So How Did I Do With My 2011 Predictions?

With the benefit of hindsight, here is a review of my predictions for 2011. So how did I do? 6 points out of 10.

(1) "Britain lurches into a recession in early 2011 - and possibly bringing Europe into one.......The Coalition government's cuts will - on hindsight - be seen to be foolhardy."

Largely spot on, apart from the timing, which would be late 2011 or early 2012. (1 point)

(2) "Barack Obama finds himself (still) popular - ..........This is the bedrock that propels him to a second term. The world will also concludes that he remains the best they can expect and deals with him on that basis".

Still polling largely at 45 +/- 2. The point was about the core resilience in Obama's electoral prowess. As employment picture improves, the ceiling would also lift to the high 40s or low 50s. I still see a second Obama inauguration on Jan 20, 2013 - and people complaining how poorly it compare to the first one. (1 point)

(3) "Global economies in steady and sustainable recovery ......... The only road bumps are self-inflicted (see Britain above)".

Largely correct despite fears of a double-dip and the Eurozone crisis from summer onwards. 2012 will depend on how quickly Europe can get its political will together and how quickly China can prime its fiscal pumps. (1 point)

(4) "Green technology undergoes a breakthrough.......... a combination of national competition, strategic government-led investments in science, internet-speed linkages and collaboration, market forces from demands in the emerging markets esp. China and India and China's manufacturing prowess that lowers costs.

Strangely, the breakthrough was actually in polysilicon prices which is down 95% due to breakneck competition from over-supply of manufacturing capacity in China. (Half point)

(5) "China makes quiet moves towards internal democracy".

Anything but. If there is any, I have not heard of it. (Zero point.)

(6) "Water replaces CO2 as the environmental issues of the day ........Structural changes in the supply and demand of water in Middle-east, India, North-China, Southwest US and Australia will trigger a new global crisis and consciousness about living with less water......".

Small signs but nothing like that yet. (Zero point)

(7) "Asians are the new Westerners - After 200 years, Asians will be considered the global elite".

True, if you count the high-end buyers of real estate and red wine. (Quarter point)

(8) "Gas becomes competitive with oil".

Amazingly, with the production of shale and other unconventional gas, gas prices are now the much cheaper than oil if you are in North America and has access to pipelines. With rapidly increasing reserves worldwide, the race is on to make gas more transportable either in gaseous or liquid forms to market. (1 point)

(9) "Turkey joins BRIC and emerges as an economic powerhouse that Europe finds increasingly difficult to ignore but equally hard to embrace. Turkey forms the new nucleus of influence to be reckon with that stretches from Eastern Europe to Central Asia and the Levantian Middle East.".

With 8.5% growth in Turkey for 2011 and its emergence as the political and economic model for the Arab Spring, yes Turkey is a new powerhouse. (1 point)

(10) "America gets transformed - again - by its army of new Asian and Hispanic immigrants ................"

In progress. The demographic story is compelling but transformation will be apparent only on hindsight. (quarter point)

Harvard, A Pen Portrait. Part One: The Students

Harvard students are overachieving, intelligent, and supremely confident. I always thought that Georgetown students had a “spark” or "buzz" of energy around them, but they pale in comparison with the folks from Harvard.

If there one thing you learn in your first few days here, it is this: Harvard Is Elitist. There is no other way to put it. At the welcoming ceremony for new graduate students, the president of the university told us, "You are all here for a reason. We want you to be here. You are the best in the world"; not in those exact words, but with that exact striking bluntness. While speaking with my academic adviser about my future plans, including careers (as I don't think I want to jump into a PhD immediately) he said in a throwaway manner, "You know, for any big prestigious company, just being in Harvard is enough. Harvard is the Gatekeeper, the standard." This attitude still somewhat stuns me (and to be frank I'm still not very comfortable with it), but it permeates all levels of Harvard society, from the professors down to the undergrads.

Language classes, given their natural leanings towards open discussion, are a good way of taking the pulse of an institution. I am studying advanced Chinese here, and in class I hear students say things like "People from other schools have to worry about finding jobs, but not us!" and "Harvard teaches us critical thinking skills that other places don't!" My teacher once said "有一流的大学，可是哈佛可以算是超一流的大学！”; the scary thing was, everyone nodded in agreement.

Given that Harvard students truly believe that they are Number One, they do not show school spirit; you know you are the best, so why bother shout about it? Why bother letting the riff-raff know? Georgetown people were very upfront about proclaiming their pride in their school. I always felt that Georgetown had a certain sense of insecurity around it. Although my former undergraduate institution is indeed a highly prestigious school, Georgetown students usually carry with them the knowledge that they are not in the Ivy League, hence their need to “overcompensate”. Harvard students, on the other hand, are so confident in their knowledge that they are the best (or that the rest of the country considers them to be the best), that they don't feel the need to advertise their love for their school.

As a Master's student, I am in the unique position of floating somewhere between the PhDs and the undergrads. I get the best of both worlds; I can observe both the maturity, passion and professionalism of the PhD students (who, although they do not have the hyperactivity of the undergrads, are a highly formidable bunch in their own right) as well as the boundless energy and ambition of the undergrads. Harvard's admissions committee is excellent at parsing talent (and are probably no mental lightweights themselves), as all the students I have met here are absolutely top-notch. (Unfortunately, I do not have any interaction with the Law School and Business School students, as they live in worlds completely separate from the School of Arts and Sciences, which I am affiliated with.)

The undergrads, with their irrepressible energy and hyperactive personalities, are truly the stars of the university. They are extreme overachievers, juggling fifteen or more different things at the same time and subsisting on four hours of sleep a night. They talk as if they have so much going through their minds that they cannot wait to get it all out, and they talk really fast; relaxation does not come easily to them.

To succeed as a Harvard undergraduate, you obviously need good grades. However, this is merely the minimum requirement. At Harvard, you are judged not merely by your academic ability, but by your other activities as well. A successful undergraduate will have straight As in all her classes, but will also be the president/founder of an NGO helping poor children in Columbia and have string of prestigious internships lined up at various financial firms. However, you also need a passion of some sort. It does not matter what it is; it can be rowing, fencing, Chinese politics, Bolivian cuisine, or preserving forests in the wastelands of Siberia. Furthermore, you must follow through on your passion. Given all this, one wonders how these people find time to eat and sleep. The pressure comes not from the classes or the professors, but rather from each other.

There is a strong calendar culture here; Harvard students schedule everything going on in their lives. If you want to arrange lunch with an undergraduate, you literally need to make an appointment and hope that they can find time in their lives to fit you in (I can personally attest to having experienced this). I have had the misfortune of peeking at some of their calendars and they are overflowing with meetings, conferences, club activities and sports events. Oh, and classes too.

(The big exception to the “intense overachiever” rule is if an undergrad manages to join a “Finals Club”. These clubs are gatherings of the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful, and their friends whom they induct into their group. They party all night (and day) and never do any work, but given their connections can land any job in the world. They all become millionaires by the age of thirty; it is rumored that if you aren’t rich by then, the club will give you a million dollars so as to maintain the position of being a rich man’s clique).

