Journey to Fletcher

We haven't learnt how to live in peace

2009-03-03T02:18:00.002+08:00

It's a snow day today and school is close so I thought I might just indulge myself in a post as part of a cathartic process.

My subject today is a multi-dimensional one. Firstly, the times could means that we haven't learned to live in peace with one another. Secondly, it could means that we don't know how to live in "peace" as in peace-time condition.

A post Cold-war era ushered a period of unprecedented peace if we simply looked at the degree and level of cooperation and prevalence of neo-liberalism. It however meant that nations needed to see itself as one body rather than separate states. Everyone had the responsibility of keeping their house in order and to learn how to work with the rest. Like any human organ, no one part is great than another. The brain therefore cannot tell the heart that it is superior to it.

Unfortunately even as we are sucessful in ending wars. We fail to address the underlying suspicion and the conflicts between states. This is the state of the world we live in, evidence in the happening in international organisations like the UN, the media commentaries that invoke these biases and the very perception and attitude of people on the ground. Hence my conclusion of the fact that "We haven't learnt how to live in peace."

I balk at ridiculous notions of Western articles trying to say that because Asian economies saved to much (and in part because of lessons learnt in the Asian Financial Crisis) and hence we supposed and overconsuming America and send it to the slaugther house like a fatted calf. We just can't seem to get it right can't we and so we're the ones to blame for both Financial Crisis. How ridiculous is that? They might as well create a new conspiracy theory to say that it was a intentional and engineered economic assault that heralds a new era of warfare.

Sigh. The divisions of this world. Misunderstandings from being lost in translations. We truly need to listen twice as much as we speak.

Maybe only then we have a common vision and work TOGETHER for all the wonderous agendas of sustainable development, tackling global warming, ridding terrorism and issues of a global nature.

Why adaptive management keeps us ahead

2009-02-11T11:35:00.003+08:00

If there is one thing about our local leadership, it is their ability to press ahead and remain adaptive. That is something that Singaporeans should be proud of. Be it the drive into media production like animation and special effects via Fusionpolis, or the life sciences push via Biopolis, these are the little niches that we have attempted to carve for ourselves. Coupled with our continuous push for education (albeit extremely demanding and stressful), it will ensure that our island can keep pace with the world.

It is wonderful that we have understood early that our best resource have been our people. Perhaps the people don't believe that they are valued and would kick up a big ruckuss about our immigration policies or maybe even complain against the education system designed to teach them a life skill of being always able to "fish" (rather than always asking for a fish). Even people outside of our nations have seens the wisdom of our strategy. One example is David Heenan in his book Flight Capital, which talks about the brain drain that faces the United States and how Singapore have been successful in drawing 'foreign talent' (people react viscerably to this word). By the way, David Heenan doesn't like us very much and he doesn't fail to admire us for it.

Comparatively, the United States is in a lot of decline. To put it simply, short-termism has grounded their competitive edge to a blunt tool. It's not just the economy stupid, it's also the other E. Education. Anyhow, populist politics or domestic politics to the U.S. dominates and now we see protectionism on the rise (Not that it wasn't there before). Then of course there was the statement about the Chinese messing them up by currency manipulation. Although there is some truth that the yuan is devalued, it does not hold water as the source of their problems. Here's is a good piece from Foreign Policy.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4692

Although I might sound harsh, my reason for doing so is simple. Because we are the small boat, we are affected by the wake of the big boats. Plus, we've always been in tow.

Economic Nationalism

2009-02-08T15:08:00.003+08:00

During the U.S. Presidential Election debates last year, I do believe that readers of this blog remember that I've made the observation of some general and strong protectionist tendencies in President Obama. Read here. Of course, there was a strong showing of a commitment to the centre and his selection centrists advisers.

The true test of the pudding however is in the eating. Given the current economic crisis showing no signs of abating nor turning, the policy choices have been revealing. The Economist, undoubtedly one of my favourite periodical for being largely non-partisan and pragmatic has written a great piece in the upcoming issue featuring the revival of "Economic Nationalism". It's the of course another name for protectionism and the retardation of globalisation and international trade.

The article is listed here. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13061443&source=hptextfeature

In truth, I am extremely worried because it is so much more than their simply trade protection but capital flow protectionism. The impact from jamming world trade is going to make this economic downturn much more severe than it is and could potentially spark political upheaval all around the world and might even prompt revival of the very old enemy of communism or facisms that Obama has eloquently spoken to fight and declared victory over. This is highly unstable for the global order.

The world is indeed looking to the United States for leadership and I sense this with many of my peers here. This is especially so for the people from Asia as the region supports so many export-orientated economies.

This could however be President Obama's most glorious moment and opportunity if he can rally for a new and stronger international order. A global consciousness. Global citizenry. That the world acknowledge that they are economically entwined and need to cooperation and coordinate casting Realpolitik aside.

Singapore is in dire need of this new vision. Considering our boast as a global city, we are truly not and a segment of xenophobic and nationalistic Singaporeans have proven themselves to be myopic and dangerous. On one hand, I feel that our government will be able to make the right call but that might cost them politically because of the growing sentiments of nationalism. The anti-establishment groups and political entities via the blogsphere has totally capitalised on this moment and prove themselves to be nothing more than power corrupt opportunists. However, part of this blame must be laid on the government for not liberalising civil discourse earlier so that we may develop a more non-partisan civil society that is balanced and anchored on pragmatic and sound logic. Now, the emotive voice and gain momentum and will prove to be extremely difficult to stop and extreme.

We are living at a great turning point in history. As the Chinese always say that in every crisis (危机), there is great danger (危), but there is also a great opportunity (机) as well for a better and stronger international order that will send the not only the economic nationalist but the realist to the grave.

American T T Durai?

2009-01-29T14:04:00.004+08:00

Just when you think it can't happen to the U.S. , they've confirmed my suspicion that it can. Everywhere around the world is the same if you look hard enough. Human nature is such and are often avarice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/opinion/28dowd.html?emc=eta1

Tell me that if you are Singaporean and after reading the above-mentioned that it does not remind you of T T Durai.

Please do not be mistaken that I'm trying to sling mud on the good reputation of the United States but what I'm trying to prove here is the failure of man in general. It's not just the fat cats on Wall Street, or other rich and prominent people. We've all to varying degrees enhanced our self-interest build on others demise and misery when we should all "share the burden". Unfortunately, sharing the burden is counter-intuitive so we will continue to be witness to such "indecency" or insensitivity. Regardless of your post code, country of residence. So wake up and smell the flowers and recognise the nature of this world we live in.

The only thing we can do is to debate the degree of the "crime" and decide whether we would punish it or not but we will never make it stop.

Apologies for being rather fatalistic today.

A More Perfect Union

2009-01-15T03:14:00.003+08:00

I've received a mail from the Tuft's President and it was the speech that was made by President-Elect Obama on the issue of race in the United States titled, "A More Perfect Union". I share similar sentiments on the wonderful cogent and powerful message that was communicated in this speech. More importantly, I see some nuggets of wisdom that we can apply even in Singapore that prides itself on principles of meritocracy and racially harmonious society.

The world needs to embrace global citizenship. Singapore for one has a country that depends so much on the interactions with the outside world, in terms of attracting FDI, human capital and even trade should continue to be a cosmopolitan society. A place that people can come and fulfil dreams see out a better life and belong. That should be the guiding principle of our policy and not one of exclusion and denial. I think it is therefore worthwhile to read and consider what the 44th President of the United States have spoken in this wonder speech on a more perfect union. This is also my snub to the partisan politics that I've witness in my country that argues for a more nationalist and protectionist policy. Narrow-mindness will never get my vote.

=======================================================

"A More Perfect Union," Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, Philadelphia, PA, March 18, 2008

Note: Video as well as the text of this speech is also available online at http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_53.php

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

The Gazette on Gaza

2009-01-08T15:00:00.003+08:00

There is an immense material out there for you to seem understanding on the conflict and the commentary come from both sides.

My personal favourite source is from RealClearPolitics. Here is the posts of the moment.

Thomas L. Friedman from the The New York Times speaking on the dangers of Iran leveraging on the Gaza conflict to negate the Obama effect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/opinion/07friedman.html?_r=1

Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian, arguing that the Israel offensive is a lost cause simply because Hamas is too rooted and the power vacuum from the removal of Hamas may be worse. I agree with this like Lewis Coser who believes that your opponents should not be broken and asymmetry complexify negotiations. (Functions of Social Conflict)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/07/gaza-palestine-israel

An article from RealClearPolitics, that comments on the knee-jerk reaction of the Israeli political leaders and how this failure of a longer term vision will jeopardise the state of Israel.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/the_decline_of_israels_leaders.html

USA Today has one on the similar track, saying that tactical success will not bring lasting security from rocket fire.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/01/todays-debate-t.html#more

Last but not least, New York Post making a case of the perfidious acts of Hamas and how Israel will fall prey to it.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01072009/postopinion/editorials/theyre_hamas_victims_148981.htm

I've also found many extreme posts, articles and blogs of both ends which I think is unnecessary here. I do not want to reinforce hatred but hopes to make a case of why Israel should go to the negotiating table rather than the battlefield and why Hamas need to back down from its dogma.

Again, this I point this tragedy to the lack of responsible and visionary leadership.

China the Ascendant Dragon?

2009-01-08T05:26:00.004+08:00

Presenting my term paper from my maritime history class on China and its maritime power.

China : Discovering the Ascendant Dragon and its Conquest of the Sea

In the past few decades, the world has been enthralled by the economic miracle of China. Deng Xiaopeng’s “Four Modernizations” plan has transformed the formerly communist-nation, crippled by a brutal Cultural Revolution, into an economic heavyweight.[1] By adopting Western pillars of success, it is believed that China, together with India, will embark on a march to modernity and herald a shift to a “new Asian hemisphere”.[2] There is, however, no guarantee for this future by sheer extrapolation alone, as history has proven that China’s continental focus and failure to embrace an oceanic perspective can derail its dominance. Like the mythological dragons in Chinese folklore that were the lords of the sea, the oceans have a symbiotic relationship with this ancient civilization.

The human ability to navigate across vast oceans was the historical turning point that marked the beginning of an evolutionary trend of economic globalization.[3] Movement of resources and finished goods over the seas remains the modus operandi and the most cost effective means of transportation. The ability to maintain access to the seas is therefore as important as the creativity and the quality expressed in the production of economic goods. The acquisition of naval assets to defend the sea lines of communication would quite naturally be a logical inference of gaining sea power. Although the might of the navy is crucial, I hesitate to adopt a Mahanian perspective on sea power but rather select a broader definition of modern sea power that includes the nation state’s capacity for international commerce and utilization of oceanic resources.[4] To determine and predict China’s future will involve a systematic study of her modern sea power, which can evolve as a result of the form of deliberate strategic decisions undertaken by the Chinese government or by non-deliberate externalities of international interactions and development.

The first element of Chinese modern sea power is cohesiveness of the ethnic identity that transcends international borders.[5] The seed of Chinese economic growth was the involuntary dispersion and creation of the Chinese Diaspora. These overseas Chinese scattered themselves by sea during the era of colonial expansion and civil strife in an attempt to seek out a better life. Many found themselves taking root in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore and in smaller pockets, would establish “Chinatowns” throughout the world. They lay in wait, establishing themselves in the open economy outside China, taking over the role of adopting an oceanic orientation even when the state failed to do so. Deng Xiaoping’s official visit to Singapore in 1979, marked a historical turning point that reaffirmed his decision to bringing forth economic liberalization to turn China around.[6] In the years that followed, Gomez and Xiao argued that it was the overseas Chinese that created a form of ethnic capital that served as the spark that assisted in kick-starting the Chinese enterprise.[7] Japan and the four “Little Dragons” of Asia therefore paved the way and nursed the growth and emergence of the Chinese Dragon. This is by far the strongest and most powerful expression of Chinese oceanic orientation and modern sea power.

A community of individuals that exists outside of the state however, remains as a catalyst and cannot compare to the role of nation state itself. Unless the state agency has the same unction to continue to use the sea as an avenue, there will be no process to catalyze. An analysis of whether the Chinese grand strategy embodies a saltwater perspective will be critical in the assessment of its rise. Zhang Yunling and Tang Shiping, capture the essence of China’s grand strategy as the need “to secure and shape a security, economic, and political environment that is conducive to China concentrating on its economic, social, and political development.”[8] Although this policy sounds extremely outward looking, China’s security concept since the Ming dynasty in the 1300s has always differed greatly from Europe’s international system that featured intensive-military competition and global expansion.[9] The Chinese tributary political system compared to the Western colonial model is wholly regional and preoccupied with the periphery. Coupled with a domestic focus, China seems to be trapped by a perennial continental outlook.

There is a silver lining within China’s articulated grand strategy that may influence and force the leadership to look beyond the regionalism. The pursuit of economic liberalization created an ideological vacuum by voiding communism. This political and ideological vacuum was quickly filled by pragmatic nationalism that was necessary for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to remain relevant and legitimate.[10] This forced the CCP to place continual economic growth and national prestige as priorities that would demand more than a regional orientation. Aggressive efforts to secure natural resources such as oil and gas and other factors of productions critical for economic growth necessitate global interactions. It is important to note that despite need to globalize, there is no change to the Chinese political model and principle of non-intervention that underscored by the Chinese concept of world governance.[11]

Apart from deciphering and making assumptions of Chinese strategic intent and other non-state forms of Chinese oceanic orientation, the real litmus test of Chinese maritime orientation would be the explicit manifestations of characteristics that typify successful maritime nations. We can draw from pertinent lessons of successful modern maritime nations like Japan, Korea and Singapore, and historical maritime states like Venice, the Dutch and the British.

