The World As I See It

At current pace of development in genome sequencing, it is conceivable that in the next decade or so, affordable technology will enable nearly everyone to learn about his/her susceptibility to certain diseases due to hereditary genes.  This is certainly a breakthrough in the medical field, where treatments can be tailored to individual’s genetic make-up.  It maximises the desired effect while minimising the side-effects.  But its impact on the industry of healthcare insurance would be less promising.

To keep premiums low, it is important to have risk-pooling at a large extent, which is the way Singapore is heading.  At the extreme there is UK’s National Health Service, where everyone is a compulsory participant.  I am not endorsing NHS in Singapore, as the cost of bureaucratic meddling could easily offset the intended benefit (low premium).

But the rationale for insurance is uncertainty and risk-pooling to begin with.  Each of us pays a small amount (or relatively small amount) in expectation that insurers will pay a big sum on the occurrence of an unlikely (or unwanted) event.  Knowledge in the link between genes and diseases greatly reduces the extent of imperfect information, and hence the extent of uncertainty, resulting in a smaller range of risk to pool - only those at the higher end.

People who have less to worry are willing to pay less in premiums, or not to buy at all.  Only those who have reason to expect a claim will buy, and are willing to pay more.  "Bad risk" people self-select into the customer pool, and premiums have to rise to accommodate higher frequency and severity of claims.  As such, "good risk" people face even less incentive to buy at higher premiums, where their money go to pay for others’ claims. Consequently premiums have to rise again and again, until the purpose of insurance is defeated. Adverse selection due to near perfect information leads to market failure in insurance, leaving customers worse off.

Whether to have genetic privacy law looks difficult.  The law is to avoid genetic discrimination by the insurers. If there is this law, we have insider information on our genes and our susceptibility to associated diseases, but our insurers don’t have. It can lead to market failure as described above. If there is no such law, insurance does not function well too. The cost can be prohibitively high for people with certain known risks, hitting those not well-to-do especially hard.

Such is the difficult impact of genome research on healthcare insurance.  As for now, I don’t favour a genetic privacy law, because the common practice of checking family history is equivalent to what genetic information is trying to reveal.

A more thorough analysis on the topic can be found in the latest issue of The Economist.

I came across Daphne’s narration of how people clog the bus door so as to be able to alight first, but ending up delaying everyone, including themselves. It immediately reflected me to the issue of distributional struggle and aggregate welfare gain.

The most glaring example is always free trade. Protectionist barriers benefit the inefficient steelmakers in the US, carmaker in Malaysia and farmers in France, Korea, the US and Japan. They remain in job. Their products can be sold at a higher price, or at a lower quality behind the tariff wall. But at what cost? This is made tenable only at the expense of consumers. The special interest group reaps the total benefit while the cost is spread across the country, such that it is still affordable to an average consumer. And we witnessed over the years to what extent these groups (or the people they mobilised) would stage violent protests in obstructing the WTO meetings to protect their turfs. Trade economists and trade negotiators are having tough jobs.

Other than import-competing industries, the special interest groups can be trade unions demanding higher than market-clearing pay, any party lobbying for subsidy, welfare beneficiaries advocating higher taxes on the rich, or the bus door crowders. They seek a larger distributional gain towards themselves, unaware that they are fighting for a larger slice of a smaller pie. Any market distortion necessarily reduces the potential gain at the maximum efficiency. As it turns out, the larger slice can be smaller than what they would get, had they stayed their course and grown a bigger pie.

To be sure, globalisation produces winners and losers. But the way forward is not to coddle the losers but to retrain the people and, if possible, prevent it - probably by education that geared towards improving employability. Here, the governments often help mitigate their short-term risks by redistributing wealth from a bigger pie (as a result of open economy). Moreover, even the benefit of a free trade between countries is often skewed. For example the US-Singapore bilateral agreement is surely more favourable to the latter. It is more of a gesture of amity for the US. For other cases, it invariably involves dispute over uneven gains.

The book "The Logic of Collective Action" by the late Mancur Olson (and his subsequent works) provides a fascinating account of the theory of groups. Also of relevance would be a commentary by Tan Khee Giap "Do the right thing, not what’s popular" (The Straits Times, 16 Jan 2007).