This is not to speak lowly of Harvard's graduate students; they are smart and highly dedicated, as well as passionate about what they are studying. They are much more relaxed in comparison to the undergraduates, and seem to have “normal” energy levels. Nonetheless, they carry with them the Harvard traits of supreme passion for their chosen fields as well as a strong sense of confidence. They will become the world’s academic and scientific superstars.

I have also observed that the graduate student body is much more international than the undergraduate one, which is mostly American. There is a large proportion of Chinese graduate students, especially in the sciences and East Asian Studies. This clearly demonstrates one of the main strengths of America; many of these grad students will choose to settle and raise their children here, thus contributing further to the melting pot that is the United States. America’s ability to draw the best from all around the world will help fuel its status as a dominant power for years to come, and institutions like Harvard play a huge role in this.

So, these are Harvard students. One day, they will rule our world. (And be our bosses). Most days, I go about my daily business without thinking about it, but sometimes, when walking through Harvard Yard, I take the time to look at the students passing by. I then ask myself, “How many Bill Gates’s, Mark Zuckerbergs, Barack Obamas, Natalie Portmans and Yo Yo Ma’s are here with me right now?”

The thought still scares me, which is why I try not to think about it too much.

Rethinking Futuristic

Today we went to a beautiful beach - Robert Moses State Beach on Fire Island. It is a place of long white sand, deep blue Atlantic, sand dunes in the breeze, lighthouse in the back and bright-white sunlight everywhere. It's like inside a Ralph Lauren ad.

The sand was pristine. The beach was well-cared for with life guards and police on sand buggies. There was a shower facility, cafeteria and large car park. I was content to pay the $10 per car to be there.

The route there was across a really long bridge and causeway. It is mind boggling to compare the cost of building the bridge with the benefit of reaching the beaches and a few beach front communities.

But back then, in the 50s/60s when those infrastructure - the freeways and bridges - were first built, America was loaded and people then felt great civic works like that was the future.

Elsewhere on Long Island was the typical habitat of the American dream. There were the malls and the big boxes retailers (enormous out of town stores). There were the corporate parks with squat and glassed-over offices. From the air (as I happen to be having flying experience on a small plane), I saw thousands of suburban homes most with swimming pools glistening in the back yard; and a few with waterfront and boats tied up alongside. There were boats and yachts. And gleaming cars and car show rooms. Everything was flat and take up a lot of space - enormous flat freeways with huge center dividers, flat buildings, flat strip malls, multiplexes and parking lots. The whole place groaned with the image of the consumer lifestyle.

For a very long time, when people think of modernity and the future that is what they see. First, the fruits of science and modern industry; and then the good life of comfort and ease - with the Americans showing the way.

2 hours later, after returning the rental car in Queens, I decided to walk the last few blocks to the subway down Jackson Heights. Walking along the bustling streets felt really different from being on the bus. All along the way, I could smell all kinds of cooking from the Hispanic restaurants and read the menus. I walked pass and hear the salsa music coming out of the dance clubs. Afternoons are not too early for dance clubs apparently.

So happen there was a gay parade or street party, so there were many colorful characters everywhere. Just around the corner and on the next parallel street is Little India - with sari shops, Bollywood DVD shops, the Indian supermarket (named, what else but, Patel Brothers) and a plethora of halal meat shops. Women in hijab sashayed passed by lesbian couples. Nobody even blinked twice. Everyone co-exist and mingled a few hundred feet apart.

I reflected on the meaning of future, modern and civilization.

People around the world wish for the comfort and lifestyle of ease and plenty - and see that as the epitome of modern lifestyle and socio-economic progress. In many places now, one can find much that are newer, faster and more technologically advanced than anything in America.

But after finding a clean public beach amidst an open (largely) unspoiled coast an hour from the city, well-cared for by lifeguards, opened equally to all members of public (not just the few) and enjoyed with civility and respect ... And then finding the spirit of tolerance and diversity among immigrants who originate from cultures half-the-world apart; I realized those simple things are something that cannot be bought, or measured by per capita GDP, or judged by statistics, or the shown-off like a gleaming downtown or lapped up like the latest hip-and-happening hang-out.

Indeed, I would speculate that what is truly - boldly and wonderfully - futuristic in today’s global world are whatever the values that honors the environment; that connects different people with each other and with their true spirit and with nature; and that meets the differences amongst peoples only with tolerance.

Why Southeast Asia should pay attention to PAP and Singapore

Not often one could feel excited about Asian politics, especially Southeast Asian politics - but Singapore is a cause for revisiting that notion. Not because of the May 7 election and what it did to the PAP, but I am excited because of PAP's response (so far) and the lessons it can perhaps hold for the rest of Southeast Asia.

Compared to its economic and social progress, Southeast Asian politics has at best been stuck at a stand-still over the past decades. Some places actually regressed. There are very few cases where one saw progress in the past 30 years, Indonesia being one of those rare cases and even then, Indonesia today is hardly a role model. In most countries, the political scene is one of cynicism and disenfranchisement - the only difference is a matter of degree: i.e. whether the disenfranchisement is with the ruling parties (e.g., Malaysia) or with the entire political class (e.g., Thailand). The symptoms are rampant corruption, erosion of national institutions, elevation of political interests over the national interest, increased social division and general deterioration in the quality of governance.

The outcome is usually a rapture from the past either through the ballot box, a coup or violence; when the people got fed up and demanded any kind of change. Right now, in many Southeast Asian countries the people want change and are willing to try for change even if it is doubtful they would get something good in the end. The nation and the political system usually got weaker as a result, not stronger while the quality of government (or even the democratic process itself) generally head downhill. Witness how successive "revolutions" or "changes" in Thailand and the Philippines - a group that arguably can be extended to Taiwan and Japan - led to paralysis instead of national rejuvenation. Indonesia and South Korea fare better but I do not profess to know the reason.

I believe what is missing is the political maturing process. As income level grows and society changes, there is need for some necessary but difficult adult conversations to take place between the political establishment (single party or more parties) and the people to agree on their common national values, on what constitutes good government and to renew the political contract. The key word is "adult" because in most Southeast Asian countries the political class often treat themselves as adults and the people as children, and no conversation as equals could take place.

Enter Singapore. A fortnight after the May 7 elections, many aspects of what I had written in the aftermath is happening at great speed. Instead of holding on to the past, the PAP is trying its best to engage in that conversation with its citizens. The response could so easily be sour sulking, dark threats, denial or dirty tricks but they chose the high road - and I believe it is the right one. The jury is still out but kudos to the PAP for being smart enough to know that, even with their track record, its past is no longer enough and, more importantly, has the humility and courage to embrace the change. Any exercise in self-improvement (or rebranding) is quite risky because the outcomes could please no one while disappointing everyone. These are still early days but the PAP is earning my respect for taking the Singaporean people seriously, treating them as adults, as citizens and with respect.