The phenomenal modern day economic miracles of Japan, Korea and Singapore’s export economies can be narrowed to a few common denominators. The first is the availability of human capital that can be deployed and applied to production of goods for an export economy, enabling countries to tap a much larger market beyond what their own market can offer. Although China has a large population and territory, these merely convey the implied potential market that it can have because the majority of its population is still stricken with poverty. It therefore needed to export and attract foreign investments to raise subsistence levels and create a credible middle class. Although Chinese labor did not possess the discipline of the Japanese, nor the education and skill level of the Korean and Singaporeans,[12] what it lacked for quality, it more than made up for in quantity. These non-unionized rural workers flocked to Chinese coastal cities and industrial towns in search of economic freedom, creating an availability of cheap and hardworking labor that enabled late-stage “industrial revolution”, propelling China to become the factory of the world. This turned China into an export economy that saw the Chinese share of global trade grow ten-fold, surpassing Japan to become the world’s third largest trading economy in 2004, given that its economy was only two-fifths of the size of Japan’s.[13] The abandonment of the Maoist ideal of national self-sufficiency and participation in global trade enabled China to reap exponential growth.[14]

The second commonality that China has with the modern day maritime nations of Japan, Korea and Singapore, is the development of the shipbuilding industry and its affiliates. To power an export economy, a country needs a robust shipbuilding industry to create a merchant fleet to transport and carry shipments of raw materials and goods. The availability of raw material is also quintessential to the ship construction industry that demands large quantities of steels. Korea has POSCO, a large steel manufacturer to drives its shipbuilding industry, while the Chinese government does the same by creating several state-own equivalents. In 2004, just when Korea surpassed Japan as the largest shipbuilder, it already found China over its shoulder with an ambitious target to supersede Korean production by 2015.[15] This inherent shipbuilding capability also provides two other peripherals functions; the ability to rapidly conduct naval military expansion and the ability to produce vessels for offshore exploitation of natural resources. In any case, this expansion of China’s shipbuilding capability is a clear indication of Chinese maritime orientation.

The final attribute that China has in common with Japan, Korea and Singapore is their current geopolitical relevance. China found itself surrounded by the booming economies of Asia in the 1980s, and found itself to be a perfect fit in the production supply chain. As the Asian economies moved up the value chain to produce high tech products, China cornered the assembly market that was labor intensive, requiring a factor of production that it abundance and was relatively cheaper than the other Asian economies. It a perfect union in which the Asian economies are vertically integrated creating a “virtual” regional production line, with each nation specializing in its own niche areas that complement one another.

Apart from a securing a niche within the production chain, the next criterion for any successful enterprise is the availability of the markets to sell the finished products. Historically, the world has long been fascinated by what China has to offer. In the past, the Europeans travelled halfway around the world, buying valuable Chinese tea and silk by transporting them in sail ships. Today, the United States is the biggest export market and the largest consumer for what China has to offer and yet has a closer proximity and faster and greater load bearing ships that before. The ample ports cities of China accounted for 12 percent of global trade in 2005 when it was only 4 percent five years before.[16]

Maritime nations of the past like Venice, Dutch and British offer a different perspective on the utilization of the sea as an avenue and foundation of becoming a successful maritime state. Venetian maritime orientation had a profound effect on its political system creating a hybridization of a monarchy, aristocracy in the Senate, and democracy in the Major Council, that established a ‘classical’ republic. China with the opening of its borders to trade has also subjected itself to potential cultural and ideological influences from the outside world. Although it remains authoritarian via a one party rule, it has a form of participatory democracy at the local level,[17] a meritocratic promotion system within the party and a form of ‘inner-party democracy’[18] much like the modernized version of the imperial examination system. Rather than subjecting itself to the popular notions of governance for the period, Venice and China utilized their exposure to the world to customize a system that works best to drive the state forward, capturing the best elements of different methods of governance and working them to their advantage. Last but not least, the Chinese are believers in the utility and art of diplomacy that the Venetians pioneered. Chinese diplomacy is expressed in the Confucian and Mencian Paradigms, in which use of force is largely unnecessary[19], and at the same time is made prominent in the West’s preoccupation with Chinese ‘soft power.’[20]

The root of soft power is economic success and wealth. In this respect, the Chinese are extremely similar to the Dutch, whose success was based on their ability to delink economical objectives from the social and political objectives, amassing information and huge amounts of capital. A key factor of China’s rapid growth has been the high level of saving and investments[21], which is contrary to ailing growth trajectory in the United States which is based on consumerism that created a negative savings rate. The uncanny similarity of Dutch and Chinese mercantilist nature is also worthy of note. The Dutch were neither missionaries nor explorers and were purely profit-maximizing merchants; smilarly the Mammon worshipping Chinese are renowned as shrewd merchants who deal purely for profit without exporting ideology, abiding by a strict policy of non-intervention with other states. The Chinese military like the Dutch Fleet is subservient to the civilian realm and serves merely to protect its right and ability to trade and conduct business. It was the combination of their economic orientation and ability to use the seas that made both these nations great.

In the 1600s, the consolidation of the monarchical powers of the Tudors in the English Court, spurred Britain’s pelagic orientation. The fiscal efficiency of the Tudor court together with their ability to mimic the Dutch, mirrored the one party power of the Chinese government and their ability to adapted best practices from other successful nations. Just as a romantic Navalism replaced Catholicism after the British fleet’s victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588, the Chinese use the triumphant narratives of Zheng He’s expeditions to coincide with China’s coming of age into world stage, replacing the fallen ideology of communism.

Despite many indications that demonstrate China’s realignment to become a pelagic state, there are however many impediments that shackle the ascendant dragon. Some of these factors are within Chinese control, while others are the response of nations that may fear its growing power and influence. Ironically, a China that looks to the sea finds that the ocean is the source of its strength and yet it is also its bane, since it triggers irrational fear of it impending might and creates a potential band of dragon slayers. There is good reason therefore to avoid the most obvious forms of acquiring modern sea power.

Internally within China, corruption and the “to get rich is glorious” mantra is the kryptonite that will weaken and potentially destroy this rising superpower. A Chinese official estimate for corruption-related losses of state revenue is at about 4 percent of GDP annually while corruption capital flight is 2 percent of GDP[22] . This figure may potentially be higher which could mean that capital flight far exceeds the capital inflows that China can attract. In addition, unscrupulous businessmen sometimes seek money saving-shortcuts when producing Chinese goods, resulting in hazardous products and numerous food scares. These are the side effects from the “to get rich is glorious” mantra that will potentially stall China’s economic liberalization and destroy China’s “branding”. Like every maritime nation that once had a glorious past, negligence and lack of prudence can quickly lead to irreversible decline.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of China’s possible orientation to a maritime power is the question of naval power. Frequently, China experts and analysts will use any sign of Beijing’s plans for naval expansion as an early indicator of Chinese maritime orientation. This is contentious due to the multi-faceted nature of modern sea power as defined in this paper. An open and expressed desire to conduct naval expansion would be perceived as a challenge and contest for naval supremacy with the incumbent naval power, the United States. This would be an extremely foolhardy move to challenge the status quo and to provoke a more cautionary and hostile reaction from the U.S. upon whom China is still reliant. In my assessment, the more pragmatic approach that the Chinese leadership choose to undertake would be to employ a similar strategy that was used by the Japanese, aligning in no specific terms with United States, gaining protection from their security umbrella and focusing all of its efforts on building prosperity.[23] At this juncture, Chinese naval forces are ample and sufficient for its regional interests and more than adequate for China to deal with any regional threats.

Political observers who use China’s naval expansion as the sole determinant of its increasing maritime power would miss the mark. China’s adoption of a saltwater perspective consists of aspects beyond the obvious sources of strength. The methodology adopted by naval historians in analysing maritime nations of the past will therefore prove to be more successful. The ultimate strategic purpose of the sea is to obtain resources, facilitate access and grow beyond the territorial confines of a nation’s borders. In addition, fiscal prudence and a steady, incremental approach to laying a strong national foundation while maintaining a delicate balance with external powers are the keys to a successful maritime nation. Chinese core political concepts such as “bu yao tang tou” (不要当头- do not seek leadership) articulated by Deng[24] and maintained by his successors, are not indicative of a inward looking China but rather a pragmatic and emerging sea power trying to prevent imperial overstretch. This is a form of diplomatic prudence is to create room for China to continue its non-military maritime expansion and to build a strong economic base. Only when we have an understanding of this pragmatic and alternative notion of modern maritime sea power, will we be truly able to understand the ascendant dragon.

Bibliography

Bergsten, C. F. China: The Balance Sheet: what the World Needs to Know Now about the Emerging Superpower. PublicAffairs, 2006.

Brooke, James. “Korea reigns in shipbuilding, for now.” The International Herald Tribune. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/05/business/ships.php.

Cohen, W. I. East Asia at the Center: Four Thousand Years of Engagement with the World. Columbia University Press, 2001.

Goh, Kong Yong. “Is China Predisposed to Using Force? Confucian-Mencian and Sunzi Paradigms in Chinese Strategic Culture.” Pointer - Journal of Singapore Armed Forces 25, no. 4 (1999). http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_4/16.htm.

Gomez, E. T., and X. Xiao. Chinese Enterprise, Transnationalism, and Identity. Routledge, 2004.

Hawkins, W. R. How China Plans to Dominate the Shipbuilding Industry. August, 2001.

Kang, D. C. “Hierarchy in Asian International Relations: 1300-1900.” Asian Security 1, no. 1 (2005): 53-79.

Kurlantzick, J. Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is Transforming the World. Yale University Press, 2007.

Mahbubani, K. The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East. PublicAffairs, 2008.

Shambaugh, D. L. Power Shift: China and Asia's New Dynamics. University of California Press, 2005.

Sun, Y. “Corruption, Growth, and Reform: The Chinese Enigma.” CURRENT HISTORY-NEW YORK THEN PHILADELPHIA- 104, no. 683 (2005): 257.

Tangredi, S. J. Globalization and Maritime Power. Natl Defense Univ Pr, 2002.

Zhao, S. “China's Pragmatic Nationalism: Is it Manageable?.” Washington Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2006): 131-144.

Zhao, T. “Rethinking Empire from a Chinese Concept ‘All-under-Heaven’(Tian-xia,).” Social Identities 12, no. 1 (2006): 29-41.

[1] Cohen, East Asia at the Center.

[2] Mahbubani, The New Asian Hemisphere.

[3] Tangredi, Globalization and Maritime Power.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Gomez and Xiao, Chinese Enterprise, Transnationalism, and Identity

[6] Mahbubani, The New Asian Hemisphere.

[7] Gomez and Xiao, Chinese Enterprise, Transnationalism, and Identity.

[8] Shambaugh, Power Shift, chap. 2.

[9] Kang, “Hierarchy in Asian International Relations.”

[10] Zhao, “China's Pragmatic Nationalism.”

[11] Zhao, “Rethinking Empire from a Chinese Concept ‘All-under-Heaven’(Tian-xia,).”

[12] Cohen, East Asia at the Center.

[13] Bergsten, China, chap. 4.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Hawkins, How China Plans to Dominate the Shipbuilding Industry; Brooke, “Korea reigns in shipbuilding, for now.”

[16] Bergsten, China, chap. 4.

[17] Ibid., 56.

[18] Ibid., 57.

[19] Goh, “Is China Predisposed to Using Force? Confucian-Mencian and Sunzi Paradigms in Chinese Strategic Culture.”

[20] Kurlantzick, Charm Offensive.

[21] Bergsten, China, chap. 1.

[22] Sun, “Corruption, Growth, and Reform.”

[23] Cohen, East Asia at the Center, chap. 13.

[24] Shambaugh, Power Shift, chap. 2.

Going gaga over Gaza

2009-01-08T04:33:00.005+08:00

The Palestine and Israeli conflict is perhaps one of the most protracted and simmering conflict in modern times. Although similar in the emotive aspect to Pakistan and India, there is one stark difference.

The fact that Palestinians don't yet have an official state and is in repression from Israel makes it different in terms of asymmetry of powers at play. Before we look into the media reports, and make sense of the carnage and verbiage, it's important to see how the people involved really see it. Thanks to my peers at Fletcher. I've come upon an excellent site where you get a real picture of the situation. It's a web documentary on the lives of people on both sides.

http://gaza-sderot.arte.tv

Why is watching and learning this important? Well, because it helps us to establish common denominators and common ground for peace and reaching compromise. It also helps understand where policy has gone wrong. It also provide a compass when navigating through the whole media verbiage and internet ramblings on the issue.

There is also a great need to look forward rather than look back. Re-establish trust and order and put the people's live back on track. Hamas agenda of resisting Israel and to oversee its destruction is pointless. To argue for the nation of Israel to be uproot is purely making the conflict intractable. At the same time, the reaction from Israel would only continue to prevent the Palestinians from getting back on their feet to elk out a normal and progressive lives and at the same time sow more seeds of discord and help Hamas recruitment. As game theory suggest, this is the lose-lose situation.

