Writing for the New York Times, Atul Gawande reports on

a program that instituted in nearly every intensive care unit in Michigan a simple five-step checklist designed to prevent certain hospital infections. It reminds doctors to make sure, for example, that before putting large intravenous lines into patients, they actually wash their hands and don a sterile gown and gloves.

... The results were stunning. ... the rate of bloodstream infections from these I.V. lines fell by two-thirds.

However, "the Office for Human Research Protections shut the program down" because the researchers had not followed the informed consent protocols required for experimenting on patients: changing a checklist may alter patient care as much as an experimental drug, and so should be subject to the same controls. Gawande concludes, "the authorities ... [are] in danger of putting ethics bureaucracy in the way of actual ethical medical care."

As a project manager and Master of Public Administration student, I'm sensitive to the accusation of bureaucracy. I went and looked it up, and it turns out that's it's always been pejorative. OED defines bureaucracy as "Government by bureaux; usually officialism", and defines bureau as

An office, esp. for the transaction of public business; a department of public administration. ... Hence bureauism, officialism, 'red-tape-ism'.

Gawande condemns the Office for Human Research Protections for following "a certain blinkered logic" to reach a "bizarre and dangerous" decision, which it then imposes broadly to the detriment of many. But it's basically just enforcing some rules about paperwork, albeit poorly. Isn't the checklist he lauds another set of rules about paperwork? It seems to me that either bureaucracy should be acknowledged as a neutral word, leading to good bureaucracy and bad bureaucracy, or, if bureaucracy is to maintain its pejorative status, a new word should be introduced for an office transacting public business in a positive fashion.

How strong is exam culture in Singapore? Our first semester grades were available online (or by SMS!) a few days ago. I found out because another student clued me in to look; a day or two after we got this alert by email:

The online exam results for Semester 1, 2007/2008 have just been released. Pls check the NUS Student Intranet for more updates [...]

As far as I know, these are the actual class grades, not just the final exam. The final exam made up between 30 and 50% of my grade for various classes. But in Negotiation and Conflict Management, the instructor successfully petitioned NUS (not the Lee Kuan Yew school, but the NUS mothership) to skip the exam, and there is a result for that class, so I'm pretty sure these are class grades, not exam results. But, presumably influenced by the historical practice of having exams be 100% of class grades, they are labeled on the web page as "NUS Graduate Examination Results". I'm happy to say I passed, with results good enough to maintain my scholarship. I didn't have any particular reason to worry, but apparently no matter how old you get, the wait for results can still get under your skin.

In order to maintain a PMP credential (Project Management Professional), you need sixty PDUs (Professional Development Units) per three-year period, which you can get by attending classes, writing articles, and various other means. While this gets warm bodies to show up for professional events, those warm bodies aren't necessarily eager.

In November I attended the Singapore Project Management Institute's annual Symposium, a one-day event taking up a few low-ceilinged, windowless rooms in the Suntec Convention Center. This was roughly as exciting as you would expect; as the keynote speaker said, "I know many of you want to attend just for the PDUs." I'll try to give you just the highlights in my notes.

• We started fifteen minutes late. Project Managers aren't any more organized than anybody else.
• There were over 300 people present; most were male and Asian, Chinese in particular. Of fourteen speakers, twelve were male.
• The keynote address was entitled "Project Management 2.0 and a Flat World". Ehhn.
• Idle thoughts during a presentation: there's a maxim that "you fall behind one day at a time". I wonder if that's really useful? Equally valid, it seems to me, would be "you fall behind a year at a time", which happens every time somebody drafts an unrealistic schedule.
• Gaah! IBM has seven levels of Project Manager, from Project Assisstant to Portfolio Manager.
• Do you have "T-shaped SSME" skills? "Every PM should have SSME skills in order that we are valuable employee for the new economy"
• A speaker, talking about consulting work for an Indonesian company, said that she couldn't give the key presentation herself as they needed to hear it from an ang moh.
• The merger of Chase Manhattan and Chemical Banks entailed 4000 projects for 58 units. The GANTT chart covered three walls of a conference room, and was used to prove to analysts that the merged entity would enjoy $1.5 billion in savings, which caused the stock price to go up. Not covered in the presentation: what savings actually materialized. (I'm too chicken! I should have asked)
• I have an entry in my notes for "MS Omega". I'm not sure if that's an actual software program from Microsoft, or a doomsday device.
• Lunch was excellent; any catered lunch that has a whole separate table for "Indian Vegetarian" has my love
• I did make an effort to talk to people. Everyone I talked to was there for PDUs to maintain their PMP, except for one person who works for a training company. I had lunch with a local telecom project manager, and never quite managed to understand what exactly he did. I also chatted with a Korean guy who works for a company that does telecom support for oil companies. He said he's done one trip to Nigeria, and it was very harrowing because the locals are cut out of the oil wealth and so target everyone associated with the oil companies.
• I am interested in doing some PMP training, not only for the $$ but also to help keep the material fresh in my own head, and also because, heck, teaching is something professionals in any field should do. However, that apparently will only be possible if Singapore changes the rules for student visas.