……………………………………………………..

My Reply to SeKi, on Nash Equilibrium:

The situation here fits, and we can think in terms of, a 2-person Prisoner’s Dilemma, where the Nash equilibrium is defect-defect while the optimal (but unstable) outcome is for both to cooperate. This optimal outcome can be achieved if there is iteration over time and communication between the parties. The tricky part is, iteration is actually sort of taking place, where the people witness for themselves everyday the outcome of their clogging the door. Perhaps the cause is a lack of communication between the passengers.

In free trade, WTO is the arena where countries engage each other in negotiations, so that everyone brings down their tariffs, so that everyone enjoys the fruits of division of labour. However, a problem of WTO is that it is too democratic, as in each country has a veto. A single recalcitrant player can literally hold the progress of the whole world. Frustrated by the slow movers, we see the flourish of bilateral and regional free trade agreements as a second best, to bypass the cumbersome process.

Economic conditions and policies affect everyone. I wonder why not everyone takes economics in their studies. And since most of us do not study economics, why are there so many who are so ready to comment on the economic affairs and criticise the policies? Don’t they have a single bit of worrisome that their rants turn out to be untrue and superficial, that in the process they reveal merely a deficiency of understanding? Perhaps the usual large camp of vociferous peers at their side helps assuage this insecurity.

The only answer one could surmise is most people see economics as a simple discipline. Even a postdoctoral study in it would bring us where common sense would lead us to. But the truth is "economics is a difficult and technical subject but nobody will believe it", quoted from J.M. Keynes. We can imagine how thankless the job and how hard the position is for a well-informed and well-intentioned government. For any unfavourable announcement, the public almost always does not want to listen and does not believe in the government’s explanations, but wants to make noises that are non sequitur (to an expert). Paul Krugman, for long in his writings, has been attempting "to explode some plausible-sounding idea that happens to be false or to promote some implausible, disturbing idea that happens to be true", and in the end has managed to make enemies. I remember reading about the uproar he ignited by answering "none" to a question about North American Free Trade Agreement’s effect on the US employment.

My point is, economic conclusions can be counter-intuitive. The most commonly cited would be Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage. On this, Krugman wrote a long essay explaining why many smart people don’t understand it and are not ashamed of their failure.

"Like any scientific concept it is actually part of a dense web of linked ideas. A trained economist looks at the simple Ricardian model and sees a story that can be told in a few minutes; but in fact to tell that story so quickly one must presume that one’s audience understands a number of other stories… and you continually find yourself obliged to backtrack, realizing that yet another proposition you thought was obvious actually isn’t."

So, good leaders are criticised for policies that look "stupid and suicidal" (i.e. for how they go about running the economy), which the public does not approve of. Bad leaders are criticised for unsatisfactory economic outcomes, which the public also does not approve of.

………………………………………………

PS: I am not saying that it is wrong for the public to make noise. But it is tricky when the rabble-rousers do not really know what they are noising about. Any sensible explanation is rendered useless at such moment. Emotional hightide overwhelms the most basic logic. I presume, in the first place, we vote for leaders whom we believe could lead the country, not for their ability to follow the crowd in areas that require expertise e.g. economic planning, foreign policy, law, intelligence and security matters. Thus the proper stance in facing dubious policies should be of questioning, not of teaching the experts. Likewise, an enlightened government would conduct consultations with the professionals from their respective fields before the release of a policy, e.g. Singapore and Hong Kong.

………………………………………………

Excerpts from Poypips’s Comment, on Time Horizon:

"when someone does good which has negative short-term effects for greater benefits in the future, people start filling the streets shouting… people do have tendencies to be short-sighted… When a doctor tells you to undergo surgery, you don’t tell him ‘Go to hell, surgery hurts. Give me a treatment that I’ll enjoy.’ "

That’s right. One of the problems in making economics clear to people is time horizon. We see, hear and feel the immediate short-term pain. Any long-term gain is unbeknownst to us. And we tend to say the economists live in their theoretical world, when in fact they are the ones who see the "real" reality. Economics does not promise instant wealth, but ensures that seeds of success are sown. That’s why a well-informed and well-intentioned government is treading on eggs. They have a hard task ahead on persuasion. An irresponsible politician would just pick the easier path by pleasing voters now, at the expense of society’s future well-being — injecting sweet poison instead of bitter pill.

