But are you working harder to keep yourself well-informed?

Since my return from Canada, I have been trying, but failing, to catch up on my last issues of The Economist before my subscription expires.

I was reading the special report published in the April 23rd issue on Democracy in California, and amongst all the generally very good articles about politics and democracy in California and America, this article caught my eye: how voters decide based on their limited amount of knowledge, which they think is sufficient to make a decision but think that their fellow voters are not as well-informed to make the same decision as they. I attempt to summarise the findings here, but you should read the original article for the full statistics and studies.

A survey of voters done in California apparently indicates that "fewer than half of respondents" have "confidence in their fellow voters to make public-policy decisions at the ballot box", which would naturally mean that they probably have more confidence in their own decision-making, that the decision they make is a well-informed one.

We learn in Economics that perfect information / knowledge can never take place because there will never fail to be gaps and loopholes in our knowledge (through breakdown / misunderstandings in communication for instance), which would then inhibit how we make decisions. So certainly there's no expectation for a voter to be omniscient. But how much information is sufficient for one to make a wise decision when voting?

A follow-up poll done indicates that many claim to have "'some' or 'a lot of' knowledge about how state and local governments spend and raise money". But when they were then assessed about their knowledge, i.e. asked to answer questions pertaining to various aspects of the state spending and budget, the percentage of voters who got it right (i.e. really know their stuff), suffice to say, are much, much lower than the percentage of voters who think they got it right (i.e. think they know their stuff but actually they dont).

But what's disturbing, according to the survey, is that apparently the older, more educated, wealthy and attentive voters are actually more prone to being misinformed or not have accurate understanding of the issues at hand. It is suggested that this is because of "self-interest" and maybe "a potential blindness to issues outside of one's own experience". Which probably means that someone who has the experience with the issue is more likely to fall back on what he observes in his experiences rather than what is truly the situation, which he might not have exposure to or knowledge of.

The article alludes to another reason for people not knowing their stuff - misinformation. Which is quite a valid concern in California, given that in the previous and subsequent articles there is a lot of talk about how interest groups with the most money flood the airwaves and broadband with their "misinformation". Which, when combined with ignorance or with the tendency to sympathise with your own beliefs, is a deadly combination for the polls. Plus it doesnt help that their official documents are dripping with "legalese" and obscurities.

Link back to Singapore. In the election that just passed, I have seen people who are either staunchly pro-PAP (People's Action Party, for our foreign readers) or staunchly pro-opposition. And when I ask them why, many of them quote from their own experiences to formulate their own stance and hence their own vote. So while in an ideal election people vote based on what is best for them and for everyone, on the basis that they are as well-informed as possible about the benefits, disadvantages and trade-offs of the various parties, it will never come to be an election that truly operates in this way, because we are all shaped by our experiences, thinking that we really know it all when in fact we just "know".

Which can apply to me as well. Do I really think I am well-informed when I write about this article questioning people's knowledge?

Are we overwhelmed by social media?

It's been a while since there has been any coverage or review of articles published in the newspapers recently, and I apologise for that. It really takes someone who has left school and joined the working world (albeit briefly) to understand what life at work is really all about and how suddenly time magically disappears when you want to work on your pet projects. Kevin, in all his hustle and bustle as a budding undergraduate at LSE, has taken plenty of time out to maintain this place and keep it alive and I shall try my best to contribute whenever I can.

I just returned from a 3-week holiday in Toronto which was refreshing and eye-opening yet isolationist - I had no access to my usual The Straits Times or The Economist in hard copy, so I had to rely on surfing news websites online, which I did not quite like as I am the traditional kind of reader that prefers to be able to hold on to what I was reading.

A source of news which was unexpected and unprecedented for me was Facebook, which thankfully I had access to while in Canada. Being overseas while a general election was ongoing, I relied heavily on my friend's postings of newsworthy articles on Facebook to keep me updated on news that slipped under my radar while I skimmed through the headlines of The Straits Times Online.

With this experience in mind, it was interesting to read in yesterday's Review in The Straits Times an article by Susan Moeller about youth today are "hooked on social media and one-sentence news stories".

Based on a recent study conducted on youths aged 18 to 25, it seems like social platforms and networks are now the place to go to for news - and the only place youths go to for news. A "paradox" his arisen - when the Internet first emerged people were worried about being flooded and overwhelmed with too much information, but instead people read only what they were interested in and what reinforced their beliefs, leading to their acquisition of lesser information than ever. This paradox has apparently only deepened with the popularity of social networks - instead of being active in their search for news and knowledge, people on Facebook and Twitter can now just sit there and wait for news to be delivered onto their Facebook Wall or Tweet page.

People today are still being overwhelmed by the tremendous amount of news and information online, which has led to this natural mechanism to shut off all the news and take in only short headlines of most news that comes in, content that this is "sufficiently informative" for them and reading further only where a piece of news is of deep personal interest. Social platforms and networks reinforce this further. Twitter in particular, with its 140 character limit on each tweet, means that whatever that needs to be communicated must be summarised.