Overall, I didn't learn very much. I probably should have gotten my act together and proposed a presentation of my own, either on using Open Source (not very PM-specific) or how to incorporate Agile techniques without swallowing the full pitcher of Koolaid. Next year.

Here's the photo album. That's my balding head in the second and sixth pictures.

Classmate Tai Yan and his girlfriend were kind enough to take my sister and me out around Singapore Saturday. After he provided a list of fifteen possible destinations, we whittled it down to breakfast at a tasty and newly popular toast shop, a morning visit to Changi Beach, lunch at the Changi Beach food court, and an adventure to find Mount Pleasant Cemetery, which is essentially some nearly abandoned tombstones in the jungle. Then we all took a nap and then went out for dinner. Photos start here.

On the strength of Mr Brown's recommendation and the Youtube video, I saw Ling perform a free concert at the Esplanade, in a nice outdoor venue across a small inlet from a lovely little container port. The music was fun but quite amateur, mixing covers with originals. I have no musical talent, but I had the impression that the guitar player was sometimes straining to make it through tricky passages in the alloted number of beats, and that the drummer, who was fantastic, spent most of the set chasing after the other musicians as they wandered naively through the multiverse of possible speeds and timings and rhythms. More damaging was Ling's inexperience reading an audience: We sat down in a crowd that was at least 80% Tamil, on a day that was a major Muslim holiday (Eid al-Adha, called "Hari Raya Haji" in Singapore and commemorating "Ibrahim's (Abraham's) willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, under the order of Allah"), and the stage patter was about Christmas. I personally enjoyed the music selection, which was mostly Canadian woman singer-songwriters, but I'm not sure how much it spoke to the audience. There was certainly some talent and potential on display, and most of the problems should go away with practice and experience. Of special note was the amusing dissonance between the Singlish patter, available here, and the music.

The second act was "Two Guys, a Girl, and Amanda", which seemed like a quite capable bar band, which covered a number of catchy, terrible songs, followed by a selection of much better songs. All in all, a perfectly pleasant evening which, for better and worse, was more or less completely within my cultural reference area.

Today's seminar at the East Asian Institute: China's Success in Using Foreign Aid to Diplomatically Isolate Taiwan, by Prof. John Copper from Rhodes College. Text is my paraphrase of the speaker unless marked in quotes; hyperlinks are mine.

In the 70s and 80s China got out of the game (of foreign aid to diplomatically isolate Taiwan).

Definition of foreign aid for our purposes: Economic help for political and possible economic gain

Published amounts are misleading because many countries promise aid but don't deliver. Europeans frequently criticize the US for not giving much aid as a percentage of GDP, but the US provides market access that the EU doesn't and Japan doesn't, but China does.

Only 24 countries have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, none important. Total population of smallest ten is under one million people.

China's Taiwan policy: territory, regime. China still claims Taiwan, and claims that the Taiwanese regime is not legitimate.

In the spring of 1950, Mao was preparing to invade Taiwan. Troops got sick from a liver fluke in Fujian province, then the Korean war broke out, and then Truman changed his mind and sent the Seventh fleet to protect Taiwan. Later attacks in 1954 and 1958 but China backed down in the face of US protection of Taiwan (including nuclear artillery in 1958). Stalemate.

1969 border war with USSR; Nixon negotiated with Mao regarding Taiwan; contents of these negotiations remains unknown.

Deng Xiaoping hoped to solve the Taiwan problem as a side effect of growing China's economy, as Taiwan would seek to rejoin voluntarily.

In 1956, in an attempt to end its diplomatic isolation, China offered aid to Cambodia, then Nepal, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, middle east. Didn't do anything in Latin American, except very briefly Cuba. Grants, loans, project aid, 10, 20, up to 100+ million dollars. Big recipients: North Korea, North Vietnam, Albania, and a north African railroad.

Issue of China joining UN. Most countries, other than the communist bloc, kept ties with Taiwan. 1969 was a turning point. Albania proposed a resolution that PRC, not ROC, should have China's UN seat. Joel's note: here's Time magazine from 1971: "THAT annual rite of fall—the struggle over who should represent China in the United Nations—used to be fairly predictable. In past sessions, the drama has swirled around the so-called Albanian resolution, which offers the U.N.'s 127 members a simple choice: Taipei or Peking." Almost all countries China gave aid to voted for Beijing. Cambodia was one exception; Indonesia broke of relations with China after 1965 due to suspicion from Indonesian military.

Another few dozen countries recognized the PRC after this, about half of which received aid from China.

Aid from China dropped; Taiwan became the world's #1 country for foreign exchange and had the ability to compete with China in aid-giving.

