February 2016 — Gp Lah!

Retirement years are golden years. Do you agree?

For many young people, “retirement” is synonymous to “rest”: You have already done your part, now you can enjoy the rest of your life without working and still get paid. While this notion is obviously overly simplistic and presumptuous, it is partly true that the retirement years seem to promise one with many perks that he or she could only dream of during their working years, such as almost endless leisure time, guaranteed payment and freedom from commitments to do whatever they want. However, in my society in Vietnam, retirement years are never considered “golden”, in fact, they often bring one much worries as they usually mean less financial security and loneliness, as well as lack of healthcare and overall less fulfilling life.

Stressed-out and overworked adults often have the delusion that retirement years would be the end goals of their working life, during which they will have much fewer work commitments and thus would finally be free from such a stressful lifestyle. They dream that they would have all the time and freedom in the world to travel, pursue their hobbies or to simply spend more time with their children and family. After all, who would complain about too much leisure time if they can afford it? This mentality can be seen in the trend of enrichment classes, not for children but retired adults, ranging from cooking to dancing to flower arranging being organized and are very well-received by those with a lot of time on their hands after retirement. More religious people also see retirement as an opportunity to compensate for ignoring their spiritual growth during the busy years, and dream of using this free time to journey to pagodas and churches all over the country in pilgrimages tours tailored specifically for retirees. They also rather naively think that retirement years allow them to spend more time with their family and children to make up for the time that they could not while they were busy working. This mindset is particularly popular in Vietnam, where traditional Eastern values of putting family first are still highly upheld; and it is not uncommon for several generations to stay in the same house, which would certainly allow them to easily care for other members. Overall, many have understandable, but not so realistic dreams about the endless enjoyment in their retirement years.

These dreams, in fact, are overly optimistic and superficial, since they forgot to consider two other very important factors that would allow such enjoyment and leisure: money and health. While it is true that retired people have considerably more time, they might not have the financial capacity and energy to follow through with their plans. The majority (over 80 per cent) of Vietnamese live in rural areas and thus primarily do agricultural works, meaning that for them “retirement” comes when one is no longer capable of such laborious tasks and has to stop working. Certainly, they do not have any kind of pension or guaranteed form of payments, making daily sustenance an issue, not to mention costly leisure such as travelling. Thus, for these people, retirement often means becoming dependent on their children and thus they are no longer able to participate in recreational activities. For city-dwellers, the situation is slightly better cine most people either work for the government or private firms; however, they fail to realize that while their pension is significantly less comparing to their working wages, their living expenses do not decrease simply because they have retired. Prices of goods, house rents and other commodities might even continue to rise due to Vietnam’s growing economy’s vulnerability to inflation. While it is not impossible to carry on with their previous lifestyle, looking forward to a luxurious lifestyle with extravagant trips to exotic places or shopping sprees is simply unrealistic. Furthermore, retirees are often 55 to 70 years old, meaning that their health has deteriorated considerably compared to their prime working years. Those who use to do laborious tasks often face bones and respiratory systems diseases, while office workers have their shares of cancer and heart diseases due to their sedentary lifestyle. Vietnam’s lack of a comprehensive healthcare system also leaves many people without healthcare insurance, making it very difficult for them to obtain affordable healthcare. With such poor health conditions, it is rather difficult for a retired adult to follow the adventurous plans he made when he was 27. Hence, in Vietnam, retirement years are not golden as it leaves people financially insecure and often means poorer health.

Those who still insist on viewing retirement years through rose-tinted glasses might argue that despite the lack of money, a retired adult can still enjoy life through simpler things, such as human interactions and a sense of community, what they might have missed out on due to their previously hectic lifestyle. They would back up this claim by pointing out that Vietnamese society, in fact, has very strong grassroots organizations in residential areas, and would frequently conduct meetings and activities to facilitate bonding between members in the neighbourhood. This community, as they would enthusiastically claim, would ensure that retired adults have companionship and can still lead an active meaningful lifestyle even after retirement.

However, it is still evident that retired adults feel much lonelier after leaving their workplace, in fact, many were in shock and terrified of no longer having work and wish to continue working to have a sense of purpose. These grassroots communities might provide short-term relief for these people, but in the long run, it essentially confines them to interactions with people in the same situation, further drilling into them the notion that they now belong to a “group” of old, non-productive people of the society. Activities carried out become repetitive and superficial a while as they do not have many variations, and thus cannot help retirees find a sense of purpose after they have stopped working. Family-wise, they might find themselves cast aside by other family members who are still working and have much busier schedules to follow. Ultimately, retirees are left falling lonely, unproductive and ignored by society, which severely damages their self-esteem and can even contribute to depression among the elderlies.