Often we see the phrases "widening income gap", "income disparity", and "rising Gini coefficient", but never do we see it referred to as injustice. This is because capitalism is a fair system. Justice essentially is equal opportunity to earn income, not equal income. Those who are more creative, more hardworking, and willing to take more risks are unquestionably rightful to expect more rewards, and to reap all the benefits realised. Likewise, the indolent receives naught. This is just. But the end result of this unfettered capitalism is inevitably extreme income inequality, which as standard economic theory tells us would achieve the highest efficiency gains for the society as a whole, which partly explains its nickname as the dismal science. Among the players, there are winners and losers, but the society as a whole is better off.

We normally measure not our absolute well-being (as in how we fare compared to our predecessors or other countries over time) but relative well-being (relative to our peers, our surroundings). We feel unfair and being left behind to see the affluents in our community, regardless of the improvement from the time of our parents to ours. And governments have to perform outright ransom on the rich to redistribute resources to the poor (i.e. those undeserved) so that everyone enjoys the same benefits (same schools, healthcare, public service etc), to quell the poor’s disquiet. Moreover, we often too readily disregard one of the main losers in this system - the unsuccessful capitalists who have taken risks and failed. The uninformed critics are wholly concerned with how filthy rich the high-flyers are, conveniently ignoring the other side. Therefore, economic growth alone is unstable (though people’s material lives are getting better) and the governments are mandated to orchestrate unjust redistributive programmes (often seen as just) to maintain social order - the so-called "growth-with-equity" model. A corollary is that the rich are already under a compulsory and massive charity scheme. Please think twice in our accusation of them as selfish misers.

The modern system is tilted downward in the income scale. It favours the lower-income group. Those in this group ought to realise that it is their privileges, not their rights, to enjoy the welfare, amenities, benefits and living standards beyond their means which are funded by the rich. They must be appreciative of the largesse not earned by them. Those who abhor this statement can reinvigorate a socialist system, so that everyone is poor and their incomes are nearly equal, and witness for yourself where your definition of justice which does not reward hardwork/risk-taking leads you to. To those who are ready to throw out examples of someone getting rich due not to his diligence but connection or corruption, please note that you are fighting the wrong enemy. Capitalism is not your bull’s eye. It is the politics of it, which exists in all systems.

Note that I am dealing with the idea of justice per se, not with the virtue of embedded liberalism (Ruggie 1982) nor with the demand in an open economy for social transfers to mitigate short-term risk of dislocations due to exposure to external risks (Rodrik 1998; Garrett 2001).

…………………………………………………….

Garrett, Geoffrey (2001), "Globalization and Government Spending around the World", Studies in Comparative International Development, 35/4:3-29.

Rodrik, Dani (1998), "Why Do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?", Journal of Political Economy, 106/5:997-1032.

Ruggie, John Gerard (1982), "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order", International Organization, 36/2:379-415.

…………………………………………………….

My reply to Adrian:

The importance of wealth distribution is such a common knowledge that one is embarrassed to re-mention. I am not saying that it is inconsequential, rather the gist of my writing is to remind us that this is in fact unfair, as opposed to the public view. And I want the beneficiaries to be appreciative, instead of regarding the kindness of government as their rights. As mentioned, the issue of wealth distribution and well-being in this sense have an emotional appeal, and it so easily blinds our reasoning of justice.

…………………………………………………….

My reply to James:

I thought I am being sufficiently clear that I am not opposed to any form of wealth redistribution. In fact, I champion it. Pure capitalism is unsustainable, and I don’t propose to run it.

The crux of my argument is that we often interpret justice as injustice, and injustice as justice. Income inequality does not come necessarily with injustice. But to maintain social stability, wealth redistribution is indispensable. And the recipients should be aware that they are receiving benefits not earned by them, and to be appreciative of the kindness. Cronyism, lobby groups are not specific to capitalism. I am tired of reiterating it’s not the fault of capitalism. This pattern will exist in whatever system.