Since 2000 and Taiwan's election of Chen Shuibian, more efforts to strip away Taiwanese friends. Foreign aid from a secret fund became a politicized issue in Taiwan. Chen's wife was indicted in 2006 for forging withdrawals from the secret fund for personal use. The prosecutor, a Chen supporter, said he refrained from indicting the president only because the crimes did not constitute treason. Chen may leave Taiwan before his term ends to avoid prosecution.

Macedonia went from China to Taiwan and back to China. Macedonian press Taiwan had promised between 1 and 1.6 billion (US dollars) of aid, which is much greater than Taiwan's total (public) aid budget. China offered aid and threatened to veto ongoing UN peacekeeping in Macedonia unless Macedonia switched to China.

China promised US$130 million to Nauru, which has 13,000 people. This angered Chen into saying that there were two entities, one on either side of the strait, which statement angered China. (Joel's note: Wikipedia says $60 million and mentions that Nauru went back to Taiwan in 2005.)

Chen had made a big deal of diplomacy and aid with other democracies, and so was embarrasses when Senegal, one of the most diplomatic countries in Africa, went to China. The premier of Taiwan was on a plane to Chad when Chad announced a switch to China.

Of Taiwan's remaining 24 friends, some are critical. Nicaragua is one. Panama is another. Chen Shuibian has been pushing the notion that Taiwanese are not Chinese, which is undermining Taiwan's position with overseas Chinese, including in Panama.

China's trade is skyrocketing in Latin America whereas Taiwan's is mostly flat.

Conclusion: China's won the diplomatic battle with Taiwan.

What's the effect if Taiwan's number goes down to 20, or 10? Unclear; Spain once had 2; Russia once had 2. What could China do next? It's clear that China absolutely doesn't want anybody else to control Taiwan, but finds the status quo acceptable for now.

Q: Would China reach a point of diminishing returns and stop even trying to reduce the number? Would it affect the Taiwanese regime's legitimacy? A: I don't think so.

Audience comments: It would matter in that Taiwan would find it much harder to file the UN applications that it uses to make noise. You can't find Taiwan in World Bank data. China doesn't want to overpay because then more countries would start switching back and forth.

A: Taiwan has informal, cultural diplomacy with many countries. China is insensitive to this as long as it isn't formal or implying statehood.

Q: If it comes to a crunch, should Singapore abandon Taiwan? Taiwan supported Singapore with FDI in the early days. (very long-winded details about consequences of Taiwanese independence and Korean opinions ultimately interrupted) Can China up the ante in this competition? A: Yes; but what's the hurry? On your Singapore question, it's the Singapore policy to oppose Taiwanese independence. But it doesn't matter. In my opinion, if Chen declared independence, Bush would call Hu Jintao and ask for 48 hours, and then overthrow the Taiwanese government. ("Is that on the record?" "It's my opinion")

Q missed it. A Much of China's aid is now money instead of labor. I think the US hasn't thought much about what to do about China's foreign assistance. US may support it as another way to promote development in poor countries. But US uses some Pacific islands for strategic reasons. Some criticism of China destabilizing the world market in oil and other commodities.

Discussion of race issues, who is really Chinese. Chinese colonizers of Taiwan taking local wives. Q: What about culture? A Taiwanese groups stir up these issues to win the election. If KMT wins, it will die down

Taiwanese foreign aid to a huge leap in 1989. But now many Taiwanese feel poor. Conflict between perception of decline in Taiwan and desire of Taiwanese not to feel isolated. Taiwanese consumer confidence is lowest in Asia; very low confidence in the government. KMT accusations that Chen ruined the Taiwanese economic miracle.

In a sense China is giving economic assistance to Taiwan by buying up agricultural products well above market price. Many Taiwanese companies do quite well in China.

Speculation about China's manipulation of Taiwan. Stock market manipulation.

Q: What about Vatican relations? Recent election of a bishop in China suggesting tacit approval of Chinese government. Will the Vatican dump Taiwan and recognize Beijing? A: yes, the Vatican would switch if these could reach an agreement with Beijing. Pope won't give up the right to select bishops in China. Point from audience: Vatican has apostolic representatives, not ambassador, and so could have both China and Taiwan. —I don't think China would tolerate that.

Q: Doesn't this aid competition benefit the small countries? Would foreign aid to these entities decline sharply if Taiwan and China merged?

Q: What is the Chinese population in Panama that could influence Panamanian opinion?

A: I'm not sure— there's enough to — they are a minority community and they have money to influence politics.

Discussion about identity and race in Taiwan. Many Taiwanese elite hold dual US/Taiwan citizenship. Promotion of Taiwanese language, which they acknowledge is impractical. It's not entirely rational. (Joel's note: At the Taiwanese birthday dinner I went to the other night, forty Taiwanese sang happy birthday in English, Mandarin, and Taiwanese.)

