"Antifreeze toothpaste, dirty chopsticks, surf and turf in formaldehyde gravy... BOO! Scared you!"

Original articles:
Toothpaste scares in the US:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3463964
Food scares start from family level in China: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3352366
China blames international media for "exaggeration" on food scares:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=3380315

My response:
The first thought that came to my mind was: how much of these toxins has infiltrated our local AVA (Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority) and pervaded our bodies unbeknownst to anyone of us? If so, these toxins would have wrought untold damages to our wellbeing, plus raised the risks of cancer… not only to me, but to my family and the rest of the world, because it’s a fact that China's exports pervade the world today. Increasingly, China’s problems equate to global problems... and this problem has tainted more of China’s reputation as exporter than it has to its food.

A large proportion of the food scare can be attributed to larger enterprises, who, in maximising profit marginally, seek unscrupulous means when producing food. Chemicals provide the conduit for achieving their ends; they are acquired at rock-bottom prices, and by no means cheaper alternatives to their non-toxic counterparts, preserving and enhancing flavours of products flawlessly… but at a cost of the benefit of health and lives. Frankly, I find this all very revolting, because the ultimate aim of these producers is to provide hygienic, healthy food to the general public. Yet this falls short of the horrible truth experienced today, where economic needs takes precedence over the original intentions, leading to the perversing of ethics in business. I wonder, then, whether the aforementioned businessmen ever searched their conscience before they added antifreeze into toothpaste, causing 50 people to die in the Panama last year.

So much for moral constraints. But part of the problem also results from tiny “mom-and-pop operations”—small-scale businesses, but nonetheless deadly in terms of the toxins used. What distinguishes them from larger enterprises, however, is that they are operated by small groups under extenuating circumstances. These groups usually comprise family units who are increasingly edged out of the burgeoning economy, only to starve if not for their source of income from food production. Therefore, I emphathise with them, because they have to resort to this vicious mode of maximising profits so as to survive. It is highly doubtful that they are culpable for the food scares at all, because they have been forced into this conundrum, and, in all this while, have not realised that their actions are essentially dangerous.

The government’s job, then, is in intervention—to weed out companies engaging in such illegal activities, and encourage other companies to change their stance on utilising toxins. This, I feel, is lacking in the China authorities. Evaluating the news, I really don’t know if the foreign medias are “exaggerating information” on the extent of food scares (claims the China authorities), or whether the China authorities are hushing up the issue (claims the global media). But the very presence of food scares originating from China makes me believe that government has not been doing her job in preventing the problem from occurring. And indeed, the China authorities seem to adopt indifference- insignificant reforms, minimal review, and hushed-up reports- to the tumoral growth of both large and small enterprises. As the government- unfortunately, the only check and balance- fails, the problem is compounded as proliferation of toxin usage goes unchecked, staining the image of the government and country’s reputation.

As "Made in China" takes residence in all homes, who knows he/she would be the next? After all, who knows the extent of toxin circulation? I seriously fear that the next time it strikes, it homes in closer to home. As for now, I can only seek solace in the fact that the AVA monitors imported food products stringently, and the hope that the China government would finally take charge and end the problem once and for all. For itself.

Islam in Indonesia

Title of Article: A Call to Prayer
Source: Time issue- 5th March 2007 (Pg 16-20)

My Response:
Indonesia faces an unprecedented societal problem: the Islamisation of the nation and the administering of Shari’a, or Islam-inspired laws, a manifestation of the puritanical interpretations of Islam’s role in society. Proponents of conservative Islam contend that Shari’a laws are perfect systems and God’s will, and therefore are superior to secular laws. By being stricter, these laws could promote morality by punishing even the smallest of immorality or indulgence: drinking and gambling. The proponents could well be right that these laws could lead to a better society. These laws could well be deterrence; a criminal would most likely think twice before committing an offense.

On the flip side, however, such puritanical forms of piety have undermined the Indonesian secular government by restricting freedom of expression and rights to religion. By coercing non-Muslims or other Muslim sects to obey their laws, they are ultimately imposing their strong beliefs on people who do not believe in them. The Muslims can continue applying their Shari’a laws to daily life, but why make it a compulsory for everyone? By doing so, they suppress Indonesia’s vibrant and diverse culture by forcing a uniform code of conduct and dressing through Shari’a laws.

I am not familiar with local conditions, thus I am in no position to evaluate which side is more correct. Practically speaking however, these conservative Islam ideologies dampen foreign investors’ interest in Indonesia, sending direct investments plummeting, posing disadvantages to the Indonesian economy. But it’s easy to see the allure for people to choose to believe in such ideologies. Ever since the fall of the “dictator” Suharto who suppressed any power that could oppose him, Islam communities and leaders have proliferated, these being conservative as is the global trend of conservatism in Islam. The new government’s incompetence in eradicating poverty and solving problems sparked people to believe that these conservative groups are a panache for their problems or an alternative to the government. As conservatives believe strongly, it is easier to brainwash or influence them as compared to moderates, whose belief is subtle but complex.

How can this be solved? Because of the conservative nature of Islam, questions or doubts cannot be freely raised without a conferment of punishment. The tides of time wait for no man; the trend of conservatism cannot change, and the proliferation cannot be reversed. I think that the solution lies with the government. By upping its competence and minimising its corruption, people will on the whole be wealthier and move away from conservative Islam. It should also highlight the incommensurability between Islam and violence; Islam in the purest form does not promote violence.

Islam and secularism can co-exist. The less strict secular laws must be obeyed by everyone while the Shari’a laws are obeyed by its believers. As long as the Islamic leaders and Indonesia’s leaders do not struggle for dominance, both will survive. This applies to the much debated issues of race in Indonesia. Indonesians and other races can live in harmony, and tolerance is the key.
(498 words)