Anexo I – sección V – parte C
D. Terminales de autoservicio, incluidos los terminales de pago, las máquinas
through social networking websites, and talents made known to the world through the famous video-sharing site, YouTube. As such, the media has levelled the playing fi eld for anyone whose ambition requires the support of consumers by removing the monetary prerequisite and that of social connection that might once have been a stumbling block to some. Zee Avi, a nineteen-year- old from Sarawak, made her debut online with her sultry voice, and local indie musician Inch Chua shot to fame with her YouTube videos. Young entrepreneurs have also found it much easier to set up their businesses – by starting off online. Up-and-coming blog-shop ‘Tight’, an environmentally friendly enterprise that purchases old T-shirts from customers, tie-dyes them and sells them back for half-price, was set up by a student who graduated from college in Singapore. DamnGoodTees, a T-shirt printing agency, was set up by a student still schooling now, and both sites have received encouraging response from netizens. This is clear testament to the liberation media accords to up-and-coming business people or artistes, now not subject to the limitation of not having enough monetary capital or social connections to realise their dreams.
However, besides the enablement media accords people to realise their dreams, the media is only truly liberating if directed by the compassion of people. The recent generous fl ow of aid rendered to the Japanese, stricken by a tsunami that cruelly tore their country’s infrastructure apart was primarily directed by the compassion of people, and only facilitated by the media. The media raises people’s consciousness of what is happening in other countries, but such aid from France to workers in the demolished Fukushima Daichi Plant had to be directed by human altruism. Likewise, the facilitation of the gift box set up by the Singaporean Livejournal users for the Japanese was made possible by the common platform of the Livejournal community, but it was the compassion of the users which was the main driving force of the project. Indeed, the media allows for the faster dissemination of information, and the unity of the people, but whether its results are ultimately liberating depends on the motives and intention of the people themselves.
Lastly, the media, with its ability to proliferate ideas, could well be a liberating force in freeing people from hackneyed or oppressive ideologies in the societal and even religious sphere. Waris Dirie, a lady subject to the inhumane act of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) at a young age, made the global populace conscious of the act through her fi lm, and consequently garnered huge support for the obliterating of the act, even becoming the UN Ambassador for the elimination of FGM. Likewise, many Christians worldwide have been freed from fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible by local pastor Joseph Prince’s simple Bible-based interpretation of Christianity made available by television broadcast and sermons broadcast on websites online. It is precisely because the media allows for the discussion between a larger population of people that illogical and repressive ideologies can be stamped out through such discourse, and authentic, sensible enlightenment take their place – which ultimately has the potential to free people from oppressive regimes.
In conclusion, whether the media has been a liberating force ultimately lies in our human hands. Whether we use the advantages of the media, particularly new media, and namely its ability to unite people, disseminate information quickly and allow for greater freedom of speech, to liberate us or suck us into the mire of personal attacks and the proliferation of baseless opinions, is ultimately our decision.
Marker’s comments:
Except for the occasional hiccups and language errors, an excellent effort to really demonstrate how liberation takes place with apt illustration. Good sense of engagement with question. A little heavy on local examples.
E Pluribus Unum or “out of many, one” – this is the unoffi cial motto of the United States, which suggests that unity can emerge out of diversity. However, is that often the case? Based on empirical evidence, diversity usually gives rise to divisiveness. From cultural to political differences, diversity often drives people apart.
A common argument is that diversity can actually be a unifying force rather than a divisive one. This stems from the perhaps paradoxical notion that diversity produces uniqueness. In a given society of people, differences in culture, language and practices supposedly add a sense of distinctiveness to the populace. This can be seen in several countries with multi-ethnic populations, such as Singapore and Malaysia. Despite a 74% Chinese demographic, Singaporean society differs vastly from that of China. This is a result of the fusion and hybridisation of cultures from the different ethnic groups in Singapore, which in turn generate other societal practices that are almost entirely home-grown. This uniqueness of Singaporean culture is manifested in countless areas, including Singlish (the colloquial variant of Singapore English), the ‘national’ dish Chilli Crab and many more. This uniqueness, which has been brought about by cultural diversity, has generated a strong Singaporean identity that the government is striving to capitalise on to further boost national unity. From this then, it might seem convincing that diversity is not divisive.
However, we must realise that the island nation of Singapore is very much the exception rather than the norm in embracing diversity. Due in part to her small physical size and intense nation- building efforts in her formative years, Singapore has achieved what is in fact an anomaly on the international stage. From the Sunni-Shia confl icts in the Middle East, to the Black-Hispanic tensions in South-western United States, diversity has manifested itself in social division and tension in almost all situations. The bottom-line is that human beings see amongst themselves differences much more clearly than similarities. When a white man sees a black person in his native lands, the fi rst characteristic of the latter he would recognise is his skin colour – and not the fact that this man basically shares the same dreams and desires as him. Most multi-ethnic societies today are simply too large for authorities to successfully foster “unity in diversity” amongst its entire populace – such is the case in the United States. Even in societies that are still undeveloped, the focus is much more on more pressing needs like sustenance rather than social cohesion. Such is the case in places like Rwanda, where impoverished Hutus descended upon the somewhat richer Tutsis with rage. As such, diversity in the world today is often not managed properly or suffi ciently, and the result of this is social division.
Next, it might also be argued that diversity is not divisive, as the range of commonalities amongst differing groups of people bond people together to achieve common aims and common interests. This supposedly renders diversity as merely different beliefs that these groups adhere to when they are not together. This is a stand particularly favoured by President Barack Obama of the United States. He acknowledges the differences among the various countries of the world, but often stresses the many fundamental ideals that all humanity supposedly strives for – freedom, human rights, etc. This encourages areas of cooperation between countries, which leads to a better environment for all, and a better environment for all to practise their different cultures.
Is this a possible scenario? Yes. Probable? No. Again, the cooperation between people of different backgrounds fades away along with the fading away of the common beliefs they adhere to. We see this in the classic example of the Soviet Union – a political union of Slavs, Turkic peoples and Caucasians who had little in common except for their faith in communism. Along with the demise of Communism, the Soviet republics broke away from one another and tensions started to grow. Emphasis on commonalities is insuffi cient to mitigate glaring disagreements between people.