Q: In the US there are many undocumented workers, we often call them "illegals". The same situation exists in China. The labor flow may be very important in foreign aid issues. A: In the US, you are talking about 15% of the population (Joel's note: the most common number is 12 million, which is closer to 3% of US population); the number would be much smaller in China. Africans in China? I've never heard anybody say that. —I've seen Africans in Malaysia, students and people holding good jobs. —I've studied a report that there are over 200,000 illegal African workers in Guangzhou alone.

If I were to derive Singapore's laws regarding pedestrian/car interaction from observation, I would guess:

1. If a pedestrian is in a marked crosswalk, cars may charge at but not actually hit pedestrians.
2. Drivers may disregard all pedestrians on pavement outside of marked crosswalks. Pedestrians step on unmarked pavement at their own risk.
3. If a pedestrian is on a sidewalk and moving towards a road, drivers may honk to warn the pedestrian not to proceed.

I did some research, and found that I pretty much guessed correctly. The law says,

Crossings for pedestrians (referred to in this section as crossings) may be established on roads, or on subways constructed under roads, or on bridges constructed over roads, in accordance with this section." (Provision 121, Paragraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act)

However, there are supplementary rules which are not available online, and I had to get help at the Law Library to get a copy of "Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276, 121 and 140), Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossings) Rules", which says that

"pedestrian crossing" means any crossing established for the use of pedestrians on a road, subway or bridge indicated by traffic signs, road markings, or otherwise as shown in any of the diagrams ..."

It also says that

Except as provided in paragraph (5) [relating to physical incapacity], any pedestrian who is within 50 metres of either side of a pedestrian crossing ... shall make use of the pedestrian crossing for the purpose of crossing the road.

Section 4:

The driver of a vehicle who is in the process of turning his vehicle at a road intersection or junction where there is a pedestrian crossing shall stop his vehicle in order to give way to any pedestrian who is either crossing or is starting to cross the intersection or junction.

I didn't research the definition of right of way but this blogger claims pedestrians don't have it. This is apparently the norm in former British colonies.

So pedestrians have precedence in marked crosswalks, but nowhere else. I live on Bukit Timah Road, which is a major arterial, and simply to walk along the road on the sidewalk you must constantly cross driveways and side roads; none of these implied crossings are actually marked.

In contrast, here's the standard in the US:

The 2000 Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance (Uniform Vehicle Code) (Section 1-112) defines a crosswalk as:

1. "That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway; and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway, the part of a roadway included within the extension of the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at right angles to the centerline.
2. Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface."

(Federal Highway Administration)

And here's the relevant law for Washington State:

RCW 46.61.235.1 The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle

So, Singapore needs to either change its laws or paint a whole bunch of lines. And lest you think the latter is implausible, in the last few weeks the government has been sending crews to embed yellow textured mats in the curb cutouts. I assume this is to help blind people (of whom I've met or seen exactly one in public in all of Singapore. I think I've seen all of one or two wheelchairs, powered or otherwise; like most of Asia, the norm is for handicapped people to stay out of sight). Don't misunderstand: I applaud accessible infrastructure. I just wonder why they couldn't throw some zebra stripes down while they were at it.

Pictures from our Sunday Morning Walk.

(Some serious catch-up here: I read some of these six months ago or more)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, J.K. Rowling
A perfect airplane book. It came out a day before my flight. I started it at the SeaTac airport and finished it on approach to Tokyo; left it on the plane for the next person. I was satisfied with the conclusion, but I do feel that the only part of the series with really exceptional writing was the last third of book 3 and the whole of book 4.

Death of an Expert Witness, P.D. James
Grabbed it from the university library on a whim, enjoyed it. No particular hurry to read more.

The Dark Tower series, Steven King
It's Steven King's magnum opus, for better and worse. It reads like he just wrote it on the fly, which he pretty much did. If you like King enough to want to spend a million words with him, you'll like it. The atmosphere is great, the characters are sometimes great. The horror and scary level is mostly cranked way down. Despite the length, it's not really that Epic, partly because not all that much happens and partly because of the claustrophobic feeling of being in just enough of a world for him to tell his story (the opposite of Tolkien Syndrome). The last three books, especially, feel somewhat like playing a computer game, as you go from location to location, and then back, and then find the widget, and then go back to that one place where the widget reveals a secret door, and then see what's back there, and then go back to that other place and now you see that the guard you killed happened to land on top of the other widget, that's why you didn't see it the first time and wasted two hours before you searched google for a cheat guide, and all the time you are alone, and the computer-generated characters walking in their computer-generated routes for you to sneak past just make you even more alone, with only your thoughts for company. That kind of feeling. Except that you're alone with Steven King's thoughts.

Arthur and George, Julian Barnes
This is Literature in the best sense; you get sucked in and just keep reading and it gradually dawns on you that what you are reading is immaculately awesome in conception and execution. This and Sacred Games were easily the two best books I read in 2007.

