|
Promoting adoptions / Korea Herald |
The government’s policy of encouraging adoptions among domestic families has made little progress due mainly to prejudice and discrimination against adoption. This means that the nation cannot address the problem without taking bolder measures to improve public awareness about adoption.
According to a survey by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs, 32.1 percent of respondents said they do not want to adopt children because it is difficult to raise them as if they were their birth children. And 29.5 percent cited the family system with strong blood ties, followed by financial burden (11.9 percent) and prejudice against adoption (11.4 percent).
People’s attitude toward adoption has changed to a certain degree amid rapid socioeconomic changes arising from industrialization and urbanization. However, Koreans still have deeply-rooted Confucian values that emphasize blood ties. Therefore, they are still reluctant to adopt children.
A rigid policy of bringing overseas adoption of Korean children in check has been also blamed for a decline in the total number of orphans finding new homes. The nation introduced a yearly quota for international adoptions in 2007 to shake off its image as a “baby exporter.”
The quota system had an effect of cutting the number of children adopted by foreign families to 1,300 in 2008 from 2,200 in 2004. The number fell further to 1,000 last year and is expected to drop further to 900 this year. However, this policy has failed to encourage local families to offset the decrease in the international adoptions. That’s why the quota was responsible for leaving more orphans without finding their foster families.
In 2000, 44.5 percent of children waiting for adoption find their new family at home and abroad. But the percentage dived to 27.5 percent in 2008. The government seemed to have achieved its goal of improving its tainted image by curtailing overseas adoptions. But the inconvenient truth is that the policy has dealt a setback to the overall adoption promotions.
Against this backdrop, voices are growing for the scrapping of the overseas adoption quota. Policymakers should not turn a deaf ear to the calls as more and more orphans are held hostage by the quota system.
It goes without saying that the best policy option is to prevent children being abandoned by their own parents. More than 90 percent of babies born to unwed single mothers continue to be sent to adoption agencies due to a lack of means for childcare.
Now, it’s time for the government to overhaul its adoption policies. First, it should stage a national campaign to help the people have better awareness about adoption. Second, it must increase state support for families with adoptees. Third, it has to extend more assistance to young unwed moms so that they can raise their children on their own.
Summary
According to the recent survey, Korea still has a long way to go for adoption to be accepted fully in the society. Main reasons for this would be the deep-rooted Confucian value which emphasized on blood ties and weal social supporting system for single parents, eps. single moms.
Discussion
ü What is your personal opinion on adoption, and will you decide to adopt children if you have the opportunities?
ü What would be the pros and cons of adoption in the family?
ü Is there any solution which government should or could drive, if any, what would it be?
Editorial: Royal wedding message of hope / The Vancouver Sun |
If a wedding is meant to bring together something old and something new, there might be no better example than the ceremony in Westminster Abbey.
Around the world, people watched as Prince William and Catherine Middleton -or Wills and Kate, if you prefer -were married.
And watch we should, because this royal wedding -like so many before it -carries equal measures of tradition and hope for the future.
Any wedding -royal or not -demonstrates optimism. The reality, for royals and commoners alike, is that failed marriages have become common in recent decades. But every wedding day is a symbol of hope and love.
Royal weddings also reflect valuable traditions. In a world filled with constant change, with security threats and financial meltdowns, with personal tragedies and job losses, the Royal Family represents stability. And that is something we need.
This is the biggest royal wedding since Charles and Diana -William's parents -were married in July 1981. Then, the Times Colonist stressed the fairy-tale nature of the union, describing Charles as a "dashing young heir" and Diana as "the beautiful, aristocratic girl next door."
"They will visit faraway places, travelling in style," our editorial said. "Their married life will be spent in the lap of luxury, attended by servants."
That marriage did not have a fairy-tale ending -a fate foreshadowed by the editorial, which warned of the stresses the newlyweds would face.
"Their lives, their actions, will belong not to them as individuals but to the monarchist state and the broader commonwealth of nations they serve," we said. "Every public deed, gesture or stifled yawn will be recorded and photographed."
In November 1947, we reported that, all around the British Empire "there will be nothing but the sincerest of good wishes" to mark the marriage of Princess Elizabeth and Lt. Philip Mountbatten.
"Probably few weddings in all of the world's history have had such a vast congregation as will have listened today to the actual ceremony and its transmitted echoes," we said. "The sense of history is implicit in the event which unites the heiress presumptive of the most secure throne in the world and the son of a distinguished and gallant family."