As much as I disagree with Israel's ground offensive, I think abhor Hamas even more for dragging its people into the conflict and misrepresenting them. This also is a demonstration of Rupert Smith's notion of the new regional wars that take place in population centers and involve non-state actors.

I cannot stress how non-state actors when having chosen the path of violence is so dangerous and destabilising for peace because they hold to no jus bellum, are not constrained by norms and use their asymmetry to legitimise their insurgency and non-discriminatory form of warfare.

As much as we get shocked that Israel has shelled a UN school killed many innocent or perhaps feel a moral obligation to speak out at the disproportionate death ratios suffered by both sides, I would like to also point out that the non-discriminatory firing of Kassim rockets into cities without designated military targets are terrorist acts, does not conform to the principle of proportionality and are perfidious.

It is also pointless to retrace history to determine who has the legality or legitimacy over the lands. It merely builds fortifies and entrench the positions that does not help ameliorate the conflict. In short, both sides seriously need to back off and achieve a peace settlement at the negotiating table. Hamas to act responsibly for the people and Israel to agree to self-determination of the Palestinians and cease the economic strangulation on the territories.

My two cents worth.

How much snow can you get in 24 hours?

2008-12-21T05:30:00.004+08:00

This is amazing. I've heard of snow storms but now I've really witness the effects of one.

It started snowing yesterday at around 1pm on 19 Dec 08. It was really light and just flurries. I thought it would be nice and enjoyable. Of course, I was rather excited about it. It didn't stop in an hour or two and it just kept going. This was how it looked like at around 3pm.

The maintenance guys for the condo association were coming around continuously to clear the snow and to create walking paths for us. In fact, they were here almost every 2 hours. The snow just kept going. Finally at around 2am when I was about to go to bed, I looked out of the toilet window and saw this.

When it was finally morning, at around 10am, we found that the car had turn into an icicle.

The most amazing thing was when we asked our neighbors in the morning about the snow, we found out that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine that!

Role of Force

2008-12-15T07:24:00.002+08:00

To relieve some stress and to show how complex the world can be, I present to you my visual map of the evolving security concepts in the world today.

This was created by VUE (Visual Understanding Environment by Tufts University.

Noam Chomsky's take on the election and state of democracy in the U.S.

2008-12-07T03:45:00.004+08:00

I must say that I have utmost respect for Prof Noam Chomsky and his insightful opinions. More importantly, I identify with a good number of things which he says.

This is article that I am about to share. He mentions something very similar to what I have mentioned previously. That is about how the democratic election is a great advertising campaign and that we don't really know what the candidates stand for. That creates a weakness of delivering the people the policies that they want.

Anyhow, I won't spoil the fun and I need to write a real paper. Enjoy.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections

Is Democracy the Answer?

2008-11-28T12:59:00.005+08:00

The title of this post was part of the subtitle of an article written by Miriam Fendius Elman titled "Paths to Peace: Is Democracy the Answer?". It was a fantastically well written and balance critic of the popular democratic peace theory.

Early this week, I was in anguish as I was made to read and accept much of the democratic peace theory from as our of the conflict resolution intervention approaches from my Conflict Resolution Theory class. As you know, I've often felt strong rejection to the idea that democracy is the panacea for peace. I have often advocated that it is a useful and effective institution and political structure for the rejection and representation of the people in face of poor governance. It is therefore a means of ensuring that a country is well governed.

Miriam Fendius Elman's article was therefore a vindicating breath of fresh air when I felt cornered but the onslaught of zealous evangelists of the religion of democracy.

People say non-democratic countries like China are dangerous but I'd say that Chinese foreign policy exihibits is more cogent, consistent and rationale compared to U.S. foreign policy. People say non-democratic countries like China could easily wage war with other nations because it does not have to be responsible to the populace but I'd say that it is precisely that the CCP is in power that it is able to rein in Chinese nationalism by moderating a pragmatic nationalim.

The obsession and blind faith for democracy is truly shocking because the world is more dynamic, complex and multi-dimensional for the answer to lie in a singular system. Indeed the system can correct itself, but it does not mean it is without weakness and at the end of it all we still need good leaders that epitomises rationality and exemplary morals.

As the Chinese saying goes "Things(systems) are dead, people are living". (东西是死的，人是活的）

So don't get me wrong in saying that I'm advocating for autocracies but rather I'm advocating for a pragmatic and good governance above all.

Here is a wonderful article (which I believe is quite on the point. 一针见血） written by Zhao Suisheng on Chinese pragmatic nationalism from the Washington Quarterly, Winter 2005-2006, pp. 131 - 143. (that was used in my Rise of China class)
http://www.twq.com/06winter/docs/06winter_zhao.pdf.

Happy Thanks Giving~!

2008-11-28T12:52:00.003+08:00

It was awesome and the festivities just reminded me of the Chinese New Year Reunion dinners on the Eve of CNY. Thanks to my wonderful landlord, I was able to engage my family in the warmth of this day.

It's also one of the best turkey that I've tasted. Fragrant and not dry. I also tasted the most awesome 20 year old port wine from Portugal. 20% alcohol and certainly not for the uninitiated.

Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrates this festival!

I seem to be a Conservative!

2008-11-12T08:46:00.003+08:00

After an interesting email sharing from a peer at school I am beginning to find myself classified as a conservative. I've always thought of myself as a merely a pragmatist, believing that government need to govern with some good common sense, regulate when there are issues that free market economies cannot do, let it rest when free market is the best. Educate people if you need, let it rest when people exercise some personal preference and differentiate law from morality (personal only because universal morality is shifting sands).

This author the the below article however tucks all of it nicely into the conservatism tag, of which I'm sure it is what he calls himself. It's unveil satire at its best. Read well and enjoy.

We Blew It

A look back in remorse on the conservative opportunity that was squandered.

by P.J. O'Rourke

11/17/2008, Volume 014, Issue 09

Let us bend over and kiss our ass goodbye. Our 28-year conservative opportunity to fix the moral and practical boundaries of government is gone--gone with the bear market and the Bear Stearns and the bear that's headed off to do you-know-what in the woods on our philosophy.

An entire generation has been born, grown up, and had families of its own since Ronald Reagan was elected. And where is the world we promised these children of the Conservative Age? Where is this land of freedom and responsibility, knowledge, opportunity, accomplishment, honor, truth, trust, and one boring hour each week spent in itchy clothes at church, synagogue, or mosque? It lies in ruins at our feet, as well it might, since we ourselves kicked the shining city upon a hill into dust and rubble. The progeny of the Reagan Revolution will live instead in the universe that revolves around Hyde Park.

Mind you, they won't live in Hyde Park. Those leafy precincts will be reserved for the micromanagers and macro-apparatchiks of liberalism--for Secretary of the Department of Peace Bill Ayers and Secretary of the Department of Fairness Bernardine Dohrn. The formerly independent citizens of our previously self-governed nation will live, as I said, around Hyde Park. They will make what homes they can in the physical, ethical, and intellectual slums of the South Side of Chicago.

The South Side of Chicago is what everyplace in America will be once the Democratic administration and filibuster-resistant Democratic Congress have tackled global warming, sustainability, green alternatives to coal and oil, subprime mortgage foreclosures, consumer protection, business oversight, financial regulation, health care reform, taxes on the "rich," and urban sprawl. The Democrats will have plenty of time to do all this because conservatism, if it is ever reborn, will not come again in the lifetime of anyone old enough to be rounded up by ACORN and shipped to the polling booths.

None of this is the fault of the left. After the events of the 20th century--national socialism, international socialism, inter-species socialism from Earth First--anyone who is still on the left is obviously insane and not responsible for his or her actions. No, we on the right did it. The financial crisis that is hoisting us on our own petard is only the latest (if the last) of the petard hoistings that have issued from the hindquarters of our movement. We've had nearly three decades to educate the electorate about freedom, responsibility, and the evils of collectivism, and we responded by creating a big-city-public-school-system of a learning environment.

Liberalism had been running wild in the nation since the Great Depression. At the end of the Carter administration we had it cornered in one of its dreadful low-income housing projects or smelly public parks or some such place, and we held the Taser gun in our hand, pointed it at the beast's swollen gut, and didn't pull the trigger. Liberalism wasn't zapped and rolled away on a gurney and confined somewhere until it expired from natural causes such as natural law or natural rights.

In our preaching and our practice we neglected to convey the organic and universal nature of freedom. Thus we ensured our loss before we even began our winning streak. Barry Goldwater was an admirable and principled man. He took an admirably principled stand on states' rights. But he was dead wrong. Separate isn't equal. Ask a kid whose parents are divorced.

Since then modern conservatism has been plagued by the wrong friends and the wrong foes. The "Southern Strategy" was bequeathed to the Republican party by Richard Nixon--not a bad friend of conservatism but no friend at all. The Southern Strategy wasn't needed. Southern whites were on--begging the pardon of the Scopes trial jury--an evolutionary course toward becoming Republican. There's a joke in Arkansas about a candidate hustling votes in the country. The candidate asks a farmer how many children he has.

"I've got six sons," the farmer says.

"Are they all good little Democrats?" the candidate asks.

"Well," the farmer says, "five of 'em are. But my oldest boy, he got to readin'??.??.??.??"

There was no need to piss off the entire black population of America to get Dixie's electoral votes. And despising cracker trash who have a laundry hamper full of bedsheets with eye-holes cut in them does not make a man a liberal.

Blacks used to poll Republican. They did so right up until Mrs. Roosevelt made some sympathetic noises in 1932. And her husband didn't even deliver on Eleanor's promises.

It's not hard to move a voting bloc. And it should be especially easy to move voters to the right. Sensible adults are conservative in most aspects of their private lives. If this weren't so, imagine driving on I-95: The majority of drivers are drunk, stoned, making out, or watching TV, while the rest are trying to calculate the size of their carbon footprints on the backs of Whole Foods receipts while negotiating lane changes.

People are even more conservative if they have children. Nobody with kids is a liberal, except maybe one pothead in Marin County. Everybody wants his or her children to respect freedom, exercise responsibility, be honest, get educated, have opportunities, and own a bunch of guns. (The last is optional and includes, but is not limited to, me, my friends in New Hampshire, and Sarah Palin.)

Reagan managed to reach out to blue collar whites. But there his reach stopped, leaving many people on our side, but barely knowing it. There are enough yarmulkes among the neocons to show that Jews are not immune to conservatism. Few practicing Catholics vote Democratic anymore except in Massachusetts where they put something in the communion wafers. When it comes to a full-on, hemp-wearing, kelp-eating, mandala-tatted, fool-coifed liberal with socks in sandals, I have never met a Muslim like that or a Chinese and very few Hispanics. No U.S. immigrants from the Indian subcontinent fill that bill (the odd charlatan yogi excepted), nor do immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe, or East Asia. And Japanese tourists may go so far as socks in sandals, but their liberal nonsense stops at the ankles.

We have all of this going for us, worldwide. And yet we chose to deliver our sermons only to the faithful or the already converted. Of course the trailer park Protestants yell "Amen." If you were handling rattlesnakes and keeping dinosaurs for pets, would you vote for the party that gets money from PETA?

In how many ways did we fail conservatism? And who can count that high? Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.

The real message of the conservative pro-life position is that we're in favor of living. We consider people--with a few obvious exceptions--to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, and clothe them and to pick up the trash around their FEMA trailers and to make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.

If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public's blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers' money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail. The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani.

Our impeachment of President Clinton was another example of placing the wrong political emphasis on personal matters. We impeached Clinton for lying to the government. To our surprise the electorate gave us cold comfort. Lying to the government: It's called April 15th. And we accused Clinton of lying about sex, which all men spend their lives doing, starting at 15 bragging about things we haven't done yet, then on to fibbing about things we are doing, and winding up with prevarications about things we no longer can do.

When the Monica Lewinsky news broke, my wife set me straight about the issue. "Here," she said, "is the most powerful man in the world. And everyone hates his wife. What's the matter with Sharon Stone? Instead, he's hitting on an emotionally disturbed intern barely out of her teens." But our horn rims were so fogged with detestation of Clinton that we couldn't see how really detestable he was. If we had stayed our hand in the House of Representatives and treated the brute with shunning or calls for interventions to make him seek help, we might have chased him out of the White House. (Although this probably would have required a U.S. news media from a parallel universe.)

Such things as letting the abortion debate be turned against us and using the gravity of the impeachment process on something that required the fly-swat of pest control were strategic errors. Would that blame could be put on our strategies instead of ourselves. We have lived up to no principle of conservatism.

Government is bigger than ever. We have fattened the stalled ox and hatred therewith rather than dined on herbs where love (and the voter) is. Instead of flattening the Department of Education with a wrecking ball we let it stand as a pulpit for Bill Bennett. When--to switch metaphors yet again--such a white elephant is not discarded someone will eventually try to ride in the howdah on its back. One of our supposed own did. No Child Left Behind? What if they deserve to be left behind? What if they deserve a smack on the behind? A nationwide program to test whether kids are what? Stupid? You've got kids. Kids are stupid.

We railed at welfare and counted it a great victory when Bill Clinton confused a few poor people by making the rules more complicated. But the "French-bread lines" for the rich, the "terrapin soup kitchens," continue their charity without stint.

The sludge and dreck of political muck-funds flowing to prosperous businesses and individuals have gotten deeper and more slippery and stink worse than ever with conservatives minding the sewage works of legislation.