Mao: The Untold Story, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
I already had a sense that Mao was a villain for all time and an equal partner with Stalin and Hitler as the most heinous mass murderers of all time. This book fills in a lot of details, and takes it a step further. It's a very thorough attempt to paint pretty much everything Mao ever did as an act of calculated evil. I understand that the quality or provability of some of the research is under attack. Many people seem to have recoiled just at the intensity and completeness of the argument, taking the position that any description which is so one-sided must be somewhat exaggerated. I don't see that as a logical rebuttal, but I do have my own issues with the narrative, especially the account of Mao during the war period (Long March to 1949). The authors attempt to explain almost all of Mao's successes and escapes as consequences of Mao's masterful manipulations of friends, rivals, allies, and enemies. Given the slender evidence for some allegations, they don't seem to hold up well to Occam's razor. Isn't it more likely that some of his opponents just screwed up or were stupid, rather than that he pulled all of the puppet strings all of the time?

I don't see those kinds of issues as wholly discrediting the book. I learned a lot, even though I found it so horribly depressing that I couldn't read too many pages at a sitting, and ended up setting it aside about two thirds of the way through. Anyone who has a positive or mixed opinion about Mao must be seeing the evidence through very rose-colored glasses; the genuine debate seems to be only about if he's purely evil to the last cell, or just really, really evil.

One Jump Ahead, Mark L. Van Name
A pulpy sci-fi story. I bought it on the strength of the first page or two; it passed the time and had some style but didn't seem especially novel or well-plotted.

Ghost Brigades, John Scalzi
More of the same from Scalzi; it's good, but like diet soda has some weird, unpalatable aftertaste. SPOILER: It may be related to the debate (sorry, couldn't find a link quickly) about whether it's fair to criticize the fascist tone of the earlier book when that tone may represent the narrator's views rather than Scalzi or the world Scalzi has created, or it may just be something about his writing almost but not quite rubbing me the right way.

The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan
Almost everything we (in the United States) eat contains corn. A typical fast food meal may be predominantly corn, in that corn is the input stock to industrial processes that make sweeteners, thickeners, and a myriad of other "ingredients". This is because corn is the most efficient crop at converting sunlight to energy; soy is the most efficient at converting sunlight to protein and so soy is the other main crop in the US. Corn as the foundation of industrial farming is really bad for society for many reasons, not least of which because the corn ecosystem requires huge inputs of petroleum. The proximate cause of this is really destructive farm subsidies and policies.

The book is, for the most part, ultra-readable. Pollan does a lot of hands-on research into farming and the corn industry, including spending time on a modern factory farm and on a smaller, more natural farm which integrates agriculture and livestock in a labor-intensive and astoundingly productive enterprise. The parts where he collects all of the ingredients for his own home-cooked meal are probably the least engaging, but the book has definitely changed how I look at manufactured food.

Uncommon Carriers, John McFee
Like the Omnivore's Dilemma, this book starts tremendously, with very gripping details about mundane infrastructure, and then peters out as the author gets more personal. The stories about a long-distance trucker, a coal train, a Missisippi barge crew; all fantastic and give you a wonderful sense of being there.

1634: The Baltic War, Eric Flint
I've been enjoying this pleasingly escapist multi-novel story about a modern West Virginian coal town transplanted to 17th century Germany, but experiencing diminishing returns. At first I thought I was just getting tired of the story, but then I read this and realized that the real problem is that the writing is degenerating into a "Mary Sue" story. The moderns always face small setbacks but overcome them with ingenuity and steadfast leadership; the locals get entranced by good old American values; it seems like every book features plucky, scared but brave American teenagers getting over their heads in world affairs and having beautiful, progressive 17th century teenagers fall in love with them and it always works out. I liked the ideas, trying to figure out how 17th century culture would interact with 20th century small-town Americans; the pro-union bent of the authors; seeing how you might try to reconstruct modern industrial technology almost from scratch. But the execution has completely turned me off, and I've stopped reading this series, probably a book or two too late.

Star Trek: Swordhunt, Star Trek: Honor Blade, Star Trek: The Empty Chair, Diane Duane
The Romulan Way remains my favorite Star Trek book ever (not meaning to damn with faint praise); these sequels extend the story in a fairly unsatisfactory way. Spoiler: How come it seems like every Diane Duane book (Star Trek or otherwise) has the same climax, as the diverse good guys, now bonded as BFFs, pluckily march once more unto the breach with some sort of reality-bending mystical energy thing as background, a la Madeleine L'Engle? Counting My Enemy, My Ally, Duane uses this ending twice in the same series, not to mention all her non-Trek books. It seems like the Mary Sue virus is at work here too.

I have to confess that I haven't done too much studying during Reading Week. You could take this as a sign of hubris or laziness, and I won't deny elements of that. On the whole, however, I am urging myself toward a more charitable view: I never missed a class; completed the readings for almost all classes, in many cases actually reading every page, not just skimming, and in many cases months ahead of class discussion; and took seventy thousand words of notes. Whatever you wanted me to learn, if it didn't happen already, it's not going to happen in one week of cramming.

