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.
Friday, October 24, 2008
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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Free Market Spiral (Part 2)
Okay,
A quicky post. Just when I wrote what I did yesterday, the senior editor at large at CNN.money wrote this one.
Of course, I think he put it much nicer than I did. So here it is.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/magazines/fortune/colvin_economic_cycles.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008093009
Regards
A quicky post. Just when I wrote what I did yesterday, the senior editor at large at CNN.money wrote this one.
Of course, I think he put it much nicer than I did. So here it is.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/magazines/fortune/colvin_economic_cycles.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008093009
Regards
Free Market Spiral
This is such a momentous period in history. I've often thought about it hypothetically but I never believed that it could happen.
The Free Market Spiral.
Free markets in my opinion are the greatest and most efficient allocation mechanism in the entire world. Using the concept of utility, which is the satisfaction that an individual derives from a good, the market it able to use a price mechanism to indicate their level of utlity and thereby promote the allocation of resources to the production of the good. Using an established demand curve derived from utility and a supply curve derived from cost of the resource, we can attain an equilibrium where the market pays for exactly what that good can provide in terms of utility.
If we're in an agrarian or pure production state, this would have been pretty straightforward.
Then enters the complex world of commerce and leverage. With the establishment of banks that are able to collect deposits and make loans based on the fact that not everyone will draw their money out at the same time, we now have essentially a system that runs excesses or what I call money in circulation. Because of the innate and inherent trust in the system, everything will be fine and dandy.
Unfortunately, this is no longer the case in recent times. With fear at all time highs, the trust to lend has corroded. This seizes up the circulation of the financial system and basically disrupts the price mechanism. Eventually, this will warp the notion of utility and shift the demand curves itself and reset the equilibrium. In real terms, the financial crisis will damage the brick and mortar business as well.
People have been mistaken all this while, thinking that they have a free-market economy but have actually been living with an anomaly which is known as the banking system which is not based on 'real' resources but on a flow model. Hence, the free-market model is not really free and that this banking system is guarded by a regulator which is the central bank, otherwise known as the lender of last resort.
Today however, we witness something quite remarkable which I see as a real paradox. The democratic system (a political equal of the free-market) has been exercised by the people to curtail the government and in doing so tied the hands of the regulator who has been doing the job of regulating and mitigating the quasi-free market/banking system.
The end result is the demise of the effectiveness of the very system and the potential destruction of the ideology.
I guess people have forgotten that it was not idealogy failure that lead to the fall of communism but more of the lack of pragmatism that lead to its demise. It's only attractive when it works.
Hence, I leave you with a nice Op-Ed from the Asia Journal of Public Affairs. The emphasis that good governance is a necessity, because nothing is a given.
http://www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ajpa/issue1/Dean_Op_Ed.pdf
The Free Market Spiral.
Free markets in my opinion are the greatest and most efficient allocation mechanism in the entire world. Using the concept of utility, which is the satisfaction that an individual derives from a good, the market it able to use a price mechanism to indicate their level of utlity and thereby promote the allocation of resources to the production of the good. Using an established demand curve derived from utility and a supply curve derived from cost of the resource, we can attain an equilibrium where the market pays for exactly what that good can provide in terms of utility.
If we're in an agrarian or pure production state, this would have been pretty straightforward.
Then enters the complex world of commerce and leverage. With the establishment of banks that are able to collect deposits and make loans based on the fact that not everyone will draw their money out at the same time, we now have essentially a system that runs excesses or what I call money in circulation. Because of the innate and inherent trust in the system, everything will be fine and dandy.
Unfortunately, this is no longer the case in recent times. With fear at all time highs, the trust to lend has corroded. This seizes up the circulation of the financial system and basically disrupts the price mechanism. Eventually, this will warp the notion of utility and shift the demand curves itself and reset the equilibrium. In real terms, the financial crisis will damage the brick and mortar business as well.
People have been mistaken all this while, thinking that they have a free-market economy but have actually been living with an anomaly which is known as the banking system which is not based on 'real' resources but on a flow model. Hence, the free-market model is not really free and that this banking system is guarded by a regulator which is the central bank, otherwise known as the lender of last resort.
