Cooperate, not fight!

I covered something in relation to America's white anxiety crisis a few months back, reviewed from a Time magazine article, but it seems like now there appears to be a source of which America's white anxiety originates.

Ross Douthat in The New York Times discusses an origin of America's white anxiety: the positive discrimination that America's elite schools practice, in the process excluding many white Christians, which then creates a gap between the liberal, multiracial elite and the conservative and white Christians middle-class. It is quite an interesting observation, that while quite a bitter pill to swallow for liberals and those who believe in multiracialism and affirmative action after decades of racism, it is necessary for governments to be careful with affirmative action because any form of discrimination, positive or otherwise, would create resentment as it is happening in America today.

The chasm between the liberals (quite a significant proportion of the elite, of which many come from the top American universities such as Harvard) and the conservatives (significantly white Christian and male) appears to remain as insurmountable as ever, or even widening, with the Obama administration in the White House. Key figures in the conservative sphere have complained that the liberal administration today is practicing "racism" (preference for the coloured) and its policies a form of "reparations" (for all the past misdeeds against the coloured). Most liberals (and as a self-proclaimed liberal) I find their arguments quite silly as many of the conservatives seem to be practicing their own form of racism (against the coloured) so who started what? But it appears as if there is a source of all this discontent against the elite: the practices of elite universities in America.

According to two Princeton sociologists, a study of the admissions process and affirmative action of "eight highly selective colleges and universities" shows that the admissions procedure "seemed to favour black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in". I do not quite understand why Asians would need better grades, as this seems to be a form of racism as well, but I guess it is meant to be a barrier to entry for hopeful students in Asia. But it seems as if affirmative action is well at work here when black and Hispanic applicants are favoured, given that historically these people were the disadvantaged and discriminated against. But now those most disadvantaged by this process are the (racial majority) white: especially the lower-income, "rural and working-class". It is possible that universities are trying to make their racial profile look multiethnic and reserve financial aid for these students.

"Cultural biases" seem to be at work as well: "most extra-curricular activities " would "increase your odds of admission" but apparently participation in activities like Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), 4-H and Future Farmers of America would actually "jeopardise" your chances. Unknowingly or otherwise, these elite institutions seem to be "incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or Red America".

This creates an "underrepresentation" of working-class whites (particularly white Christians) in these universities and eventually in the "ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts". According to Douthat this can breed "paranoia, among elite and non-elites alike", which is already evident from the "racially tinged conspiracy theories" against President Obama that conservatives are keen to perpetuate and exploit. Meanwhile the "highly educated and liberal", with minimal contact with "rural, working-class America" and especially with the rise of the Tea Party movement, imagine the Red American heartland to be full of evangelical theocrats and Ku Klux Klansmen.

When affirmative action backfires, are there alternatives? Singapore's practice of meritocracy might be an alternative. Even meritocracy has its own flaws, such as perpetuating inequality amongst the races (the black are, after all, still in general largely disadvantaged - poorer, less educated, more likely to be unemployed) and it would be quite impossible to be fully meritocratic (granted, these elite universities have been practicing quite a fair bit of meritocracy too). It is a tough balancing act for these elite schools, but arent these elite schools, with the cream of the crop, supposed to be able to find solutions to the problems in society? We need to challenge these schools to come out with a fair way that will allow affirmative action and yet ensure that it does not squeeze out the deserving majority.

Eliminate poverty and stop the blight of human potential!

In the Science and Technology column of The Economist, I saw an article that proposed an intriguing correlation between the occurence of infectious diseases in countries and the IQ of the people in those countries. Sounds like a pretty audacious correlation to make, but it seems like the research done by these scientists from the University of New Mexico (which is, by the way, in America and not Mexico) seems to bear this out.

One's IQ might be genetically influenced, but why does IQ vary across places, being on average higher in certain places and lower in others? And apparently IC seems to be "rising in recent decades". The hypothesis of the researchers assert that the occurence of infectious diseases affect IQ variation. In other words, "places that harbour a lot of parasites and pathogens... have their human caiptal eroded, child by child, from birth".

This sounds scary and damning, but the link is not exactly impossible. From newly born children to adult, the brain uses a huge proportion of the body's metabolic energy far exceeding its weight within the body, from 87% in a newborn to "about a quarter of the body's energy" even as an adult, when your brain weighs "a mere 2%" of your body weight. When parasites and pathogens (that cause infectious diseases) reside in the body, they can damage the body tissue, provoke immune system reactions and / or compete for resources such as nutrients from food consumed.

