ERPZ Stop Mugging. Start Learning.

29Nov/10Off

Green – not just the colour of uniforms?

By Wei Seng

For the safety of my fellow soldiers

Finally, being green in the military is not just about wearing your uniform. At least in the US that is.

According to this The New York Times article from last month, the US military, recognising that its efforts in Afghanistan are being sabotaged as insurgents target fuel supply lines for energy-hungry camps and operations, is turning towards renewable energy to supply its operations. "Senior commanders have come to see overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability", and I am glad that renewable energy has managed to find uses beyond just being green and environmentally-friendly. Being green is useful not just in peacetime but also in times of crisis and war. Perhaps it is not quite accurate to say the US Army wears green in Afghanistan because their desert operations mean they wear a brown uniform, but still it is good to have green ideals.

Now that my time in the Army (full-time, that is) is coming to an end, I must say that from my observations in general the people and the organisation need to think in more environmentally-friendly terms. Even facilities such as recycling bins or rainwater collection would be useful and not interupt with operational capabilities. Green should not only just be the colour of uniforms but also be the colour of your ideas and the way you do things.

29Oct/10Off

US – The Frugal Superpower?

By Wei Seng

Time to be frugal about America's foreign affairs?

In a commentary published by the Project Syndicate, Michael Mandelbaum, an American foreign policy professor at Johns Hopkins University, writes about the "belt-tightening" days ahead for America the superpower as a result of its exploding national debt and budget deficit. The superpower will now have less resources to pour into its hegemonic initiatives, some that "for all its shortcomings (have) underpinned political stability around the world". He states the three rules that the "frugal superpower" should adopt in this new world as it strives to continue to exert foreign policy influence.

Rule 1: No more nation building
The writer highlights attempts by the US, post-Cold War, to intervene in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq to "establish working governments". Ultimately these attempts "proved protracted and frustrating" and a lesson learnt here is that proper governance "cannot be built quickly..., imported, ready-made from abroad". Given the current situation of the American economy it would be prohibitively expensive to continue on or to start new national-building missions.

Rule 2: Concentrate on the elephants
This is what I find a bit contentious. The writer proclaims that Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq are "distractions from what should be the focus of US foreign policy", i.e. chasing after rabbits and not looking out for the elephant on the field. The writer then compares Europe, East Asia and the Middle East to the elephants that should be watched out for, by maintaining "balance of power" through America's presence (economic or military). For example, he claims that the US will assure Germany about worries of an aggressive Russia while Germany will be restrained by the US. I agree that many of the American army's incursions have missed the big picture, but it seems weird then to say that regions that these countries belong to are elephants because instability or disturbing situations in individual countries can have an effect on the region as a whole and the Americans might see a prerogative for them to act out of consideration for the big picture. Just as Iraq and Afghanistan are said to be rabbits, instability or chaos in these countries will badly affect stability and confidence in the Middle East and South Asia. Like, can you exclude looking at Iraq if you're looking at the Middle East? Not quite, even though there's also Iran. Indeed America needs to focus on regions as a whole but perhaps the role it should play is more of assurance from mere presence rather than active intervention.

Rule 3: Raise the petrol tax
This third rule is what I agree with the most, and what Thomas Friedman advocates in his book Hot, Flat & Crowded - time to raise the petrol tax to curb oil consumption and to stop funding "undesirable" (from the American point of view at least) oil-exporting countries like Iran and Venezuela. In a review that I will soon do on Hot, Flat & Crowded, I will highlight further how intervention by the Americans in the politics of the Middle East are made complicated by the addiction of the country to oil. The article by Mandelbaum summarises nicely how the whole concept should work.

In essence, all the rules are quite hard to obey, but if American can stick to it as much as possible it would continue to be a superpower of relevance, otherwise it will accelerate into decline as the new superpower China emerges from the shadows.

16Oct/10Off

The World’s Best Countries

By Wei Seng

And the best country in the world is... Finland!

How do you determine which country on Earth is the best? There are so many ways of measuring and so many variables to measure, and the purpose of which you need such measurements also influences which country comes out as the best. Newsweek attempts to rank the world's countries based on several indicators such as education, health, quality of life, economic dynamism and political environment, then aggregating and averaging the scores together to create an index. Of course such numbers are rather arbitrary and need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it gives a good idea as to where each country stands overall.