What did I do during Reading Week? Well, I did attend the day-long Singapore Project Management Symposium, which got me credit towards maintaining my PMP certification—more about that wild party shortly. But mostly I read. I finished the last few books of Stephen King's Dark Tower series, something I've been working my way through all semester since finding the first one at a used book store here in Singapore. That's seven books and surely something approaching a million words. I finished the last book earlier this week, and on the evening of the same day I watched the last three episodes of Battlestar Galactica Season 3. That's really a lot of narrative to wrap up one one day. And perhaps that explains why I feel compelled to tell you about today's SMIG (States, Markets, and International Governance) final.

NUS takes all examinations very seriously, allegedly because in the past many classes took 90 or 100% of the grade from finals. It's hard not to wonder to what extent a multi-millenium Chinese tradition of examinations still exerts influence, to say nothing of cheating. Several professors said they didn't want to give finals but their written applications to skip finals in their classes were rejected. Happily, at least for negotiation we won't have a final. (You have thirty minutes to negotiate with your assigned partner to share 30 points of final grade between the two of you. Note that the final makes up 30% of your final grade, so this is a zero-sum negotiation. Failure to reach a signed agreement before time is up results in the loss of those points for both parties.)

Anyway, our instructor filled out extra forms so that we were able to take our exam in the computer lab at least, and I was able to change my keyboard to Dvorak; I didn't try surfing the web. The SMIG final had eight questions taken from the readings. The key instructions:

• The Exam is two (2) hours long.
• Ten (10) minutes reading time is permitted prior to commencement of the Examination.
• Candidates should answer any two of the questions in short answer format (approximately 750 words for each response)
• Candidates should answer any one of the questions in essay format (approximately 1500 words)
• there is no penalty for longer responses.

Yikes. 3000 intelligent words on three topics in 2 hours. That's an average of 25 words per minute. I can type double or triple that speed, but I can't necessarily think that fast.

There was a lot of overlap between some of the questions; while the details diffe, they all ultimately resolve to the same few points, which also serve as a summary of what I learned in class:

• Nation-states have yielded power in some areas on some topics to other kinds of actors
• In some cases nation-states have yielded this power voluntarily, because they think non-state actors will better meet the state goals.
• Nation-states could probably take a lot of this power back if they wanted to, although that would break a lot of things and likely not be in their interests.

I ended up choosing these questions for short answer: what do "anomalies between convergence and divergence ... tell us about the power and influence of the nation-state when much of the literature is suggesting that state authority is increasingly constrained by transnational economic actors and market forces?" (771 word answer), and "how do we account for such contrasting outcomes [MNEs escaping taxation, Hungary regulating foreign automobile FDI] that suggest both the increasing power of MNEs but also the continuing power of the nation-state to regulate them?" (675 words)

For the essay, I tried to "provide four examples that support Hass's thesis [that 'the world 35 years from now will be semisovereign'] and four which refute it." and answer "[h]ow might these different and contradictory forces on the Nation-State be explained and what, pen ultimately, might determine the outcome?" This one was tricky. First, I would really like to know what "pen ultimately" is intended to mean. Is there some use for "pen" that I'm not aware of, some kind of foreign word thing like "vis-à-vis" or "ipsum"? Or, it just now occurs to me, was he trying to say "penultimately", which makes no sense at all in the question, because why the heck would you be more interested in the penultimate than the ultimate outcome determinant?

To my eternal shame, due to time shortages, I resorted to using North Korea's continuing existence as an example refuting Hass' thesis. I realize as I am typing this that, since his thesis is semi-sovereignty, I could have refuted his thesis both with examples of persistent full sovereigty and of complete destruction of sovereignty, and supported it with examples specifically of semi-sovereignty, but that's spilt milk under the bridge.

I also came very close to using the Vinge/Kurzweil singularity theory in my answer. That's the theory that our lives our changing so quickly in every respect, but especially technologically, that very soon (years or decades from now, not centuries), the world will become completely incomprehensible to everyone who came before. Not just weird in the way that televisions and supermarkets are to Stone age people, but utterly different.

The only thing that really went wrong was that I mismanaged time and had to stop in the middle of my concluding paragraph (and shy of a thousand words), just as I was thinking of a few new ideas to make my point. So here, professor, in case you are dying to know, is the ending:

Previously in Joel's essay:

There will therefore be a race between technological change and political change.

And now, the thrilling conclusion to ... Joel's essay:

Technological changes will ultimately render the current, geographically based nation-states irrefutably obsolete, as our Cylon overlords impose new political and economic systems. Meanwhile, current trends towards both political aggregation, as for example with the EU and NAFTA, compete with matching trends towards devolution and self-determination, as in for example Scotland, Montenegro, provincial Malaysia. These competing trends are likely to disperse what used to be national powers, such standing armies, foreign policy, justice, and compulsory education, to new units of political power either bigger or smaller than nations. The Westphalian nation-state already stands eroded; it is unlikely that it will persist in recognizable form. When the last Gunslinger dies in his quest to reach the Dark Tower, our world will move on, as Mid-World has already done, and the Crimson King will rule unchallenged. Thus, either Roland will fail and the Dark Tower will fall, taking with it all humanity, or we will learn that we are all Cylons. To find out which ... tune in in 2008!