Statistically plotting infectious disease burden on life years lost against average IQ, the more developed countries with "relatively low levels of disease" have a higher average IQ and vice-versa. Singapore features prominently as the country with the highest average intelligence with relatively low infectious disease burden. "Correlation is not causation", certainly, and the researchers have considered some alternative causes for lower IQ but these seem to diminish in importance when measured vis-a-vis the consequences of disease.

The importance of this study? If further research validates this groundbreaking postulation, the onus upon developing countries to develop economically and improve healthcare becomes even greater as the consequent health problems from low levels of development damage the country's potential. These countries may be stuck in a vicious cycle, but then the onus is also upon the developed countries to provide aid and assistance to the developing countries to break out of this disease-potential trap. Indeed, as the writer valiantly suggests, it is time for policymakers to recognise that "one of the main aims of development" would be to eliminate disease, instead of doing so as "a desirable afterthought".

This is not Fear Factor!

In The Economist, their Asian correspondent in the Banyan column wrote about the "alarming" developments of Asian cities and how Asia (in particular, China) is urbanising in an unsustainable manner.

Urban living need not necessarily be more pollutive, since in cities one travels about less to go to work, to marketing and so on (I shudder when I think of the suburban sprawl of America and the need to drive anywhere and everywhere, an anathema for someone like me who likes public transport). However, ill-planning has resulted in cities in China frequently tearing down recently-built buildings and rebuilding them, which is a waste of energy and resources. Also, even if environmental concerns are recognised by urban planners, "many new buildings are designed first, greened later", which is recognised to be "cheaper but less effective". It seems as if greening cities come as an afterthought rather than as part of a comprehensive, holistic design of a city. Urban planners need to include and increase green features in the cities they plan and build right from the beginning. It appears as if there needs to be a breakthrough in thinking among developers (in China, but elsewhere too) before green urbanisation can move forward.

Considering my personal experiences, I must say that it is not just China that has cities that are not very well planned and not green. I visit Kuala Lumpur (KL), the capital of Malaysia, frequently and find that while I like the shopping there, it is quite an un-green city in terms of environmental friendliness and greenery. There is not very much greenery around and the city is rather heavily concretised. The roads are not very well-planned and traffic jams are a constant feature of the streets of KL because of the poorly-planned road system that makes driving in KL traffic a headache. There are some green lungs within the city, such as at the Lake Gardens near KL Sentral and Bukit Nanas forest reserve around KL Tower, but it would be better to create more green lungs in and around the city, and even along the streets. At least Singapore's Orchard Road feels more comfortable because of the trees and shrubs along the shopping street.

Talking about Singapore, while I cant say we are the greenest city, our government is certainly doing a bit on its part to export its expertise on urbanisation. The Sino-Singapore Tianjin eco-city is a good example of how Singapore can help countries like China that are rapidly urbanising to urbanise greenly.

For those interested in urbanisation in China, the Go West Project website is worth reading for the case studies and news compilations.

How is this not as disastrous as the Gulf oil spill?

As the oil spill in the Gulf continues unabated, environmentalists and activists are interested in targetting another source of fuel that may be an alternative to crude oil but is probably also as controversial in terms of its sustainability: palm oil.

The Economist reports late last month about how plam oil, "a popular, cheap commodity" is being targetted because of the damage to rainforests and ecosystems as a result of the encroaching oil palm forests, especially in our neighbouring countries Malaysia and Indonesia. Palm oil may be considered an alternative source of fuel as biodiesel, but the deforestation that takes places to plant oil palm trees is certainly far from environmentally friendly or sustainable. And at a time when "oil (continues) to spill into the Gulf of Mexico, companies' environmental responsibilities have never been more public", which makes this period a prime time to target companies that use palm oil as well as palm oil producers (mainly in Malaysia and Indonesia).