Prince William and Kate have asked for donations to charity rather than gifts -just as William's grandparents did in 1947. Many Canadians sent food packages to Britain "in recognition of the hard times that have followed a long and exhausting war," as the Daily Colonist reported.
The Duke of Windsor -Elizabeth's "Uncle David," who gave up the throne in 1936 so he could be with the woman he loved -was not at Elizabeth's wedding. When the duke married American divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson in France in 1937, the best we could offer was the hope that they would be happy and find "a measure of peace" in their lives.
The Colonist was much more upbeat in 1947, saying that the empire would rejoice "in the pride and happiness of youth, in a historical event of great significance, and most of all in affectionate and loyal regard for the Throne, which is its hearthstone."
We don't call it the British Empire these days, but beyond that, not much has changed. A royal wedding still combines the optimism of youth -even when the bride and groom are in their late 20s -while adding a new chapter to a historical record that dates back centuries. Through it all, the Throne survives, and for that we should be grateful.
Something old, something new - and a day that will be remembered for decades.
Summary
One of the hot issues recently is ‘The Royal Wedding’ of Prince William and Kate Middleton. The whole world watched it, celebrated it, and talked about it. Maybe the reason why we’re so interested in the royal wedding would be that it gives hope to you. In the world of security threats, financial meltdowns, personal tragedies and job losses, the royal wedding gives you the hope of stability and the traditional value.
Discussion
ü Were you interested in the royal wedding news? If yes or not, please give your opinion on this.
ü Do you agree with the editor’s opinion on royal wedding’s message of hope?
ü What is your thoughts about current royal systems in 21st century?
Andrew Mwenda takes a new look at Africa / TED.com |
* check out the video at http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_mwenda_takes_a_new_look_at_africa.html
I am very, very happy to be amidst some of the most -- the lights are really disturbing my eyes and they're reflecting on my glasses. I am very happy and honored to be amidst very, very innovative and intelligent people. I have listened to the three previous speakers, and guess what happened? Every single thing I planned to say, they have said it here, and it looks and sounds like I have nothing else to say.
(Laughter)
But there is a saying in my culture that if a bud leaves a tree without saying something, that bud is a young one. So I will -- since I am not young and am very old -- I still will say something.
We are hosting this conference at a very opportune moment because another conference is taking place in Berlin. It is the G8 Summit. The G8 Summit proposes that the solution to Africa's problems should be a massive increase in aid, something akin to the Marshall Plan. Unfortunately, I personally do not believe in the Marshall Plan. One, because the benefits of the Marshall Plan have been overstated. Its largest recipients were Germany and France, and it was only 2.5 percent of their GDP. An average African country receives foreign aid to the tune of 13, 15 percent of its GDP, and that is an unprecedented transfer of financial resources from rich countries to poor countries.
But I want to say that there are two things we need to connect. How the media covers Africa in the West, and the consequences of that. By displaying despair, helplessness and hopelessness, the media is telling the truth about Africa, and nothing but the truth. However, the media is not telling us the whole truth. Because despair, civil war, hunger and famine, although they're part and parcel of our African reality, they are not the only reality. And secondly, they are the smallest reality.
Africa has 53 nations. We have civil wars only in six countries, which means that the media are covering only six countries. Africa has immense opportunities that never navigate through the web of despair and helplessness that the Western media largely presents to its audience. But the effect of that presentation is it appeals to sympathy. It appeals to pity; it appeals to something called charity. And, as a consequence, the Western view of Africa's economic dilemma is framed wrongly. The wrong framing is a product of thinking that Africa is a place of despair. What should we do with it? We should give food to the hungry. We should deliver medicines to those who are ill. We should send peacekeeping troops to serve those who are facing a civil war. And in the process Africa has been stripped of self-initiative.
I want to say that it is important to recognize that Africa has fundamental weaknesses. But equally, it has opportunities and a lot of potential. We need to reframe the challenge that is facing Africa from a challenge of despair, despair which is called poverty reduction, to a challenge of hope. We frame it as a challenge of hope, and that is worth creation. The challenge facing all those who are interested in Africa is not the challenge of reducing poverty. It should be a challenge of creating wealth.
Once we change those two things -- if you say the Africans are poor and they need poverty reduction, you have the international cartel of good intentions moving onto the continent, with what? Medicines for the poor, food relief for those who are hungry, and peacekeepers for those who are facing civil war. And in the process none of these things really are productive because you are treating the symptoms, not the causes of Africa's fundamental problems. Sending somebody to school and giving them medicines, ladies and gentlemen, does not create wealth for them. Wealth is a function of income, and income comes from you finding a profitable trading opportunity or a well-paying job.
