Sunday, December 21, 2008
How much snow can you get in 24 hours?
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!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Role of Force
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Noam Chomsky's take on the election and state of democracy in the U.S.
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
Friday, November 28, 2008
Is Democracy the Answer?
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~!
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!
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
I seem to be a Conservative!
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Bravo! The power of adaptive management endorsed by the President-Elect of the United States of America
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
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.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Asian perspective on the Financial Crisis
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0015ba10-a4fb-11dd-b4f5-000077b07658.html
Friday, October 31, 2008
My Op-Ed on China
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?
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
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.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Power of Media, Money, Movement...
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.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obama as Beacon on the Hill
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
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.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Presidential Race is Sealed... but there are some concerns..
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.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Capitulation!
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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Free Market Spiral (Part 2)
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
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
Friday, September 26, 2008
Information Overload
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.”
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Global Citizens
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.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The evolution of a new kind of MBA
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
Monday, August 25, 2008
Chewing Gum
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.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
On Corporate Goverance
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...
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.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
It's an Art, not a Science.
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.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Friday Blues...
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.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Yoni - Heroes of Entebbe by Max Hastings
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.