On 2nd point, Edmund Phelps made a similar remark too in his article in Wall Street Journal titled "Dynamic Capitalism" on 10 Oct, one day after he received Nobel Prize. The example given is the least advantaged do not have access to quality education. Their opportunities are not that equal. We can see how Singapore attempts to counter it over the yrs, by heavy subsidy + loan to make sure no one forgoes schooling for financial reason.

Again in your 3rd point, in the same way, to think of socialism (or whatever system) as fair is to be a puppet in their game as well. Capitalism is not what u are criticising, it’s the politics, which exists in all frameworks. We can only design incentive structures to minimise the problems.

In the case of job application, I perceive the ideal form of the interviewer side to comprise both HR and the immediate supervisor of the vacancy. Both could have an interest in promoting the organisation’s well-being by attending to the shortfall in the workforce, but inherently a conflict of interest tears them apart. By putting them together in the same interview, it is more likely a balance of interest can be reached in the selection process.

Left alone to HR, they would employ the best talent that fits into the company, but may not work well with the supervisor. Left alone to the supervisor, he may opt for the second or third best that fits into HIM – one that is no brighter than him and thus less threatening to him – at the expense of the organisation.

……………………………………………………

My reply to Steve:

Steve, what I set out here are general statements. Of course we still allow for the emergence of special circumstances. But in making a general rule, as in the case of a conservative budgetary forecast or economic policy and legislation making, it is a matter of prudence to take the assumption of a reasonably pessimistic view, so that if situation gets better, it is automatically taken care of, thus sparing the complication of a policy response or review. This is more commonly known as "err on the cautious side".

In the case here, if we have a competent HR (which is assumed to be impartial anyway, as they hire on behalf of the organisation) and a self-interested supervisor, then there exists a conflict of interest as stated, and I propose to put them together. On the other extreme, if we have a competent HR and a selfless Level 5 supervisor, then their interests just converge to the company’s interest - it makes no difference to have either HR or the supervisor, or both.

I acknowledge the top management of a great company has to be Level 5 leaders, who adore talents, to sustain its greatness. But it appears too optimistic to me to assume a similar case for its subsequent levels of supervisors. The companies thus are better off to prepare themselves with a counter, in case the conflict of interest happens at all.

My point is, in general the interviewers should consist of both HR and the immediate supervisor.

The first thing, I was not saying that corruption is good. Of course efficiency is at the maximum, ceteris paribus, when corruption level is negligible. I was avoiding being too idealistic. It is better to have a corrupted graft-tolerant leader who understands the working of an economy and implement policies in a right direction than a saint-like moralist who actually demolishes the economy when he thinks he is building it. You want an ideal leader - an uncorrupted man with proper development knowledge. You also want a sweet situation where we can raise most of the money internally for tremendous growth with minimal foreign debt when the starting point of the country was so low. In my view (and in Singapore’s experience), we grow the economic pie first, let the people make money, afford their basic needs, and we tackle the equity problems afterwards - one of them being eliminating corruption. But instead, you turned around and said that I only have textbook knowledge with no regard to the real world happenings. I was speechless.

Is there a textbook advocating what I said? Do you ever see in a textbook: under some circumstances we should tolerate some level of corruption? No! But does it render textbooks useless in the real world? A BIG NO!!! My point is that, those who espouse textbook principles are not necessarily impractical, and that I have covered much more accounts of real country experiences than you have and am likely to be much more practical in evaluating policies than you think you are. Textbooks expound ideal cases and widely-accepted wisdoms, you and I know this. The reason for them being labelled as accepted is because they are backed by, firstly, solid theoretical foundation and, secondly, by innumerable undisputable country experiences over time. Isn’t it obvious if we design policies and run a country as close to a textbook situation as possible, we can reap the greatest benefit? Look at how economic principles have guided Singapore through miraculous development. In my view, it is rather close to your ideal - a clean and strong leader, with his remarkable economic advisers comprising Dr Goh Keng Swee, who recruited Goh Chok Tong, Professor Lim Chong Yah and Albert Winsemius from the United Nations, to name a few, as the architects of Singapore’s economy.  I still fail to figure out what makes you see textbooks as irrelevant to the world we live in.