View the interactive infographic to see where each country stands, out of 100 countries. I shall cite several countries here for your reference, and see if you agree or disagree with their findings.

Overall Rankings
1. Finland
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
9. Japan
11. United States
14. United Kingdom
15. South Korea
20. Singapore
37. Malaysia
58. Thailand
59. China
73. Indonesia

Singapore's Performance (Rank, Score)
Overall - 20th, 80.94
Education - 4th, 95.60
Health - 7th, 92.76
Quality of Life - 23rd, 80.00
Economic Dynamism - 1st, 83.06
Political Environment - 67th, 53.62

Well, Singapore's performance seems to fit in with our expectations and observations in daily life doesnt it?

8Oct/10Off

Case study of family planning in Thailand

By Wei Seng

How to make family planning fun

The title of the video sure captures your imagination: How Mr Condom Made Thailand A Better Place. A talk by Mechai Viravaidya, Thailand's Mr Condom, uploaded onto TED.com recently details how Thailand fought high birth rates and population growth with family planning, by involving everyone in the community from the religious leaders down to schoolchildren, through no-holds-barred methods like sex education in schools and even seemingly inane events like condom blowing competitions.

This talk is a very entertaining and hilarious talk, sprinkled with slightly PG-rated jokes, but it is worth watching to learn of alternative ways to promote family planning other than state-directed heavy-handed initiatives such as the One Child Policy of China, which might have been justifiable based on certain grounds but was nevertheless rather draconian and too government-directed.

From the talk, one seems to have the impression that condoms are available everywhere, and that even little children seem to have contact with condoms. Then some might have doubts about these initiatives. Many Catholics do not believe in condoms because they believe children are a gift of God, while many conservatives feel that sex education or promotion of condoms encourages promiscuous behaviour and experimentation, which would wreck the institution of marriage. These certainly are valid concerns, but I do not believe that a problem goes away by burying one's head in the sand. It probably worked for Thailand because the majority of people are Buddhists, and the religion's stand is generally neutral / encouraging on use of contraceptives and family planning. And especially important in the fight against AIDS is the use of condoms. It would be hard to reduce AIDS transmission rates without promoting the use of condoms, as abstinence is a very hard virtue to promote and there is a need to protect the women who are exposed to these diseases as a result of their promiscuous husbands.

3Oct/10Off

Going green in college in the US

By Wei Seng

Time to lead a green lifestyle in school!

Now that Kevin is happily in London at his dream school London School of Economics studying his dream subject Economics, I am left here in Singapore writing (hopefully) from an Asian perspective. But I do dream of going to the Americas (and by this I mean North America) to study some day, perhaps for a Masters degree. And with this, I introduce a compilation of articles in The Daily Green that feature green universities in the US and how one can go green in college. No doubt the features are very much for an American audience, but nevertheless for those interested in studying in the US or who want to green their college life, this feature will be useful.

Articles that are featured include the greenest universities in the US, how universities are going green, the best environmental studies programs as well as potential green jobs in the US. For those unsure about whether to take up environmental studies in the US, this website is a good starter.

13Sep/10Off

Bananas to go BANANA

By Wei Seng

Build Absolutely No wind farm Anywhere Near Anyone?

What's all this banana talk today? BANANA is acronym for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone, according to Jim DiPeso of The Daily Green, and he claims that it is "there is no such place as 'Somewhere Else'" when it comes to where to build "unsightly offshore wind turbines, that scary nuclear waste disposal site, those gigantic solar mirrors, those ugly power lines". This kind of thinking, referred to as BANANA thinking, is certainly bananas in today's world where there is a looming environmental crisis and something needs to be done to tackle this head-on.

Certainly, we want cheap power supply, we want reliable power supply, we might even want green power supply. But some people want all that without anything ugly associated with creating these conditions in their backyard. Wind turbines might provide reliable energy, but people just dont want them in their backyards as it blights the scenery. There certainly are other issues of genuine concern to citing wind turbines or nuclear waste depositories in their backyard, but really, if not here, then where?

How then, do we encourage people to drop that BANANA thinking? According to DiPeso, "a key is to ask citizens for their input early and often, and make a real effort to listen, even if the politicians and technical experts mutter to each other that those uneducated citizens are going on about non-issues". This will "build trust" and ensure that such initiatives are not seen as isolated from ground perceptions or just a top-down approach. Certainly no one wants a nuclear waste dumping site in their backyard, but are there advantages or is there some greater good out of it all? Locals need to be convinced, by the local and national government, that such sacrifices are worth it and meaningful.

