Intercultural miscommunication and misattributions often underscore intercultural conflict. Individuals coming from two contrastive cultural communities have different value assumptions, expectations, verbal and nonverbal habits, and interaction scripts that influence the conflict process. Intercultural conflict is defined as the perceived or actual incompatibility of values, norms, processes, or goals between a minimum of two cultural parties over content, identity, relational, and procedural issues. In my opinion, the major characteristic of intercultural conflicts is that the conflict often involves intercultural perceptions - perceptions that are filtered through our lenses of ethnocentrism and stereotypes, and these perceptions color our conflict attribution proces.
Two years back, my family and I went to London for a holiday. We decided to visit Oxford which was seemingly near as seen on the London Transport Map. As reccommended by the local guide, we purchased tourists passes to ride the tube. We made enquiries at the control station nearest our hotel, on the best route to get to Oxford and if our tourists passes would allow us to travel there. The grumpy station attendant looked at our passes and then made markings on our maps, to guide us on which stations to transit and alight at. We got on the train a little lightheaded as we never expected transportation over such a large distance, in London whereby the standard of living is comparatively significantly higher, to be that affordable. Along the way, a conducter asked us to produce our passes for verification. He scrutinised them for some time and then returned them to us, without saying a word. Upon our arrival at Oxford, the automated barriers located at the stations' exit, refused our passes and denied our exit. The stations' officers then came along to inform us of a difference and penalty we had to pay. We were in shock as it was a 'gia-normous' amount to pay for a self-planned, supposedly more economical free-and-easy itinerary, so naturally, we asked why. It was only then that the officers told us that the tourists passes we had were invalid for travel outside central London. We explained how we derived at such a misunderstanding. The officers then lifted the penalty and allowed us exit. As we made our exit, we witnessed a Chinese girl, seemingly from mainland China, crying. From her crying stammers, we gathered that she was in a situation similar to ours.
Although we didn't exactly have a conflict with any of the relevant authorities involved or make a scene like the Chinese girl did, we paid a hefty sum for the lesson learnt. The differnce amounted to SGD$70 per pax, that was $350 for my family of five and this definitely exceeded the original amount we would have had to pay if we had purchased the right, required tickets to get to Oxford. In the case of the Chinese girl, I guess that a possible communication barrier could have been the key enabler for the misunderstanding. In our case, we felt that we had ourselves to blame, at least partially. We should have seeked a second opinion from the locals since the grumpy train attendant didn't exactly answer our question as to whether our tourists passes would be valid. We probably got too lightheaded and assumed London to be like Hongkong whereby tourists passes allow foreign visitors to travel to most parts of the country. What we could not understand was, why did the train conducter not say anything when he checked our passes? Could it be that it was their culture to care less since nothing could be done and assume that we already knew? Or was he just plain sadistic?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
SINGAPORE'S BROWN AGENDA. HOW GREEN IS IT?
Green. It is everywhere.
Unlike most urbarn cities in the world, I believe that Singapore is the only city that has greenery everywhere. Apart from our nature reserves; trees, bushes and shrubs, intersperse our skyscrappers. However, green is not just represented to us in a physical way. On our way to school via public trains and buses, we see advertisments on the benefits if energy saving. Our neon orange shuttle buses that have 'NUS fights climate change' printed on them, tour around campus to promote their cause. When talking to a friend, I learn of her involvement in a pageant - Miss Earth 2008. It makes me wonder, just what is this pageant about? When asked, my friend herself, couldn't identify the underlying rationale too. These green efforts, are they really effective in communicating the green message?
It is common knowledge that Mother Earth is ailing. Technology benefits mankind but also jeopardises his future. It is the catalyst for the depletion of resources. Especially in the context of Singapore, this rampant depletion would call for the need to outsource for supplies, expected to be available only at marked-up prices. Her economy will suffer. The inevitable outputs following the utilisation of resources also degrade the quality of the environment. In short, we are trading wealth and health for convenience through technology.
If the above is common knowledge, why then do we still have fines (e.g. for littering, for smoking), why then does the Singapore government seek ways to inculcate environmental awareness? Is it because, we, Singaporeans learn in a vacuum? Or are we, Singaporeans over-reliant on technology and naïve to believe that it will somehow, eventually find a solution to sustaining earth? If either possibility is true, how effective are the efforts of the government then? Do Singaporeans really understand the rationale underlying green message?
A survey should be conducted to validate the link between the attitude held by Singaporeans on green issues and environmental trends. It should also allow the identification of the specific attitude most Singaporeans adopt.
Problem statement
The objective of this research study is to determine the effectiveness of the various efforts aimed at sustaining Mother Earth.
Purpose statement
The objective of this report is to identify Singapore's agenda on environmental issues and investigate how Singaporeans respond to it, so as to understand how environmental efforts can be made more effective.
Research question
Is there a co-relation between environmental trends and the perspectives held by Singaporeans on green issues? If this link is valid, which perspectives should and can be corrected? Will these corrections make environmental efforts more effective?
Hypothesis
The quality of environment in Singapore is the outcome of efforts put in by the environmental bodies of Singapore. The effectiveness of these efforts depend largely on her people's perceptions on green issues. These perceptions, if unfavourable to environment, can be corrected if the rationales underlying green efforts are properly conveyed.
Unlike most urbarn cities in the world, I believe that Singapore is the only city that has greenery everywhere. Apart from our nature reserves; trees, bushes and shrubs, intersperse our skyscrappers. However, green is not just represented to us in a physical way. On our way to school via public trains and buses, we see advertisments on the benefits if energy saving. Our neon orange shuttle buses that have 'NUS fights climate change' printed on them, tour around campus to promote their cause. When talking to a friend, I learn of her involvement in a pageant - Miss Earth 2008. It makes me wonder, just what is this pageant about? When asked, my friend herself, couldn't identify the underlying rationale too. These green efforts, are they really effective in communicating the green message?
It is common knowledge that Mother Earth is ailing. Technology benefits mankind but also jeopardises his future. It is the catalyst for the depletion of resources. Especially in the context of Singapore, this rampant depletion would call for the need to outsource for supplies, expected to be available only at marked-up prices. Her economy will suffer. The inevitable outputs following the utilisation of resources also degrade the quality of the environment. In short, we are trading wealth and health for convenience through technology.
If the above is common knowledge, why then do we still have fines (e.g. for littering, for smoking), why then does the Singapore government seek ways to inculcate environmental awareness? Is it because, we, Singaporeans learn in a vacuum? Or are we, Singaporeans over-reliant on technology and naïve to believe that it will somehow, eventually find a solution to sustaining earth? If either possibility is true, how effective are the efforts of the government then? Do Singaporeans really understand the rationale underlying green message?
A survey should be conducted to validate the link between the attitude held by Singaporeans on green issues and environmental trends. It should also allow the identification of the specific attitude most Singaporeans adopt.
Problem statement
The objective of this research study is to determine the effectiveness of the various efforts aimed at sustaining Mother Earth.
Purpose statement
The objective of this report is to identify Singapore's agenda on environmental issues and investigate how Singaporeans respond to it, so as to understand how environmental efforts can be made more effective.
Research question
Is there a co-relation between environmental trends and the perspectives held by Singaporeans on green issues? If this link is valid, which perspectives should and can be corrected? Will these corrections make environmental efforts more effective?
Hypothesis
The quality of environment in Singapore is the outcome of efforts put in by the environmental bodies of Singapore. The effectiveness of these efforts depend largely on her people's perceptions on green issues. These perceptions, if unfavourable to environment, can be corrected if the rationales underlying green efforts are properly conveyed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
