. I feel that nothing compares to having parents take care of their children because he or she is their own flesh and blood.

At a certain point in our lives, we would come to realise that we have this unspoken need in all of us – this need to belong to a group or gang or clique, whatever you may call it. More than that, we have a need to be in a place where we feel accepted and appreciated, sort of like a vacuum to be filled in all of us. This is what makes us try to get into cliques wherever we are. The very first place where we seek to find this is in the family. Generally speaking, when a child is young, he or she would try ways and means to try and please his or her parents. Basically, a child would want to hear praises and encouragement from the parents so as to feel loved by them. I do not mean to say that I do not condone dual-income families but what I am saying is that moral education has to start in the family. Usually, the tendency in dual-income families is that the children may be neglected. The reverse is also true. If there is a parent to stay at home to look after the children, the chances of the children being neglected is much lesser.

Because of this, teenagers, or even pre-teens, nowadays are more vulnerable in the sense that they are more open to any group that offers to ‘satisfy’ this need. This is where they could possibly end up in the ‘bad company’ and thus leading to delinquency. They become trapped in a world where they are coerced to do things which are actually against their conscience but because of the ‘reward’ of being accepted into the group, they do it. As this is allowed to perpetuate, it will eventually turn into a situation whereby the child will not be sensitive anymore in the sense that, for example, stealing would be a normal thing to do.

Another thought that came to my mind during the lecture was with regards to the government’s dealing with criminals and our inherent nature. We know of cases whereby violence is inhumanely meted out on another human being, just like in the case of MS13, so as to get people to follow their way or basically to give in to them. In other words, violence is a form of deterrence – to deter people from going against them. However, if we look at the punishments of the government like, for example, caning, isn’t it also a form of violence? And because of this, there is an ‘incentive’ to be good. Do people follow the law because we are good-natured or is it because of fear of the punishment? Another case in point would be the example of a newborn child. Do we have to teach the child good things or bad things? Somehow, naturally, the child will know how to do the bad things. My point is that we are born naturally bad and how bad we become is determined by what are the opportunities that allow that ‘badness’ to manifest.

Try picturing a family with two parents and three children. These five members are housed under a cozy five-room HDB flat. Both parents are dedicated workers, frequently working overtime so as to have better appraisals and thus faster promotions and greater salaries all in the name of ‘giving the children a better future’. The upbringing of the children is left to the Indonesian maid. We all know that family doesn’t ‘work’ this way. Like it or not, we have certain expectations of how a family should be. However, the trend that we see nowadays is like the example that is given. Is it for better or for worse? If it is for the worse, how did we end up like that?

Generally, we see two generations in our society today. The earlier generation is whereby the parents are expected or take on the expectation of providing whatever that is necessary for their children to have education. As a result, the parents of this generation work their socks off so that their children would have an ‘easier’ time in the future.

The later generation is the products of the previous generation whereby the children have grown up. They usually take one of three pathways – focus on their career developments or get married and set up their own family units or a mixture of both. We are interested to see what happens in the last case. These parents also believe they give their children the best by giving them the ‘best education’ possible by sending them to the ‘best schools’. This happens as early as in their primary school education and is evident in the way parents go for balloting in the primary school. They even ‘sacrifice’ by volunteering to be part of the school’s Parents’ Support Group or donate a sum of money to try to ensure their children a place in the school. Some parents on the other, either one or two of them, are focussed on their career that they clock in hours so that their appraisals would be good and guarantee them faster promotions and greater salaries so as to ‘make it’ on the corporate ladder.

I would now like to give my two cents’ worth, or probably even worth less, on parenting. I believe that the best things in life are not the tangible stuff but intangible stuff. However, due to much commercialisation and other factors, we have become increasingly materialistic. The same applies for parenting. The best that we can ever give to our children are the intangible things in life, things that money cannot buy. Over and beyond the physical needs of a human being are the spiritual, emotional and psychological needs and parents are able to give their child a solid foundation in life. Needless to say, all these require quality time to be spent with the child. It is not just going out together on the weekends for shopping for their favourite toys or asking them throughout the weekdays how is their work in school or have they done their homework. We all know that. Don’t we?