Many countries would kill for the kind of clean, (largely) competent government that cares about the national interest that Singapore have long taken for granted from the PAP. But by having this crucial conversation with its citizens, Singapore is poised - if it succeeds - to move to the next level of what it means to be a good government in an Asian society and set an example that will be watched closely by the rest of Asia.

The key is - using the contractual analogy - instead of a yes or no answer to the question whether to renew the social contract, there is need for a good faith renegotiation to adjust the contract terms. For this to succeed, both sides must behave in a mature and responsible manner. Until now, there are no good models to follow. Is the enlightened autocracy model doomed with time? Probably. Is a Western style multi-party democracy the only way to go? But how well is this working out in Asia? Being in Southeast Asia how do you protect against racist, tribal or feudal divisions? Is an consensual oligarchy/managed democracy better suited for Asia? Well, that didn't work too well in Japan. How about a highly stable system that allows change of ruling parties but maintain a certain national consensus (like in many smaller European or Scandinavian countries?) - may be, but how do you get there in a multi-racial and dynamic Asian society?

These are important questions that have implications for the rest of Southeast Asia and I do not know of any good answers. The PAP are the region's ace students when it comes to solving tricky questions and moreover, as much as a political party could, they actually want to be a good government. I am glad they are sitting for this exam and I, for one, am looking forward to learning about their answers.

For a start, I reproduced below PM Lee's recent speech during the swearing in of the new cabinet, where he stated the new PAP's intentions for the years to come.

------------------------

We have just gone through a watershed general election. Almost all the seats were contested, for the first time in decades. Many Singaporeans were voting for the first time. Singapore has entered a new phase in its political development.

In a rapidly changing world, Singapore is evolving too. Our economy has developed, and our society is changing: from the retirees who experienced our independence struggles in the 1960s, to the generation which grew up with the rapid economic growth of the 1980s, to the teenagers of the 2000s who have never known a world without the Internet. Each successive generation has different life experiences. They see our history differently, view current social issues from their own perspective, and dream new dreams of their future.

The Government cannot stand still. It must evolve in tandem with our society and our people. That is the best way for our Government to serve and to govern, in accord with the spirit of the times and the aspirations of our people.

Our politics cannot remain static either. More interest groups and alternative views have emerged, competing for support. Our political system can and must accommodate more views, more debate and more participation. At the same time, it is absolutely crucial for Singaporeans to stay united on the big issues, understand the fundamental realities facing a small country in South-east Asia, and work together to develop and implement the best solutions for our country.

We must develop a political system and political values that work for Singapore, foster good government and benefit Singaporeans both today and in the long term. Even though we now have more diverse voices, Singapore politics should not become confrontational or worse, divide our people and society, like in some other countries. My government pledges to serve the widest possible spread of our society. We are committed to inclusive growth, and a cohesive Singapore. We will do our utmost to work with Singaporeans to create an exciting and fulfilling future for our people and our young.

I thank the voters of Singapore for giving me and my team a clear mandate to implement our programmes - to grow the economy so that we can create better jobs for all; to educate our young to their full potential; to care for our older generation; and to engage our citizens to build an outstanding city and home for every one of us. All these we will now do.

At the same time, it is clear that Singaporeans do have significant concerns over both the substance of government policies and the way they are implemented. There are anxieties on specific areas such as housing, health care and immigration. Many groups want the Government to be more responsive to their difficulties and predicaments - retirees, single parents, the middle class and young adults, even students.

In implementation, our approach must be more flexible, thoughtful and compassionate. No policy can cover all contingencies. Hence policies must be carried out with judgment, and with heart. Policies are meant to make our lives better. When they have un-intended consequences, we should put things right promptly. When we make mistakes, we should admit and correct them. We must always do what is right for Singaporeans, and Singapore.

We will address all these concerns of the people.

My first step is a new Cabinet to lead Singapore in this new phase. I have comprehensively reshuffled and refreshed my Cabinet team. Many experienced ministers have retired. They have done much to bring us thus far, especially Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong. I thank them all for everything that they have done. In their place, we have a younger team, reinforced with several first-term office-holders. We will work closely with Singaporeans to take the country forward in a complex and challenging environment.

Secondly, the Government will engage all segments of society - young and old, students, workers and retirees. We will reach out online and in the real world. We will listen carefully to different voices, understand the day-to-day difficulties and strains facing Singaporeans, address their concerns and be open to inputs on what the Government can do better. Realistically, we cannot fulfil every request, or accept every suggestion. But by engaging Singaporeans in an inclusive dialogue on making policies and governing Singapore, we can solve our problems better, and shape our new Singapore together. This is vital.

Thirdly, we will take a totally fresh look at our problems and policies, and rethink what is necessary and best for Singapore's future. We will address the issues preoccupying Singaporeans, such as health care, housing and immigration. We will review both the policies and their implementation, as well as our broader approach to tackling these issues. We must move quickly to address pockets of urgent need, even as we think through the more difficult long-term challenges. Though Singaporeans trust that our policies are mostly sound, nothing should be sacrosanct.

One important area for review is political salaries. We will always need committed and capable ministers. Politics is not a job or a career promotion. It is a calling to serve the larger good of Singapore. But ministers should also be paid properly in order that Singapore can have honest, competent leadership over the long term. I know that Singaporeans have genuine concerns over the present salaries. Hence I am appointing a committee to review the basis and level of political salaries. The committee will be chaired by Mr Gerard Ee, chairman of Changi General Hospital and chairman of NKF (National Kidney Foundation).

Beyond dealing with these issues, we should focus our energies on our main task: building a bright future for our people. What Singapore has achieved thus far is remarkable. It is not just about good GDP (gross domestic product) growth, but how growth has transformed and improved the lives of most Singa-poreans and their families - workers getting better jobs, low-income people breaking out of poverty, students getting better education. We all enjoy better housing, transport, health care, leisure facilities, and much more. Provided we continue to work in partnership - government and people, workers and businesses - I am confident we will progress year by year, and achieve inclusive growth to realise the hopes and aspirations of our people and our next generation.

I pledge to work together with all Singaporeans to create a just and fair society, which gives all citizens the best start in life, and leaves no one behind. A Singapore which is open to the world yet puts Singa-poreans first. A Singapore which excites our young and respects our old. A society that nurtures and inspires the human spirit, beyond material success. Rich or poor, young or old, men or women, Singapore is our home. Here we all belong. Here we can work together for the common good, and share our pride in being Singaporeans.

Fellow Singaporeans, today marks a milestone in our journey to bond as one people and to build a better tomorrow. I call on all Singaporeans to come forth with your ideas and energies, to join our minds, our hearts and our hands to create a better Singapore. We know not what challenges tomorrow will bring. But I am confident that united as one, we will overcome the odds and secure our future together.

Reflections on American Society from Georgetown University

Graduation is just around the corner. In one week’s time, I will be in possession of a degree from Georgetown University, one of the oldest Jesuit schools in the United States. It marks a transition in my life, as I will be moving to a new city, a new university, in order to continue my studies at the graduate level.