Now, once we begin to talk about wealth creation in Africa, our second challenge will be, who are the wealth-creating agents in any society? They are entrepreneurs. [Unclear] told us they are always about four percent of the population, but 16 percent are imitators. But they also succeed at the job of entrepreneurship. So where should we be putting the money? We need to put money where it can productively grow. Support private investment in Africa, both domestic and foreign. Support research institutions, because knowledge is an important part of wealth creation.
But what is the international aid community doing with Africa today? They are throwing large sums of money for primary health, for primary education, for food relief. The entire continent has been turned into a place of despair, in need of charity. Ladies and gentlemen, can any one of you tell me a neighbor, a friend, a relative that you know, who became rich by receiving charity? By holding the begging bowl and receiving alms? Does any one of you in the audience have that person? Does any one of you know a country that developed because of the generosity and kindness of another? Well, since I'm not seeing the hand, it appears that what I'm stating is true.
Bono: Yes!
Andrew Mwenda: I can see Bono says he knows the country. Which country is that?
Bono: It's Ireland.
(Laughter)
Bono: [unclear]
Thank you very much. But let me tell you this. External actors can only present to you an opportunity. The ability to utilize that opportunity and turn it into an advantage depends on your internal capacity. Africa has received many opportunities, many of them we haven't benefited much. Why? Because we lack the internal institutional framework and policy framework that can make it possible for us to benefit from our external relations. I'll give you an example.
Under the Cotonou Agreement, formerly known as the Lome Convention, African countries have been given an opportunity by Europe to export goods, duty-free, to the European Union market. My own country, Uganda, has a quota to export 50,000 metric tons of sugar to the European Union market. We haven't exported one kilogram yet. We import 50,000 metric tons of sugar from Brazil and Cuba. Secondly, under the beef protocol of that agreement, African countries that produce beef have quotas to export beef, duty-free, to the European Union market. None of those countries, including Africa's most successful nation, Botswana, has ever met its quota.
So I want to argue today that the fundamental source of Africa's inability to engage the rest of the world in a more productive relationship is because it has a poor institutional and policy framework. And all forms of intervention need support, the evolution of the kinds of institutions that create wealth, the kinds of institutions that increase productivity. How do we begin to do that and why is aid the bad instrument? Aid is the bad instrument, and do you know why? Because all governments across the world need money to survive. Money is needed for a simple thing like keeping law and order. You have to pay the army and the police to show law and order. And because many of our governments are quite dictatorial, they need really to have the army clobber the opposition. The second thing you need to do is pay your political hangers-on. Why should people support their government? Well, because it gives them good paying jobs. Or, in many African countries, unofficial opportunities to profit from corruption.
The fact is, no government in the world, with the exception of a few like that of Idi Amin, can seek to depend entirely on force as an instrument of rule. Many countries in the [unclear], they need legitimacy. To get legitimacy, governments often need to deliver things like primary education, primary health, roads, build hospitals and clinics. If the government's fiscal survival depends on it having to raise money from its own people, such a government is driven by self-interest to govern in a more enlightened fashion. It will sit with those who create wealth. Talk to them about the kind of policies and institutions that are necessary for them to expand a scale and scope of business so that it can collect more tax revenues from them. The problem with the African continent and the problem with the aid industry is that it has distorted the structure of incentives facing the governments in Africa. The productive margin in our government's search for revenue does not lie in the domestic economy, it lies with international donors.
Rather than sit with Ugandan --
(Applause)
Rather than sit with Ugandan entrepreneurs, Ghanaian businessmen, South African enterprising leaders, our governments find it more productive to talk to the IMF and the World Bank. I can tell you, even if you have ten Ph.D.s, you can never beat Bill Gates in understanding computer industry. Why? Because the knowledge that is required for you to understand the incentives necessary to expand a business, it requires that you listen to the people, the private sector actors in that industry.
Governments in Africa have therefore been given an opportunity by the international community to avoid building productive arrangements with your own citizens, and therefore allowed to begin endless negotiations with the IMF and the World Bank, and then it is the IMF and the World Bank that tell them what its citizens need. In the process we, the African people, have been sidelined from the policy-making, policy-orientation, and policy implementation process in our countries. We have limited input, because he who pays the piper calls the tune. The IMF, the World Bank, and the cartel of good intentions in the world has taken over our rights as citizens, and therefore what our governments are doing, because they depend on aid, is to listen to international creditors rather than their own citizens.
