What is culture?

View more presentations from Nurhayati Khan.

AQ - violence/ Wu yinan

From passage one, the author suggested that "rates and criminal violence are higher in mobile and heterogeneous societies where it is hard to put down roots and establish the social glue that binds people into a community" I agree that this is one of the concerns which Singapore faces today due to the high influx of foreigners which might pose a harm to our society. Singapore is indeed a country with high mobility and is heterogeneous. Currently, roughly 40 percent of our population is made up of immigrants. The influx of immigrants may tear down our sense of belonging by diluting our culture and creates criminal violence only if the govenrnment did not intervene to prevent and ensure social cohesion as well as the encouragement of Singaporeans to accept the immigrants as one of us. Many locals were despondent to the fact that there is increased competition for job and resources with the immigrants. However so, Singapore's government had put in a lot of effort in trying to integrate and bond immigrants and permanent residents into our society. This is done through community based activities. There are also mega cultural projects being launched at the grassroot level to develop rapports and strengthen bonds between Singaporeans and immigrants, and a ten-million dollars integration fund helmed by the MCYS (Ministry of Community Youth and Sports) to oversee such an effort. Hence, this builds tolerance amongst the people and with this understanding, criminal violence could be avoided.

From passage 2, the author mentioned that "traditional parental control has disappeared and many Muslim families are headed by single parent". This social issue is strongly applicable to Singapore today. Indeed, parenthood had reduced over the years due to both working parents and changing lifestyles for both parent and children. This had lead to little time for communication between the two praties and traditional parental control seems relatively insignificant as compared to the past. Studies have shown that this lack of moral education will increase the chances for the child to commit a crime as he/she grows up as adults, and criminal violence is one of the examples. Nonetheless, Singapore's government had implemented policies like the "5-day civil servants work week" such that parents would have more time to interact with their children. Thus, this creates opportunities for parents and children to bond and as a result, insert some form of parental care and control over the child. Hence, reducing the risk of accurance of criminal violence in Singapore.

AQ-xingjie

The author of the Newsweek says that violence is higher in mobile and heterogeneous societies. This means that societies made up of people of different races and with immigration rates are likeier to experience higher violence rates. This is so due to the many varied views and way of thinking among the people which results in conflicts occurring or failure to assimilate into the local environment and way of life. This is of concern to Singapore as Singapore has a high immigration rate with people of diverse cultures. Close to a quarter of our population is made up of foreigners. For example, some foreign students who may not be able to assimilate into the Singapore’s education system which place high emphasise on excellence may ‘de-stress’ or let out their anger through violence means such as hurting others. However, other factors also play a part in affecting the violence rate. One such factor is the individual personality. More often than not, those who commit such violence acts are loners with few friends or companions to support them or offer a listening ear. For those with an open personality, they are able to make friends easily and find support from this core group when they are feeling down, instead of resorting to violence means to let out. Therefore, while mobile and heterogeneous societies do have a direct relation to violence, other factors such as the individual’s personality also plays a part.

Oliver Roy says that violence is due to inequality and cultural differences coming in conflict with high ideals. This means that difference in thinking, way of life, practice, income and what is the perfect example results violence. This is highly relevant to Singapore which is experiencing rising income inequity and foreign discontentment. For example, there were various protests by residents against the building of foreign dormitories or rental flats targeted at the low income near their estates. These residents fear a drop in their flats resale value and an increased crime rate. While the protests remained peaceful, it could turn out worse. Thus, inequality and cultural differences coming in conflict with high ideals does result in violence.

Cherlyn: tjc09_violence AQ

In passage 1, according to the author, “Rates of criminal violence are higher in mobile and heterogeneous societies where it is hard to put down roots and establish the social glue that binds people into a community.” This means that the author thinks that people from different cultures and societies tend to resort to criminal violence as they cannot live with one another. However, I disagree with the author on this point as different groups of people from different cultures and societies are able to live together and get along with each other in harmony. This is very evident especially in my country, Singapore as Singapore is a multi-racial country and there are a large number of immigrations as well. Yet, the people are still able to live together in harmony and the rate of criminal violence is largely minimised in Singapore. For example, Singaporeans living in flats have different groups of people as their neighbours and they are still living together peacefully and some even became good friends with each other. Thus, rates of criminal violence are not necessary higher in mobile in heterogeneous societies as different group of people are able to live together as one big community.
In passage 2, according to the author, he thinks that “this angry young population is highly deculturalised and individualised” is a reason to why criminal violence is so dominant. I agree to his point that teenagers that tend to be more self-centred and only think for themselves will bring about criminal violence as they do not bother about the harmful consequences it will bring to the society. However, this is not applicable to Singapore as many Singapore youths are not individualised and deculturalised. They do care about the society and they do not think only for themselves as youths were taught since young in schools that Singapore is a multi-racial country and people do help each other out as like being one big family. Thus, although the author thinks that the young population is highly deculturalised and individualised, but it is not applicable to my country, Singapore

JOY/tjc09_violence

Passage 1 says that “If barriers of language or culture keep an immigrant child from fitting in, it can increase the risk that he will become alienated and, given enough triggers, resort to violence.” Singapore is a cosmopolitan society where people from different countries are welcomed to apply for residency. With more than 70,000 new immigrants in 2009, this view is very applicable to our country. It is true that language and culture barriers can spark off unhappiness within this group of population and eventually lead to violence. Singaporeans are often judgmental and skeptical towards immigrants, especially if there is the possibility of having fewer jobs available for ourselves. Many times, as I have witnessed in school, foreign students are alienated and are not socially accepted, resulting in segregation even during mealtimes where the foreign students seat in a corner by themselves. Like passage 1 says, such an exclusive culture can stir up unhappiness due to the unjust treatment and this is definitely a trigger in causing them to turn to violence in order vent their anger and seek “revenge” on the locals.