Today however, we witness something quite remarkable which I see as a real paradox. The democratic system (a political equal of the free-market) has been exercised by the people to curtail the government and in doing so tied the hands of the regulator who has been doing the job of regulating and mitigating the quasi-free market/banking system.
The end result is the demise of the effectiveness of the very system and the potential destruction of the ideology.
I guess people have forgotten that it was not idealogy failure that lead to the fall of communism but more of the lack of pragmatism that lead to its demise. It's only attractive when it works.
Hence, I leave you with a nice Op-Ed from the Asia Journal of Public Affairs. The emphasis that good governance is a necessity, because nothing is a given.
http://www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ajpa/issue1/Dean_Op_Ed.pdf
Friday, September 26, 2008
Information Overload
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.”
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Global Citizens
Okay,
I admit that I am a little behind the curve but nevertheless I will endeavour to continue to log as many ideas as possible.
Today, I present to everyone the notion of a global citizen.
I thought it was absolutely cool that a speaker Reggae Life was asked to speak to us about having a global perspective and being a global citizen during Orientation. There was a wonderful presentation and was speckled with short film clips that were made by Reggae himself.
He essentially featured the Africa-American that had moved to Japan and how they were initially repelled by society. He then dealt with the complex isssue of inter-racial marriages between the African-Americans and Japanese. It was a difficult struggle to belong and establish an identity. Communities in Japan and America would view them as the other side. Last but not least, it spoke of Americans that had to re-adjust and re-adapt to Amercian society after living in Japan for many years. It would be hard for me to bring out every point in the presentation but the key idea was to imbue with us a sense that we should establish an abstract concept of a new form of citizenry. One that is without borders and that we as global citizen will have perfect mobility and fit everywhere and anywhere.
The deep desire and instinct to belong is often a strong emotion and the journey can be ardous due to racial divides as spoken by Reggae. This made me related to Singapore.
Singapore is essentially an immigrant country. We're multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. We therefore epitomize this notion of global citizenship. However, in recent times, I found out that divides are not necessarily racial but due to group dynamics even. For years, we sought a common identity for Singapore and now, I think it might have just worked too perfectly against the ideal.
With the introduction of foreigners into Singapore society, my fellow Singaporeans have grown increasingly xenophobic. Imagine that we can now even divide Singapore Chinese and Chinese from Mainland China. The difference is slight but these rifts are obvious. In my opinion, this is a negative development.
For a globalised city like Singapore, it is still not truly globalised yet. We can only claim that when we as citizens acknowledge that we are truly global citizens and adopt an all inclusive global perspective.
I admit that I am a little behind the curve but nevertheless I will endeavour to continue to log as many ideas as possible.
Today, I present to everyone the notion of a global citizen.
I thought it was absolutely cool that a speaker Reggae Life was asked to speak to us about having a global perspective and being a global citizen during Orientation. There was a wonderful presentation and was speckled with short film clips that were made by Reggae himself.
He essentially featured the Africa-American that had moved to Japan and how they were initially repelled by society. He then dealt with the complex isssue of inter-racial marriages between the African-Americans and Japanese. It was a difficult struggle to belong and establish an identity. Communities in Japan and America would view them as the other side. Last but not least, it spoke of Americans that had to re-adjust and re-adapt to Amercian society after living in Japan for many years. It would be hard for me to bring out every point in the presentation but the key idea was to imbue with us a sense that we should establish an abstract concept of a new form of citizenry. One that is without borders and that we as global citizen will have perfect mobility and fit everywhere and anywhere.
The deep desire and instinct to belong is often a strong emotion and the journey can be ardous due to racial divides as spoken by Reggae. This made me related to Singapore.
Singapore is essentially an immigrant country. We're multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. We therefore epitomize this notion of global citizenship. However, in recent times, I found out that divides are not necessarily racial but due to group dynamics even. For years, we sought a common identity for Singapore and now, I think it might have just worked too perfectly against the ideal.
With the introduction of foreigners into Singapore society, my fellow Singaporeans have grown increasingly xenophobic. Imagine that we can now even divide Singapore Chinese and Chinese from Mainland China. The difference is slight but these rifts are obvious. In my opinion, this is a negative development.
For a globalised city like Singapore, it is still not truly globalised yet. We can only claim that when we as citizens acknowledge that we are truly global citizens and adopt an all inclusive global perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
