First we assume

This entry, I believe can go either ways.
It could end up sounding like a racist blog post or it could be the concerned voice of a worried citizen.

Let's first do a couple of assumptions. It's a habit thing. Just as LKY, who is trained as a lawyer, always scrutinizes his opponents' words and takes them to task. I am exposed to economics theory. So stereotypically, I assume alot when trying to skirt potentially seditious sensitive issues.

First assumption: Osama bin Laden is a bad person.

Ok, so I don't entirely believe that the Al-Qaeda flew the planes and crash them into the twin towers. I think Osama might have been made the scapegoat. I think his (Osama's) anger is warranted. He was made used of by what is understood as the most influential and powerful country in the world.

Second assumption: Females who wear tudung are muslims.

I might be entirely wrong here. Some females wear tudung-look-a-likes but they are muslims. Some are actually just simple headscarves made to look like tudung. I would like to state categorically that a female muslim is not identifiable by her tudung. Devout muslim ladies may not wear tudung. Just like tudung-wearing female muslims may not be devout muslims.

Third assumptions: Images you wear on your t-shirt are the people you support.

You know when you read economics, sometimes by the time the third or fourth assumption is presented to you, you begin to have the theory forming in your head. Either that or you look at the assumptions and just know this is some crap theory that is too idealistic/microscopic/useless in general. But this third assumption should be rather agreeable. But unless the image is bounded by a red circle and a diagonal stripe, like this:



it should be quite obvious you wear what you like. For example, there was a time when girls wore t-shirts with pictures of andy lau and aaron kwok. Surely these girls like and support andy lau and aaron kwok enough to have them on their bosom. Close to their heart, as it were. So, yeah, you probably support the guy you have printed on your shirt.

Now that we have our assumptions, let's begin the story (facts only, further assumptions will be stated, if made).

I was on a train coming home.
I saw a girl wearing a blue t-shirt.
She was about 2-3 years old.
Let's call her BLUE
Her guardian (could be mum, I don't know) was next to her.
This guardian was wearing a tudung.
This is where assumption two is used. This guardian is a female muslim.
I might be wrong.
Let's go back to the girl, BLUE.
On her blue t-shirt was an image of Osama bin Laden.

*you have to imagine that the t-shirt is xxs and BLUE

Ok, exercise assumption three first. Let's just decide that because there is an absence of the red circle and diagonal stripe across the image of Osama on the t-shirt, BLUE, the 2-3 year old is supporting Osama. Immediately we exercise assumption one. Osama bin Laden is a bad person.

So what we have here is a 2-3 year old female supporter of Osama bin Laden whose guardian (possibly mother) is a female tudung wearer whom we assume is a muslim lady.

There, in the statement above, I have combined at least three assumptions.

But any savvy economists (armchair or Havard-trained) will note that a 2-3 year old girl should not be capable of choosing what clothes to buy/wear. Ah ha! There are flaws in this model. So maybe the guardian (possibly the mother) chose the t-shirt for her while she is oblivious to what she is wearing. Do you remember who was on your chest when you were 2-3 years old?

No?

I didn't think so.

So I sms a friend.

There's this malay girl abt 2 or 3 years old wearing a t shirt with osama bin laden's face. Wat the Fuck?

I made a connection. Which was that the guardian (possibly mother) was a malay muslim taking care of a 2-3 year old malay girl. I might be wrong here.

Friend replied something about punishing the parents of those who make their kids wear such t-shirts.

I don't think I will post my reply. Because the story is complete at this stage.

The following economic terms came to mind.

Public Goods
Definition: Items which can be jointly consumed by many consumers simultaneously without any loss in quantity or quality of provision e.g. a lighthouse. Public goods are therefore goods that would not be provided in a pure free-market system. This is because they display two particular characteristics:

1. Non-rivalry - consumption by one person does not reduce the amount available for others.

2. Non-excludability - once the good is provided it is impossible to stop people consuming it even if they haven't paid. An example of this is defence. It is impossible to charge people for defence as they consume it as the whole country is being defended at once. Also one person being defended does not stop others being defended.

Merit Goods
Definition: A product, such as education, which consumers may undervalue but which the government believes is 'good' for consumers. Merit goods would be under-provided in a pure free-market economy. This is because they have external benefits that people would not take into account when they made their decisions about how much to consume. An example is vaccinations. As a result of people being vaccinated we keep disease out of the country, but if it was left just to the market many people might choose to take the risk and not pay for vaccinations. This could have negative effects for society.

Positive Externalities
Definition: Impacts on 'outsiders' that are advantageous to them and for which they do not have to pay. Externalities occur where the actions of firms and individuals have an effect on people other than themselves. In the case of positive externalities the external effects are benefits on other people. These are also known as external benefits. There may be external benefits from both production and consumption. If these are added to the private benefits we get the total social benefits. An example of positive externalities would be the side effects of production processes e.g. the benefits to some local people that stem from the growth of a major industry causing trade to increase for other local firms who benefit from the extra demand caused by the increased growth.

Free Riders
Definition: Sometimes a good is provided and others cannot be stopped from consuming it, e.g. street lighting. A consumer who avoids payment becomes a free rider.

The Public Good which is at the same time a Merit Good, exhibiting Positive Externalities and subjected to Free Riders that I am talking about is Defence. Psychological, Social, Military, Economic and Civil.

definitions of economics terms from http://www.bized.ac.uk

I think my sorry ass will soon be hauled into a court of law.
Or someone from ISD will call me up. MSD perhaps.

I want to state that I am blogging this as a concerned citizen of this country. This is not a disclaimer.