Term 3 Week 2 (Blogging Assignment)

An article entitled 'The Religion of Water' was published in The Straits Times on 7 July 2011. In the article, it was mentioned that ' within countries, there is debate over whether water should be treated as a human right or as a commodity, access to which is determined by the market.' Please read the article.

Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity? In your opinion, should water be treated as a human right or as a commodity?

Water, as we all know, is one of the most valuable natural resources known to man. The Earth's surface is covered in 66% of water, however, only 3% of that water is drinkable. Although it should be a renewable resource, decades of human water pollution has significantly reduced its already small amount. Many countries, especially those with seasonal droughts, are in increasing shortage of water, and thus, the general global demand for water has increased in the past decade. Despite this, many people in more developed countries are still wasting precious water – that other people would kill for – without even sparing a thought for them.

Charles Darwin once said that the world was a place where the rule “survival of the fittest” prevailed. According to this ideology, it is not wrong if humans treat water as a commodity. Democracy also supports this: the wealthy work hard enough to earn themselves the privilege of water; while the poor, who are incapable to earn enough, simply must die of thirst. Treating water as a human right, of course, is only most definitely practised in communist countries. Even then, there is corruption and the utopian world fails to come to reality.

Is there a difference between treating water as a human right and as a commodity?

In my opinion, I think that water, even though it is a necessity for human survival, should be treated as a commodity. Although some may argue that we should treat it as a human right, they fail to see that by treating it as a commodity, there might actually be a beneficial side to it. A commodity is “a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differiencation across the market”. That is to say that people pay a price subject to market demand for the commodity, water. Since water is in such short supply and high demand, its price would naturally make an impact on those who are able to afford it. Humans, as society progresses, become more and more materialistic, and thus, they would treasure money as much as their lives. Water is bought with money, and therefore is viewed as money itself, albeit in another form, by humans. They would learn to save and limit their use of water, so as to save money. This would bring about the awareness the governments have wanted us to learn all the time: Water is precious and we should save every drop of it.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that water should be treated as a commodity as it is for the best interests of everyone. This is clearly a utilitarian perspective, and although many die in the process after this decision, the ends justify the means: The survival of the fittest.

Term 3 Week 1 (Blogging Assignment)

Veteran labour leader Halimah Yacob recently called for the legislation of weekly days off for maids working in Singapore. This has sparked off an intense debate amongst Singaporeans. In your opinion, should the giving of weekly days off be legislated in Singapore?

Post your 300 word response on your blog.

It is mandatory for all employees to be given at least a day off in a week by law. However, maids have never been included until recently, when veteran labour leader Halimah Yacob recently called for the legislation of weekly days off for maids working in Singapore. Maids, also known as domestic helpers, are employed by locals to provide assistance in the households. Maids come from countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia and Myanmar. Indonesian maids usually work 7days a week and do not request for off-days, while some Filipino and Myanmar maids insist on only working under an employer who grants off-days.

In my opinion, I think that it should not be made legislatory for maids to have weekly off-days.
Firstly, I do not think that all maids would want off-days. For example, those from Indonesia usually would want to earn more money, and thus would prefer to work 24/7 to maximise their salary. Some maids are self-conscious, and are afraid that they might go astray or spend all their savings if they were given this freedom. They also want to be constantly working, so that they would not find working every day hard.

Secondly, I also do not think that all employers would want to give their maids off-days. This is especially so after the rising number of crime cases involving maids. In an interview on television, a middle-aged housewife said in Mandarin, “They are already as out of control as it is now. If we were to give them off-days, would it not get worse?” It is presumable then, that some families are not willing to employ maids who request for off-days.

Lastly, I think that we should maintain the current model and introduce a gradual change. There should be a choice of having off-days for maids as they are the ones who are debated about in this matter. If the maid insists on having off-days, the employer can always look for another maid to employ. The maid in question does not have to fret as they would surely be a number of employers who believe in giving her off-days. In such a huge labour market, I am sure that there would be enough employees for employers and vice-versa.