Is it possible to swear off palm oil usage? Firms being targetted for palm oil use, from Unilever to Nestle, are investing their supply chains to make sure that the palm oil they use comes from sustainable sources and of industry standard, though it is hard to control whether the palm oil obtained comes from sustainable sources as even palm oil certified as sustainable will be "mixed in with the rest" by processors and traders, the middlemen in the palm oil trade. Possible (but costly) alternative could include coconut oil which Lush, a British cosmestics company, is using. Otherwise, adopt the strategy of food companies such as Marks & Spencer and Mars: reduce palm oil content for health and "nutritional reasons".

The article in The Economist, in particular, also focuses a lot on environmental activists' approaches to appeal and petition industry, commerce and government. It is worth reading about all the environmental activism and the different tack activists take with time as the public, with a maturing and more sophisticated view about the environment, expect more from companies and industries. This article comes as a timely reminder that we should scrutinise how clean our sources of fuel are, even those supposedly considered as alternatives. A razed forest is certainly not any less disastrous as an oil-polluted sea.

At least the law can help get my pavement fixed

India might be a country saddled with plenty of bureaucracy and laws that are controversial (such as the Women's Reservation Bill, which I covered in March), but there is one that appears to be especially popular amongst the poor in India, and this law while not a huge success has managed to give the poor a "lever" to demands for a better livelihood.

Lydia Polgreen of The New York Times writes about how the right to information law (also known as right-to-know law) has created an "information revolution" that has enabled the poor access to much that would not have reached them had they not filed requests to information of their concern. Plenty of anecdotes illustrate how the right-to-know law, which penalises bureaucrats unless they ensure "speedy compliance" to requests for information from their constituents, has expedited services and infrastructure that the people deserve that disappeared in the quagmire of bureaucracy and corruption.

The law "has given the people the feeling that the government is accountable to them", and while the law has not done much to reduce corruption, it has at least allowed much faster delivery of services and infrastructure as bureaucrats fear investigations and divulgence of information that might be damaging to them. There are critics though, and they believe the law is a "pressure valve that allows people to get basic needs addressed, without challenging the status quo". Attempts to expose corruption by invoking the act has not had the desired effect activists wanted, but nevertheless I think this is a good start. But it seems like having access does not automatically mean really accessing it, as this writer from The Maharashtra Herald complains about.

In essence, at very least the poor are more able to have their "basic needs addressed". A much tougher law needs to be developed to deal with corruption, since this law is more about giving individuals rights rather than dealing with corruption.

I + You = US

In The Straits Times, the chairman of the board of trustees of Singapore Management University (SMU), Ho Kwon Ping, writes about his belief that "American individualism" will allow America to recover from its current situation and rise again, just as this same individualism has helped propel it to the forefront of the global arena.

So what is this individualism that makes America so special? While the writer finds that "excessive individualism" has this "corrosive impact" that can be damaging to both individuals and groups (companies or societies), what makes America's individualism so special is that the spirit cherishes "the sanctity of the individual and thus, meritocracy". In other words, "at its best... every person matters". There's the gung-ho of chasing one's dream, there's the respect for each and every individual no matter his race or wealth, there's the constant drive to improve oneself, through DIY. And because of this DIY spirit, Americans believe that everything has a solution, even if it seems quite "naive" to believe as such.

The writer recognises that this has its flip side, of course, but let us focus on something positive for once: using the positive aspects of American individualism to help America slowly recover from the ills currently plaguing it, such as the current oil spill in the gulf. I dont have any inkling how it could possibly be solved quickly at this stage, but with the American DIY attitude and the openness to new ideas (of which there doesnt seem to be enough of, given that the government is pulling BP along by its ears and forcing it to come up with solutions) maybe there could be a breakthrough. Maybe.

What is happening to me?

I stumbled upon The Economist's Intelligent Life magazine, a quarterly magazine published by The Economist covering aspects of lifestyle and culture and devoid of politics. Then, after a few curious clicks, I ended up on an article that details the emerging trend of falling puberty ages. Apparently young boys and girls are reaching puberty at an earlier age than ever, with some doing so at the young age of 6.

In an article that describes the trends of puberty ages, there are plenty of interviews from scientists and doctors who have studied this trend as well as anecdotes and first-hand experiences. The article also proposes some factors that might have caused puberty ages to be brought forward for more and more children: mostly chemicals found in our daily lives that become more commonplace over the decades, all referred to as Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) that meddle with the hormonal balance in our bodies and hence have an influence on the age where boys and girls reach puberty. Some of these EDCs include phthalates (found in food packaging), bisphenol A (found in polycarbonate water bottles) and parabens (found in shampoo). Can anyone actually avoid contact with all these materials that have become interwoven in our daily lives? It is no wonder that environmentalists often campaign against the use of plastic and man-made chemicals, because of the threat to our health exposure to these chemicals can cause in the long term.

