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.
Showing posts with label Perspectives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Perspectives. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A More Perfect Union
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 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.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Going gaga over Gaza
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.
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.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Is Democracy the Answer?
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Bravo! The power of adaptive management endorsed by the President-Elect of the United States of America
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.
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.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Asian perspective on the Financial Crisis
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
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0015ba10-a4fb-11dd-b4f5-000077b07658.html
Friday, October 31, 2008
My Op-Ed on China
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.
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.
Wall Street Journal's Barrage against Barrack
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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..
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.
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!
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.
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.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Information Overload
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.”
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.”
Monday, August 25, 2008
Chewing Gum
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.
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
The Time to Think...
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
