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?
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.
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.
Asia’s disturbing urbanisation
By Wei Seng
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.
Recycling in Singapore
By Wei Seng
Cant rely on the karang guni man for our recycling future right?
I read this article in The Straits Times last week about recycling in Singapore and how Singapore "has First World technology but Third World attitudes" with regard to recycling: plenty of green technology being developed comparable to that in the West, but poor adoption or underutilization of such technologies or facilities, comparable to that of many developing nations.
Singapore, on the surface, has a good recycling culture: 57% national recycling rate last year. Unfortunately "what gets recycled reveals that the rates are highest for construction debris... generated from industrial use and recycled by scrap dealers". In terms of common materials being recycled, the recycling rate is highest for paper (48%, probably thanks to the karang guni man who comes around to collect old newspapers every so often) and lowest for plastic (9%, because there are few facilities for collection of plastics for recycling as well as little awareness of plastics recycling). Households and businesses (not including industries) are not doing enough in the recycling effort apparently.
The writer Grace Chua suggests that "recycling should be legislated", which the government currently is loath to do in fear of inflicting higher costs. Then again, how much more incineration and landfilling can we do? Incineration seems to burn the trash problem away but the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is not insignificant. While only incinerator ash and trash that cannot be incinerated are buried at the landfill (currently on Pulau Semakau), there will come a day whereby the landfill will be full and hopefully we wont have to "ship (our) ash to neighbouring countries... or find pricey ways to use the ash in construction".
Laws that promote recycling could start by demanding that businesses recycle certain packaging they use or produce in making their goods, or mandate the compulsory sorting of trash for recycling. More expensive but certainly more useful and direct would be to have recycling chutes in each block rather than the current setup of bins shared among a group of blocks in an estate, which recycling companies rarely empty. Singaporeans are too used to convenience that the added trouble of going downstairs to throw away recyclables would doom / have doomed the recycling effort in HDB estates. I used to have recycling bins at the void deck of the block next door, but several months back when I tried to dispose of some recyclables the bins had disappeared. Apparently it has been underutilized and hence removed by the recycling company.
Financial incentives could also be used, and it would probably work if people are motivated just as they sell newspapers to the karang guni man (rag and bone man) for money. Landfill taxes or charging by volume of waste collected would create incentives to cut waste produced and recycle (or reduce and reuse, even better for the environment) more. Such incentives have to be introduced because unfortunately for the karang guni men, their numbers are dwindling and they are collecting less and less of newspapers (recycling companies are paying them less and less for the amount of paper collected) and more and more of what brings in the money, which in recent times would include old wine such as aged XO or old, damaged electronics. So to continue to rely on the karang guni men to instill the habit of recycling would not be sensible.
To appeal to the competitive streak in us Singaporeans, Singapore needs to catch up with other countries that Singapore supposedly competes with on the global arena. Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan, all Asian economic giants and considered to be of First World stature, all have very good recycling initiatives and high househould recycling rates. It is not feasible to just rely on industries to recycle and do their part for the environment, households and businesses have to get into the recycling habit as well, if not for the environment, at least for their wallets.
White in America – the new minority?
By Wei Seng
Not back to these days I hope
The last idea from the '10 Ideas for the Next 10 Years' column in Time magazine that caught my eye is one that pertains to America in particular though it could have ramifications in future for other countries facing a similar fate (even Singapore, for example).
Gregory Rodriguez writes about the "white anxiety crisis" and how "native-born white Americans" are poised to become the minority in America soon, as early as 2050 according to estimates by the US Census Bureau. This could certainly cause a backlash (amongst the white, that is) about what it means to be American, as well as attitudes of positive discrimination towards black / coloured minorities. Thus far the image of America has been one that is white, with African-Americans and Hispanics seen as the minority, the same way that the image of Africa conjured up is black while whites are the minority (usually remnants of colonial rule). How palatable (to the white as well as the black) would it be to have an America that is in proportion no longer majority white but still viewed or governed as a white-majority nation? The colouring of the United States would probably be seen as disturbing for "native-born whites" (in all honesty, the true natives of America are the native Indians, who have long been shunted and sidelined by the government). As the minority (at the moment still Hispanic and African-American, even Asian) clamour for more representation and more rights, the majority would now fight back as they see the threat of being overwhelmed in near future.
Worse still, could the threat of becoming the new minority cause the revival of white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan? I shudder to think of such an eventuality, but I am quite certain white supremacist thinking in some is still alive, just as much as blacks still think that the whites still have something against them.