Studies are still ongoing, but this is one example of how our health can be affected by materials we are exposed to in our daily lives. It's not time to go back to living in the Stone Age, but I would think it is good to exercise caution in everyday life to reduce contact with chemicals and materials that might not be good for your body, just to be safe.

Who did the painting on this MRT train?

Michael Peter Fay, a mischievous American teenager, shot to worldwide fame after he was given the taste of Singapore's rattan rod (hint: it is not one of those Singapore delicacies). After being convicted of two charges of vandalism in 1994, he was sentenced to a total of four months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. Even a plea of clemency by the then US President Bill Clinton could not save Fay's bare buttocks (although it did reduce the number of strokes from six to four by the then Singapore President Ong Teng Cheong).

Following Fay's sentence, Singapore became internationally recognised as the country where chewing gums are banned and people are caned for vandalism. Even "Sue Sylvester", a fictional character from the Fox musical-comedy series glee, came out to say "You know, caning has fallen out of fashion in the United States. But ask anyone who safely walked the immaculate sidewalks of Singapore after winning an international cheerleading competition, and they will tell you one thing: Caning works! And I think it is about time we did a little more of it right here... yes, we cane!"

This issue has been brought to relevance by the recent vandalism of an MRT train committed by a 32-year-old Swiss national Oliver Fricker and his accomplice Dane Alexander Lloyd, a 29-year-old Briton. Both men slipped into the SMRT train depot in Changi, a protected place, under the cover of darkness and decorated an MRT train with the words of 'McKoy' and 'Banos'. While Lloyd remains at large, Fricker was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and the minimum three strokes of the cane after being convicted of the vandalism charge.

These two cases beg the question, is mandatory caning necessary for convicted vandals? Before I delve further into this question, it will be helpful if I educate our fellow readers on the relevant laws.

Under section 3 of the Vandalism Act, Cap. 341, "any person who commits any act of vandalism or attempts to do any such act or causes any such act to be done shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, and shall also, subject to section 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, be punished with caning with not less than 3 strokes and not more than 8 strokes". Under section 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, such convicts cannot escape the rattan rod unless they are "a) women b) males sentenced to death c) males whom the court considers to be more than 50 years of age".

Apart from the provisions stated in the earlier paragraph, "punishment of caning shall not be imposed on a first conviction under this [Vandalism] Act in the case of any act falling within (a) paragraph (a) (i) of the definition of “act of vandalism” in section 2, if the writing, drawing, mark or inscription is done with pencil, crayon, chalk or other delible substance or thing and not with paint, tar or other indelible substance or thing; or (b) paragraph (a) (ii) or (a) (iii) of that definition". For the references to the paragraphs, you will have to read the Vandalism Act.

As stated in the preamble, the Vandalism Act is "to provide for exemplary punishment for acts of vandalism". But why is exemplary punishment necessary for such a non-violent crime? To answer the question satisfactorily, we have to understand its legislative intent. During the trial case of Michael Fay, it was put forward that the "original legislative intent behind the provision for caning in s 3 of the Vandalism Act was directed at suppressing those violent political elements which existed in Singapore in the 1960s and which wreaked havoc throughout our city by, inter alia, inscribing anti-national slogans in public places..." and subsequently, the then Honourable Chief Justice Yong Pung How also clarified, in his written judgment, that "the legislature was simultaneously concerned with containing anti-social acts of hooliganism." But these reasons do not answer why caning is to be of a mandatory nature.

Why not give the judiciary the discretion of sentencing them to caning instead of maintaining it as a mandatory punishment? Let the court consider the factual matrix and severity of each case before deciding on the appropriate sentence. In this way, it would give the court more flexibility in varying the sentence while deciding on the most appropriate punishment for the convicted vandals. After all, acts of vandalism are mostly non-violent and its damages usually non-permanent. At this point of time, I want to stress that I do not condone acts of vandalism and that these convicted vandals do deserve some sort of punishment. However, to impose mandatory caning on these convicted vandals, without considering the facts and circumstances of each case, would be too harsh a punishment.

