blog 3 - The bloody background behind the overrated rock

Link to article:

Rough trade: Diamond industry still funding bloody conflicts in Africa

The diamond trade in Africa, particularly in Liberia, has intrigued me ever since I watched the movie "Blood Diamond". The movie revealed truths things that I previously never thought about. Diamonds are often thought of as a woman's best friend and they are considered luxuries. However, despite the fanfare surrounding diamonds, few realise the consequences of their materialism and the bloody truth behind the diamond industry.

Diamond is often regarded as the jewel of all jewels and everybody wants to own one. However, what most people fail to realise is that a good number of the diamonds that we wear in fact come off the backs of Africans who have been enslaved by their own countrymen and forced to dig for diamonds. And even fewer people realise that just by buying diamonds, many of them are actually helping to fund civil war in African countries.

Now, what exactly do I mean by this? Rebel groups in African countries such as Liberia and the Ivory Coast go around destroying villages atop diamond mines and capturing people in order to work these mines. The casualties as a result of this are numerous and the fatalities are truly saddening. The diamonds gathered from these mines are then either traded for weapons via diamond smugglers or are just sold to provide funds for the purchase of weapons. These rebel groups then obviously use these weapons in their fight against the government.

If the number of people killed when they ravage villages do not seem significant enough, I guess it wouldn't hurt to know that the civil wars fuelled by these cause a multitudinous number of deaths. In Liberia, a bitter eight-year civil war, which has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced more than a million, has been fuelled by the illegal diamond trade. Diamonds from Ivory Coast are smuggled to Mali and sold on the international market to provide millions of dollars in revenue for rebel factions such as the Forces Nouvelles.

Fact is, the demand for diamonds from consumers is what's causing suppliers to get their uncut diamonds from such sources. And we, the developed countries, are the ones providing most of the demand. And one big problem in preventing the retail of diamonds originating from such countries is that most of the time, the diamonds are smuggled out of these countries, usually to border countries, where they are mixed with other 'clean' diamonds and from then on, nothing can be done about it.

At the moment, under existing guidelines retailers should be able to provide a copy of their company policy on conflict diamonds and a written guarantee from suppliers about the origin of the stones. And this is all that the retailers can do about it, as diamonds gotten from the supplier are already mixed up, if mixed up at all. However, how guaranteed is this guarantee? In my opinion, there is no way that the suppliers would let their conscience get in their way of making such a huge sum of money. After all, who is going to check on them? Since a good deal of the diamonds are from Africa anyway, who is going to certify which came from Liberia and which came from Mali?

The best way to stop all of these is of course for us consumers to stop buying diamonds altogether. However, I know that this is practically impossible. However, this is all we can do about it. International committees are also helpless as they too have no way of pinpointing the exact location from which each and every diamond came from. There is no way anyone they sent to monitor things will be effective as well in a war-torn state. Hence, the only parties probably capable of doing anything at all are the countries from which diamonds are smuggled from and smuggled into. They can prevent smuggling via stricter checks and tighter borders. However, in the war-torn, poverty-stricken and corrupt states of Africa, I'm afraid that even this is practically impossible. In fact, the governments of those states might even partake in this as I'm sure that they would also need weapons to combat the rebels.

Since the African states choose not to do anything, the international bodies are helpless, the retailers are always in the dark and the consumers are even more ignorant. Hence, it really seems that nothing can be done about it. The only ways that the bloody diamond industry can become a clean one is one, for consumers to stop buying diamonds and two, for the wars in the countries. Since option one seems totally out of the question at the moment, I guess we will just have to hope that the war will end soon and we can buy our diamonds without considering its past. (not that anybody does anyway)

But hopes are merely hopes and dreams are unreachable, so lets wait for a miracle instead. If you want to do you part, ask for certification of its origin when you are buying a diamond ring. It probably is useless, but at least it puts you at ease.

Does Democracy Create Stability in a Society?

Because the one that I wrote at the very beginning was more than a thousand words, I have chosen to post the newer version which is just more than 500 words long and I really am sorry that I did not post it initially, I really did not know.

Democracy is defined as a form of government where the people decide who runs the country and how it is run. I will, as much as possible, look at both whether it creates stability and whether it creates instability.

Democracy gives universal suffrage, where everybody is given the right to vote and choose their government. Therefore people tend to feel that democracy create stability in a society assuming that everyone in the society would be agreeable to the government and its policies. It is almost impossible to have one candidate or government winning 100% of the votes. Democracy is often called the tyranny of the majority because only the majority of the people will be satisfied while there will always be a minority with differing opinions. And in extreme cases, they might even be segregation. This is prevalent in countries divided by race and with individual parties or candidates representing the individual races or religions. What democracy does is bring these differences out into the open, where conflicts might occur. A good example is Sri Lanka, where even though democracy arguably existed, the government was naturally majority Sinhalese as the population was majority Sinhalese. This led to conflict between the two races. This shows how the majority can manipulate democracy to their advantage.