Vietnam has quickly moved from a tightly bonded, inclusive and caring society to one that favours productivity, progress and economic development, and this has had clear impacts on the retirees. While it is difficult and not necessarily beneficial to try and make the retirement years “golden years” in one’s life, it is certainly important that the government, communities and every member of society change their views towards retirees and help ensure that everyone is allowed to lead a productive and engaging lifestyle regardless of age and socioeconomic status.

Is it futile to try and save the environment?

In this post-industrialisation era, many governments and individuals have raised concerns over the environment; global warming, loss of biodiversity and land degradation pose threats to our survival and add moral burdens on our shoulders. Many international conferences have been held and environmental organizations’ voices have grown stronger than ever before, giving some the illusion that we can restore the environment we damaged. However, efforts by these institutions and individuals, more often than not, do not produce actual effects, due to profit-centric political agenda, technological limitations and nature’s unstoppable force. Thus, it is true to some extent that it is futile to try and save the environment.

Looking through rose-tinted glasses, those who are overly optimistic may claim that the rising concerns for the environment at the national level will make the restoration of the environment an achievable goal. It is true that environmental issues have been brought up in many international conferences. The World Commission on Environment and Development, for example, was established in 1983, where the concept of sustainable development was first acknowledged by multiple nations. In the later years, environmental conventions in Brazil, Copenhagen, Kyoto and Paris brought together world leaders to discuss strategies to save our environment. Such international efforts to address environmental issues paint a promising picture for the optimists, especially when many countries have consistently met the environmental targets set. France, for example, successfully reduced its carbon emission drastically by using nuclear energy to power 70% of its domestic electricity. Example like this can easily give the impression that our efforts to save the environment will be effective, as the world nations seem to be willing to put in resources collectively and some results have been seen.

However, those optimists fail to recognize that those international conferences and the apparent results have too trivial an effect to be able to save the environment, as the current level of technology does not allow us to achieve our ambitions. In particular, the notion that humans can slow down environmental degradation by changing our energy use pattern is overly simplistic, because the process of producing alternative energy itself deteriorates nature. For instance, although many countries have tied to use solar energy as a green alternative for fossil fuels, the production of solar-energy panels involves mining-specific metals, which are already scarce in nature, and the transportation of materials, as well as the manufacturing process of these panels, emits greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Hence, the so-called environmentally friendly energy is ironically environmentally devastating. Furthermore, the waste generated by nuclear plants and the radiation that affects the surrounding ecosystem has also rendered our efforts to save the environment counter-productive, causing further damages to the environment. Therefore, the attempts taken on a national level to restore the environment are rather futile as the solutions to environmental problems still cause an adverse impact on the environment.

Active environmentalists may argue that the awakening of individuals around the world who now advocate for the environment has halted many environmentally damaging projects and activities. With the maturing of democracy across the world, citizens have used their individual power to try to save the environment, by protesting and advocating. For example, Nature Society of Singapore, a non-government organization, published Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore in 1990, which propelled the government’s now institutionalized Green Plan that sets aside five per cent of Singapore’s total area for nature conservation. Incidents like this convince the environmentalists that concerted efforts by individuals can be very powerful in protecting our environment. Nevertheless, they ignore the compelling truth that most of the time, profit-driven companies or governments that prioritise economic development are too powerful to be challenged. The Three Gorges Project in China, for instance, caused many environmentalists to protest due to its potential damage on biodiversity. However, the project was continued due to the strong will of the Chinese government and the multiple corporations involved. These examples show that individual efforts are too insignificant to save the environment when most of the time, governments and corporations overpower these individuals.

Lastly, the environmental issues we perceive can simply be a natural pattern that no human efforts can stop. Global warming, for example, is believed by many scientists to be merely a result of increasing solar activity, which has nothing to do with the faults of human. Researchers also point out that, the earth has experienced a period of warming when the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases was low. Scientific pieces of evidence like this reveal the horrifying fact that environmental issues may not be a result of human activities. If so, our efforts to save the environment will not produce any effect. Furthermore, the still-rising carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is a compelling corroboration that our individual and international efforts achieve a little outcome to stop the possible natural trend. Hence, given the scientific uncertainty about the truth of environmental degradation, it is rather futile to try and save the environment because the force of nature itself is almost unchallengeable.

In conclusion, provided with the current state of science and technology, as well as the socio-economical needs of countries, human efforts to save the environment produce rather negligible outcomes. Moreover, the possibility that environmental issues are merely a natural trend tells us that it is futile to save the deteriorating environment and ourselves from its impacts.

Should the British Empire return the looted artifacts?