Passage 2 says that “traditional parental control has disappeared”. This view is only partly applicable to Singapore’s context. Traditional parental control would refer to parents having the last say on various subjects with regards to the lives of their children these days. Indeed, the amount of control the adults have on their children these days is less than in the past, as more freedom has been accorded. However, it is not true that parents in Singapore no longer have any control over their children. Many parents still do set curfews and ground their kids when such measures are called for. Majority of the children in Singapore also still do obey and respect their parents, submitting to authority most of the time. Thus I would say that the view of parents no longer having control over their children is definitely not applicable to Singapore.

tjc09_violence/Evelyn/10A202

In passage one, the author states that, “Rates of criminal violence are higher in mobile and heterogeneous societies”. This means that societies that allow for easy immigration and is multiracial tend to have high levels of crime. However this is not true in the context of Singapore. Singapore is both multiracial and high mobility in migration and yet it has managed to keep its crime level to a minimum. This is done through the social integration of foreigners and minority groups so as to make them feel like a valuable citizen in society. In Singapore, Residents’ committees and community centres organise events and activities for residents to take part in and bond over. This gives the residents, who are of different racial backgrounds, a chance to understand each other and grow tolerance. Thus, this tolerance helps prevent racial criminal violence in Singapore. Hence, the view that ease in migration and multiracialism will lead to high level of criminal violence is not true.

In passage two, Olivier Roy claims that "This angry young population is highly deculturalised and individualised." This means that youths today are selfish and no longer in touch with their roots. This causes them to be easily influenced and swayed by what they see in the media and not be able to judge for themselves what is morally right. Hence, they become preoccupied in chasing what they believe is beneficial for them. This is true in most societies today including mine where youth readily follow peers whom they believe are cool. This usually leads to crimes and vices such as smoking, vandalism and stealing. This can be seen by the fact that the number of juvenile delinquents is now higher than it was ten years ago. This worrying trend in my society shows that it is indeed true that the lack of association with one’s heritage combined with a self-centred belief in one’s self may lead to crimes and vices.

TJC 2009_Violence/Kai Lin/10A202

The social issues raised in both passages would not be of much concern to my society.
The author of The Anatomy of Violence in Passage 1 says that immigrant children who have difficulty speaking the local language find it hard to settle in as a result, they are highly likely to feel outcast and possibly even display signs of violent tendencies. I disagree with the author in this social issue because many immigrant children or teenagers who grow up in countries foreign to them do not become violent people who have fought or even murdered. When placed in safe environments with a good education system, these children or students are unlikely to pick up traits of violence, whether or not they have language difficulties. For example, in Singapore, it is common to see foreign students in primary, secondary and even university schools. These foreigners usually perform well in terms of academic results and gain the respect of their peers because of their stellar results in almost every subject except perhaps English, if they hail from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Hence, their schoolmates look up to them and often request for study tips, proving that these foreign students integrate well into the social circles and are hence rarely outcast or shied away from. Also, there are co-curricular activities (CCAs) that bond Singaporean students with them, such as the Chinese Orchestra, Language Club, and International Dance Club, which allow foreign students to interact and form friendships as they feel comfortable in the familiar environment. Thus, these foreign students are very unlikely to act violently due to feelings of estrangement, as they are unlikely to feel that way in the first place. Hence this issue would not be of much concern to my society. However, it would be of concern to my society when these foreign children are not placed in healthy environments. In the case of Nanyang Technological University student David Widjaja, who was an Indonesian, falling to his death after stabbing his professor in 2009, one possible cause of the violent act is because he felt upset that his scholarship was terminated. Without any school counsellors to address his probably extreme feelings of disappointment and depression, David Widjaja vented his frustrations with a violent act on campus. Hence, in this case of an environment that bred aggression and violence as it failed to subdue it, my society should be threatened. However, since this is only a single case and not a trend, I feel that this social issue is not of much concern to Singapore.
In Passage 2, Olivier Roy says that the government in France has faced difficulties in promoting bonding between people living around each other, hence causing riots to occur. I disagree with the author in this social issue because the government can maintain harmony within a town and sustain it for a long time. Singapore has been enjoying peace and harmony for several decades now, due to the government's efforts in building community centres and organising events for the purpose of strengthening the community spirit. Thus, the threat of riots occurring in Singapore would not be of much concern as long as the government improves or maintains its efforts.