Let me share a bit of my personal experience in my family and what I’ve learnt from it. My dad used to be a gambler and money was definitely easy come. In fact, I’m quite impressed in the ‘mathematics’ involved the games that he play and the experience in predicting which he has drawn over the years. He would buy my mother and me lots of things with the ‘income’ he got. Needless to say, I was closer to my mum because my dad was usually out gambling and my mum would be the one who was there for me. Something dramatic then happened in my dad’s life which turned his life around (I won’t go into the details unless you’re really interested to know. I’ll be glad to share). My dad was sort of enlightened and he knew what was important to him and that being the head of the family was more than buying things for us. He then tried to spend more time with me but because there is some sort of a distance that has been formed over the years, there was some inertia in the initial stages. I was already around my mid-teens at this point. However, over the years, our relationship has gone beyond the stage of just him providing for my physical needs. Just recently, ever since coming to university and staying in the hall, I would return home only on Fridays and without fail, my parents would still be awake, anticipating my return. My dad would find out how I have been doing and I have the openness to share with him honestly about the challenges that I face in university (like my trouble with HS103).

My point of sharing all these is that a person has to know what is important to his/her life. We would not want to have something dramatic happen in our life happen before we realise that our family comes before our career. I do not mean to say that I am against dual-income families or working hard but what I am trying to say is that we have to stop what we are doing for a moment and think. Think about what we are doing and what the outcome will be in the future. We need to see beyond the present.

The inevitable competition in capitalistic economies has caused owners of companies to lower costs in labour as much as possible so as to maximise profits. How this was done was to outsource the labour needs to places where – not cheap but dirt-cheap – labour was abundant. More often than not, the places which offered such a benefit were Third-World countries. Worst of all, children were exploited due to the needs of the job. One of the examples would be the famous company for producing quality jeans – Levi’s. Other jeans company such as Gap turned to overseas sweatshop suppliers which was heavily criticised at first but managed to weather through the storm. Levi’s tried to keep integrity intact but realise that it was hard to survive without following suit. In the early 1980s, they had sixty clothing plants in the United States and this number dropped to zero by 2004. In the face of pressure and intense competition in the market, companies gave in in the name of survival in the economy. However, have we ever considered the true costs of doing so?

At the beginning of the twentieth century, hundreds of children, under the leadership of Mother Jones, protested against less hours at work and more hours in school. All they wanted was five hours a week less on work and used for studies. Five hours a week. These children did not have much of a choice as to whether they wanted to work or not. The irony was that President Theodore Roosevelt’s children, whom they marched up to, were having a vacation and enjoying their time on the beach. The contrast is obvious. I am not blaming President Roosevelt but the point I am trying to make is that children have to be given a chance – not only for education but more importantly, a chance in life.

Children, in many parts of the world, have been exploited to carry out not only menial and difficult jobs but also life-endangering tasks. An example would be going underground in mines just because of the fact the removing more parts of the earth would mean more costs. The unsettling and saddening fact is that lives have been lost because children were not made to do such things at their young age. It is not as if they were highly-paid or given hazard pay. They were paid peanuts! Would we proudly tell our children that the people involved in making the footballs that they are kicking, toys that they are playing and clothes that they are wearing were made from the hands of those who are like them? Or would we be ashamed when they ask, in all their innocence, “Papa/Mama, where do all these come from?”

Labour reforms have been put in place over the years. The Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC) and Child Labour Deterrence Act are examples of such but the problem is still rampant and increasingly worse. In the case of the Child Labour Deterrence Act, the children that were removed from their garment industries were forced to turn to more exploitative ‘jobs’ like prostitution. As we see in this example, it is not as simple as just taking the children out of the labour force. Because of the poverty of the family in lives of these children, they take any desperate means of getting income for the survival of the family.

If there’s any social problem that needs immediate attention and utmost effort in improving, it would be child labour. It requires a lot of effort but it needs to be dealt with because these children deserve a chance to break out of the poverty cycle and lead normal lives where they have basic human rights.