History has been witness to the British Empire looting many countries of their precious artifacts. The Elgin’s Marbles from Greece, The Benin Bronzes from Nigeria and many artifacts from countries like Australia, India and Native America. Many believe that these artifacts should not be returned but in reality there is an increasing need for these artifacts to be returned to their respective countries because it is their rightful place and if Nazi-looted art is fair to be returned then it is also fair that the empire returns the looted artifacts.

Many believe that the artifacts kept in the British museums are safe and encourage archaeological research done on them. However, it should not be forgotten that the artifacts stored in the British museums are looted and the countries from which they are looted will feel satisfied if their artifacts are returned to them as they are a part of their cultural heritage. For example, many believe that the Elgin’s Marbles should be returned to Greece as it belongs to them but UK does not plan to return the artifacts. The British believe that if they have the artifacts they can take better care of the artifacts. It is true that, the countries deserve to get their artifacts back.

It is also necessary to understand that returning the artifacts can also maintain the amicable relationships between countries. It is true that if the artifacts are returned to their respective countries, it would help in maintaining smooth relations between countries, while not doing so can lead to countries becoming more hostile towards the British Empire. One such instance can be Egypt declaring that it is going to sue museums in Britain and Belgium and if the artifacts are not returned the archaeologists will not be allowed to continue their research in the country. The artifact issue is not only limited to countries like Egypt and Greece but also extends to countries like India, China Australia and so on. Hence, it is only justified that the British return the looted artifacts to their respective countries because not doing so can lead to spoiling relationships between countries.

Additionally, Britain’s expectation that Nazi-looted artifacts should be returned to them reflects their hypocrisy. On one hand, they are readily accepting their artifacts but on the other hand, they are denying requests of other countries for reclaiming the artifacts which are rightfully theirs. British officials argue that many of these countries are incompetent in preserving their national artifacts. Therefore, according to them, the empire is doing a great service by keeping the important artifacts safe. However, it should not be forgotten that if the British believe that they should receive the Nazi-looted art then it should also be return the artifacts looted from various countries. Hence, even if the countries are not stable and are asking for their artifacts it should be returned to them.

It is completely wrong to believe that the British are deserving of getting their artifacts back while the colonized countries are undeserving. There is an underlying race issue prevalent here; it is evident from the fact that Elgin’s stones are the face of the artifacts return debate. Greece’s request for the artifacts is considered while from another country is completely ignored. One instance of this can be the denying of the request of the return of Benin’s Bronze wherein one journalist even said that Nigerians do not deserve the artifacts as they were bought by selling slaves. Hence, this shows that the British are wrong in their approach where they are constantly denying the requests of repatriating the artifacts.

In conclusion, it can be said that the British need to realise that they are no longer the colonisers. Today, the world has changed and it is high time that the artifacts were returned to their respective countries. The British should introspect and understand that behind the guise of a beautiful artifact is a long history of violence and subjugation. It is important that these museums try their best to return the artifacts and the ones they cannot return should have an explanation given of how these artifacts reached Europe. In this way, we can share the cultural heritage and maintain amicable relationships with countries around the world.

‘Environmental conservation, not poverty alleviation, should be the priority of developing countries.’ Comment.

Environmental problems, as well as poverty, exist in many developing countries. Environmental problems such as pollution and exploitation of scarce resources may exist due to the country’s desire to advance economically so as to alleviate poverty. Some may say that environment conservation can deprive a country financially and that the funds can be used to eradicate poverty instead. But, by conserving the environment, people in developing countries can be lifted out of poverty as well. Furthermore, the lack of environmental conservation can lead to further damages to the environment and worsen poverty. Thus, environmental conservation should be the priority of developing countries as it can benefit them in the long run and also, likely bring about monetary benefits and reduce poverty.

Admittedly, environmental conservation requires large amounts of funds which can be used for poverty alleviation through means such as subsidising education. Environmental conservation usually involves the transition from coal-produced electricity and usage of fossil fuels to renewable and clean energy. The use of renewable energy such as wind power, solar energy and hydroelectric energy can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions which can help slow down global warming as well as the depletion of the ozone layer. However, the transition to clean energy comes with a huge price. At the 2010 Copenhagen consensus, the UN and World Bank mentioned that the conversion from coal-produced electricity to clean energy requires US$100 billion at least, which is more than 10 times of what most countries’ governments are investing in clean energy now. Electricity from wind power, for example, cost two times more than electricity produced from coal. This is often due to the need to construct direct current lines to transport the electricity as well as storage for energy. Thus, developing countries may be unable to afford to convert to cleaner energy due to the high costs. On top of that, money spent on environmental conservation comes with an opportunity cost as well. The money, arguably, can be used to subsidise education. This can allow more financially disadvantaged children to attend school and thus increase their employability and lift themselves out of poverty in the near future. Education on birth control can also reduce family sizes, which is a factor that often worsens a family’s financial situation due to the need to bring up more children. Undeniably, spending on education can have benefits on poverty alleviation. However, developing countries often lack the funds to do so. Thus, developing countries can possibly use environmental conservation as a stepping stone to eradicate poverty in the long run.