My time at Georgetown was valuable. I’m not the sort of person to show much school spirit. I’m not a party-person. Being a cheapskate, I like to stay home and save money. Nevertheless, I have to thank Georgetown for opening my eyes to the world. When I came into the school as a freshman, I was rather clueless about the way things worked in this part of the world. Four years later, I won’t pretend that I know it all, or that I am properly mature and grown up yet; far from it, I have a lot more to learn. However, I do like to think that me having come into contact with a bunch of interesting people has helped me along this path. Do note that these are “reflections”, and do not constitute an essay with a “point”, so there will be an element of rambling to it. The purpose of this piece is to paint a portrait, no matter how fuzzy, of my impressions of America as seen from Georgetown.

At the risk of over-generalizing, American undergraduates tend to be exuberant and full of energy. Despite the bad economy, the United States is still chock-full of opportunities for those who are willing to seek it out, and many indeed do. Students here (or at least the ones I tend to mix with) are always up to something, and are forever looking for and finding opportunity. I am always astounded by the sheer brightness and intelligence of some young people here. Uptight old-Worlders may sneer, but the fact remains that if you have a good idea and want to test it, you need to go to an American university and bounce it off other bright folk, who will tear it apart, put it back together, and present you with a new, improved version of your thought.

For further reference, look up what the Singaporean leadership, those ever practical, hard-headed individuals, have to say about America. They recognize that America’s freewheeling culture lends itself to an atmosphere of innovation and ambition, the “secret weapon” of the United States that pushed it above its European peers in the 20^th century and will help it remain a major power in the 21^st. The myth of the “lazy American” is one perpetuated by Hollywood (which never shows people working; who wants to watch a movie about people working in an office?). The reality is different; this is a hard-working country, and hard work brings results.

It has helped that for my four years in the university, I never lived alone. I always had roommates and was been surrounded by neighbors living to my left and right. This brought me in contact with an interesting mix of people whom I don’t think you can easily find in the “normal destinations” where my countrymen go to school. I’ve shared my living quarters with one soldier, two bankers, one triathlon runner, a Burmese and a food-loving Hong Konger. Living with wannabe investment bankers is an experience in itself, as you can feel their heat, their intensity, their burning drive to succeed and to strike it rich. Such individuals are very rare in the world, and us non-bankers could do worse than to learn from their drive and ambition. Another group of people with whom I am intrigued are American Sinophiles and Asiaphiles. It is always fun to hear someone else who is not from your culture describe it. You realize that what is familiar and humdrum to you is fun, intriguing and exotic to other people. It makes you realize that everyone is always foreign to someone else.

I also fell in with a crowd of Latin Americans. They’re an interesting bunch of people, and I always felt like I understood what they are talking about, despite not understanding Spanish; it’s all about the gestures and the context. It’s a culture and a part of the world which most Southeast Asians know nothing about. They remind me of folk back home, tropical people who are generally fun to be around.

Another thing which I have observed is the presence of immigrants. America is a magnet for bright, ambitious people from all over the world. They have the “immigrant drive” to succeed, which they pass down to their children who subsequently end up attending some of the top universities in the nation. These young bright things have their feet in both worlds. A typical story goes like this: A baby is born in China and moves with her parents to several European countries before finally settling in America and living an all-American life (with occasional trips back to her grandparents’ farm in China), then going on to attend college and becoming a high-powered banking or corporate executive. Is she American? Is she Chinese? The answer is both. These hyphenated-Americans are totally comfortable in a Western environment and can very well fight and thrive in the rough-and-tumble world that is corporate America. They are also fully rooted in their native cultures, and speak their mother tongues with absolutely no problems. These people help ensure that America remains the “nerve center” of this globalized world.

My time at Georgetown has given me much food for thought. I understand that it may be a rather narrow view, as college life is a bubble. Furthermore, Georgetown is an “elite” university. I imagine that if I went to somewhere else, my view would be quite different. Nonetheless, if this is the world in which the American elites live in, I can say that they have a lot going for them.

So goodbye Georgetown. It’s been a pleasure, and I’ve learnt a lot about how the world (or at least America) works. Next stop, grad school, at an even more “elite” university. Far more lessons to learn, and far more people to meet. Who knows how I will see the world from Boston? Watch this space.

Hackster Central: Observations Of the Foreign Policy Think-Tank World in Washington, D.C.

As a “scholar-intern” at one of Washington, D.C.'s major think-tanks, I officially belong on the lowest rung of the D.C. “foreign policy hackster” circuit . I have learn that in this town, money, brains, ideas (good and bad) and personality all come together to create the result which is the D.C. think-tank circuit. Here, ideas feed into government and shape the way Washington policymakers think. (For the purpose of this post, hacksters are those connected to Washington think-tanks. There is no good reason why I chose the word "hackster" to describe these people, except that the word "think-tanker" is way too clunky. "Hackster" also has a nice ring to it.)

To succeed inside the beltway, the average hackster needs to have mastered a combination of skills (or dark arts, depending on your point of view). Firstly, you need to be highly educated. The MA degree is often an entry-level requirement for a paid position, but in order to carry real clout, the aspiring hackster needs a PhD in history or political science. These dauntingly high educational requirements often mean that there is a high level of crossover from major U.S. universities into the hackster world. I have come to marvel at the influence which Harvard, MIT, Stanford and other top universities have on American decision making. Political science and history professors at these renowned institutions don’t just sit in an ivory tower, but rather go out and move the world.

Secondly, your successful hackster has an ego the size of planet Jupiter, and a personality to match. He (and sometimes she) must be able to make a good argument in order to get his message across. This requires a degree of self-importance, as the hackster needs to be convinced that he is correct no matter what, and back himself up with the appropriate statistics and historical facts. Of course, this means that no one changes his mind about anything, leading to extremely polarized, but highly entertaining, political debates around the water cooler, with every participant armed to the teeth with his own very credible set of arguments. In this town, self-promotion is the rule. You need to be charming, but forceful with your arguments in order to gain a wide audience and a name for yourself.

As a result, hacksters sort themselves into a pecking order. Those with the biggest egos, most experience, highest graduate degrees and best connections float towards the top. These are the personalities who appear in the headlines, and who have the President’s number on their cellphone contacts list. Not all hacksters achieve this exalted status, though, and there are hordes of mid-level hacksters running around who appear on CNN as “country experts” or “political commentators”. These people often hold day jobs as professors at D.C. universities where they recruit the next level of bright young hacksters, thus perpetuating the cycle. Not all know what they are talking about, but they sound like they do, which is the main thing. They are supported by an army of interns and research assistants who do all their research. These are the “coolies” of the hackster world who do all the fact-finding, fact-checking and ultimately much of the writing.