Difficult questions to answer, difficult mindsets to change, but totally worth it if people can abandon the BANANA thinking and do their part for the environment.

5Sep/10Off

China’s One Child Policy Too Successful?

By Wei Seng

Time to plan again for national policy

I apologise for not having written in a long time. I've been facing a drought, trying to find inspiration for writing but being unable to do so even while combing through The Economist. Finally I found something to write about, and it is with regard to the One Child Policy of China.

China's One Child Policy is staple for Population Studies / Demography in Human Geography lessons in secondary school and JC. It is a very good study of how draconian government policy can tremendously influence a country's demographic development and transition. The Economist provides an update about the "over-success" (if there is such a word to mean that something is so successful that it becomes a liability in itself) of the One Child Policy.

In essence, now fertility rates have dropped quite a bit since the start of the policy in the late 60s / early 70s, and now the country is no longer facing a population boom but instead the threat of an ageing population, with a younger generation that is unable to support its rapidly ageing older generation. In the article the writer provides anecdotes, but the main idea is that the repressive policy has become too successful at lowering birth rates and controlling population expansion, such that now if the government is going to terminate the One Child Policy and get people to give birth to more children, the people might not be able to do so. Not that the low birth rate now can be ascribed to the One Child Policy, but more of the realities of today's society: intense competition for everything from school spots to housing, high costs of living in the urban areas (given that many more Chinese live in cities now than ever) as well as the career-mindedness of people in general.

Certainly looks very familiar to another country: Singapore. Sure, we had no One Child Policy, but our Stop at Two policy, while far from being as draconian as the One Child Policy, was enforced with some strictness, and in the end the economic development of the country contributed to plunging birth and fertility rates that are among the lowest in the world.

Chances are, there will be no easy solutions to China's dilemma (as well as Singapore's). At least for Singapore, the government is proactive in promoting childbirth, whereas the Chinese government is in denial that the One Child Policy is outdated and no longer relevant. And it has always been difficult for governments to fight economic and societal incentives and disincentives in childbirth, until repressive measures like the One Child Policy were implemented. Would another similarly repressive policy that encourages childbirth help boost birth rates? I am a bit suspicious, because the people of China today are no longer as ready to believe in what their government claims they should do for the nation or in the iron-fisted methods of doing things.

22Aug/10Off

Lessons from Australia’s election

By Wei Seng

A concern for Australia's voters

I tend to follow elections in major Western countries closely, if not because of my usual interest in the politics of these countries, then because the publications that I read such as The Economist and (to a lesser extent) The Straits Times have rather heavy coverage of the election, before, during and after. My platoon mate gets very excited about such elections and will often keep reminding me about the election day. But there are several factors that make the Australian election (that took place yesterday) so special this time round and also worth covering here on Erpz.net.

Firstly, the nature of which the current Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard attained power was rather unique. According to John McTernan in the Financial Times, the current ruling party Labour decided to "depose" ex-PM Kevin Rudd because of dips in popularity that were perceived as threatening to the party's cling onto power, a lesson learnt from Britain's Labour Party which held on to Gordon Brown despite his record-low popularity and ended up suffering in defeat during the elections. Gillard wanted a mandate for herself to rule, in view of the seemingly undemocractic circumstances in which she came to power, as well as her popularity just after she was selected as the new PM.

Her popularity dipped with time, however, as she stumbled and flip-flopped over the initiatives she wanted to push forward and her stand on various issues plaguing the country. Now that the election results are partially out, the initial lead over her rival Liberal party has whittled to the extent that the two parties have split the vote, with Liberal having one more seat than Labour but none with any majority significant enough to form a government. So ironically, the lesson that they learnt from Britain's Labour party appeared to be a wrong lesson. Maybe it was not time to depose Kevin Rudd yet.

The main harbinger of this Australian election for future Western elections is the hot topics that were thrown up during the election. Presiding over economic growth in a period where the world experienced a bad recession did not seem to benefit Labour at all. What was on the voters' radars, as McTernan suggested, were the environment, immigration and Australia's position on the global arena, topics which could highly likely be of significant influence in future elections in the West.