Environmental conservation should be the priority of developing nations as it can help countries to reduce poverty in the long run. In less developed countries, ecotourism is a common way to generate income and thus it is a thriving industry in many less developed countries. For example, countries such as Costa Rica and Kenya, engage in ecotourism and this industry has generated many jobs for locals. This is especially helpful for the locals as many are trapped in poverty and thus are largely uneducated. For instance, local fishermen are often hired by tourists to bring them out to sea for the purpose of ecotourism. Thus, this generates income for the locals who are living in poverty. Additionally, this also creates revenue for the government which can be used to help the poor through the form of subsidies or food aid, provided that the government is not corrupt and hence will use the money to improve the lives of its citizens. Also, the government can use the money to conserve the environment and they are incentivised to do so as by preserving the environment, the country can attract more tourists for ecotourism. Hence, it is evident that environmental conservation can bring economic benefits to developing countries and the wise use of the money generated from it can benefit the poor.

However, by having environmental conservation as the most important goal of a developing country, instead of alleviating poverty, it can also worsen poverty by causing locals to lose their jobs. Although clean energy is known as clean energy, they are not actually “clean”. All forms of energy, including renewable ones, have some form of impact on the environment. For example, biofuels can cause deforestation and hydroelectric energy can cause changes to the landscape. All of these can potentially worsen locals’ lives. In Uganda, ecotourism is a prosperous industry. Many locals are employed in that industry and thus, it is very important as it feeds a large proportion of the locals. The government is also actively engaged in the conservation of the environment. Hence, dams were built to provide hydroelectric energy to the locals, which is clean and allows the country to shift from coal-produced electricity to clean hydroelectric energy. However, the construction of dams, one of which is the Bengali Dam, disrupted the flow of the river, which has a negative impact on the ecotourism industry. Many locals who bring tourists for kayaking and rafting are affected as tourism reduced after the construction of the dams. Thus, this proves that the conservation of the environment has its downside too. However, damages can be mitigated as new jobs will be created as well, following the construction of the dams and locals who are out of a job can work at hydroelectric energy plants. The government can also try to mitigate damages and preserve the ecotourism industry so that poverty is not aggravated in the pursuit of environmental conservation which can eventually eliminate poverty.

It is important that environmental conservation, not poverty alleviation should be the priority of developing countries as the lack of environmental conservation can lead to further damages to the environment and worsen poverty. In the pursuit of economic development, many countries are willing to sacrifice their environment so as to prosper. China is one such example, China is burdened with air and water pollution due to its rapid growth in the recent decade. In 2013, New York-based Blacksmith Institute even ranked Linfen, a China city, alongside Chernobyl on the list of the top 10 most polluted cities in the world. Furthermore, emerging economies such as India and China are rising up the list of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters with China being first and India being fourth. This is evident that several developing countries caused harm to their environment for economic benefits. However, while this degradation of the environment can lead to prosperity in certain developing countries, it may also worsen poverty in some other developing countries. In Nigeria, the transnational company, Shell, has caused damages to its environment which also affected the livelihood of many locals, rendering them helpless financially. The production plants of Shell have caused fires which burnt croplands. This reduced farmers’ crop yield and destroyed their croplands which cause them to lose their tool to generate income. The production plants have also resulted in oil spills which polluted rivers and ponds. This also caused fishermen to lose their rice bowls and thus are unable to make a living which further worsens their financial status. On top of that, locals affected are not compensated for their loss. The corrupt government also further worsens the situation as they prioritised the economic benefits that Shell brought to Nigeria by building oil production plants there. Thus, there are lax or no environmental laws or rules that Shell has to abide by, allowing them to cause damages to the environment. Hence, measures or laws have to be put in place to conserve the environment so as to not worsen the financial state of locals. Due to the corrupt government, foreign presence such as the United Nations may be needed to protect the environment as well as not worsen the poverty in developing nations.

In conclusion, developing nations should prioritize the conservation of the environment instead of alleviating poverty. The conservation of the environment may be costly, but there exist many protocols which developing nations can take part in and receive help from stronger nations or agencies. For example, the Montreal Protocol which provides funds to needy developing countries. In the long run, environmental conservation will affect poverty positively as it can generate jobs as well as provide the government with funds to improve the citizens’ lives and lift them out of poverty. Since solving environmental issues can have benefits on alleviating poverty, developing countries should prioritise it to benefit their people.