Going back to the study, those in the study had to "give up all media for 24 hours" - in other words, be offline and disconnected from the world for 24 hours. Some of the observations made from the study (read the article for more details) include how students missed their Facebook and Tweeter but not traditional news outlets, and how these social networks have become so part of their lives that students feel empty and "lost" without access to it.

However, there is also a positive spin to these observations. It is noted that youth today actually care more about news and what is happening around them, and that they, through their huge number of friends on Facebook or following many Tweeters, would be exposed to a wider variety of news. This indicates that they are not necessarily apathetic to what happens around them, just that convenience has caused youth to lose initiative in finding news of interest to them.

So can anything actually be done? Any comments from our readers, whom I presume are also quite connected individuals and would understand this phenomenon well?

So near on the periodic table, but so different in terms of safety?

In an article published in Today on March 22, produced from an article in The Telegraph, the writer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard asserts that safe nuclear does exist, in the form of thorium, and this comes from nowhere other than China, the country which supposedly is not very unenvironmentally friendly and has lax safety standards.

The article exhalts the benefits of thorium-based nuclear reactors in a backdrop of the escalation of global demand for power, especially in rising developing countries India and China. I was initially a bit skeptical about reading this article because of my reservations about China and how it sometimes may have the tendency to exaggerate its scientific discoveries. But assuming that the writer in The Telegraph did his factchecking correctly, thorium does have a multitide of benefits over uranium from its abundance all the way to the reactions in the power generation process.

If thorium really rises to the challenge as promised, perhaps the world will heave a sigh of relief, that nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the recent Fukushima incident would really be a thing of the past.

For those who are interested, this article explains in more scientific detail how thorium is better than uranium, a good read if you wish to know a bit more about the nuclear industry.

Doing a Google on thorium seems to yield quite a lot of promising articles. So is the hype really justified? Perhaps we have to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

The Arab populace has awakened

I apologise (which I often do whenever I write here these days) for not coming here often enough to write. Ironically, focusing on my job, which requires me to read up on current affairs, together with other demands such as learning driving have meant that other obligations such as housework and writing for ERPZ.net has been relegated to the back seat.

This article that I wish to highlight today, written by Thomas Friedman for New York Times, has been with me since 2 weeks ago, but I only got to really reviewing it today. In summary it talks about the Arab revolutions and the awakening of the Arab populace after decades of repression, stagnation and ignorance. The content is still relevant, even though coverage of the Arab revolutions have dipped as Libya is mired in a drawn-out civil war-like situation while other breaking news emerge (such as the earthquake-tsunami-nuclear blowout triple tragedy that is affecting Japan).

Friedman starts by telling America to end its "addiction to oil", and it is precisely because of this addiction to oil that the Arabian dictators and kings have managed to cling to power, in a formula that he recants: "keep your pumps open, your oil prices low, dont bother the Israelis too much and... you can do whatever you want". This puts America at the wrong side of history: how can the champion of democracy and freedom be silently condoning the prejudice of freedom of the Arab people?

He makes it clear that the revolutions are "not going to be a joyride" because this is taking place in a region with "frail institutions, scant civil society and virtually no democratic traditions or culture of innovation". Hopefully we're not looking at a transition from one pro-American dictator to another Islamist one, or a military junta. It would be too much to expect the emergence of an India, but it would be good if it could go in the direction of Turkey or Indonesia, two Muslim-majority countries that are also vibrant democracies, albeit with their own issues and hiccups with their experience with democracy.

Friedman concludes by saying that America should "root for" the democracy movement "without being in the middle of it". This seems to confuse me a little bit, but I suspect his meaning here is to support democracy but to give them free rein in deciding for themselves how they want to be governed rather than have America impose top-down a democratic framework. The Arab people have woken up, spoken and it is up to the West to give them tacit support.

Time to take politics & governance seriously?

Thomas Friedman, one of my favourite writers, in a visit to Singapore at the end of last month, proudly proclaims that there are lessons to learn from Singapore for American politics.

Politics? One might question. Singapore is supposed to be well-known for or often perceived in the West as a more authoritarian, repressive country. But here the learning pointers are precisely from the way politics is conducted: "Taking governance seriously, relentlessly asking: What world are we living in and how do we adapt to thrive?"

"Taking governance seriously" is vague and sounds as if the American government does not take governance seriously, but sometimes the things they do and the things they argue about, you really wonder if these people are in a government by the people, for the people, to serve the people or to serve their own interests. Even if the people in government were really concerned about the state of the nation, their stubborness and refusal to compromise or cooperate is paralyzing proper governance.

Singapore's brand of politics might be said to be of the pragmatic kind, which is pretty much the nature of Singaporeans in general: doing things not just for the sake of doing things, but because there are benefits, or because they work. No point harping so much on theory or idealism, whatever works is whatever shall be done. In a world where globalisation continually integrates parts of the world together, the line between democracy and other forms of governance or ideology start to blur, and perhaps it is wiser to adapt and subscribe to whatever works?