Agriculture is a business that has been up to its bib overalls in politics since the first Thanksgiving dinner kickback to the Indians for subsidizing Pilgrim maize production with fish head fertilizer grants. But never, since the Mayflower knocked the rock in Plymouth, has anything as putrid as the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 been spread upon the land. Just the name says it. There are no farms left. Not like the one grampa grew up on.

A "farm" today means 100,000 chickens in a space the size of a Motel 6 shower stall. If we cared anything about "nutrition" we would--to judge by the mountainous, jiggling flab of Americans--stop growing all food immediately. And "bioenergy" is a fraud of John Edwards-marital-fidelity proportions. Taxpayer money composted to produce a fuel made of alcohol that is more expensive than oil, more polluting than oil, and almost as bad as oil with vermouth and an olive. But this bill passed with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and was happily signed into law by President Bush. Now it's going to cost us at least $285 billion. That's about five times the gross domestic product of prewar Iraq. For what we will spend on the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 we could have avoided the war in Iraq and simply bought a controlling interest in Saddam Hussein's country.

Yes, we got a few tax breaks during the regimes of Reagan and W. But the government is still taking a third of our salary. Is the government doing a third of our job? Is the government doing a third of our dishes? Our laundry? Our vacuuming? When we go to Hooters is the government tending bar making sure that one out of three margaritas is on the house? If our spouse is feeling romantic and we're tired, does the government come over to our house and take care of foreplay? (Actually, during the Clinton administration??.??.??.??)

Anyway, a low tax rate is not--never mind the rhetoric of every conservative politician--a bedrock principle of conservatism. The principle is fiscal responsibility.

Conservatives should never say to voters, "We can lower your taxes." Conservatives should say to voters, "You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.

"We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation's culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.

"We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone's pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people's pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.

"And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out."

Yes, this would make for longer and less pithy stump speeches. But we'd be showing ourselves to be men and women of principle. It might cost us, short-term. We might get knocked down for not whoring after bioenergy votes in the Iowa caucuses. But at least we wouldn't land on our scruples. And we could get up again with dignity intact, dust ourselves off, and take another punch at the liberal bully-boys who want to snatch the citizenry's freedom and tuck that freedom, like a trophy feather, into the hatbands of their greasy political bowlers.

But are we men and women of principle? And I don't mean in the matter of tricky and private concerns like gay marriage. Civil marriage is an issue of contract law. A constitutional amendment against gay marriage? I don't get it. How about a constitutional amendment against first marriages? Now we're talking. No, I speak, once again, of the geological foundations of conservatism.

Where was the meum and the tuum in our shakedown of Washington lobbyists? It took a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives 40 years--from 1954 to 1994--to get that corrupt and arrogant. And we managed it in just 12. (Who says Republicans don't have much on the ball?)

Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren't after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care. George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn't meet two out of three of those qualifications. And where would you rather eat? At a Vietnamese restaurant? Or in the Ayn Rand Café? Hey, waiter, are the burgers any good? Atlas shrugged. (We would, however, be able to have a smoke at the latter establishment.)

To go from slime to the sublime, there are the lofty issues about which we never bothered to form enough principles to go out and break them. What is the coherent modern conservative foreign policy?

We may think of this as a post 9/11 problem, but it's been with us all along. What was Reagan thinking, landing Marines in Lebanon to prop up the government of a country that didn't have one? In 1984, I visited the site where the Marines were murdered. It was a beachfront bivouac overlooked on three sides by hills full of hostile Shiite militia. You'd urge your daughter to date Rosie O'Donnell before you'd put troops ashore in such a place.

Since the early 1980s I've been present at the conception (to use the polite term) of many of our foreign policy initiatives. Iran-contra was about as smart as using the U.S. Postal Service to get weapons to anti-Communists. And I notice Danny Ortega is back in power anyway. I had a look into the eyes of the future rulers of Afghanistan at a sura in Peshawar as the Soviets were withdrawing from Kabul. I would rather have had a beer with Leonid Brezhnev.

Fall of the Berlin wall? Being there was fun. Nations that flaked off of the Soviet Union in southeastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus? Being there was not so fun.

The aftermath of the Gulf war still makes me sick. Fine to save the fat, greedy Kuwaitis and the arrogant, grasping house of Saud, but to hell with the Shiites and Kurds of Iraq until they get some oil.

Then, half a generation later, when we returned with our armies, we expected to be greeted as liberators. And, damn it, we were. I was in Baghdad in April 2003. People were glad to see us, until they noticed that we'd forgotten to bring along any personnel or provisions to feed or doctor the survivors of shock and awe or to get their electricity and water running again. After that they got huffy and began stuffing dynamite down their pants before consulting with the occupying forces.

Is there a moral dimension to foreign policy in our political philosophy? Or do we just exist to help the world's rich people make and keep their money? (And a fine job we've been doing of that lately.)

If we do have morals, where were they while Bosnians were slaughtered? And where were we while Clinton dithered over the massacres in Kosovo and decided, at last, to send the Serbs a message: Mess with the United States and we'll wait six months, then bomb the country next to you. Of Rwanda, I cannot bear to think, let alone jest.

And now, to glue and screw the lid on our coffin, comes this financial crisis. For almost three decades we've been trying to teach average Americans to act like "stakeholders" in their economy. They learned. They're crying and whining for government bailouts just like the billionaire stakeholders in banks and investment houses. Aid, I can assure you, will be forthcoming from President Obama.

Then average Americans will learn the wisdom of Ronald Reagan's statement: "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are, 'I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help.'?" Ask a Katrina survivor.

The left has no idea what's going on in the financial crisis. And I honor their confusion. Jim Jerk down the road from me, with all the cars up on blocks in his front yard, falls behind in his mortgage payments, and the economy of Iceland implodes. I'm missing a few pieces of this puzzle myself.

Under constant political pressure, which went almost unresisted by conservatives, a lot of lousy mortgages that would never be repaid were handed out to Jim Jerk and his drinking buddies and all the ex-wives and single mothers with whom Jim and his pals have littered the nation.

Wall Street looked at the worthless paper and thought, "How can we make a buck off this?" The answer was to wrap it in a bow. Take a wide enough variety of lousy mortgages--some from the East, some from the West, some from the cities, some from the suburbs, some from shacks, some from McMansions--bundle them together and put pressure on the bond rating agencies to do fancy risk management math, and you get a "collateralized debt obligation" with a triple-A rating. Good as cash. Until it wasn't.

Or, put another way, Wall Street was pulling the "room full of horse s--" trick. Brokerages were saying, "We're going to sell you a room full of horse s--. And with that much horse s--, you just know there's a pony in there somewhere."

Anyway, it's no use blaming Wall Street. Blaming Wall Street for being greedy is like scolding defensive linemen for being big and aggressive. The people on Wall Street never claimed to be public servants. They took no oath of office. They're in it for the money. We pay them to be in it for the money. We don't want our retirement accounts to get a 2 percent return. (Although that sounds pretty good at the moment.)

What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That's not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. "Jeeze, 230 pounds!" But you can't pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters--all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs--think so too.

We, the conservatives, who do understand the free market, had the responsibility to--as it were--foreclose upon this mess. The market is a measurement, but that measuring does not work to the advantage of a nation or its citizens unless the assessments of volume, circumference, and weight are conducted with transparency and under the rule of law. We've had the rule of law largely in our hands since 1980. Where is the transparency? It's one more job we botched.

Although I must say we're doing good work on our final task--attaching the garden hose to our car's exhaust pipe and running it in through a vent window. Barack and Michelle will be by in a moment with some subsidized ethanol to top up our gas tank. And then we can turn the key.

P.J. O'Rourke is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Bravo! The power of adaptive management endorsed by the President-Elect of the United States of America

2008-11-05T14:12:00.005+08:00

I am a firm believer of adaptive management. If there is such a term in the firm place. This concept or notion stems from the fact that there is no silver bullet in life, no panaceas.

Nations grow strong, companies survive competitions, individual thrive in the rat race, not by some magic formula or some harden idealogy. It comes instead from a rational and open mind, entrench in the believe that only constant in the world is change. Even as we apply solutions, we change and redefine problems.

A case in point. Even when we thought that Bush was erroneous, I've learnt that it was his powerful conviction that create a new branch with the Salafi's that contest and challenge the notion Osama bin Laden's notion of a violent Jihad against the West. Apparently, the notion of them destroying a few buildings and the retributive action of them having a Muslim nation destroyed and many more Muslim lifes lost was too much and was not proportionate and logical to them. It is with this hope that the pure unfeasibility and logic would triumph in these radical non-state actors who often abandon any sense of risk because they feel they have little to lose.

Here, I have just read President Obama's Post-election speech. It was just laced with so much character of adaptive management that just confirms why he has the potential and making to be a great leader.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/change_has_come_to_america.html

Adaptive management needs
1) Leaders who listen because only when your feelers are on the ground can you adapt and respond
2) Leaders who acknowledge that mistake can happen and we can adjust and make good
3) Leaders who know it need everyone to pull their weigh and work collaboratively
4) Leaders who believe in change

He is certainly the One.

The American Idol

2008-11-05T13:22:00.003+08:00

Congratulations to Senator Barack Obama!

He has ran an awesome and inspiring campaign that has not only enraptured America but truly the world. For me, as a thinking and pragmatic student of international relations and political sciences, popping out the bubbly now is certainly way to early.

It has been wonderful the be inspired by the message of hope and change but now is where the rubber meets the road. The world is certainly watching what the most significant and popular U.S. president in recent times is going to do next. How is he going to embark on creating that change he promised?

The weight is enormous and already we have letters from former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (though this was not target at Obama specifically) and even from the Russian activist and chessmaster Gary Kasparov.

For me, my call is not too different. From my part of the world, it is our great desire to continue to see a strong and influential America. It's presence is the anchor of stability of the region even though people might not realise it. This strength and security provided is like oxygen and you know it's important only when you lose it.

To counter the American decline, the immediate task is to place the U.S. economy on recovery and to return to the roots of its original success. This is certainly not achieved by become a socialist and a welfare state because that will encourage government dependency and create a negative spending spiral. America needs to reinvent the American Dream and push its people to the leading edge of innovation by bold reforms in education to allow meritocracy and equal opportunity and ensuring standards. Given people fish instead of teaching them how to fish would turn "New England" to the problems of England itself.

The industries of the U.S. should continue to push ahead with more R&D, abandon low productivity, low tech and failing assembly line industries that can be easily copied and done at even lower cost by China, Vietnam and other emerging economies. Funds used for protectionism should be diverted instead for focused job retraining and to move American people to the higher level jobs. Promote enterprise and create a vibrant and entrepreneurial business environment with lower taxes, aids to SMEs and funds for research. It must also address what is known as the reverse brain or "Flight Capital" as described by David Heenan.

In international affairs, it must co-opt China, Russia and India to share the weight of the world. It must heal the divide between the West and the Islamic World and continue to encourage them to embark on the march to modernity. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, it must understand the need for these countries to manage and learn, despite failures. It must then use strategic and limited successes as useful points of exits. It must however, not fail to demonstrate resolve in dealing with the inhumane acts of terrorism.

The list of task is not exhaustive and the enormity of the task is unmeasurable. This requires a Herculean effort of good governance beyond a mere popularity contest. The real test of the Presidency has just begun.

The Asian perspective on the Financial Crisis

2008-11-02T10:58:00.003+08:00

The Financial Times carried a great article on this issue that is written by Dean Kishore Mahbubani. I think it speaks for itself and I shall not say more. Enjoy.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0015ba10-a4fb-11dd-b4f5-000077b07658.html

My Op-Ed on China

2008-10-31T13:19:00.003+08:00

The phenomenal economic growth in China for the past few decades has awed the world. Its consistency and resilience has made many analysts to forecast that its current growth trajectory is expected to continue. Proper management of this new found economic strength via good governance will enable it to perpetuate itself and increase economic, military and inevitably political power.

Although a detailed study of China’s growth in the economic, social, environmental and political dimensions reveal that there are potential speed bumps, a casual analysis would perceptively conclude that China is indeed rising by relative comparisons over time and is attempting to fulfill its stated objective of becoming a da guo (大国 – great power). Using a traditional realist lens, this rapid change of power dynamics would lead to a change in the balance of power not only for the region but between China, a rising power and the United States, the de facto superpower of the world today. This potential instability from China’s rise is therefore a motivation for us to examine these interactions closely so that we may understand potential areas of friction and perhaps generate appropriate recommendations for policy makers to avert a violent conflict.

Understanding China

China has a deep desire to be a daguo since the time of Sun Yat-sen, and this desire has been spurred by the many years of humiliation that they suffer from the foreign powers that took advantage of the weak Qing dynasty in late 1800s. While the rest of the world marched toward modernity from World War II, the Chinese were caught in a civil war between the Nationalist and the Communist. Although the eventual Communist victory brought stability to the nation, it was trapped in the ideological contest during the Cold War and remained isolated from the world. It was only during Deng Xiaoping’s time, that China was able to reverse its policies and put China on track for economic expansion and growth.

With economic growth, comes the associated cost of interdependence and the need to co-operate and build trust. The Chinese leadership understands this security dilemma and has been careful not to derail their valued economic growth through any perceived aggressive actions. Deng Xiaoping’s warning of bu yao dang tou (不要当头 - do not seek leadership) exhorts self-restraint and humility while the more recent and proactive policies of fuzeren de daguo (负责任的大国 – responsible great power) advocated by Jiang Zemin demonstrates China’s understanding of its interdependent relationship with the rest of the world. These are important markers of their intent based on explicit principles that we know China has a propensity to rigidly adhere to.