I grew up in Alaska, so I am not unfamiliar with the moose. Before I was a vegetarian, I even ate moose sausage once or twice. And while I've also eaten elk, I don't remember ever actually seeing an elk.

But I just saw this article, 'World's largest elk' to be built in Sweden (via Making Light), and had to do some research. I learned that what is called a moose in North America is called an elk in Europe; what we call an elk in the US is a smaller animal of a different genus, and is called the wapiti in Eurasia.

As the OED explains under the entry for moose:

1. a. The elk, Alces alces. The usual name for the animal in North America (where elk is used instead for the wapiti, Cervus elaphus canadensis)...

Certainly there's nothing wrong with the word elk. It has a nice enough sound, /ɛlk/, if a bit abrupt, and a vague sense of nobility. But as words go, it really can't hold an antler to /mu̟ːs/.

Catch-22, Joseph Heller.
I read Catch-22 for Matthew Baldwin's NaNoReMo 2007. His commentary, plus a sampling of user comments, covers the book review territory pretty well, key points being: if you don't like the style, it's hard to read; if you do like the style, it goes very quickly and is a hoot, but can still be trying; the deliberateness of the repetition. I am a bit disappointed by some of Matthew's selections of favorite passages: he seems to favor the most heavy-handed and obvious polemical bits, which to me are not the strength of the book.

What I want to add to the discussion is this thought, from a New York Review of Books article about war reporters:

... that violent conflict is simply beyond representation ... may be true about movies.... About writing, though, it is untrue. This is a matter of craft, a matter of devising the right technique. And it always has been. Right at the dawn of modern fiction, Jakob von Grimmelshausen recognized that his experiences in the hell of the Thirty Years' War could not be told straight because they were beyond the comprehension of peaceful readers. So he transposed them into a key of horrifying, merciless, callous satire, The Adventures of Simplicius Simplicissimus (1669). Don't try to "understand," don't try to "imagine,", just read Simplicissimus and be appalled at your own laughter. That way, you are getting close to what Carolin Emcke and Anthony Loyd are trying to report. —Neal Ascherson

This describes Heller, whose biography is similar to Yossarian's, perfectly. This is not the work of a veteran, a decade or two after the war, deciding to write something clever about how darned wacky it was. Catch-22 is a scream of pure rage, at war in general but more pointedly at those individuals who bear responsibility for causing war and for making it worse, at those people who cause horrible suffering with callous indifference.

Helen Sampson and Michael Bloor (2007), "When Jack gets out of the Box: The Problems of Regulating Global Industry," Sociology, 41(3), June, pp.551-570.

• p 551, from the abstract: "This article considers the challenge of regulation across national borders using the example of the shipping industry. ... It concludes that effective global regulation faces considerable challenges."
• p 552. shipping is a "critical case" for global governance, in the sense that, it's so important to be globally governed that it of all things ought to be globally governed, and if it's not, then global governance probably isn't working/happening anywhere. A dubious thesis, if you ask me, because historical accidents could have influenced any specific "critical case".
• p 553. Further elaboration: shipping is a critical case because "in this industry there have been long-standing and sustained efforts to establish effective forms of global governance dating back to the first decades of the 20th century." I think this whole "critical case" thesis is not helping anything other than bulking the introduction up by an extra page or two.
• p 553. "given the advantages inherent in the shipping sector in relation to the possibilities for regulation ... if regulatory compliance cannot be adequately secured in this sector it is unlikely to be achieved elsewhere." Was that just a third justification for "critical case"? Note that "critical case" comes from a 1968 paper about "embourgeoisement in Britain".
• p 554. "Associations between profitability, regulatory avoidance and workplace safety have been noted elsewhere". I assume they mean that as regulatory avoidance goes up and safety goes down, profitability goes up.
• Flag states. If nations really cared about losing regulatory power over ships (which they probably don't, since shipping companies have lobbyists and dead seagulls and invaded species don't), they could just ban ships from nations with inadequate regulations.
• p 555. Actual data. two studies. 104 ship visits. UK, Russia, India.
• p 555. Alternatives to command and control regulation: enforcement pyramid, accomodative or compliance strategies, "smart" regulation, using market mechanisms, transparency.
• p 556. "Port-State control" is an attempt to enforce regulations regardless of flags of convenience. That's what I said a few pages ago; I guess I'm really proactive here.
• p 556. A ship operator claims "Everybody is using EQUASIS ... 'Name and shame' works: it's helping to remove the sub-standard ships that are driving down the freight rates."
• p 558. Inconsistencies in port-state control render is useless. "One inspector boarded a ship [that had] broken down off Ushant. In a port-State inspection in Spain, only two months previously, no deficiencies had been recorded. Yet this inspector identified fourteen separate deficiencies"
• p 563. self-regulation doesn't work either. Some members are corrupt so the white lists of well-self-regulated companies can't be trusted.