Not that I am an ardent or blind supporter of the way Singapore's democracy works, but I do feel that it is better to have a working government, albeit one that prescribes and reproaches like a strict parent, rather than a dysfunctional government that struggles to do anything at all for its people.

Read the whole article to get a good idea of what he thinks is good in Singapore. But ultimately, as Friedman concludes, what America should learn from Singapore is the correct "attitude" to adopt in governance.

Anyone disagrees with Friedman?

Time to fly the flag high?

A belated Happy Lunar New Year to all readers of ERPZ.net!

I have been sitting on this newspiece for more than a month, rereading and mulling over its contents. What the writer proposes seems like an act of brinksmanship. Is it really "an idea whose time has come"?

In The Guardian last month, Simon Tisdall proposes that a sovereign Palestinian state be declared, one recognised by the US and the United Nations. Sounds like a silly idea without basis for support, even though he argues that because of current circumstances the status quo is untenable. Indeed, the Palestianian Authority's Fatah government has been undermined, and the only way for it to regain the trust of its citizens and its recognition of legitimacy by Hamas and the world would be to declare independence, regardless of whether talks with Israel are successful or not. But it is naive to believe that the US would support such a move even if it is unhappy with Israel over its continued refusal to listen to the US.

Supposedly many states (mostly smaller nations) recognise in theory an independent Palestine. But without the backing of major powers, it would not be worthwhile to mount a declaration of independence without starting another Israel-Palestine war.

The happenings in Tunisia and then Egypt between the time this article was published and today changes the whole picture again, which makes this article I feature all the more relevant. It might really be time for Israel to start thinking about Palestine, because should Mubarak's government collapse and give way to a Muslim Brotherhood regime, it would mean the isolation of Israel in the Middle East with the departure of its closest ally and neighbour.

Is it really time for an independent, sovereign Palestine state?

Not only damaging to the river

I have been so busy with work and other things that I have not had much time to write here. I have found some interesting articles that I wish to write about, but for now I'll offer a TED video on the "economic injustice of plastic".

It's an interesting perspective about how plastic affects the poor people disproportionately. His introduction, about how it might have been better that the oil spill in the Gulf happened rather than have the oil be used to contribute to global warming, creating plastic and so on, is quite controversial though. Honestly, both options are actually non-options, but if that makes you sit up and continue listening to the talk then I guess such an introduction works.

The video does not provide that much details or elaboration but at least it enlightens you and makes you aware of more perils of plastic besides the environment and wildlife.

I'll need a discount on that

It strikes me as amazing that a Conservative government (albeit a coalition one with the Liberal Democrats) in the UK is actually introducing vouchers to encourage people to eat healthily and exercise. The report in The Independent claims that it is all part of a "government-backed healthy living" initiative called Change4Life, by launching a "Great Swapathon" that allows people to redeem £50 worth of vouchers for healthier food and activities by taking part in a survey on the Great Swapathon website.

It looks to me like a subsidy on healthier food, and I am surprised that the Tory government would actually consider such seemingly market-distorting policies considering their pro-market stance. But such a scheme is actually more pro-market than an actual subsidy on the price of healthier food and activities as this scheme involves the food industry and retailers and allows them quite a bit of influence in the campaign. Which then leads to people complaining that actually allowing firms in the food industry the ability to influence public helath campaigns is not quite a good idea because the firms would be more concerned with profits and their bottom line rather than what is truly good for the consumer or populace.

Either way, it is a good step forward for a country that is facing an "obesity time bomb". As the Health Secretary says, "the healthier option isnt always the cheaper option", so the poor should at least be allowed some access to more wholesome though more expensive foods rather than cheap junk food.

Get used to this, and more

I would first like to apologise for having not been posting here for a very long time. Just as students have gone on a hiatus for the school holidays, so have I, winding down from my Full-time National Service commitments and celebrating my new-found freedom. It seems apt for me to be writing on Christmas Day, for this would be a nice Christmas gift to the readers of ERPZ.net. But it's not quite a bright, cheery article: it was from last month, but the contents of the article will apply to us for a very long time to come.

The Economist, in its November 27 edition, writes about "facing the consequences" of climate change because, by now, "global action is not going to stop climate change" - i.e. it is too late and too difficult to brake or reverse climate change. The best course of action now, according to The Economist, is to prepare to adapt.

I am hoping that even in the midst of the school holidays readers will take time to read this article if you have yet to do so, because it is quite a pertinent and important article. The article may indicate a shift in perceptions: that the world needs to move on and beyond its current stance - reduce carbon emissions immediately, but at the same time start work to adapt the populace and the environment to climate change.

More challenges lie ahead. If it was difficult enough to clamp down on carbon emissions, it would be even more difficult to allocate billions of dollars to mitigate the effects of climate change. Cutting carbon emissions might entail sacrificing economic growth, and now more money has to be spent to adapt to climate change. It will be ever more difficult to find money for the rich countries now affected by the debt crisis, not to mention the poor countries that never had much money in the first place. It is also difficult to sell the message that it is too late to salvage the situation, after all it is easier to sell hope to the electorate than gloom and doom.