And what of the ideas which these hacksters generate? They ultimately feed into the foreign policy circuit of the United States by several means. One is by publishing reports which are given catchy titles such as “Political Change in Fiji: Between Democracy, Autocracy and Meritocracy”. These tomes are 250 pages long, cost twenty-five dollars each and are widely recommended as cures for insomnia. No one reads them. Another path is by publishing op-eds in the news or commenting on television. Again, there is a natural hierarchy of media outlets, with the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal occupying the top spot. These op-eds have usually gone through so many hands and are edited to death, such that one would think they were all written by the same committee.

The third, and by far most effective means of spreading the word, is by holding “book events”, “project launches” and “panel discussions”. These are never what they purport to be. Before the event begins, everyone makes a beeline for the free food. During the event, the audience listens politely and asks intelligent questions of the panel speakers (partly in order to sound clever and boost their hackstering credentials). After the event, though, is when the real work takes place. Hacksters, journalists, policy-makers, businessmen, congressmen, diplomats and everyone else in D.C. society mingle and mix. Business cards are exchanged, names are dropped and appointments are made for private discussions over drinks at the nearest overpriced bar or steakhouse. In this manner, policy peddlers exert their influence over the D.C. circuit. It is surprisingly personal and “intimate”.

Of course, all of this requires money. As much as a hackster may love the sound of his own voice, he is unwilling to air his views for nothing; hacksters need to eat, too. Hosting events costs money; there is no such thing as a free lunch. So who provides the cash? Various sources. Sometimes, it’s the Federal Government. Mostly, though, the money comes from either corporate or private donations. In the case of corporate donations, the companies providing the funds would usually want some “spin” on the research which the think-tank conducts. With private donors, the story is slightly different. Billionaires from Boston and New England create huge endowments to fund chairs in particular fields of studies, all promoting their particular point of view, of course. My think tank insists on keeping bipartisan, but there are other institutions out there (which shall remain unnamed) which set out to promote a particular agenda. These usually have some powerful backer behind them, who is connected to some particular industry or corporation. It is in this manner that the New England elites use the money they generate in New York and Connecticut for political influence in Washington, D.C..

The hackster system is a highly effective means of channeling intellectual ideas into government. It ensures that the best ideas which the United States provides do not remain stuck in universities. The nation’s top intellectuals are thus able to put their ideas to good use, and the intellectual fervor of Harvard and Stanford has an effect on K Street. The system can probably be related to the idea of “rule by philosophers”, with highly-educated individuals debating the future of the country. It is reassuring to understand that the country’s foreign policy is not influenced by brutes or blowhards, but rather by sophisticated, cultured intellectuals who know what they are talking about. Of course, there’s a downside to this rule by philosopher-kings. The D.C. community falls prey to the “inside the beltway” mentality, and the philosopher elites end up talking only to themselves and become increasingly divorced from reality and from the mood on the ground. They become vigorously wedded to their point of view and are unwilling to accept that there may be some good in listening to the other side. As a result, they perpetuate whatever myths or mistakes they make, and if their errors make their way into the highest echelons of power, then the result can be very dire indeed. Studying events from afar is no substitute for being on the ground, picking up the murmurings of the laobaixing.

Of course, there is no system which is not perfect, and for all its flaws, the hackster system achieves its fundamental goal, namely that ideas from the academic sphere flow into policy-making. Furthermore, the think-tank world is not the only source of influence on U.S. foreign policy. There is the State Department, military-to-military links, foreign-born naturalized Americans, the list goes on; these serve to “ground” U.S. foreign policy in reality, and bring the high-flown ideas of the hacksters down to earth. This, however, would be beyond the scope of this article to discuss…

Thoughts on Singapore's 2011 Elections (Updated)

Last night, Singapore's People's Action Party secured 81 out of 87 seats in the General Elections winning 60.1% of the vote. What would pass as a landslide anywhere else in the world was viewed as a watershed election in Singapore by none other than PM Lee himself. The opposition WP won a 5 seat Group Representation Constituency (GRC) - beating a PAP team that included the respected and cerebral Foreign Minister George Yeo - and retained the single seat in Hougang. Amidst all that, the Opposition lost Potong Pasir (that has been in Opposition hands for 2 decades) by a whisker.

Although this will mark the beginning of a bigger role for the Opposition in Singapore politics, it is still be far from the end of PAP's 53 years (and counting) of governing Singapore which oversaw a 49 fold increase in GDP. A PAP government plus a more established Opposition seems to the state of affairs that suit most Singaporeans just fine. Even the WP wished and promised nothing more.

To be returned to government with 60% of the electorate is a very respectable majority, unless one's objective is complete political dominance. With total dominance no longer a reasonable or even desirable outcome for the PAP, its objective would be a "soft landing" from its half century of dominance. I won't be surprised if the strategists in the PAP regard a gradual transition to a new equilibrium where the PAP continues to govern along with a credible (but not too ambitious or successful) Opposition occupying 10%-12% of the seats as a long term "win" for the PAP. If Singaporeans voted for the idea of having opposition rather than for any particular party, person or platform, then what the PAP would hope for is to find that "golden mean" just enough to absorb the sentiments but not enough to replace the PAP in government.

That thinking was in fact underlined by the creation in the past decade of up to 10 non-constituency MPs for the top Opposition poll losers to join parliament. It is not as cynical as people might think, because this gives Opposition members a platform in between elections to demonstrate their abilities and get noticed - but without the demands of running town councils and managing the constituency. So the PAP was not against Opposition voices, but unlike the 6 who were elected, NCMPs were often not regarded as "real" MPs and not providing "real" opposition.

[A closer look at the pattern of votes seem to indicate that the 40% who voted Opposition were more of a vote against the PAP than any particular Opposition party or personality. Historically, 25-30% vote for anyone-but-PAP while I would say PAP's bedrock of support to be 35-40%. That leaves 30-40% as the "swing" voters depending on strength of Opposition candidates or weakness of the public sentiment for the PAP. Of the swing voters, Opposition stalwards or flag-bearers with good track record can attract another 20% on his own strength - because those 20% would vote Opposition if there is a credible candidate. Established - and more importantly electorally successful - Opposition leaders were therefore usually re-elected. The wild card is the remaining 10% - 20% swing voters that "lean" but not committed to the PAP which makes the difference in the PAP's margin or Opposition gains. In 2011, I estimate these were split half-half where as in previous years they backed the PAP. I believe the PAP will focus on winning those 20% back while the Opposition will try to build up credible incumbents.]

This general elections coincided with a marked shift in the PAP's political tactics. The official media has never been more hospitable to Opposition candidates - fair and even-handed even. The online media was even more deliberately liberalised because a tech-savvy global financial center like Singapore would not accept China-style controls anyway. Consequently, there have been fewer calls of foul-play or accusations of PAP dirty tricks like in the past.

In many ways, the PAP has changed and matured as much as the political expectations of Singaporeans have been changing. It would be a mistake to see the PAP as a political dinosaur. Apart from its policy of constant rejuvenation of its ranks with younger and younger people to keep pace with Singapore's demographic changes, it has also undergone a sea change from LKY's autocratic and uncompromising style to one that is more respectful, tolerant and compassionate. Nothing illustrates this better than PM Lee's admission and apology that the Singapore Government is not perfect but will always do its best to learn from mistakes. Far from showing weakness, I believe this sense of humility will be a source of lasting respect. Singaporeans do not generally want a change of government, just a better, kinder and gentler version of the one thay have.