Incidentally, It reminds me of your country’s unripe condition for democracy. If the median voter is one with the understanding at your level, it is likely the election is going to vote out a much needed leader. And voters are bringing the nation to collective suicide. But of course that is a harsh assumption. I should not presuppose the general situation of the people when I have totally no knowledge on it. And you are still young, it is just natural that you still do not possess the field of vision. You may ask, what makes me think I am more superior. Yes, unashamedly among my peers, I am aware of the gap in scope and depth on the issues of development and underdevelopment, and of running a country. But I am also aware that I still have a lot a lot a lot to learn. That’s why you don’t see me discuss these issues with friends. I usually smile away or joke around when someone opines a view. And many do have a disturbing penchant for voicing views vociferously on economic policies to expose their low level of understanding. I have grown wiser not to debate with those who are even perplexed by such basic statements like "The freest markets are the most well-regulated ones", "Fast growth inevitably brings inflation problem", "Productivity growth is the fundamental determinant of living standard" etc. Often they would request for explanation from the first principle, which should happen in a lecture hall, not a debate. One that does not have adequate knowledge and does not have self-awareness to realise this does not know what he talks. They think you move from your own assumption to another when in fact you are stating other researchers’ well-known conclusions - conclusions from mountains of empirical evidence. And you see I treat my discussion with Professor Lim Chong Yah differently, seriously, studiously. I only share my knowledge with you, my peer, because I see you as worthy of an enlightenment effort in the first place.

Finally, one of your remarks "Do you think, because of your Minor in Economics, you are more knowledgeable than I am in this area?" The mere question reveals our different paths towards our education. Crudely, you regard the syllabus as a constraint while I see it as a door to further research - which partly explains my total disregard for grades. So my answer to that question is "No, I don’t think because of my Minor in Economics, I am more knowledgeable than a layman in economics", not because I am not a Major in Economics, nor a Professor in Economics, but because the title to me is only a name, a form. What I care about is the substance. I read the modules for the big picture, for the knowledge that I can gain as a first step to read other researchers’ works, to engage in fruitful discussions, to further understand the real world issues - NOT FOR EXAM. And since you have already known my approach to my education (as opposed to schooling), it puzzled me that you still asked me this question.

State Building (Fukuyama, 2004) is a small but enlightening book. I read it in 2 days. It pertains to the understanding of difficulties in transferring institutional capacity to the weak or failed states, such as East Timor, Kosovo, Bosnia, and now Afghanistan and Iraq

In line with my previous topic, the new conventional wisdom prioritises administrative institutional effectiveness over the scope of state i.e. whether the state is too big, whether it operates a national steel mill / national health insurance etc. The author contrasted the small US government (that provides mostly pure public goods e.g. national defence, law and order, private property rights, macroeconomic management) with those of extensive governments in Japan and Europe, where all perform equally well.

Just after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, I used to be asked a lot: "What do these ex-communist states have to do in order to become market economies?" And I used to say: "You can describe that in three words: privatize, privatize, privatize." But, I was wrong. That wasn’t enough. It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic than privatization. – Milton Friedman, Preface to Economic Freedom of the World Report 2002

The first thing in teaching developing countries to govern better is to create a domestic demand for institutions. Thereafter we can talk about its supply. However, only the organisational design and management component of institutional capacity is highly transferable. This is what the public administration schools can provide to serve the world. Institutional design and basis of legitimation of a country, though of high importance, rarely change - only in extreme cases. Lastly it is virtually impossible to meddle with the social and cultural factors of a society. Hence the author emphasised frequently on respecting local norms in the outsiders’ efforts.

