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.
Friday, August 24, 2007
English- the Way?
The Original Article: English for Everyone
Source: Newsweek, Aug 20- Aug 27
My Response:
It seems ironic that Chinese teachers often reason that since 40 million non-native speakers learn Chinese, it follows that we should all place emphasis on Chinese. Because unbeknownst to our dear Chinese teachers, while 40 million learns Chinese globally, 175 million from China alone learn English. This gives credence to the critical importance of English in today’s world, and its preeminent position as a global language.
Perhaps the most telling evidence of the English phenomenon is the presence of “English villages” in South Korea—fictional villages with all communications in English so that it can be practiced upon. I must say this is a very novel idea as speech and everyday usages are exceedingly important for the mastery of a language. Although this shows the rigour and energy the Koreans are willing to expend, more importantly, this is really a microcosm of the global resolve for English learning.
That aside, some experts predict the fall of the importance of English, and its replacement by Chinese. I have reservations about this notion because English is already the preeminent language of science and technology etc. Moreover, the numbers of the Chinese learning English is on an exponential rise as the Chinese join the bandwagon for economic benefits. Trends in China, no doubt, start trends in other countries in a domino effect, such that more countries emulate China and emphasise on the English language. When most of the world’s population converts to English speakers, people can converse effectively among one another in a complete global community network. This ease in communication prevents the reverting back to the emphasis on native languages. Thus, the presence of a dominant global language, and the comfort of status quo, would greatly hinder the rise of the Chinese language.
While English is set to become the lingua franca of the world, however, I find the method English is being taught as a second language very worrying. According to the article, Chinese parents enroll their children into English cram schools at tender ages so as to increase their propensity of having an edge over their peers. While it is understandable for parents to give the best to their children (our parents do that too), they are inevitably destroying their child’s interest for the language by restricting them into a fixed mode of rote learning. Even if the child gains sufficient mastery, I believe that he would not be able to engage in self-driven learning by his own. Is this what the English language wants to produce? Is this in the full spirit of independent critical thought which English possess an emphasis towards?
Yes, the learning of the Chinese language focuses on rote learning because of the sheer number of permutations to dots and dashes that make up a single word. These words must necessarily be recognised and known. So, teaching Chinese requires a certain style. Using this style to teach English, however, is not feasible simply because of the alphabet system in English. I worry that the incommensurability of Chinese and English is not felt by those teaching or learning English, such that mastery is merely surface and not in the essence.
Thus, the rise of the English language is fraught with implications, many of which I don't understand. But comewhatmay, I feel very privileged to be born and bred in Singapore, which has trained me to straddle English and Chinese, both of which set to become prominent global languages sooner or later. With that, I would also be exposed to differing perspectives of the East and West, of Communism and Democracy, via cultural bias inherent in all languages, putting me (and my peers) at an advantage in the global arena. My advice to all: Learn your English, but don't forget Chinese... and master your English.
Perhaps the most telling evidence of the English phenomenon is the presence of “English villages” in South Korea—fictional villages with all communications in English so that it can be practiced upon. I must say this is a very novel idea as speech and everyday usages are exceedingly important for the mastery of a language. Although this shows the rigour and energy the Koreans are willing to expend, more importantly, this is really a microcosm of the global resolve for English learning.
That aside, some experts predict the fall of the importance of English, and its replacement by Chinese. I have reservations about this notion because English is already the preeminent language of science and technology etc. Moreover, the numbers of the Chinese learning English is on an exponential rise as the Chinese join the bandwagon for economic benefits. Trends in China, no doubt, start trends in other countries in a domino effect, such that more countries emulate China and emphasise on the English language. When most of the world’s population converts to English speakers, people can converse effectively among one another in a complete global community network. This ease in communication prevents the reverting back to the emphasis on native languages. Thus, the presence of a dominant global language, and the comfort of status quo, would greatly hinder the rise of the Chinese language.
While English is set to become the lingua franca of the world, however, I find the method English is being taught as a second language very worrying. According to the article, Chinese parents enroll their children into English cram schools at tender ages so as to increase their propensity of having an edge over their peers. While it is understandable for parents to give the best to their children (our parents do that too), they are inevitably destroying their child’s interest for the language by restricting them into a fixed mode of rote learning. Even if the child gains sufficient mastery, I believe that he would not be able to engage in self-driven learning by his own. Is this what the English language wants to produce? Is this in the full spirit of independent critical thought which English possess an emphasis towards?
Yes, the learning of the Chinese language focuses on rote learning because of the sheer number of permutations to dots and dashes that make up a single word. These words must necessarily be recognised and known. So, teaching Chinese requires a certain style. Using this style to teach English, however, is not feasible simply because of the alphabet system in English. I worry that the incommensurability of Chinese and English is not felt by those teaching or learning English, such that mastery is merely surface and not in the essence.
Thus, the rise of the English language is fraught with implications, many of which I don't understand. But comewhatmay, I feel very privileged to be born and bred in Singapore, which has trained me to straddle English and Chinese, both of which set to become prominent global languages sooner or later. With that, I would also be exposed to differing perspectives of the East and West, of Communism and Democracy, via cultural bias inherent in all languages, putting me (and my peers) at an advantage in the global arena. My advice to all: Learn your English, but don't forget Chinese... and master your English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)