In fact, the PAP has also been pretty good losers (and winners) this time round, by accepting that the PAP will listen to all the voices out there even those who disagree/voted against it, and improve from this experience. Contrast that with many other governments in the region, or even with the PAP in 1991 when the Opposition made unexpected gains in Goh Chok Tong's first election as PM; during the press conference that followed LKY was openly annoyed and disdainful for those who voted against the PAP. In fact, the PAP was probably damaged by LKY going off the script last week when he warned that people voting for the Opposition would "repent" for the next 5 years - which attracted an exesperated clarification from PM Lee himself.

At the same time, the integrity of the Singapore system stood-out: despite razor thin margins in some wards there was no suggestion that the PAP rigged the system or refuse to accept results against it. Singapore's meritocratic system was a winner because, arguably, the WP won the Aljuneid GRC when it fielded a strong team of credible people. In a sense, Singapore's Opposition has internalised the PAP's mantra by trying to show they van field good quality people on their side. In the past, the opposition often fielded lightweights or attention-seekers and then claim to be a victim of the PAP or being disadvantaged by the GRC system. Now the PAP and WP has shown that it is possible to play by the rules and win, and system has been vindicated having proven that what benefitted the PAP can also benefit the Opposition.

So, there will be some satisfaction on both sides. In the months ahead, the PAP will no doubt come out of its soul searching with a tremendous response. Be prepared for a PAP that is not only savvy in government but will be more attunated to the ground and have a better political PR operation between elections. The Singapore system is nothing if not for its ability to be self-critical, benchmark against the best and improve. The PAP has intellectual, organization and financial prowess on its side and it will make them count. The Opposition will try to demonstrate their value in Parliament and earn the respect of an electorate beyond being non-PAP. They will be held to the high standards that the PAP has set for politicians in Singapore. In light of the rising political maturity in PAP, the Opposition and the Singaporean people, there are new lessons from Singapore for many countries in the region in building a stable and responsible political system.

Libya unrest: Al Jazeera vs. BBC Arabic vs. CNN

As a student of the Arabic language, I am trying to get as much of my information about the Arab unrest as possible from Arabic language sources in order to improve my language skills, and have been playing Al Jazeera and BBC Arabic as a constant backdrop while I do my daily chores. As such, although my Arabic is far from perfect (I understand the general idea of what’s going on and some details, but not 100 percent of what is said), I would say that the Arabic language media gives viewers an interesting spin on what is going on in the Arab World. Given that most of my knowledge of what is going on comes from Arabic sources (with some supplemental reading from BBC English to fill in some of the details), when I finally watched CNN in English today, I was surprised at how Anderson Cooper and his team reported the events in Libya. (For simplicity’s sake, I will stick to Libya coverage in this post)

The first thing which struck me about CNN’s coverage was its extensive coverage of the possibility of an American no-fly zone, and whether or not America had a right to get involved in yet another Arab country. Cooper invited Fouad Ajami, a Lebanese scholar at Johns Hopkins, and the American president of the American University of Cairo to opine on Libya. He also called in one or two American security hacksters to share their thoughts. Of course, he neglected to ask any Libyans what they thought. By contrast, Al Jazeera devoted only one report out of their thirty minute news broadcast to the Western response. To Al Jazeera, coverage of events on the ground is more important than the pontificating of experts in the studio. What the West thinks is not as important as the fact that this is a “people’s revolution”. CNN’s take seemed to be “What can we do for the Arabs?”; the Arabs are passive, needing Western help. According the neo-cons they invited in, they will be eternally grateful to the United States if it helps out.

Another thing that struck me was that Al Jazeera has journalists on the ground in Eastern Libya, who constantly ask the Libyans for their thoughts (which I had difficulty understanding because of their impossible accents). They give the local Libyans a voice. To the BBC’s credit, they also have “boots on the ground” inquiring after the local situation, but Al Jazeera’s coverage seems rawer and much less slick, which makes it feel more “real” and more “human”. As Al Jazeera likes to boast, it keeps a finger on the pulse of the “Arab Street”. CNN’s coverage, however, gives the impression that the Libyans are an undifferentiated mass of Arabs in a faraway country, speaking a strange language. It does not really give them a voice; perhaps this is due to the language barrier, but I still wonder why they don’t make the effort.

BBC Arabic occupies an interesting middle-ground between the two. The BBC loves to pontificate and opine, and it relies mostly on Arab exiles in London and the United States to do so. Their opinions are an important part of the Arabic Media which Al Jazeera neglects, but they nevertheless suffer from being too far away from the source and tend to simplistically boil every analysis down to “freedom” and “democracy”. They do not seem to stray farther from those analyses. However, the BBC more than makes up for this with its impressive program “Point of Discussion” in which ordinary Arabs call into the studio and air their opinions. The program usually gets several different people to talk about the same subject from slightly different angles, which makes for an interesting listen. Alas, the problem with the “Arab on the Street” is that he (or she) usually speaks Arabic with an accent, making listening tricky for this student of the language. (North Africans are a particular challenge; Levantines less so)

That, in a nutshell, is my impression of the media coverage of the Libya crisis. One really needs to listen to a variety of sources to get a good picture of what is going on. (Of course I am not following my own advice; I don’t really listen to BBC English or Al Jazeera English) However, if I had to only listen to one channel, it would be Al Jazeera; I am impressed by its dispassionate coverage, and it is important to understand what the Arab Street think, from the source. Note, thought, that I am not 100 percent fluent in Arabic, and this may have an impact on my understanding of what is going on.

The Recession Generation and Demographic Forces of Change

Just like to share with you two pieces that made an impact on me in the past few days. Coincidentally both from the FT.

First was an article by Simon Kuper, who I knew earlier for writing so artfully and poetically about football - even though he has a bias for Dutch footballers as betrayed by his Dutch heritage. A brilliant writer whose writings I enjoy reading. Here he hit a chord for discussing the impacts on the career prospects and life experiences of those who graduate into a recession. I was in the UK in 1992 and can still recall how different the UK was then. And in Southeast Asia I lived through the Asian Crisis and its aftermaths.

KY saw both sides of the coin by spending the past 10 years in Greater China, experiencing the ground zero of one of the greatest economic boom mankind has ever seen. While I have been unerring in moving from a depressed Europe (1992-1997) to Brunei when it went bust (1997) and then Southeast Asia in crisis/slow recovery (1997-2005) and to America amidst the tail-end of the housing boom and now the Great Recession (2006-present). I do not think I'd be welcome in many places!

This article made poignant reading and made me wonder about my age group as a whole; although I am not one to subscribe to an overly deterministic view of life. What can be given can also be lost in an instant, and vice versa. Life is mysterious enough, long enough and abundant enough for any level of redemption. No doubt people's mindset are affected by circumstance, but that only makes it more important for us to be self-aware so as not to close ourselves to other possibilities - by making blanket assumptions or to extrapolate blindly from our meagre initial experiences.