China’s interactions with Asia

Regardless of the historical perspective of the Middle Kingdom or the articulated grand strategy by the Chinese leadership today, they share a commonality. That is the desire to be a great nation that is built on a strong economic base, so that it may derive respect and acknowledgment from its periphery. China’s policy of non-intervention in sovereignty of states and her purely economic engagements for mutual benefits, has won it many friends in Asia and beyond, but at times drawn flak from United States and other Western powers for its mercantilist approach that often turns a blind eye to issues of human rights and potential security threats.

In Asia, it has engaged in many regional arrangements which includes ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum), ACFTA (ASEAN China-Free Trade Area), TAC (Treaty of Amity and Co-operation in Southeast Asia), ASEAN + 3 (ASEAN + China, Japan and South Korea), SCO (Shanghai Co-operation Engagement) and other bilateral agreements. These are significant confidence building measures that builds on the premise of their increasing mutual economic interdependence that will potentially extend to forge a regional security arrangement that will add to the stability of the region. China has also renounced the use of force on the issue of the Spratlys in the TAC, playing a backseat role as a demonstration of goodwill to Southeast Asian countries. The net effect of Chinese actions is the shared belief of the region to integrate China to the international community and to accommodate China’s rise, while at the same time tapping on China as an engine for their economic growth.

The Deal Breaker

The lynchpin of the stability in Asia is undeniably the tumultuous relationship between China and Taiwan. This is the single issue that China will neither relent nor compromise on and is willing to stake its relationship with other nations on. We need to recognize that any compromise on this issue will negate China’s position as a da guo, and reopen old wounds of humiliation that it is trying to heal. China will therefore continue to engage a multi-prong strategy of exerting its soft power to gain legitimacy of her claim over Taiwan and at the concurrently use her economic weight to bend Taiwan’s will to seek independence. As a last resort, the use of force will serve as deterrence and physical coercion that will be applied should Taiwan decidedly declares independence.

The US – China Equation

The issues of Taiwan will be the key determinant of Sino-American relations in the years to come. The contest between U.S. ideology and Chinese pride will continue to persist unless one party is willing to back down to de-escalate the situation and break the stalemate. This issue had persisted in times when China was weak and is even more unlikely to change now that it has grown in strength. Because China’s rise is now evident, the only recourse is for U.S. to strategically accommodate China’s key interest and to engage her need in meeting the world’s expectation of her to be a responsible power. It would be unlikely that both nations would desire to escalate the situation to the point of war unless there is a failure of institutions and leadership on both sides that believes some benefit can be derived from a violent conflict. U.S. suspicion of China’s rise and their stalemate involving Taiwan will invariably lead to more persistent and intense conflicts. Past conflicts of the Taiwan Straits incident in 1995-96, the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the U.S. spy plane incidents and the recent Chinese reaction to US sale of weapons to Taiwan are examples of what we can expect over the next decade. These conflicts will unlikely lead to violent conflict and will more likely result in the maintenance of a fragile status quo.

You can bring a horse to the water, but will it drink?

2008-10-31T13:02:00.004+08:00

Here's a poignant look at the facts about Health Insurance.

We have often been made to believe that it is really expensive and beyond affordability, but is it really unaffordable? The fact is that it is often affordable but people exercise their choice to spend other stuff rather than on Health Insurance. Of course this is not a problem unique in the U.S. nor to the issue of health insurance alone.

Interestingly, politicians often take the easier way out and go for that popular rhetoric showing that they are fixing a problem (often a non-existent one as well). What we then get is big government systems and plans that cost so much and really does so little for the people. Then of course we get higher taxes for no apparent reason.

The key is really educating the people and informing them about it in the first place. This situation a problem even in Singapore. Hence, there was a drive for the civil services to push a hotline service and to start an citizen education program on the aid available to them.

Hopefully this will convince the people to make the right decision for themselves.

Wall Street Journal's Barrage against Barrack

2008-10-31T01:36:00.004+08:00

Yesterday, I was pretty surprise to find so many editorials in the WSJ that were targeted at Senator (or can I claim President) Obama. One of the key reason is because of the assumption that he is going to win. Hence, it is time for him to move beyond politics and really start doing the right thing.

Here one on the meeting expectations of the crowd
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html

This one projects hope that the dominance of democrats do not change the judiciary and that it is still center and not extreme left
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

This one projecting the hope that this election will not turn America to become protectionist or isolationist.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533132337982833.html

This one to urge that he would address the causes of problems and not mere positioning to mitigate effects.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523804578478175.html

Last but not least, one which exhorts him and his party to start putting their foot down and not be so cryptic because this is where the rubber meets the road.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523845602478211.html

So what should we make of all this? Some questions for thought

Firstly, what is the alternative? Does Senator McCain have his failing? Because he is losing the fight, we no longer hear his critics.

Secondly, can the people get what they expect and project on Senator Obama? Will the fears expressed above materialise? Will he be able to truly govern from the center and take the best ideas from both sides to move the country forward? Will he truly move above the politics?

I think the two segments of questions should be consider before exercising the sacred vote.

The Power of Media, Money, Movement...

2008-10-30T14:58:00.005+08:00

I think I have mentioned that the U.S. Election on 4 Nov as being sealed. This continues to be the case. I think Senator Barack Obama has run a superb campaign and seriously, Senator John McCain is outclassed on all aspect. There was simply no way it could have worked out any other way.

Does issues matter? Hardly. Perception is everything.

So how does one create at that perception? Firstly, you need a excellent personality so that you can create a cult movement, with that you can then raise money and with money you can buy plenty of media. Of course, then we are thrown into a chicken an the egg problem. How do you create that cult movement in the first place? Well, you need media but media needs money.

The force multiplier here is therefore the Internet. It is the greatest leveller of playing field and it is also the greatest unbalancer of the level playing field. If you conduct an excellent internet PR campaign you can work wonders and this example should really go down into the history books for revolution of political activism.

I'm dismayed by the whole sound biting and piecemeal internet videos and TV media showcase because it really deflects any real thinking and considerations. It is also the known difference between 'cold' media like the television and 'hot' media like the papers. Yet if you succeed in using 'cold' media you can eventually dominate 'hot' media. It's extremely strategic and it is just like warfare.

Here is a nice video to break it down for you.
http://online.wsj.com/video/obama-money-blowout/EC57E98C-EC4F-469A-BAF5-D28DF72700EB.html

So what is it's implication for the country that I hail from? Plenty.

I like the fact that currently, there are some real caps on electoral media so that people are not detracted by soundbites and media onslaught but having an honest consideration on issues and candidate qualifications for office.

However, I think that the lack of coverage on the opposition by the local media outlets are just not leveling the playing field. We certainly need a stronger focus on issues and understanding of the hearts of the leaders that we are to elect.

Last but not least, I think the notion of mandatory voting is so vital. The ability of people to choose just opens people to a whole lot of cajoling and voter management.

Obama as Beacon on the Hill

2008-10-24T13:29:00.005+08:00

May be some people in their preferrential reading has concluded by my previous post on the US Presidential Elections that I am a McCain supporter. I am not.

I think I would like to correct that view as I have earlier mentioned that I was bipartisan in this whole affair and simply looking at the facts of this election.

In fact, I like the majority of the world, have a vested interest to see Obama elected. Here is a good Op-Ed piece by Nicholas D. Kristof of the The NY Times. The specific article I am referring to is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin

In concurrence with a previous editorial written by Kishore Mahbubani, Obama is a picture of the future of the U.S. and the healing of the great divide between the East and the West and also Islam and the West. His presidency may well help the United States reverse course in its declining soft power. This is the representation of the sheer potential of change that he is able to bring and I certainly hope he will be able to do it.

I however stand by what I have said in my previous post. As the man who can possibly bridge the divide between the West and Rest and repair US tarnishing image, he cannot become an isolationist nor allow the US to become a paper tiger. The world will inevitably become a more unstable and dangerous place.

Of course my personal preference would be for China to take an increasingly large role in world leadership but that is a far away dream if I understand Chinese mentality and psyche well enough. Not only that, Chinese leadership has already expressed a clear doctrine to avoid being the leader but merely being the cheerleader or supporting cast. Hence, all our hopes are still pinned firmly on the United States of America.

New York and the fate of Democracy

2008-10-24T13:01:00.004+08:00

Today, I was forwarded an intriguing article. Please see here.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/council-to-debate-term-limits-change/?ei=5070&emc=eta1

The gist of it was that the New York City Council had just passed an admendment to extend the terms limits from 8 year to 12 years, which is what the people of New York has rejected twice in referendums. From the perspective and pure advocate of democracy, this stinks of powerful people seeking to extend their political lifespan and the outright violation of the people's wishes. From the raucous display in the public balcony during the debate, supporters of this motion was given the boos and thumbs down.

Although this seems like a win for Mayor Micheal Bloomberg, it may be political death for his continued extension of mayorship. A case of winning the battle but losing the war.

What was interesting to me however was not the act of heresy against the ideals of democracy but the the zealous defense for democracy. I think if they believed in the system of democracy and free election, there is no real loss in the passing of this amendment because at the end of the day the people are still able to exercise their choice. However, this very knee-jerked reaction to this situation, merely indicates yet again how people vote with their hearts and in irrational defence of an ideology rather than consideration of candidate's abilities to do the job. There is also this irrational notion of holding people to "rotation" in office that so as to prevents the politician hogging power. Unfortunately, this also prevent office holders from looking long term. Afterall, they can relish and enjoy a nice time in office and pass the buck to the next poor sod even if he messes up.

Of course, I am no dictator supporter and I believe the democratic mechanism must always be maintained and be available for people to remove the undeserving and incompetent. I however also believe in pragmatism whereby the system should allow people to celebrate and benefit from the continued leadership of visionaries and excellent administrators. Indeed no one is indispensable but good people are hard to come by.

Hence again, my advocacy for the dual pillars of good governance by way of excellent leaders and democracy as the check and balance to boot out the unfit and corrupt.

This way, we are able to suck out the very marrow and essence of what democracy truly provides. Leaders that the people truly deserves.

The Presidential Race is Sealed... but there are some concerns..

2008-10-21T12:03:00.004+08:00

This post is late and was meant to be out right after the final presidential debate. It was a gallant effort by Senator McCain to save his sinking presidential bid but unfortunately, he has been outplayed and conducted too many strategic errors.

The Obama campaign engine was too formidable to beat. It utilised a populist movement otherwise known as 'grassroot' action to catalyse the political momentum, plus it was an powerful electoral campaign funding generator. It commits people to acting on their choice in every conceivable means and it only makes them an even more staunch defender of their political choice.

The McCain campaign was flawed from the start, right from the point of selecting who he wants as a VP on his presidential ticket. Choosing to capitalise on the relating to regular people in hopes that regular people would like a regular VP was a bad choice. At the end of the day, as much as people want their leaders to be able to emphatise and relate to, they want their leaders to be capable and competent to lead. Colin Powell who has now endorsed Obama would have been a much better choice. Plus, he ignored the signs. The economy has been flagging all this while and it was inconceivable that he did not see it coming. Maybe it was a strategic decision to avoid such a difficult issue but like common saying goes, "You've got to face the music" eventually. Hence, the whole initiative was lost and the strategy of the campaign was just purely tactical discrediting of the opponent.

I'm not an American and I have no political affliation and hence I consider myself to be pretty bipartisan. It is therefore in my humble opinion that the race is sealed. We can be certain of a Obama victory.

My bigger question however is, "What's next?" From the onset, I have always believed that it was a choice between the lesser of two (evils). Both did not have a clear plan to save the declining economy.

I have however some deep reservations of Senator Obama for several reasons. Firstly, was his extremely misleading and protectionist showing. In the third debate, he gave an example of contrasting cars sales of U.S. cars in South Korea and Korean cars in the U.S. Because America was unable to sell more cars to South Korea as compared to the the sales in the other direction, he asserts that it was not 'fair' trade and wanted to fix that. Also, he reiterated the policies of punishing U.S. companies for 'shipping jobs overseas' and incentivise companies keeping jobs in America.

The problem of that argument is that it is flawed on several counts. The reason for the trade imbalance was not due to trade protectionism nor dumping by the Koreans. It's just simply because Hyundais are selling better than Fords (I own Ford stock by the way, sadly. But I believe in Mullaly), beating them in price, design, fuel consumption and just every other sales inducing metric. American cars are stuck being nowhere because they cannot compete on the lower end which is dominated by the Japanese and Koreans and yet they are outclassed on the high ends by the BMWs and Mercedes. The U.S. automobile industry therefore needs to pull up their socks and regain some innovative ability to sell cars and if not they will certainly face the reality of failure. Protectionism won't save it.

The same argument holds true when you create policy restrictions to prevent firms from finding the most cost effective means to conduct business. The real solution is really to bump up education and push for job retraining to shift your workforce to niche areas areas that developing nations are not able to compete and take your jobs. Over protection of trade unions are also extremely harmful for businesses and eventually hurt the unions themselves when companies shut down. I might be biased but I have seen how limiting these unions and being pro-business have benefited by country. Basically, protectionism destroys the spirit of enterprise.

