Morality & Incentives
By Kevin
Yellowing soon?
The Economist points out another flaw in the 'morality' argument with regards to the salary. The implication of justifying high salary for the ministers with the point about attracting top talents and preventing corruption is that it seem to suggest that anything less would mean less able and virtuous state leaders, which obviously isn't the case.
My take on the whole issue has little to say about whether the adjustments are fair or if prevailing salaries are acceptable. And the point of bringing up the article from the Economist is to demonstrate the problem of the argument used.
So if white shirts turns yellow when you buy the cheaper ones, why don't we get other colours instead? Perhaps some day, people would find out that they can do fine with inexpensive light blue tee and just abandon the white ones.
Eurozone Crisis
By Kevin
BBC has a pretty interesting take on the Eurozone crisis and it explains how past information is often irrelevant in the market's considerations of matters; and of course, the short-sightedness of the market.
From Sarcasm to Absurdum
By Kevin
Outwitting Censorship
While Yee Jun Xian's original letter to Today newspaper was a nice work of sarcasm, it was interesting how the newspaper has decided to edit out the sarcastic portions, unintentionally making the letter an awesome work of reductio ad absurdum.
It does put Jun Xian in a less-than-positive light since the edited letter portrayed him as a narrow-minded, dogmatic individual, probably guilty of the God-complex.
But I think Jun Xian has achieved his more than just original objective through the publication of the letter. The almost nut-case, redneck sort of argument 'Writers write. Teachers teach. Opposition MPs oppose. The logic is simple and irrefutable.' drives home the absurdity of People's Association's argument as well as the fundamental paradigm about the role of our opposition that has been perpetuated by the ruling party all these while.
To a large extent, Today editors probably did a good thing. It's just up to readers' intelligence to read between the lines and take in the message.
Are voters really as well-informed as they think they are?
By Wei Seng
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?
Politics in America: Learn from Singapore?
By Wei Seng
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 for Palestine to declare independence?
By Wei Seng
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?
Review of Optimistic Wishes for 2010
By Wei Seng
A fine line between optimism and naivety
Kevin suggested that I review this article that I highlighted at the start of last year, to see if these wishes have been fulfilled. Looking back, I must say some of the wishes look pretty naive, in the light of so many things that have happened this 2010.
1. World pays more attention to South Korea, less to North Korea?
Well indeed the world has paid more attention to South Korea, but as much attention to North Korea too. It's been a tumultous year for Korean relations, from the sinking of the Cheonan, to the installation of Kim Jong Un as leader-in-waiting, to the unwarranted airstrikes on South Korean land. Both Koreas have gotten quite a fair bit of attention, and unfortunately it is time to punish the recalcitrant child who is beyond throwing temper tantrums and starting to act dangerously.
2. These bad big shots will resign: Britain's PM Gordon Brown, Burma's junta leader Than Shwe & North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il?
Gordon Brown - booted out of Westminster after heavy losses in the election (that yielded the first coalition goverment since several decades, and a Conservative-Liberal Democrat one not to mention); Than Shwe - no longer military supremo but has transferred to a civilian government to continue to hold on to power; Kim Jong Il - far from resigning but will probably die in office soon, but he has installed his son as successor to his dynasty. It was always a bit far-fetched to expect Than Shwe or Kim Jong Il to step down voluntarily, so essentially I was not expecting much from this wish.
3. India's Odd Couple named Time's Man and Woman of the Year: PM Manmohan Singh & Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi?
At the start of the year, these leaders looked promising and potentially able to overhaul India. Now, with all the bad press about India, mainly regarding incompetence and corruption, suddenly the Congress PM and party leader are no longer in as positive a light as they were one year ago.
4. China's President Hu opens up, gets down with Western media?
Oh China! It'll take an article to detail all the things that happened in China this year, both good and bad. This wish competes with Wish Number 2 for the Most Naive Wish of 2010 award, and I must say that relations between China and the rest of the world (those that are not its allies or being supported by it) are at a new frosty low.
5. Japan finds a successful premier: NOT Yukio Hatoyama?
Now this wish is half-fulfilled. Yukio Hatoyama has stepped down for wavering over Okinawa and not fulfilling an election pledge to them, but the new leader Naoto Kan is not very much better or more successful. In fact his ratings are supposedly even lower than Yukio Hatoyama's. Japan is still in search of a successful premier that can give the country a good kick and cure it of its woes / restore it to its former glory.
Anyone has any wishes for 2011?
Model Power
By Kevin
Side-by-Side
In the recent report on China's rise in the world, The Economist featured a long discussion about China coming into the world order/framework that America has built and operated within as a new power. It then mentioned a problem:
But the picture is flawed. America has indeed been willing to be bound by rules in ways that 19th-century European powers never were. That is one reason why so many countries have been prepared to live under its sway. However, when America thinks important interests are at stake, it still ignores the rules, just like the next hegemon. In 2005 the bid of the China National Offshore Oil Company to buy America’s Unocal was, in effect, blocked after a public outcry. When America wanted a nuclear deal with India, it rode a coach and horses through the NPT. It fought in the Balkans in the 1990s and again in Iraq in 2003 without the endorsement of the United Nations. It may yet go to war with Iran on the same basis.
This is not to dispute the merits of each case, though some of those decisions looked foolish even at the time. Rather the point is that superpowers break the rules when they must—and nobody can stop them. Over time that logic will increasingly apply to China too. America must decide whether “accommodating China” means living with this or denying it.
Perhaps America would do better if it starts abiding by its own rules more and set a good example of what kind of superpower a nation ought to be in its perspective and allow China to follow. If they are hoping to influence the power equation of the future, the first step would be to behave (in the world affairs) in they way they hope China would in the future.
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.
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".
Topics
- Anecdotes
- Article Featured
- erpz News
- Headlines
- Lifehack
- Mind Tricks
- Reading Packs
- Reviews
- Stuff
- Tackling Tests
Study Resources
- Caught In Geog
- Cliffs Notes
- Economics Help
- Fiveless A Levels Notes
- Mastering Maths
- Mises Institute
- Mr Koh's Maths Site
- Progress in GP
- SparkNotes
- Tutor2u
Friends' Sites & Blogs
Writer's Blogs
- Dan Gilbert's Blog
- Freakonomics Blog
- John Kay
- Julian Baggini's Blog
- Malcolm Gladwell
- Michael Perelman
- Paul Krugman
- Robert Skidelsky
- Tim Harford
Academic Blogs
- Becker Posner Blog
- Daily Capitalist
- Marginal Revolution
- Modeled Behavior
- The Good News Economist
- Tran Harry Economics 101
- Twenty Cent Paradigms
Recent Comments
- Morality & Incentives « ERPZ on The Question of Pay
- Kevin on The Question of Pay
- Derrick Tan on The Question of Pay
- Daily SG: 8 Sep 2011 « The Singapore Daily on Failure of Competition
- georgeyeo -not that guy on From Sarcasm to Absurdum