And we have the monitoring problems (principal-agent, for those familiar with the technicalities), where we would demand transparency and accountability from government officials. Areas that have low transaction volume with high specificity, such as central banking, do not permit a high degree of variance according to local conditions and are the most susceptible to reform, where (to quote the author) "ten bright technocrats can be air-dropped into a developing country and bring about massive changes for the better in public policy". On the other hand, areas with high transaction volume and low specificity are the hardest to reform. Public education, law and order and healthcare are clear examples. Since the public output is not immediately measurable, project managers will need a high degree of discretion in decision making (less monitored) and good judgement to grasp the subtleties.

In giving aid to poor countries, we should always keep in mind our purpose of building institutional capacities. When administering drugs for AIDS, we bring in local officials, use local hospitals, beef up the logistics and provide training, instead of bypassing local means to provide the service ourselves. We should tolerate the inefficient initial processes as it is akin to the logic of "teach fishing, not give away fish". Creating and strengthening self-sustaining institutions before hyping about exit strategy, just as the coalition forces’ priorities now in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as the legacy of British system in Singapore and Hong Kong.

State building is important in today’s context, as weak states pose security problems not only to themselves but far beyond their shores (Sept 11). Perhaps it is advisable to keep an eye on the countries with declining per capita GDP and growing number of unemployed young men. Nonetheless, it is by no means a full view of development theory. A more comprehensive one that I come across is the [EGOIN + circular cumulative causation + S-curve] theory proposed by Professor Lim Chong Yah. State building constitutes the G (Government) of EGOIN, which is the most crucial component.

Those who are interested to further read can have a look at Chapter III "Building Institutions" of World Economic Outlook Sept 2005.

In a very interesting Chapter 2 "Economic Freedom and Peace" of Economic Freedom of the World (2005 Report) by Fraser Institute, Professor Eric Gartzke challenged the notion of democratic peace, arguing for the case of capitalist peace – quite a food for thought. We have an illusion of democratic peace merely because democracies typically have freer economies than authoritarian states. Expanding trade flows in a free market is a more direct cause for peace.

Free-flowing capital markets and other aspects of globalisation simultaneously draw nations together and raise the economic price of military conflict. Promoting open international markets - that is, spreading capitalism - is the best means to encourage peace as well as prosperity. If market critics don’t realise the obvious economic and philosophical value of markets - prosperity and freedom - they should appreciate the unintended peace dividend. Trade encourages prosperity and stability; technological innovation reduces the financial value of conquest; globalisation creates economic interdependence, increasing the cost of war. – The Straits Times, 9 Nov 2005 commentary

Professor Eric Gartzke is not indicating that democracy is valueless. He is examining the causality of political and economic factors to peace. It follows that apart from spreading the virtues of democracy by the West, they can do more to the world by encouraging more free trade. But what do we see in the recent events leading to next month’s WTO ministerial conference in Hong Kong? The most advanced countries are in a deadlock in making concessions to open up their economies, particularly in agricultural and service sectors, as well as in trade facilitation process. The protectionist sentiment in EU and US is clearly demonstrated by their recent agreements with China to limit the huge influx of lowly-priced textile imports for the next few years, on top of an adjustment period of 10 years since last decade. The left hand is undoing what its right hand does, when the West promotes democracy worldwide while at the same time restricting market access of developing countries.

To me, the effectiveness of a government is more crucial in lifting the standard of living and performance than its liberal/authoritarian inclination. We have seen how reform agendas in democratic India are bogged down by its left wing of coalitional government and its bureaucratic red tape. This is in stark contrast to its highly centralised communist neighbour, China, with its sizzling economic growth. China has long abandoned its communist’s central-planned economy to adopt a market economy but politically retained its communist features. The governmental effectiveness in implementing policies is the propellant of growth though I totally agree that the recent release of whitepaper on democracy development in China by the Chinese government is a disgrace to the concept of democracy when in fact it is talking about the absence of it. Their priority for the years ahead is to catch up with the advanced countries economically. They still have a long way to go to establish a healthy political climate such as civil liberty.

