This article was written during my undergraduate study at a local private institution in KL. I was deeply inspired to write about the topic of discussion and regretted not voicing it out during the session. This article was also published in 2005 in our in-house Department of Economics' newsletter, Ceteris Peribus. Hence, I do not intend to edit a single word as it reflects the true essence of my point of view then. Please bear in mind, it reflects my learning about this topic when I was first exposed to it and of course, I must say, globalisation is a fact and my point of view has evolved since I begin indulging in more readings.
- Recently, the Economics Department hosted a timely and much-awaited talk on globalisation. Some had voiced their insights openly while others like Stephanie Lim (UEL senior) left the room with discontentment… -
Mr. Globalisation Expert, who obviously came from a nation who supports anything that can satisfy its people’s consumption appetite and who can justify its free-will action as ‘world-saving’, came in time just as everyone had settled down. Of course, who wouldn’t; as his team of men walked in - and their ‘formal’ attire, commanded nothing but a sense of inequality and one-upmanship for the non-wearers.
Does he really know anything about globalisation? Perhaps. And perhaps not, judging from his views expressed - purely on where his nation stands in this issue, ignoring the very basis of the ill effects of globalisation elsewhere. His method of delivery was focused on ‘clarifying myths’, as if the myths were something deliberately created for defamation purposes by the critics, who are clearly more enlightened than to jump onto the bandwagon of this one-sided affair. Globalisation is a dirty word indeed, worse still, an evil process that is justifiable according to Mr. Expert’s stand, as long as the rich gain a lot and the poor (well, who cares about the poor?) as his belief is that his version of globalisation has benefited us so much especially the FDIs that has flourished the developing economies.
Globalisation, like many other issues in the world today, has generated many heated arguments focusing on its processes and its effects on nations. Preachers of globalisation can be grouped into people who either see or are reaping its benefits; and of course, there are the critics, the ones who are constantly questioning the process of globalisation as it seems more harm than good. According to Green Left Weekly, globalisation has marginalised the Third World countries, typically by viewing these countries purely as the suppliers of cheap labour. Countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, Indonesia and China are targets of big corporations like Nike and Wal-Mart. In the name of providing employment to the people, these corporations are actually running a sweatshop where workers are forced to work on a 14-hour shift, seven days a week and 30 days a month! In El Salvador, workers are paid 60cent per hour and companies claimed that this wage is sufficient to raise a family there. But in reality, it is indeed a starvation rate!
When globalisation and its capitalism can justify such effects, I wonder what’s more big corporations wouldn’t do.
The effects of globalisation that we are experiencing today are not inevitable totally but a great degree of effort is needed here. The argument is that: - can the effects be curbed or prevented, or minimised beforehand? Have the preachers weighed the costs and benefits and in whose point of view is it? If the process is deliberately designed to suit the taste of a certain group of people or nations and not focusing on humanity’s good around the world, what good is globalisation? In fact, when the 200 biggest corporations which control 28% of the world economy, employs only 0.25% of total global workforce and that 84 richest people who can have the wealth more than of China’s GDP, are just some indications of this lop-sided affair. Furthermore, as many politicians would believe that globalisation is the victory of democracy, it is actually a political passivity. This is nicely captured in Margaret Thatcher’s famous phrase, “ there is no alternative”. The proponents of globalisation will be even guiltier if they foresee the ill effects yet still continue their conquests, since the costs are not borne by them but by the weak and poor who have no better means to defend themselves against such great forces. Therefore, the preachers and their context of globalisation should be the ones most in doubt, not the people who claim to resist it. Is it fair to ignore the voices of other people and nations that may not be the ‘predominates’? It is time to re-think why the powerful is getting more powerful and has created a ‘reality’ so biased towards them (false class consciousness? – Editor).
Consider this scenario, to be ‘globalised’; nations need to open up in terms of trading. This is where the WTO comes in to ‘liberalise’ world trade. Little did the victim countries realise, they have opened up to foreign imports, so much cheaper than their domestic industry can produce. The effect on this can be clearly traced in the Philippines where imported crops can be priced so low that Filipino farmers no longer could sustain. More vulnerable are the developing nations which will one day, no longer have the luxury to protect its own industries. Competition is argued capable of improving performance; however, is it fair to compete when both parties are not on the same par? This renders the developing nations at the mercy of the great nations as the great nations can make or break their economies. Typical example are South Korea, Thailand and other Asian countries when their economies went to recession in 1997/8. Therefore, it is quite fair to say that globalisation and its instruments is another form of colonisation, since weaker nations have to live according to the whims and fancies of the great nations. Warfare was used back then; now, economic dependency is the weapon. So discreet and deeply disguised is globalisation, facilitated by the spread of its goodness in the name of economic prosperity as the measure of one’s modernity.
Like any other word, globalisation is just a neutral word, which does not take sides. It is the people and their deliberate or unconscious ways of interpreting it that has transformed this word into a device to support a certain ideology. How to interpret the word so that it can qualify as a ‘correct’ word then? Well, unfortunately, we humans have not detached from our biasness to remain as neutral as we all ought to and this applies to globalisation as well. However, to help a little, do start questioning our thoughts and what influences our thoughts. Can our thoughts ever be independent?
“I’ve learnt that what matters most isn’t the material comforts or the political ambitions we successfully realize, but the people who create situations that give us the courage, ability and strength to excel. I think of husbands, parents, siblings and friends; I think of writers, Nobel laureates and artistes who inspire. I think of children who are war victims; and women who are still disallowed the freedom I consider commonplace. Those people are my greatest inspirations, rousing me to make the most of what I have- because to waste the freedom, the ability and the opportunities I have, would be to do these people a great disservice.”
- Evelyn (of Crabtree & Evelyn)