But I want to put a caveat on my argument, and that caveat is that it is not true that aid is always destructive. Some aid may have built a hospital, fed a hungry village. It may have built a road, and that road may have served a very good role. The mistake of the international aid industry is to pick these isolated incidents of success, generalize them, pour billions and trillions of dollars into them, and then spread them across the whole world, ignoring the specific and unique circumstances in a given village, the skills, the practices, the norms and habits that allowed that small aid project to succeed -- like in Sauri village in Kenya where Jeffrey Sachs is working -- and therefore generalize this experience as the experience of everybody.
Aid increases the resources available to governments, and that makes working in a government the most profitable thing you can have as a person in Africa seeking a career. By increasing the political attractiveness of the state, especially in our ethnically fragmented societies in Africa, aid tends to accentuate ethnic tensions as every single ethnic group now begins struggling to enter the state in order to get access to the foreign aid pie. Ladies and gentlemen, the most enterprising people in Africa cannot find opportunities to trade and work in the private sector because the institutional and policy environment is hostile to business. Governments are not changing it. Why? Because they don't need to talk to their own citizens. They talk to international donors. So the most enterprising Africans end up going to work for government, and that has increased the political tensions in our countries precisely because we depend on aid.
I also want to say that it is important for us to note that over the last 50 years Africa has been receiving increasing aid from the international community in the form of technical assistance, and financial aid, and all other forms of aid. Between 1960 and 2003 our continent received 600 billion dollars of aid, and we are still told that there is a lot of poverty in Africa. Where has all the aid gone?
I want to use the example of my own country called Uganda and the kind of structure of incentives that aid has brought there. In the 2006-2007 budget, expected revenue 2.5 trillion shillings. The expected foreign aid: 1.9 trillion. Uganda's recurrent expenditure -- by recurrent what do I mean? Hand-to-mouth -- is 2.6 trillion. Why does the government of Uganda budget spend 110 percent of its own revenue? It's because there's somebody there called foreign aid who contributes for it. But this shows you that the government of Uganda is not committed to spending its own revenue to invest in productive investments, but rather it devotes this revenue to paying structure of public expenditure. Public administration, which is largely patronage, takes 690 billion. The military, 380 billion. Agriculture, which employs 18 percent of our poverty-stricken citizens, takes only 18 billion. Trade and industry takes 43 billion. And let me show you what does public expenditure -- rather, public administration expenditure -- in Uganda constitute? There you go. 70 cabinet ministers, 114 presidential advisers -- by the way, who never see the president, except on television.
(Laughter)
(Applause)
And when they see him physically, it is at public functions like this, and even there, it is him who advises them.
(Laughter)
We have 81 units of local government; each local government is organized like the central government -- a bureaucracy, a cabinet, a parliament, and so many jobs for the political hangers-on. There were 56, and when our president wanted to amend the constitution and remove term limits, he had to create 25 new districts, and now there are 81. 333 members of parliament. You need Wembley Stadium to host our parliament. 134 commissions and semi-autonomous government bodies, all of which have directors and the cars and -- and the final thing, this is addressed to Mr. Bono. In his work he may help us on this.
A recent government of Uganda study found that there are 3,000 four-wheel drive motor vehicles at the Minister of Health headquarters. Uganda has 961 subcounties, each of them with a dispensary, none of which has an ambulance. So the four-wheel drive vehicles at the headquarters drive the ministers, the permanent secretaries, the bureaucrats and the international aid bureaucrats who work in aid projects while the poor die without ambulances and medicine.
Finally, I want to say that before I came to speak here, I was told that the principle of TEDGlobal is that the good speech should be like a miniskirt -- it should be short enough to arouse interest, but long enough to cover the subject. I hope I have achieved that.
(Laughter)
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Summary
In this provocative talk, journalist Andrew Mwenda asks us to reframe the "African question" -- to look beyond the media's stories of poverty, civil war and helplessness and see the opportunities for creating wealth and happiness throughout the continent.
Discussion
ü Do have any prejudices against a certain country or region, for examples, Japan, Africa, China, or Middle East? If yes, what would those be?
ü What would be the most probable explanation on those prejudices?
ü Have you ever dealt with those prejudices affecting you as Korean in real life?
첫댓글 내 컴퓨터서는 왜 한글이 열리지 않을까?????미치겠다.......
잘 열어보세요.
분량의 압박
오~ 주제 좋은데요? @_@??