The second problem I find is the liberal use of money. Sure, throwing money (especially obscene amounts) can often get the job done. Unfortunately, it is something that the U.S. government needs to conserve more of. The details of the U.S. Federal programmes really needs to be looked into so that they can get more bang for their buck. Cost cutting by centralising certain redundant functions across state departments, instituitionalising cost effectiveness programmes, etc. So sure, use a scapel and make the incisions but please bring the sucking tubes because this is a liposuction that we're doing here. I know I make it sound easy here but what I am proposing is not THE solution because there isn't such a thing as a pancea. All this means is simple to take a step in the right direction and to adopt an adaptive management of government programmes that would continually calibrate itself on KPIs that measure effectiveness.

Last but not least, taxes. I think redistribution of wealth always goes down well with the people and gets you elected, but I think at the end of the day, if you can lower taxes overall it will be even better. More importantly, you want to make sure that your taxes are favourable for businesses. They pull in FDIs, create jobs and of course their prosperity adds to the tax coffers. Taxes of course are important because they pay for your programmes so unless you apply point 2 above, you cannot work on this.

Interestingly, there is a trick or two which Obama can take from the McCain play book (pro-business ideas) and should remember that it's not big government but rather good governance that the U.S. needs.

Capitulation!

2008-10-11T00:09:00.003+08:00

It's an interesting word that I saw my friend use and with some investigation, here is the defintion from Investopedia.

A military term. Capitulation refers to surrendering or giving up. In the stock market, capitulation is associated with "giving up" any previous gains in stock price as investors sell equities in an effort to get out of the market and into less risky investments. True capitulation involves extremely high volume and sharp declines. It usually is indicated by panic selling.

This is truly how the market is looking like. Of course, there is always a positive side to every thing. Hence the Chinese concept of crisis (危机), where every danger (危) and there is also opportunity (机). The quote from investopedia continue.

After capitulation selling, it is thought that there are great bargains to be had. The belief is that everyone who wants to get out of a stock, for any reason (including forced selling due to margin calls), has sold. The price should then, theoretically, reverse or bounce off the lows. In other words, some investors believe that true capitulation is the sign of a bottom.

The question to ask however it, where is the bottom? This is a confidence crisis like no other.

It's really anyone's guess but someone will definitely become stronger because of this and make it to Time Magazine some time later as the Man who profited from the fall, be it in real estate or equity.

So what caused this capitulation?

My honest opinion was the American people themselves. In their own self-interest, they had failed to act in the enlightened self-interest of the commuity. They wrote to their House Representatives to boot the first bailout and it worked because of the political pressure they could exert at this time. People's choice over doing the needful thing.

With the failure of the first plan, the psychological effect of the first strike is lost. Then of course when the second plan showed up, it had so many add on and safety caveats, it was like trying to fight a financial "World War" and yet cautionary to avoid causaulties and fearing engagement. Without the empowerment to act, the government was crippled, the faith of the investor's in its ability to save the market is lost and the market melts.

Now with the poor, soon-to-be retirees watching their 401k get pounded, I think I can claim this as a classic case of shooting one's own foot.

Don't blame the Republicans, don't blame the Democrats. It was really your choice.

So what of this election now? I think the winner of the election might just be the biggest loser yet from inheriting this great mess.

Anyhow, sadly I must say that both candidates have absolutely nothing to show for getting things back on track. Although I support and like Obama to be the next president, his policies will likely not help get things on track.

Sigh.

The Free Market Spiral (Part 2)

2008-09-30T22:10:00.002+08:00

Okay,

A quicky post. Just when I wrote what I did yesterday, the senior editor at large at CNN.money wrote this one.

Of course, I think he put it much nicer than I did. So here it is.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/magazines/fortune/colvin_economic_cycles.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008093009

Regards

Free Market Spiral

2008-09-30T11:13:00.003+08:00

This is such a momentous period in history. I've often thought about it hypothetically but I never believed that it could happen.

The Free Market Spiral.

Free markets in my opinion are the greatest and most efficient allocation mechanism in the entire world. Using the concept of utility, which is the satisfaction that an individual derives from a good, the market it able to use a price mechanism to indicate their level of utlity and thereby promote the allocation of resources to the production of the good. Using an established demand curve derived from utility and a supply curve derived from cost of the resource, we can attain an equilibrium where the market pays for exactly what that good can provide in terms of utility.

If we're in an agrarian or pure production state, this would have been pretty straightforward.

Then enters the complex world of commerce and leverage. With the establishment of banks that are able to collect deposits and make loans based on the fact that not everyone will draw their money out at the same time, we now have essentially a system that runs excesses or what I call money in circulation. Because of the innate and inherent trust in the system, everything will be fine and dandy.

Unfortunately, this is no longer the case in recent times. With fear at all time highs, the trust to lend has corroded. This seizes up the circulation of the financial system and basically disrupts the price mechanism. Eventually, this will warp the notion of utility and shift the demand curves itself and reset the equilibrium. In real terms, the financial crisis will damage the brick and mortar business as well.

People have been mistaken all this while, thinking that they have a free-market economy but have actually been living with an anomaly which is known as the banking system which is not based on 'real' resources but on a flow model. Hence, the free-market model is not really free and that this banking system is guarded by a regulator which is the central bank, otherwise known as the lender of last resort.

Today however, we witness something quite remarkable which I see as a real paradox. The democratic system (a political equal of the free-market) has been exercised by the people to curtail the government and in doing so tied the hands of the regulator who has been doing the job of regulating and mitigating the quasi-free market/banking system.

The end result is the demise of the effectiveness of the very system and the potential destruction of the ideology.

I guess people have forgotten that it was not idealogy failure that lead to the fall of communism but more of the lack of pragmatism that lead to its demise. It's only attractive when it works.

Hence, I leave you with a nice Op-Ed from the Asia Journal of Public Affairs. The emphasis that good governance is a necessity, because nothing is a given.

http://www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ajpa/issue1/Dean_Op_Ed.pdf

Information Overload

2008-09-26T12:30:00.004+08:00

What a wild and whacky two weeks.

I've never be inudated with so much information and so much perspective. I sought to understand. In good naval tradition, I needed to find anchor and get back to first principles. What I found was back on my pet peeve topic of good governance. Righteous, morally courageous leaders who would do the right thing.

It's not about democracy. It's not about free-markets only or government intervention or the lack of it. It's all down to looking at the basic axioms of the problem. In this case it was the root of human nature. That there would be greed that would motivate creativeness and would defeat the most brilliant of legislature. As the good book by Confucius writes in the Analects.

The Master said, “If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.
“If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”

Anyhow, this was also the week of debate for McCain and Obama on Foreign Policy. Thanks to the superior peer quality, I was directed to this wonderful exchange and debate of their foreign policy advisors hosted by the NBR (National Bureau of Asian Research)

or link here. http://www.nbr.org/asiapolicydebate/apdebate.html

It was also in this speech that a McCain advisor mentions a Washington Post of article by Singapore's founding father, Lee Kwan Yew on the cost of withdrawal from Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702429.html

I then found a whole slew of recent articles on the current affairs which he has made comments on which continues to illustrate my shared belief of good governance.

On China and bouquets for China:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/25/content_10107642.htm

On the Financial Crisis:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_282299.html

A related piece by Inquirer.net, quoting my other role model Kishore Mahbubani:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080924-162482/End-of-an-era

On the accepting the Rise of China and India:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_281940.html

On why I like my brand of customised governance for my own home:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_281940.html

This really ties in with my Conflict Resolution Theory classes which featured good reading by Mohammed Ayoob (State Making, State Breaking and State Failure) and Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Synder (Why Emerging Democracies go to war) from "Leashing the Dogs of War" - Conflict Management in a Divided World.

I end of with a quote again from the Analects.

The Master said, “To rule a country of a thousand chariots, there must be reverent attention to business, and sincerity; economy in expenditure, and love for men; and the employment of the people at the proper seasons.”

Global Citizens

2008-09-17T02:27:00.003+08:00

Okay,

I admit that I am a little behind the curve but nevertheless I will endeavour to continue to log as many ideas as possible.

Today, I present to everyone the notion of a global citizen.

I thought it was absolutely cool that a speaker Reggae Life was asked to speak to us about having a global perspective and being a global citizen during Orientation. There was a wonderful presentation and was speckled with short film clips that were made by Reggae himself.

He essentially featured the Africa-American that had moved to Japan and how they were initially repelled by society. He then dealt with the complex isssue of inter-racial marriages between the African-Americans and Japanese. It was a difficult struggle to belong and establish an identity. Communities in Japan and America would view them as the other side. Last but not least, it spoke of Americans that had to re-adjust and re-adapt to Amercian society after living in Japan for many years. It would be hard for me to bring out every point in the presentation but the key idea was to imbue with us a sense that we should establish an abstract concept of a new form of citizenry. One that is without borders and that we as global citizen will have perfect mobility and fit everywhere and anywhere.

The deep desire and instinct to belong is often a strong emotion and the journey can be ardous due to racial divides as spoken by Reggae. This made me related to Singapore.

Singapore is essentially an immigrant country. We're multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. We therefore epitomize this notion of global citizenship. However, in recent times, I found out that divides are not necessarily racial but due to group dynamics even. For years, we sought a common identity for Singapore and now, I think it might have just worked too perfectly against the ideal.

With the introduction of foreigners into Singapore society, my fellow Singaporeans have grown increasingly xenophobic. Imagine that we can now even divide Singapore Chinese and Chinese from Mainland China. The difference is slight but these rifts are obvious. In my opinion, this is a negative development.

For a globalised city like Singapore, it is still not truly globalised yet. We can only claim that when we as citizens acknowledge that we are truly global citizens and adopt an all inclusive global perspective.

The evolution of a new kind of MBA

2008-08-26T11:06:00.005+08:00

MBA's are increasingly rampant these days with a myriad of colleges offering these programmes. They are also increasingly generic.

If you don't want to something generic but want to be able to conduct business in an international context, the Fletcher's school has a new and awesome programme called the MIB. (Master's of International Business)

I have the pleasure and honour of knowing the exceptional students of this inaugural class. So here is the video featuring an interview of Dean's Stephen Bosworth by Newsweek regarding this new programme.

Regards

Chewing Gum

2008-08-25T14:46:00.002+08:00

Do you know what Singapore is famous for?

The banning of something called the chewing gum. I think it is unbelievable because almost every single international classmate that I have spoken to have heard of that infamous ban of chewing gum in Singapore.

I cannot believe how many times I had to explain this ban. In truth, as a Singaporean I have almost forgotten the existence of this product known as the chewing gum. It was something that I guess I have learnt to live without. Chew or no chew, it really makes no difference.

What really interesting is, I don't think it my new found friends cared for the chewing gum industry. I think they really look at upon this with amusement, that such a mundane item would have gotten banned in the first place. It's not marijuana, or ecstasy. It's not even Subutex.

When I was asked, I really found it hard to explain how this decision to ban really came about. Then of course, that special moment happened and it all came back to me.

Vindication~!

There I was at the Super Stop and Shop carpark lot trying to unpack my groceries into my rented Zipcar on Saturday and suddenly I stepped on something which I have not stepped on in years. Yep. you got it. One sticky, irritating wad of gum on the sole of my shoe. That's the reason. What are the chances right? Well, it really didn't even take 3 weeks and I stuck the lottery.

Call me a brainwashed Singaporean who is sucked into the system but if don't mind, you can always take my shoe and help me wash/wipe/scrape that gum out the next time.

On Corporate Goverance

2008-08-23T22:31:00.003+08:00

I think it is quite clear where I stand on good governance. I believe it is vital and important but I diverge on what ensures it.

We had an interesting talk on the Sarbanes Oxley's Act and corporate governance during the lunch time talk. Of course, I have heard this debate a number of times and the most frequently articulated comments on SOX is the cost of compliance associated which may be counter-productive. What I am interested however is on whether it is indeed effective.

To set the record straight, I have no doubts about its importance and its usefulness and place in corporate governance. However, to argue that it is going to be the panacea or silver bullet for corporate governance and preventing fraud, I would seriously doubt it. People have often commented on the speed that it was enacted without further deliberation. (It was overwhelmingly vote for and beats even vote against legalising marijuana in the US). I suspect that it does not address the systemic root of the problem.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that it is even going to work. It is a theoretical and logic postulate. If we do see less fraud, it is probably because people are generally honest more so that the SOX working. It can also imply that people are generally not smart enough to beat the controls. These facts do not equate that people who have the intention to and the smarts to do it, cannot do it.

At the end of the day, ethics and the societal's moral fibre is the real root of the problem. Of course, that is a much bigger issue.

Controls would just be bring about a debate of balance between its cost and effectiveness.

So do I think it is good? I'm ambivalent. If I want to do business in the US or prove that the firm I run have "good corporate governance", I think it is a good and established recognised standard.

The Time to Think...

2008-08-23T22:17:00.004+08:00

The past two weeks have been amazing.

I have been bombarded with so many new perspectives that it just simply excites my mind. The awesome accounting classes and the interesting lunchtime talks with the Fletcher faculty have just comfirmed why I've made a good decision.

In one session, it was mentioned that Eisenhower was asked when was the time that he enjoyed and impacted him the most. We were informed that it was that one year he spent at the Command and Staff College. Why? Simply because it was a time to think. A time of reflection.

I completely concur. I've never felt so ready to explore new thoughts and new ideas and to reflect on old perspectives that I have.

This is the time to think.