What do you think?

What a curse!

This article that I read in The Straits Times last week, which comes from the The New York Times, is a news article that highlights the discovery by American government geologists of US$1 trillion worth of "untapped mineral deposits", which promises to "fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself". The mineral deposits found include huge amounts of lithium ("a key raw material in the manufacturing of batteries for laptops") as well as copper, iron, cobalt and gold. While it is heartening to read about optimistic news from Afghanistan, I am not exactly very optimistic about the promises of reaping these reserves. My reason for pessimism? This theory known as the resource curse.

Put simply by Wikipedia, it is "the paradox that countries and regions with an abundance of natural resources... tend to have less economic growth and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources". According to a write-up on the Global Policy Forum adapted from the Foreign Service Journal, such countries "score lower on the UN Human Development Index, exhibit greater corruption, have a greater probability of conflict in any five-year period, have larger shares of their population in poverty, devote a greater share of government spending to military spending, and are more authoritarian than those with more diverse sources of wealth".

It is suggested that this happens because "the income from these resources is often misappropriated by corrupt leaders and officials instead of being used to support growth and development. Moreover, such wealth often fuels internal grievances that cause conflict and civil war". In the case of Afghanistan in particular, I am very pessimistic that it will be able to break out of this natural resource curse like Norway has done, because of the corruption as well as the high likelihood that rogue groupings will instead gain access to these minerals for malign uses. As I conducted research about the natural resource curse and the news piece, it seems like I'm not the only one with eyebrows raised about the mineral deposits.

In Foreign Policy, Blake Hounshell voices his reservations about the reserves. He writes about the instability of the current Afghan government led by President Hamid Karzai as well as its susceptibility to corruption and extremist Islamist influences. There is additional skepticism over the timing of this article when the Afghan war is going on badly, as well as the estimates of reserves and its worth. In addition, given the huge amount of capital investment needed to dig out those resources and considering Afghanistan's current situation, chances are those resources will remain trapped under the ground. And I shudder to think of the environmental consequences of unearthing all those resources, as much as they might benefit the people of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile in The Christian Science Monitor, Donald Marron elaborates about how the resource curse can afflict Afghanistan. He referenced a lengthy article in The Financial Times that narrates Norway's discovery of oil and how it coped well with the discovery, instead of succumbing to all the "trappings" of the natural resource curse. If Aghanistan can really act like Norway did it how it dealt with the new-found wealth, it would be able to grow healthy and wealthy... otherwise it could just worsen the quagmire Afghanistan is stuck in.

It is all America's fault!

At first glance, the title of the commentary written by Matthew Lynn of Bloomberg promises to stir controversy and in particular wrath amongst Americans and environmentalists: "BP Needs to Tell Whining Americans to Take A Hike", screams the headline. I thought it was quite outrageous and audacious of him to write something like that, but after combing through the article in Today, I realised that he had a valid point, albeit only one and flashing it out in a very blunt and insensitive manner.

Of course, to tell Americans to "go take a hike" would really be a slap in the face of Americans affected by the oil spill. Livelihoods have been destroyed as fisheries become polluted, ecosystems and biodiversity continues to suffer devastation as time passes. And while employing the "spin doctor" might seem like a waste of money to BP because of the irreversible damage to environment and reputation, to not do anything would put the management of BP in a tough spot with the shareholders (though I think it deserves quite a bit of grilling for the disaster).

Lynn's reasons for asking BP to snub the Americans:
1. "US is guilty of crazy double standards" - given the huge oil consumption / addiction of America, no wonder "oil companies have to drill in more and more dangerous places" to keep up with the demand
2. BP, with its reputation "finished in the US", should just hire "the nastiest, meanest lawyers that money can buy - the one commodity the US has in overabundance". This would no doubt make the Americans choke with burning wrath, but I like Lynn's stab at America's obsession with expensive, sometimes needlessly convoluted lawsuits
3. "BP needs to protect its shareholders" so BP should sell its American assets and just withdraw from America and focus on other markets

I think the blood of the Americans must be boiling as they read this, but I think the one lesson they need to take away is to cut on the addiction to oil, or accidents like this may not be the only one. It is promising that President Barack Obama is acting on alternative clean energy sources, but there needs to be action soon and fast.