However, it must be noted that the colouring of America is taking place in select states such as California, such that a convoluted situation would occur: 'majority' (in terms of land size / number of states) of the United States is still white but "strong white-minority political consciousness is most likely to arise in regions that are nowhere near... becoming majority-minority". The current minority are unlikely to expand to become the majority in many states such as Montana (think of the mountainous, central states of America), but it could well be people from states such as these that might be making the most noise about the colouring of America. I am reminded of the movie The Blind Side which I watched, where the black-white suspicion-tension often surfaced throughout the storyline and where racial segregation and discrimination is still not dead. It might not be an accurate reflection of the whole of America, but movies tend to portray some form of indication of societal views as well as perceptions.
So how is this all relevant to Singapore at all? There are parallels. Frequently in the papers articles emerge with regard to the Singapore government's promotion and welcoming of immigrants into Singapore, and then there will be letters and commentary about how native-born Singaporeans are being threatened and face a high likelihood of becoming the minority (just like the whites in America in 2050). Such fears are not exactly irrational, as this article from The Kent Ridge Common suggests. Studying the figures from the Statistics Singapore website, after some rough calculation the current non-resident (non-resident refers to people who are neither citizens or Permanent Residents) proportion of the population of Singapore as of 2009 is 25% while Permanent Residents form 11% of our total population and 16% of the resident population. These numbers are not huge but they are not exactly negligible either. Whether native citizens of Singapore will become the new minority in future remains to be seen; after all Singapore was created by immigrants centuries ago... though America was also created by immigrants centuries ago.
There may be lessons to learn from how America deals with this demographic situation.
The paradox in energy conservation
By Wei Seng
To conserve or not to conserve: as easy as a roll of the dice?
I have been desperately trying to catch up on current affairs and news that I missed while I was away without access to the outside world in India for almost half of March. Skimming through The Straits Times, I try to look out for interesting articles on issues that interest me, as well as issues that I could write about here. I found an article, written on 15 March (just one day after I flew off to India), with regard to a paradox that one often encounters when championing environmentalism: why is it that despite knowing that green technology can save money and energy, so little investment goes into it?
Tilak K Doshi of the Energy Studies Institute of National University of Singapore suggests several reasons, examining it from the viewpoint of an economist. Usually, economists deduce that when acting rationally, this paradox occurs if there is market failure (in terms of imperfect / lack of information about such technologies) or if "objective cost-benefit calculations" have already been done to indicate that such technologies do not really lower costs and energy consumption. However, it is also rational to suggest that because the cost of adopting these technologies "are likely to fall as the technologies become more commonplace in the future", it is better to "wait and see".
In addition, if investments in green technology cannot be recouped or if benefits cannot be reaped in the short term or tangibly, there might not be incentives to invest. The article uses the example of a house owner selling his home: if investing in energy-saving appliances would not allow him to charge more when he sells his home, why bother spending that extra money? If considering this vis-a-vis energy savings leading to lower bills, both forms of thinking make perfect sense... so how does the home owner reconcile the differences? The writer proposes "develop(ing) an audited home energy rating system to give house buyers and renters reliable information about their likely savings on energy bills", which would bridge the differences nicely.
So economics can still be applicable in solving some of these nitty-gritty problems, even though some have suggested that it is the economist's way of thinking (for instance, profit-maximisation hence resulting in the concealing of hidden costs on the environment) throughout the past century that has created the environmental problems we face today.
Nukes in the backyard
By Wei Seng
Ever seen a nuclear reactor this small?
I borrowed Fortune magazine from a friend while I was in India, and while I found The Economist more interesting compared to Fortune, this article on mini nuclear power plants in its 22 March issue caught my interest. It applies to the American context but it would be quite applicable for Singapore as well.
The writer Brian Dumaine highlights new technology that allows the construction of mini nuclear reactors underground instead of one huge reactor as is the case for most nuclear power plants in service / under construction today. Also known as "backyard nukes", they are supposedly cheaper to construct and safer. It can provide power for small / mid-sized towns (20000 homes) in America, which means that one such unit could probably also power a HDB estate in Singapore.
There is nothing much very convincing about the cheaper price tag in the article, but in terms of scale if the whole reactor unit and protection around it would just be the size of a hot tub, it would certainly be quite small scale. And supposedly it is easy to replace the whole unit when refuelling of the core needs to be done. It will be useful in Singapore given that we dont have the land (both for the plant and for buffer) available to host one single nuclear power plant, so these backyard nukes that work within our space constraints are worth considering. But no one has dared to order from the manufacturer yet... the issue of safety is quite a big question mark. It is not exactly tested yet, and chances are that smaller but more of such nuclear power units would be harder to protect than one large single reactor that can be cordoned off. And the question of nuclear waste disposal is not resolved here.
For more detailed reading, these backyard nukes have also been featured in The Christian Science Monitor and Discover magazine.