The second is by Martin Wolf, the well known FT writer. I was attracted by the analysis using demography - a tectonic force much greater than the usual ups and downs of current affair, world economics and politics. People have different needs at different stages of their lives and governments need to be tuned in and adapt. In history, population explosions are often times of strife and revolutions. "Explosions" of youth population changes society permanently - a break from the past norms and seemingly endless status quo - as witnessed in the West in the 60s. China was able to timely engage the vast energies of its youth in the past 20 years to build its economic miracle. India is struggling with a similar wave now. Pakistan and Bangladesh are struggling with less success. The Middle-east has been struggling with notable failure. Africa's is coming soon in the next 20 years. In Southeast Asia, the youth boom in Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei and Vietnam is still expanding, but for Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore that time has past. I'd say watch out carefully for changes in the social contract in the Philippines and Vietnam; while Thailand's already started and look set to continue in a fundamental way.

Lessons from the class of ’92 - By Simon Kuper - Published: February 4 2011

I graduated from a British university in 1992, in the depths of what then seemed a bad recession. A year later I was rattling across the country on a road trip with three contemporaries, when a song we had never heard before came on the radio: “I’m a loser baby, so why don’t you kill me?”

Suddenly all banter died down. Within about a minute we were singing along. Facile as it now seems, the “Loser” song, by another unknown impoverished contemporary of ours called Beck, captured what it felt like to be trying to break into adult life during a recession.

Compared with today’s recession, 1992 now looks like a golden age. Today’s youth are the most educated generation in history, yet about one in five people aged 15 to 24 in developed countries is unemployed, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The figures are even worse in Tunisia, where the revolution began last December when an impoverished 26-year-old burned himself to death, and in Egypt, where the young took to the streets before political groups did.

Things will get better – but not for all these people. Some will suffer for decades for having been young in a recession. That’s what academic research says, and it’s what happened to many in my generation.

As a student, I had vaguely imagined that after graduation I would stride out into the world on a red carpet while crowds threw flowers. It didn’t happen like that. Youth unemployment is the way companies adjust to recessions. In 1992 few businesses were hiring. The height of ambition for many of my peers was becoming a civil servant, because everyone knew that civil servants were unsackable.

Nobody I knew became an entrepreneur. No wonder, because British base interest rates in 1992 were more than 10 per cent. Few of us then knew exactly what interest rates were, but we sensed that nobody was chucking cash at us. (“Easy credit” wasn’t a problem in 1992.) Our parents could barely pay their mortgage interest, so there was no money forthcoming there.

I had friends who got good degrees and began flipping burgers, or waiting tables. Others tried to get to the El Dorado of the day: Japan. In every generation there is a city where penniless young wannabe artists and writers flock, and in 1992 that city was Prague. Luckily, even London then still had many cheap semi-slums.

People would grab any job going. One lunchtime a little before graduation, a gaggle of us met an adult we knew in a sandwich shop. The adult offered a friend of mine a humble assistantship. My friend reluctantly took it. He still works in that industry today.

That’s what happens to many young people in recessions. You take a job, any job. You stick it out for a few years. By then you are in your late twenties, with a mediocre CV. Younger people with pristine CVs who graduated during the recovery overtake you. Soon you have a pram at the door. So you never jump to the career you wanted. More than most people’s, your life becomes a compromise. This is particularly true in immobile societies such as France, where your first proper job often determines your career.

The key cultural sources for our generation – most of them produced in the lone superpower of the day – reflected this frustration. There was Douglas Coupland’s novel Generation X, about young people hanging around pointlessly. There was Quentin Tarantino’s film Pulp Fiction, about lowly gangsters killing people or hanging around pointlessly. And there was Doug Liman’s film Swingers, about young unemployed actors hanging around pointlessly.

Yet Swingers came out in 1996, mid-recovery. The problem was that many in my generation had never quite recovered. Academic economists have persistently shown that entering the job market during a recession can cause “scarring” that lingers for years, sometimes decades. For instance, Lisa Kahn of Yale School of Management studied white males who graduated from American colleges around the early 1980s’ recession, and found that even 15 years later they had lower salaries and less prestigious jobs than similar people who graduated in good times. David Bell and David Blanchflower, economists at Scotland’s University of Stirling, studied people who had been unemployed when young during that same recession, and found that 25 years later they were still unhappier, less healthy, less satisfied in their jobs and on lower wages than comparable people. Ominously, Bell and Blanchflower say that Britons who have become unemployed during the UK’s current recession are disproportionately the young.

When you’re young you inevitably overestimate the potential of your friends. You assume that someone with such a lovely figure, or so good at cricket, or with such word-perfect recall of Seventies’ British comedy, must be destined for greatness. Perhaps it was never going to happen for me and my peers, but the fact that it didn’t probably also has something to do with our graduation date.

Link: http://ww.ft.com/cms/ws/2/94224f5a-2e71-11e0-8733-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Ec6wyWFt



Why the world’s youth is in a revolting state of mind - By Martin Wolf
Published: February 18 2011

In Tunisia and Egypt, the young are rebelling against old rulers. In Britain, they are in revolt against tuition fees. What do these young people have in common? They are suffering, albeit in different ways, from what David Willetts, the UK government’s minister of higher education, called the “pinch” in a book published last year.

In some countries, the challenge is an excess of young people; in others, it is that the young are too few. But where the young outnumber the old, they can hope to secure a better fate through the ballot box. Where the old outnumber the young, they can use the ballot box to their advantage, instead. In both cases, powerful destabilising forces are at work, bringing opportunity to some and disappointment to others.

Demography is destiny. Humanity is in the grip of three profound transformations: first, a far greater proportion of children reaches adulthood; second, women have far fewer children; and, third, adults live far longer. These changes are now working through the world, in sequence. The impact of the first has been to raise the proportion of the population that is young. The impact of the second is the reverse, decreasing the proportion of young people. The third, in turn, increases the proportion of the population that is very old. The impact of the entire process is first to expand the population and, later on, to shrink it once again.

Contrast Egypt and the UK. Back in 1954, British life expectancy was 70 and the proportion of children dying between the ages of zero and five was 30 per 1,000. In the same year, an Egyptian could expect to live to 44, while infant mortality was a horrifying 353 per 1,000. Fast-forward to 2009: UK life expectancy was up to 80 and its infant mortality down to 5.5 per 1,000. But Egyptian life expectancy was up to 70 and its infant mortality down to 21; an astonishing transformation. The figures for the number of children per woman over these years are just as dramatic, falling from 2.3 to 1.8 in the UK, and 6.5 to 2.8 in Egypt. In Iran it has fallen even further, from 7.0 to 1.8. Religion simply does not determine fertility.

These are revolutionary changes, and ones that are happening far faster in developing countries than in the old advanced countries. Above all, these are happy developments: people are freed from fear of premature death; parents are freed from watching their children die young; and women are freed from endless childbirth.