Few countries really have an absolute democracy. Our democratically-elected government has often been accused of jerry-meandering, giving other parties absolutely no chance. However, I am really grateful that they have done so 'in order to create stability'. How many democratic countries seriously have free, fair and regular elections? Many parties resort to unscrupulous methods to ensure that they stay in power. Asia holds countless examples, from India to South Korea. In Thailand, money politics was used by ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra in order to gain the support of the poorer working class. These are results of democracy. Many campaigns are sponsored by private companies and are such that it benefits a certain group in order to gain those votes. An example would be in the US, where the presidential candidates try to win the pink dollar and the support of the gays. There are bound to be people who are unhappy with the policies made to favour these people and companies and conflict will arise among the people, causing instability.

Competition brings out the best in political parties pushing them to work harder to gain people’s support. When political parties try to outdo each other, the people would benefit. Stability results as the lives of the people are improved.

Democracy encourages transparency as people prefer to vote for such parties. The Singaporean government has often been lauded for its transparency and interaction with the people with ‘meet the people’ sessions in place. As a result of this, the populace knows what the government is planning and the government knows what the people think about their plans, eventually being able to work together to forge a more stable society.

My conclusion is democracy can create stability but can create instability instead. I have talked about how democracy can create stability and then countered my own statement by looking at how democracy can create instability. From every perspective, democracy is a double-edged sword. However, it really depends on the way democracy is implemented, the situation and how well the people accept election results. Democracy by fostering free expression of support of competing factions can make an already unstable society even more unstable.

All in all, implementing democracy in a society is like putting the society on a scale, it could tip towards stability as easily as it could tip towards instability and its success really is a culmination of many factors.

Regards,
Yan Xun

When it's time to talk about sex / Attitudes - kids observe their parents

Section:	Intheknow
By:	KOH JOH TING
Publication:	The Straits Times 14/03/2007

Essentially, the article talks about how important parents are when it comes to their children handling sexuality issues; not only because children observe and follow their parents' examples, but also because parents have to teach them about it, guide the in the correct direction and ensure that they are not adversely influenced by other people or media. The article is trying to say that parents are a walking and interactive guidebook for their children, and it is thus their duty to present the information well and actually guide instead of misleading the reader(s).

Indeed, sexuality issues are paramount and these are issues that all children would have to face someday. What’s more, parents really should be concerned about these issues, as recent media reports have suggested, including one about a nine-year-old girl who managed to have sex with a 14-year-old schoolmate in her home and got pregnant, without her parents knowing. However, how many parents actually speak to these children while they still can be taught and when they still listen? Just as any parent would teach a child not to steal or take drugs, a parent should help a child make the right judgment when it comes to sexuality. Parents have to set the ground rules early before other media such as the internet can influence their perception and feelings about sex. Parents need not necessarily take up a harsh tone or even a serious tone when talking to their children about these issues. Although in the case of elder children, where gentle persuasion makes no impact, harsher tones or maybe even to a certain extent, 'violence', might have to be used to drive the point across as older teens are very obstinate. Trust me, I'm a teen myself. In the case of younger children, parents should however adopt a softer and kinder tone. After all, parents are trying to educate, not to scold. Regardless of what happens, parents really have to continue being supportive and keep communication lines open with their children.

If you treat talking about sex with your child as a lecture, you will achieve nothing. In fact, it might be both a waste of time and saliva. Instead, you must be ready to talk about sex, have a stand and persuade your child to have the same stand and to be prepared to handle sexuality issues.

Another thing that I feel is of utmost importance is the example that parent's set for their children. Many children look to their parents for guidance and instruction. Imagine a child saying, "Since mommy and daddy can do this..., then why I cannot?" Children take after their parents, not only in their character but also in their actions. A chauvinistic man usually has a chauvinistic father and a vain daughter often has a vain mother.

Well, children really do take after their parents and they base their actions on those of their parents. Hence, it really is the duty of a parent to guide their children in the right direction and to set a positive example. Especially for sexuality issues, it is the duty of the parents to talk to their children about sexuality issues and ensure that they set things straight.

Just remember, if your teenage child has sex and gets pregnant, it is not just their fault, so do not start shouting at them and threatening to disown because it is a result of things that you have or perhaps have not done. You might have set a poor example or did not guide them well. You could have done something about it.

Chew on it.

The link for the article