I have much to share and I will try to document the most interesting thoughts in this blog in the days to come.

It's an Art, not a Science.

2008-08-19T01:56:00.006+08:00

What's is an art and not science? Well, it depends.

For my vocation as a military person, I've consistently heard that warfare is an art, not a science. The vagarities and the limitless variables and parameters in the conduct of warfare has made it an artform. The officer in command of the campaign would be able to creatively utilise his information superiority, his speed of manuever and even his environmment to overpower a technically superior foe, with greater firepower and larger numbers. Of course, the converse is also true. Hence, we have Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Of course then, I found out that the business world wanted to copy this state by alluding that business is war. Hence, the conduct of business is again an art form and not a science. Here at Fletcher, and in my first week of lessons, this concept is brought to a whole new playing field.

Is accounting an art or a science? Prof. Larry Weiss shows us that it is an art. Wow! Imagine that. You'd think with all that balancing and the mathematics, it should be clearly a science. We now know however that accounting is merely management's way of signalling and representing information to a phethora of users ranging from investors, bankers, competitors, suppliers, customers, employees, regulators and even Greenpeace. (Haha... that's another story).

Nice.

So the question is, "Is everything an art?" This is where Dean Uvin's explaination of the offering of Fletcher comes in. There is 3 levels. Firstly, you need to know the subject matter of things and how to do it. At this level, it could be very well an Art. Then there is an underlying layer of the skill sets and tools that we will learn. This level given the technicalities, it would be a science. Then of course, we need to know the ethics and the RIGHT thing to do. That's beyond art and science.

Wonderful. I'll get all 3 of it here.

Friday Blues...

2008-08-16T21:03:00.004+08:00

Okay, I'm finally here in Massachusetts.

Everything has been great. The house we have is lovely, the people are friendly, the weather is fine and the classes and luncheon talks for the pre-session has been phenomenal.

All except one thing.

I really dislike walking to schools on Friday morning. I did it yesterday and I dread it. Why? The reason is simple. In the city of Medford (perhaps even the whole of MA?), the trash collection is on Friday mornings. So on Thursday nights, everyone brings out their week of trash to the sidewalk. Now just imagine that. A week of swill, rubbish and grime. That's gonna produce give the whole street one unimaginable maladourous experience. To top it up, Friday morning itself will see a swarm of dumpsters trawling the city streets emptying the traSh cans or bins.

To sum it up, it's not really pleasant. However, I found this whole episode interesting.

In Singapore, we have dumpsters everyday. Trash gets cleared and you never get such an experience. The question however is, is it efficient? What is a dump truck clear a neighbourhood and hardly has any haul to empty? Is that a wasted trip? It depends. For one, we must provide the service because it would seem highly unacceptable to Singaporeans. On the other hand, it is also reflective of the mentality of the people. Consistency. We need to keep clearing out the trash daily. We cannot allow things to just build up.

The logic here however is one that goes with efficiency. It works. It ain't broken. It doesn't need fixing.

Of course then, you'd get a Friday stinker. It's your choice. Consistency versus efficiency.

Yoni - Heroes of Entebbe by Max Hastings

2008-08-04T03:55:00.003+08:00

I have promised some junior officers to recommend some books that speaks of exemplary leadership. One such book was the first book that I read as part of my professional reading programme in the service. Here a book review that I have written for it. It comes complete with personal reflections too.

Introduction

Israel is perhaps one of the most miraculous of all nations having survived the Holocust, re-established as a nation and surrounded by hostile Arab nations that threaten their sovereignty and sought for their destruction. They fought in wars like the Six Day War, Yom Kippur War and in wars of attrition by continued acts of terrorism even till today. All these achievements would not have been possible without the Zahal, or the army of Israel have been tried and tested in these times and stood firm in its ground.

The Zahal, a largely conscripted force not unlike the SAF have proved itself on the battlefield, preserving the independence of the Jewish people. Like any capable armed forces that achieved continued successes in the battlefields, it is not by mere chance but more because of the remarkable military leaders that serve in her army. This book written by Max Hastings, an acclaimed journalist and TV reporter, present a post-mortem biography of one of Israel’s greatest military leader of the modern times – Colonel Yonatan Netanyahu

Synopsis

“There are times when the fate of an entire people rests upon a handful of fighters and volunteers. They must secure the uprightness of our world in one hour.”
“This young man was among those who commanded an operation that was flawless. But to our deep sorrow, it entailed a sacrifice of incomparable pain: that of the first among the storming party, the first to fall. And by virtue of the few, the many were saved, and by virtue of one who fell, a nation bent under a heavy weight rose again to its full height.”

- Shimon Peres, Defense Minister delivering Yoni’s Eulogy

Colonel Yonatan Netanyahu, affectionately known as Yoni was only thirty years old when he perished in this last and final operation at Entebbe, an old airport in Uganda. It was a daring, hostage rescue operation conducted miles away from Israel that amazed the world, giving credence to the elite forces of the Israeli Army.

Apart from being the commander of this operation and the leading man of this operation, Yoni led an exemplary life that was very much an ideal of a military man and a patriot. Born in the family of Benzion Netanyahu, his father was a scholar of the Zionist movement that sought to gather all of the Jewish people to establish a Jewish state in the land of Israel. Young Yoni had the same vision and passion that was instilled within him like his father and grandfather, having soaked up the rich history of the Jewish people and the Jewish land.

As a young man shuttling between America and Israel, Yoni excelled in schools wherever he went and was a brilliant student in the eyes of all his teachers and peers alike. He returned to serve his compulsory conscription at his due age and again showed the same excellence as he did in his academic pursuits. He was selected as a paratroop, Israeli’s elite and crack unit otherwise known as sayeret.

He was selected to be trained as an officer and became in every aspect what that title represented. He was one who led by example, always maintaining a clear head and one who was highly motivated that it led to the high standards that he would set for his soldiers and units under his command and for himself. He was a quiet and introspective man that was often with his books in his spare time and would write extensively to his loved ones like his parents, his brothers, his girlfriend and later ex-wife Tutti and his second-love, Bruria.

Yoni’s greatest love however was the land of Israel, a fierce and fearless passion and love for the land of Israel, its every ridge and hills, deserts and plains. It was such a great love for Israel that Yoni had put aside his own dreams and pursuits of his degree at Harvard, to return to Israel to serve in the Zahal because of deep belief that it was vital that he contributed to the preservation of the Jewish State.

He had completed his conscription service and remained in Israel to work for a while and during the Six-Day War that began on the June 6, 1967, he was mobilized like the rest of the men to fight off the Arab aggressors. He took a bullet wound to his elbow during the war at the point when the war was ending and went to America with his girlfriend and soon to be wife Tutti to stay with his parents and pursue his studies at Harvard. However, he soon became unhappy and desired to return to Israel and was to sign up for regular service in the Zahal. He returned to one of the units of sayerat as a training officer and sometimes led reprisal operations on Fatahs, Arab guerillas that constantly plagued Israel with acts of terrorism and destruction.

Yoni was an extraordinary officer and was once commented by one of his superiors as those that come only once a lifetime. He was respected by all his men and senior officers for his relentless dedication to the Zahal, Israel’s defense and her survival and soon found himself rising through the ranks and assuming command of a paratroop battalion before the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War.

His performance in this war awarded him with a medal that Israeli army were not known to give freely, but he did not really cared for the medal. He was more perplexed at the prevailing situation that threatened Israel, even after the war. He no longer hold that mystical faith that the Zahal alone could ensure a future for Israel and yet at the same time he was distressed by the political situation in Israel and of the inconsistency of Israel’s Western allies. He was one who detested the fighting and yet would fight to the bitter end and had every belief that Israel’s army would prevail against her enemies.

He was assigned to take up a command of a tank battalion after Israel lost many of their valued tank commanders in the Yom Kippur War and even in this area, he proved himself an excellent commander. He was recommended to take over a brigade command but sought to return to his original dream of taking command of a crack paratroop unit. It was with this unit that Yoni served his last tour of duty and left behind his own personal unfulfilled dreams of completing his degree in Harvard when he perished at Entebbe.

Personal Reflections

I could not have been more glad that I have chosen this book as the first book that I would read for my professional reading. I have been awed, moved to the very core of my spirit by this account that was written of this man that I slowly grow to respected.

It instills in me the very purpose of why I have chosen to serve in the military in the first place. Born and bred in Singapore myself, I love this island state that we live in and from my youth, I have developed a love of this country because of the example that my father has set in his own life. However, I had never considered playing a role that I would now play in maintaining the sovereignty of this little nation.

Singapore, not too different from Israel, is a small country that is surrounded by many bigger and larger neighbours that could potentially threaten her existence. Constricted by the limited population size, we too employ the use of a conscripted army to defend our nation in addition to a small, but functional regular armed forces. Like Israel, we can hardly count on foreign intervention to safeguard our nation and our own people are necessary for the defence of this country.

However, Singapore unlike Israel has never faced the need to be called to arms. Although glad and thankful for the peace and stability that our nation have enjoyed over these years, it has however made us complacent despite being untried and untested. Singapore does not have the rich heritage and history of the Jewish people and as an immigrant country, it struggles to create a national identity which the government so often tries to create to ensure the Singaporeans themselves take ownership of their part in Singapore’s future.

Yoni’s was appalled at the youth of America, in their attitude towards the support of their country’s causes and yet maintained the awe of her technological advancement and organizational competence that Israel sorely lacked. I find myself in the same sense of dismay when I see the attitudes of young male Singaporeans with regards to their sense of duty. Even now as I serve in a regular force with the Navy, the commitment and drive that is required of a competent armed forces are sorely lacking in most people. What I find however is more of people propelling themselves out of the military in search of financial wealth rather than self-actualizing on their jobs. I question myself if monetary gains should be the core of the motivation behind the armed forces and wonder how the sense of duty can be cultivated among the servicemen and people of Singapore.

I dare not claim that I have a relentless fervour and passion for Singapore but at the very least, I believe in my duty and know the role that I play and how I am to work with all my comrades-in-arms to defend the country in the day when the need arises.

With Yoni’s example, I learn and understand that the preservation of this nation does not only lie in the military might that a country possess because it can prevent you from being taken but it alone does not stop people from trying. It supported by a myriad of factors that include diplomatic skills of the government, economic strength and an uncorrupted government. All of these, by the wisdom of our leaders have already been identified and so effectively implemented. I reckoned that one of Singapore’s hallmark for success is the concept of Total Defence that even though at times seem to be a farce but is truly not.

On a more personal note, I identified with Yoni’s quiet and introverted character. I took often feel burdened by my own failures and my quest to seek answers and balance in my own life. I am even more so determined not to follow Yoni’s example of a failed marriage. Yoni was often afflicted by a loneliness that struck him again and again because of how deeply his considered his life and the people and events around him. I too would often fall into nostalgia in my moment of introspect but thankfully my joy has been maintained by my love and fervour for Jesus Christ and His consistent love for me.

I found that Yoni wrote immensely in the form of letters and as it was a catharsis process for him, I found that the same applied for me. The letters not only allowed a window for the people whom Yoni loved deeply and care about to know his innermost thoughts, desires and dreams, it was also spoke to him when he materialized his inner conflicts as he resolved them in the process of writing. I have grown to appreciate the written records and journals that I have kept and of the letters that I have written to my friends, family and loved ones.

Last but not least, I have learnt innumerable lessons of leadership from reading the account of Yoni’s life. I have been inspired by Yoni’s relentless pursuit of excellence in himself and being truly professional in his work. His passion and loyalty to his country was without question the very core of his core values in which he led his life. It led to his professionalism, fighting spirit, discipline, ethics, fighting spirit and care for his soldiers, the same SAF Core Values that we desire. There are even observations that I have drawn from his life that he has not achieved. One of it is the need for a leader to impart and replicate after himself and that people follow and pick up the trail where he has left off. In the words of Peter Senge, the founder of the learning organisation, there is a need to develop people within the organization with a shared vision.

This book has inevitably led me to believe in the professional reading program that such a gem of a book has been recommended and picked for young officers to read. With this, I understand that the military seeks not only to build me in my professional knowledge but also in the building of my moral fibre and the moulding of my character to become a future leader of this nation.

Well, that was me at a young age of 21. Some things have become real for me while other reflections I am still struggling to keep. In any case, it was a wonderful to have re-read my book review and the reflections that I had in my youth.

Democracy and Governance

2008-08-01T15:10:00.006+08:00

There is a good number of people who often view democracy and governance as an opposing dichotomy. Democracy speaks of freedom and the rights of the individuals. Governance however comes from the root word of 'to govern' or to preside and manage a group of people.

I however believe that they are both the same sides of the coin and in fact important pillars of a progressive society. In other words, democracy and governance must be balanced. The background behind what prompted this post is in essence the problem that we are witnessing in the world today. Rising oil and food prices, students shooting out in schools and all other problems of society.

I know that people might berate me for the lack of respect for democracy and believe strongly in the rights of the individual but the problem I find is that without a mechanism to aggregate those rights, you get anarchy. I am a firm believer of the Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and the free market. Because of the system of valuation and scales derived by a monetary system, a free market economy is an extremely neat decentralised control system for the allocation of scare resources. Not everything however can work in a "vote" system.