The most important topic was on the environment, and the importance of this will undeniably increase with time as the effects of climate change are unleashed upon the world. Rudd's popularity was supposedly a result of his green stance, from the signing of the Kyoto Protocol to his proposal for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for Australia. His popularity was thought to have declined when he climbed down on climate change initiatives such as the ETS. When Rudd was deposed, he was the probably the first leader in the West to be unseated because of environmental issues, which seemed to indicate the growing importance of environmental issues amongst the populace.

What strikes me as weird, however, is how Tony Abbott, the climate change skeptic and leader of the Liberal coalition, actually fared better in the election despite his stand on the environment. This would seem to contradict the lesson learnt that the environment is becoming an issue politicians cannot neglect. This would very much be perhaps a failure on Gillard's part, as she has also been waffling with regard to environmental issues. McKernan claims that Abbott "mined middle Australia’s often conflicted feelings" about the environment, which resulted in his better showing at the polls. This certainly would be quite a terrible lesson to take home though, if politicians were to see being climate change skeptics as vote-grabbing.

Then there's migration and the concept of Big Australia. Voters were uncomfortable with Rudd's plans to expand Australia's population, as much as migration generally has been beneficial for Australia and Australia is very much a country made up of migrants. Australians are generally satisfied with their standard of living and they worry about whether Australia can cope with an increased population, especially one that is a result of immigration. This could also be seen as environment-related, since after all sustainable development needs to be built upon sustainable population growth and certainly an expanding population would place greater stress on the environment. The issue regarding migration that many Australians are most unhappy about, however, is the inflow of refugees to the country. Migration and refugees are issues that would become more significant with time as globalisation opens up access for more and more countries in the developing world to developed countries, and as climate change unleashes its wrath on impoverished populations that would flock to other countries for shelter and a living.

Lastly, the concern about what Australia is to the world. Australians seemed uncomfortable about taking the lead in the region or in the world. Rudd championed several initiatives Pacific-wide that would put Australia at or near the heart of policy and decision making, which made some countries and organisations in the Asia-Pacific uncomfortable at attempts to take away its influence (mainly ASEAN and countries in the region). The country's realignment closer to Asia and further away from its friends in the West (especially America and Britain) seemed to make some Australians uncomfortable as well, especially as rising power China taps into Australia's mineral wealth and has attempted takeover attempts of several Australian mining giants in the process.

So what lessons are there to learn, really? I quote this huge chunk which captures nicely how this election could be a harbinger for future Western elections: "The desire to enjoy growth while defending our lifestyles against outsiders, accepting climate change intellectually while rejecting its implications for our behaviour, and a nagging concern about the rise of China – all are issues which will quickly move up the agenda in Europe and North America".

16Aug/10Off

Problems of an Elite Education

By Wei Seng

Through the hallowed gates of Yale... to a poorer future?

My friend posted a link on Facebook to an article titled 'The Disadvantages of an Elite Education' by William Deresiewicz. I decided to click and take a look at the article and it certainly did not disappoint, perhaps justifying why my friend just had to share the very long article on Facebook. I found many of the ideas communicated in the article quite pertinent to me, given that I was technically in an 'elite' school for the last 6 years of my education.

"The first disadvantage of an elite education": you become unable to talk to people who are not quite like yourself. The writer starts with an anecdote about how he was unable to talk to the plumber in his kitchen, someone presumably with a background totally different from the writer's. I can empathise, because I have encountered this same problem in camp. However while in Singapore the gap between the elite and non-elite is not as wide, that in America is much wider given that elitism not just self-perpetuates in the hallowed campuses of Boston and Ivy League colleges, there is a sense of contempt that is bred by the elite system.

Intelligence, as the writer discovers, is not just about the booksmart kind or the academic or analytic kind that is recognised in the elite education system. Intelligence could be in the form of social intelligence and emotional intelligence, and excellent performance in sports and other non-academic aspects appear to be not as recognised in the elite system.

"The second disadvantage of an elite education": inculcating a false sense of self worth. All the excellent SAT scores and A-level grades only indicate the ability to take tests and perhaps a measure of knowledge, but that does not reflect very much on how far one can succeed in life. Sure, life is a series of tests, but not of the paper-and-pen kind that one can score highly at by mugging away. I take pride in what I know and my academic performance, which the writer acknowledges is something worth being proud of, but so what? Sometimes I lament that I do not know things that many people of my age who went through a mainstream education know, such as cooking (which secondary school students pick up in Home Economics) and fixing of basic electronic devices.