That is the problem of your bureaucracy [Japan]. Your coordination is much more complicated than the Chinese. So, the Chinese make moves very quickly because they are very centralised. The leaders decide and all the ministries agree — trade, industry, environment all quickly agree. So, the Asean-China free trade agreement is going off; whereas you have so many problems. Your farmers, your agriculture, your this, your that. So, it drags on. – Interview with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew by Yomiuri Shimbun, 26 July 2005

Incidentally, in the same interview – "So, in Indonesia, when the Bandung Conference was over, there was an official visit by the President Hu Jintao who proposed a strategic partnership. They know the Indonesians want roads, bridges, container ports. They are ready.  They’ve got enormous building capacity, large numbers of engineers and skilled workers and so on. We will do this, this and this. What do they want? Oil, gas, palm oil, whatever they have. So, it’s very good deals. Japan is in a different position. You don’t want all that. Yes, you want oil and the gas, but otherwise, you don’t really need that much raw materials from Indonesia. What you want is good relations and their market. What they want from you is technology, middle technology to upgrade their workers, but to do that they must have stability so that they can invest and get returns. They must put down terrorism and instability." Isn’t this a testament for capitalist peace?

In my view, in the initial process of economic transformation, a more or less authoritative government is often needed to inject bitter pill in the society to push through the economic agenda as most people will resist it because normal folks tend not be able to see the long term gains. After the growth is on track, the government can reduce its presence and directions to let the market chart its own course. In my impression, the West achieved their today’s state of democracy only after their economic revolutions, e.g. the 1 man 1 vote regardless of race and sex in the US was only a recent event in the past decades. Correct me please if I am wrong.

Umno Youth head Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein [who is also the Education Minister] said the appointment of a foreigner to lead a nationally-owned company could be likened to allowing the country to be recolonized, albeit in a new manner. "Don’t look at it purely from the commercial aspect but we should look at the bigger agenda, that is the Malay Agenda." - Malaysian News Agency BERNAMA

Amid the ongoing spat of whether to let MAS and PROTON appoint a foreigner (more precisely a non-Malay) to the post of CEO, thanks to Mr Lim Kit Siang, a Malaysia opposition lawmaker, I have just learned that up to 2003 Singapore Airlines (a government-linked company, highly regarded worldwide) was run by a foreigner for 29 years. The foreigner is a MALAYSIAN CHINESE Dr. Cheong Choong Kong, who was picked by Fortune magazine as Asia’s Businessman of the Year in 1998, for SIA’s ability in having an "unbroken 27-year record of profitability through turbulent economic times". At the heart of the debate is discomfort over questions of race.

An editorial in The Sun Newspaper argued that "the priority is not the nationality, race or sex of the CEO. We must simply pick the right person for the job, a person who for the sake of Malaysian taxpayers can help set MAS on a course of sustained profitability. If it is a Malaysian, good. If it is a foreigner, so be it".

"The UMNO youth proposal for the NEP revival is short-sighted for it can only drive the potential Cheong Choong Kongs from our shores." - Lim Kit Siang

"In a way, we are a good neighbour to many countries because we diligently practise ‘prosper thy neighbour’ policy by directly or indirectly encouraging many of our talented citizens to leave the country to serve other nations. Besides palm oil, petroleum, and other products, Malaysia generously exports trained citizens - citizens prized by other nations but intentionally discarded by its own motherland." - Malaysiakini

In view of the coming Teachers’ Day Celebration (1st September), the Anderson Junior College Alumni Association (AJCAA) would like to… in dedicating a ‘Book of Memories’, where you would include your words of thanks, compliments and dedication to the Teachers or any specific Teacher in mind. We believe our teachers would be really pleased to know how much we value them in our minds and hearts.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Name:           LOH YI ZHENG

Batch:           CLASS 04/01

Teacher:      MR. ANG SWEE CHOON

Words of Dedication:

I owe very much of my current level of knowledge, particularly political science related, to Mr. Ang. He provided the spark to kickstart my fervent pursuance of wisdom in many areas. His demonstration of analytical power and high-level perspective in dissecting current issues and various topics greatly influenced my way of thinking. Even now, I still benefit a great deal from the discussions with him. His incisive mind, dedication to education, thought-provoking teaching style, open and encouraging manner are no doubt a valuable asset of Singapore’s education.

I would like to express my utmost gratitude to Mr. Ang. He is certainly among the most important figures in my youth development years. Thank you for bringing me to the bigger world.