Such great changes always bring huge social upheavals. Many developing countries are in the early stages of the demographic transition. This means they have more young adults than they might have expected; as recently as 1985 Egyptian mothers still had an average of six children. High-income countries, meanwhile, are entering the final stage of this transition. Their baby-boomers are ageing, with fewer young adults to support them.

In 2011, half of Egypt’s population will be under 25, while 36 per cent will be aged from 15 to 35. These latter are angry young adults looking desperately for employment, in order at least to hope for normal family life. Meanwhile in the UK, where female fertility has been close to two for much longer, only 31 per cent are under 25, but 35 per cent over 50 (against only 15 per cent in Egypt).

Thus, the middle-aged and elderly rig political and economic life for their benefit in the UK: hence the way in which policies on housing or education finance are weighted against the young. In Egypt, the young could easily outvote the elderly. Hence the urgency of the forces behind a democratic revolution that should transfer more power into their hands. Egypt is not the first developing country, nor will it be the last, to be rocked by the youthful majority, at one and the same time idealistic and frustrated.

This, too, will pass. On current trends, the Egypt of 2040 is going to look rather more like the UK of today. According to the US census bureau, 26 per cent of the population will be over 50. But the UK will have moved onwards, as well: 41 per cent of its people could be over 50.

The future is grey. In today’s high-income countries, it will be very grey. Indeed, some advanced countries could be older than the UK: Italy is forecast to have 50 per cent of its people over 50 by 2040, with as many as 9 per cent over 80.

As Shakespeare’s Miranda might say in response: Oh brave old world! That has such ancients in it!

For the countries with a young population, the immediate challenge is to create a dynamic economy that brings hope of gainful employment. It is surely the failure to do this that most threatens rule by gerontocrats such as Hosni Mubarak. The Chinese leadership is well aware of this imperative. Rulers with resource wealth can try to buy off their young. Those without it cannot. They must at least offer jobs. If they fail, they will lose power – and rightly so. The political challenge is to harness the energy of their young, without succumbing to the catastrophes that hit high-income countries at a similar demographic stage: war, first and foremost.

Meanwhile, in high-income countries, older people must work longer than they expected, without making the young believe their opportunities are blocked for what must seem like an eternity. These countries must also balance the fiscal books as the populations age.

In both cases, the young will raise a cry that has surely been heard throughout the ages: “It is not fair.” They are right, no doubt. It never is. But they should remember that the young will win in the end. It is only a matter of time – just more of it.

Link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6577ca92-3b94-11e0-a96d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Ec6wyWFt

5 Minds for the Future - Howard Gardner

Catching the essence of 5 Minds for the Future - it is a scientific and learned book by a Harvard academic (Graduate School of Education) about the different kinds - or I'd say "different depth of consciousness and connection" - of the mind.

The first is the Disciplined mind, one that masters a certain knowledge. Here, mind you, the key words are "mastery" and "discipline". A lot of leaning is actually about unthinking practice and repetition. That is about knowledge and not mastering a discipline. Mastering means being able to discern the principles from the orthodoxy during application and not to confuse between the two. One is knowing the essence while the other is simply repeating the common ways of application or more usually - just pretending to know.

The second mind actually goes even deeper than that - its the Synthesizing mind. Again, this caught me off-guard. Initially I thought its an ability to bring together different strands of knowledge and information and put them together and creating a new amalgam or context. Apparently it is more than that, because it pre-supposes that one first has to have mastery of different areas of knowledge. That makes sense, if one does not know the essence of different areas of knowledge, it would only be a surface, glib and ultimately flawed synthesis. The book went on to say that in the past, knowledge grew slowly enough for some smart people to know many if not all disciplines well. But in the current era, experts in certain areas tend to have narrower and narrower focus, that it is hard to someone to have a truly synthesizing mind. Nonetheless, it is important as genuinely new sources of ideas.

The third is the creative mind. This differs from the synthesizing mind in that it makes the leap away from making existing knowledge useful in a new form or combination and into a new direction. Gardner argues that in many societies many people claim to be creative but to be truly creative requires expertise in existing discipline and not an undisciplined and ignorant stab in a new direction. Such changes are either superficial, or spectacular departures that are speculative and fail on scrutiny.

The forth mind is the respectful mind. By this the author meant the ability to maintain healthy and genuine* respect for differences and diversity in opinion. A respectful mind does not include political correctness (derived from fear of being criticized) or tolerance for the sake of seeking advantage without efforts to understand. The person is able to discern ideas that he agrees or disagrees with - and some which he accepts and others which he does not accept but at the same time does not allow such differences to become a source of animosity or hatred. I find that the author sees this primarily as a necessary ingredient for peace in a globalized and inter-connected world - where both the scope for differences between people and the destructive powers of hatred are acute and magnified. There was a good example of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-Apartheid South Africa where the purpose was not judicial or retribution, but as a mechanism for both victims and perpetrators of Apartheid to have a genuine and respectful dialogue - to get injustices out into the open, to document the facts, to allow both sides to offer/seek forgiveness and make peace with the past, to clear the air - which helped to heal the society. Of course it required personal leadership from the likes of Mandela but this was the institutional mechanism.

Gardner also gave an interesting anecdote of a study of people who rescued their fellow citizens from genocide during WW2, and found what they had in common were childhood environment/upbringing where their parents explain the rules and the rights and wrongs instead of relying on threats or physical punishment. I see that as a difference between getting a desired behavior in children through respect and unconditional love (where the child internalizes the impact of their choices) versus using fear or threat (where "compliance" is due to succumbing to power or fear). A good lesson.

The fifth mind is that of an ethical mind; and this one is about "doing good" and having meaning in life. I find it interesting that here "goodness" was defined to have 3 qualities: excellent in quality, responsible in its implications and engaging/meaningful for the person doing it, a source of joy. In particular, Gardner had in mind goodness in the context of a virtuous community or a civil society - and the role of early exposure to ethical examples at home, by way of how their parents "show up" in the decisions they make and the values they live by.

Here I noted the importance the author gave to the roles of parents, educators and peer groups in the cultivation of the respectful and ethical minds. In fact, the further one gets from the disciplined mind the less the role for formal education. The synthesizing mind is essentially one for the expert level - the highly learned - and is essentially life-long learning. The creative mind even more so.

Interestingly, Gardner attempted to suggest an order for acquiring the 5 minds; the respectful mind right from the beginning otherwise no other learning would be easy, followed by the Disciplined Mind, Synthesizing Mind + Creative Mind and the Ethical Mind (which he believes requires more matured abstract thinking). On the other hand, I feel that the Ethical Mind should be nurtured right from the beginning mainly through positive example and thoughtful observation of society.

In this respect, I feel grateful that among the features I most appreciate of UNIS (where my daughters go to school), it definitely exhibited a strong culture of celebrating the respectful mind and ethical mind. From a young age, the environment is loving, nurturing and supportive of cultural diversity, while being conscious of ethical actions, community and how to make a personal difference.