To aggregate society and in respecting the rights of the individual, we have given everyone a right to decide and we make selection by the common wisdom of the herd. It is however unfortunate that the herd instinct may not be the right instinct. We have witness bad policies of price controls and subsides in times when the free market economy needs a free hand to right itself and solve problems of scarcity. This is all because of the political will of the masses that are exerting extreme pressures on their leaders to meet their own self-interest for the short term. It is interesting and my opinion that Adolf Hilter was chosen by a democracy that was enraptured in nationalistic zeal.

I think we need to move to a new level where we balance democracy with good governance. We need strong leaders with good morals and ethics who have moral courage to defy the narrow interests of the individuals and consider the greater good of the community. This is sorely lacking in today's world. I am following the American Election with great curiosity and find that the continuous feedback loop of popular and opinion polls to be extremely disruptive. Presidential Candidates must move quickly and reverendly to the "heartbeat" of the people and at times pander after the select communities which they are addressing. By being so excessively sycophantic towards the masses, they makes statements, backtrack, side-step and basically do whatever it takes to win. Then of course when the dust settles and the decision is final, the people realise that they hardly knew the man they elected, because everything he said on the electoral race could hardly be counted upon and did not define how he would make choices for future challenges.

Is this the result from democracy that I desire? I guess not, and I'd take good governance anyday. In fact, I think people forget that the real purpose of the democracy is to ensure good governance. It is therefore the means to an end (good governance) and people should not take their eyes off the prize (because real good leaders would advance the rights and interest of the individuals anyway).

To the government and leaders, please never forget that.

To the fanatics of democracy, I think you're missing the point.

Learning how to live...

2008-07-27T05:27:00.003+08:00

Hi,

I've sure many of my friends who has Facebook saw my declaration of exploding introspectives but have seen none of them appearing on the blog. I must say that the inertia was great.

Thankfully, every now and then, there will be a unknown force in life that will hit you like a truck and put things into perspective. I have just learnt that Dr. Randy Pausch from CMU has passed away. Although I have heard of his story, I never found out more. I never saw or read his book and I didn't see his "Last Lecture". But somehow, I was prompted today to search for it on Youtube and here it is.

I think it is just awesome to watch inspirational people. I'm a dad too and I've been truly touched. I think the most important point was not about how many people it helped. Or whether he was just being showy (which is some of the negative comments I've seen). The point was that it was his life and he lived it well and he lived it with meaning.

His sharing only meant one thing. That we've all been beneficiaries of receiving a reminder that will energize us into motion.

For me, I am also thankful for reminder that brickwalls are there for a reason.

A window of perspective

2008-07-06T00:30:00.003+08:00

I'm all set. The visa for everyone has been approve and we should all be well on our way to Boston in a month. The process was laborious and difficult.

The amount of probity checks and paperwork that needs to be amassed is unbelieveable. Ironically, I understand from a small print on forms for the whole visa episode is that there is a real effort to cut down on paperwork. Haha... I think I remember repeating data for several different forms, countless times. Then again, it is reflective of how a couple of people without rationality and with no respect for the sanctity of life can inflicit so much inconvenience on people whom they will never know. The result is so much layers of check and cross-checks to regulate the passage of people travelling across borders.

The interview for the visa at the American Embassy was another highlight. I was by a counter window with a charming Asian American interviewer. She ran through the protocol and worked through the papers. I was asked why I was getting a visa and of course I told her the reason.

"So which university would that be?"

"The Fletcher School. Tufts University"

"Oh great. That's a really good school."

So we ran through the questions to talk about my course of study, how I will be paying for it and then the next thing caught me by surprise.

"So why did you leave your job to this programme."

"Erm, I didn't. I took a sabbatical. I'll be getting back to my job once I'm done"

A look of confusion. It didn't click. I've just mentioned that I was paying my way and then of course I said I was going back to work. After some questioning, I told her about the No Pay Study Leave and directed her to the letter of approval. Then she was livid.

"Why? Oh my gosh." She couldn't believe it because it didn't make sense.

I then proceeded with my standard text of explaining why I did it, which I use to everyone whom I knew. I've said it so many times that I lost count but this was the first time I had to say it to someone whom I just met. I wondered if I was even believeable. Did I sound so unreal that she smelt a rat? Perhaps then I would be in trouble because my visa would not be approved.

Anyhow, we moved right along. She went on with other background questions and spoke to my missus. Before we concluded the interview, she had only kind words of consolation for me.

"Alright, we're done here. Good luck okay? I hope you can find some way to get compensation and get it all back."

I most certainly will. Thank you "lady at the window".

Bringing the Brood

2008-06-15T09:38:00.004+08:00

For friends who don't already know, I'm bringing the brood.

Finding housing for families in Massachusetts is not the easiest thing in the world. To problem is because of leaded paint. Since most of the housing in MA pre-dates 1978, it is likely that these house would use leaded paint. Paint however, is quite toxic and little children can suffer from lead poisoning when in constant contact with it.

I am actually quite happy that there is such a legislation to protect my little ones but it also translates to a smaller selection of housing for my family. Nevertheless, we've managed to find housing near school albeit being a little pricey. It's a nice little townhouse and once we are there, we can show you pictures of our temporary home.

So for other newbie Fletcherites who will be going with family. This is an important point to note.

A Role Model - Kishore Mahbubani

2008-06-06T22:24:00.005+08:00

Hello Fletcherites and readers of this blog,

Being a 2nd generation citizen of Singapore and having enjoyed the fruits of good governance, I certain that it is of no surprise that I am a great admirer of our founding father, Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yew. I dare say that the success and the strong foundations of this tiny island nation were the life work of this great man.

Today however, I would like to introduce another role model for me. He is none other than Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. I vaguely remember my first introduction to this great thinker during a special forum held in my high school and he was the Permanent Secretary (Policy) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs then. I was raptured by his clarity of thought and his ability to communicate clearly on issues of foreign policy and governance. For the moment on, I have always found myself drawn to his writings whenever I encounter them.

He has written a new of book on the emergence of the East. Ironically, his first book has a title that says, "Can Asian's think?". I have also found his commentaries on US Foreign Policy particularly insightful. On some quarters, his articulate and frank comments has not only drawn controversy and the ire of some Western journalists and commentaries who rejects his pro-Asian ideas.

I think the last article I read was one which he commented on the 3 presidential candidates of John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barrack Obama. I think it was expressed that he was most in favour of an Obama presidency.

More interestingly, I found that he is no stranger to Tufts University. He was also given the 2003–2004 Dr Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award by the Institute for Global Leadership (IGL) at Tufts University.

I guess if there anyone is willing to read his works with an open mind, it would yield much value in my opinion.

Anyhow, here are some cool Youtube Videos of him at the Carnegie Council.

<

Shin Splint...

2008-06-05T05:18:00.002+08:00

I'm not sure how many of you knows this but it's a fun fact to know. It's trivia and it's substantiated.

How do you identify a Navy man?

Well, all you have to do is to check his shin. Due to the incessant need to cross watertight doors on a ship, you will invariably nick your shin on the edges of the hatch. If you are a klutz, perhaps you get it more often then some. As a rule of thumb, I conclude that everyone have at least been struck once. For me, I've got scars at approximate the same height on both my shins. Prove of a Navy man and a klutz.

What's the purpose of this post you may ask?

It's my way of conveying a metaphor. Crossing that threshold can seem like an effortless task. For some like me, it's an obstacle and its whack you squarely in the shin and leaves you reeling in pain for a while. Paralysed and unable to walk.

Today, I'm at my lowest and humblest. Unbelieveably, I have decided to remain with the organisation that I serve. As a compromise, I am requesting for no pay study leave or no pay leave in order to maintain this path to Fletchers. I must say that in these few weeks I have received continual offers to derail me from the road to where I want to go. This I resisted with great vigor.

Perhaps my friends and colleagues will be bewildered by this sudden turn of events but perhaps they will never understand this internal turmoil that I face. This strong desire to do something of meaning and purpose when I know that I have established myself in a position of influence. Perhaps some others may be disappointed because of my inability to join them in their adventures without restraint but it may be for the best. It certainly isn't about money because that is something that I'm fully capable of generating. More importantly, I believe is my needs of having immaterial satisfaction over the material.

The battle of my emotions and my logic has once again proved that my heart is stronger than my mind.

The ball is now in their court. I have abdicated control and this is my final recourse.

On Capitalism

2008-06-02T17:45:00.000+08:00

In warfare, It is common to know of Sun Tzu who proposed 36 strategems of War in his evergreen work known as "The Art of War". One another classic on warfare was written by Carl von Clauswitz who timeless work was known aptly as "On War". These have been familiar works which I have been introduced as a result of my vocation.

Last weekend (on BT Weekend, page 6), I was introduced by my favourite Business Times correspondent Ms Teh Hooi Ling, a parallel in the field of Economics, particularly on the subject of capitalism. He is none other than Joseph Alois Schumpeter. Although, in my life time, I have been more familar with free market economist like Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. Ms Teh's coverage of Schumpeter got my attention.

When considering classical economics, the allocation of resources has been reduce to mere mathematics calculation of the interactions between demand and supply. The 'invisible hand' mechanics implies that all social and economic interactions will be resolved based on personal cost and benefits. Schumpter having the benefit of being able to observe the trend in the 19th century notes that a hybridised form of capitalism is present that is as much a social and cultural construct compared to an economic one. In this form, it extracts the value from the free market mechanism in capitalism as an efficiency form of resource allocation and yet able to reconcile the societal needs to minimise and limit the negativity of the fairness of the laissez-faire.

Another key element of Schumpeter's writing covered in the article was his thoughts on entreprenuership. He believes firms that there is a need for a "incessant dynamism" and competitive innovation for standing ahead. Failure to do so and the inability to maintain this entreprenuerial spirit is a key reason why the list of Fortune 500 in past decades would experience a great degree of variance. I quote "without blazing new trails, without being devoted, heart and soul, to the business alone", one cannot expect to remain on top.

Since my background is one of a organisation involved in the production of a public good, it leads me to think one thing. Firstly, how does one promote an entreprenuerial spirit when there is an absence of a "profit motive"? Public policy must therefore facilitate a few conditions to achieve this.

Firstly, a need for a measure to define staying on top. This I envision will come from very concrete measureables of key performance indicators or very realistic benchmarking. In short, policy must mirror free market conditions to exact the cost and benefit relationship so that failure can be real and is a measureable cost.

In the individual front, this means that the individual must passionate and with great commitment to his business and his business alone. To invoke this commitment and passion, the individual must be given a "profit motive". In today's HR context, this would be in form of rewards and recognition. As a policy, we cannot lapse into a "mere husbanding of already existing resources, no matter how painstaking, is always characteristic of a declining position". Call me a government lap dog all you want but this justisfies a rethinking of the rewards of the civil servant and hence my position of a reasonably high and attractive ministerial pay maintains. Of course, creative employment of resources here do not only apply to HR but to all facets of the public function.

Ms Teh has also made mention of entreprenuership in large corporations stating that they require "even more talents". They must "woo support" among their colleagues, "handle men with consummate skill", and give others ample credit for the organisation's achievements. At this juncture, I take this opportunity to honour my personal mentor and another dynamic and amazing senior commander. Both are great leaders that typifies an entreprenuerial description and whom I deeply respect and willing to serve. LTC Thng Chee Meng and COL Harris Chan Weng Yip.

There is a small part of this article that encouraged me greatly, it was a reflection of my current circumstance and it adds further conviction to my decision to travel off the beaten path. It is also my secret hope that Schumpeter is right and that I can truly live up to the ideal of validating it. I quote the whole section that Ms Teh has written.

<<
On Social Mobility

"The persistence of class position is an illusion... Class barriers must be surmountable, at the bottom as well as at the top." The key to a higher class position is for an individual to strike out "along unconventional paths. This has always been the case, but never so much as in the world of capitalism."

Most industrial families have risen from the ranks of workmen and craftsmen "because one of their members has done something novel", and this is "virtually the only method by which they can make the great leap out of their class".

As Abraham Lincoln noted, singularly talented people almost always strike out in bold new directions. "Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored... It thirsts and burns for distinction."
>>

I hope in time, I can be counted among the "towering geniuses". Hahaha~!

To wrap this up, I end it with a further quote in the article.
"Innovation itself is primarily "a feat not of intellect, but of will... a special case of a social phenomenon of leadership".

I guess Clauswitz and Schumpeter is agreed on the sword of the spirit and the power of the will.

The Beginning

2008-05-31T00:24:00.002+08:00

They say that necessity is the mother of all invention. I couldn't agree more.

This blog is borne out of adversity. It is because of the tumultuous road that I have taken when I decided to pursue my postgraduate programme at Fletcher School, Tufts University, that made me decide to start this blog as a journey log. Because I refuse to yield to the conventional path that was offered to me, the organisation which I serve with utter dedication will not support my pursuit at Fletchers. It is with great difficulty and pain that I had decided to take the road less travelled and to end my career in a job that I loved passionately because of its patriotic purpose, its excellent leadership and talented people.

This sacrifice have made me more resolute that before, that I will without a shadow of a doubt, extract the full value of the programme at Fletcher School this coming fall. It is therefore necessary that I capture my thoughts and learning in the most suitable medium available.

I have chosen to write this blog to publish my journey of my upcoming programme in hope to ignite discussions and to solicit new perspectives. I will attempt to utilise the full interactivity that the Internet can provide in enchancing my learning journey.

This is the story of a new phase and journey in my life. This is the beginning~!

"The romance of the road is the measure of torn slippers"- Ulyssus