After that feeling of smugness and self-back-patting, there's the idea that "measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense". But humans are all equal, the worth of someone from an elite school is not more than that of someone who was not. As the writer illustrates, "Their pain does not hurt more. Their souls do not weigh more".

And there's the privileges of being in an elite school, that those not from an elite school might not get: exposure to "visiting power brokers" and "foreign dignitaries", scholarships and stipends, opportunities to travel overseas for various reasons ranging from community involvement to research symposiums. I have been very thankful for all the opportunities that my school gave me, and I often wonder what I would have become without all these opportunities. The uneven playing field becomes even less level.

The claims by the writer become more audacious, but echo horrifyingly. Those from elite schools are being pampered for the world they are poised to enter: plenty of opportunity to climb, freedom to pursue one's interests, high-flying careers and social lives. Those not from the elite schools then might be destined for a life of "few second chances, no extensions, little support, narrow opportunity—lives of subordination, supervision, and control, lives of deadlines, not guidelines". All these apply to Singapore quite strongly. But the next few allegations may or may not apply as evidently to Singapore, where the writer suggests that while the system is meritocratic to the point of entry into the elite system, once one gets in it is almost impossible for him to be kicked out for any misdemeanour.

And from there on the allegations lobbed against the elite education system become a bit less applicable to Singapore, though not any less irrelevant or banal. Those who come out from the elite education system may out of 'face' (I use a very Asian concept though the American concept would be pride) not want to pursue anything less than a high-paying job in a comfortable office, though that may not be one's true calling or passion in life. There's the fear of failure, and an obsession with failure even in the banal context of a class test in school. At least in my opinion, there are those from the elite education system who have taken risks and trodded the road less travelled to success (albeit measured in very material manners such as wealth and influence): Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Microsoft and Facebook respectively who both came from Harvard. But regarding the obsession with failure I must claim to be the epitome of this idea because I am so afraid of failure or losing at anything that I tend to restrict myself to doing things that I do well or that I would win, which certainly is not good for my personal development.

The most damning disadvantage of an elite education, the writer accuses after all the disadvantages trickle through, is that "it is profoundly anti-intellectual". I think I shall leave you to go read the article yourself to find out why the writer says this, despite the fact that the elite education is supposed to nurture intellectuals to their fullest potential.

I welcome some rebuttals from all, not just those from the "elite" schools.

11Aug/10Off

Lights Out on Government Intervention?

By Wei Seng

Really?

Paul Krugman, an economics professor, self-proclaimed liberal and columnist for The New York Times, writes in a recent article about how government intervention has been misconstrued by those championing a small government and the disastrous results of the attack on government intervention. While he might be biased towards the government because of his liberal tendencies, his arguments in the article certainly make some sense and are worth reading considering the barrage of articles against government intervention in America these days.

He first describes the crumbling infrastructure of more and more places in America, from roads to education, which he alludes to shrinking state and federal budgets. "Tax increase" is the taboo word these days in an age whereby recovery from recession is still fragile yet "deficit reduction" is on everyone's (at least the Republicans') lips, both at the state and federal level. Even tax increments on the rich are lambasted as a crusade by the government against big business, and we learn in Economics that a disadvantage of high taxes on the upper-income brackets is the repulsion of rich businessmen towards lower-tax countries. But the tax increments could have gone to repairing and reconstructing infrastructure which the majority use, while at the expense of the happiness of "the richest 2% or so of Americans".

Krugman has all along been against withdrawing the stimulus against the recession early, warning that the recovery thus far has been fragile and it will take plenty of time and money for the economy to bounce back to where it once was. The effect of states cutting spending cancelled out the positive effect of federal government spending, and now with federal spending poised for cuts America "is going into reverse".

Krugman is especially angry with conservatives who believe that "a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can’t do anything right". A balanced perspective of the economist should be one that allows the free market to operate, but with guidance from the government. It does certainly seem twisted if the government is alluded to be unable to do "anything right", especially for a government like America's, even if governments of many failed states such as Somalia and Afghanistan have seemed unable to really do anything right.

In essence, time to think about what the government can do right, and not what it can do wrong.