Virginia Haufler (1999), "Self Regulation and Business Norms: Political Risk, Political Activism," in A. Claire Cutler, Virginia Haufler and Tony Porter (eds.), Private Authority and International Affairs. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, pp.199-222.

Business norms and strategies make a difference in governance. Examples: insuring ships against war risk;

Michele Fratianni & John Pattison (2002), "International Financial Architecture and International Financial Standards," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 579, January, pp.183-199.

The authors argue for leveraging the US/UK dominance in global finance markets for purposes of regulation. "these two centers ... are the conduit of systemic risk, [and so] can establish both the rules for market access and the core regulatory and supervisory framework to deal with international systemic issues."

Hans Tietmeyer (1999), "Evolving Cooperation and Coordination in Financial Market Surveillance," Finance & Development, 36(3), September, pp.20-23.

German banker's report on setting up the Financial Stability Forum at the request of G7. The three priorities he identified included identifying vulnerabilities, making better rules and having those rules followed, and consistent rules and information flow internationally. To its credit, the FS Forum seems to publish a lot of stuff on its website. Here's a detail from the January 2007 European Regional Meeting: "Participants noted the current benign global financial conditions, which had fostered and reflected robust global growth, rising corporate profitability and financial innovation. At the same time, markets were seen to be characterised by a very low level of risk premia, especially in credit markets." No word on any, ah, vulnerabilities looming in the future. Apparently all that risk is properly priced as of January 2007.

Class discussion

Who regulates international financial markets? Not really anybody; ad-hoc committees to some extent. Bank of International Settlements. Basel Accords.

Competitive regulation theory: Financial actors are regulated by the laws of their home country, even when operating in other countries. Standards set by international bodies but enforced by states. Reserve requirements. (Here's an especially thorough Wikipedia article on reserve banking.)

Q: If competition will regulate everything, why do we need state regulators?

Q: This mode of quasi-regulation is happening in every industry. Why is it more complicated in finance? A: Low transaction cost and high volume in finance. Affects many others.

Consensus that most needed type of regulation is to slow down super-fast flow of money which causes excess volatility. E.g., tax on currency exchange.

This issue is in the public interest, so why aren't there any NGOs involved? Which ones might be? Bono/Geldof, debt relief NGOs?

Non-disclosed books: conduits, off-balance sheet. Represent a move by heavily regulated companies (US banks) to decline to be regulated.

What's the point? Banks must be regulated because otherwise they will take bad risks in search of profit and collapse, taking out other banks in the process and damaging the financial system. Without a healthy financial system, the economy can't function well. So some type and level of international banking regulation is required to have either a global or even local economies.

Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are trying to slow their economies by raising interest rates, but their currencies are rising (as the US dollar weakens and the US lowers interest rates) and, as a result, their exports are getting hurt.

Shipbuilding industry. After WWII, US had as much as 36% of the total world fleet.

Final class of the semester, intended to show links between macro and micro-economics.

Guest speaker, Joshua Greene from the IMF.

There's certain things you can't expect even a perfect market to provide in the right quantities. You need government.

Fiscal policy and macroeconomics. Stabalization, including inflation around 1 to 3 percent. Output near potential GDP. Sustainable balance of payments. Tools used to accomplish this: gov't spending, tax cuts [sic]. ... Shift taxation from income towards consumption to reduce double-taxation of savings. (Joel's note: some opinions against this idea: 1, 2.) Spend in a way that raises productivity: better courts to support business, more operations and maintenance, health and education, skilled staff.

Microeconomics. Addressing market failure. Natural monopoly. Externalities. Public goods. Imperfect and asymmetric information. Incomplete markets due to adverse selection.

Professor Toh Mun Heng

From the NUS business school.

Example one: peak-load problem for mass transit. Economic theory says you should change more at peak times.

A seminar from the Law Faculty. The last event I attended here had perhaps 20 attendees. This one, on the legality of homosexuality, is standing room only, with media (which triggered an announcement by the moderator that, as is normal for these seminars, people are free to speak without attribution by name. That's the first time I've heard anyone at any lecture or seminar speak directly about press rules).

Section 377, banning "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals", commonly understood to criminalize bestiality, anal sex, and oral sex. Up to a life sentence in prison. This was revoked last month and replaced by a new section 377 which criminalizes only necrophilia.

Section 377a bans "any act of gross indecency with another man". It's still in force and is understood to ban male homosexuality. Up to two years in prison.

Criminal law

Legal argument: The repeal of 377 may have, technically, unintentionally, legalized male homesexuality. Legal background; it's messy, having to do with 19th century British law cut and pasted into colonial laws. If 377 is removed, decriminalizing unnatural sex between men, women, and animals, and replace it with a law that bans only sex between humans and animals, should that be interpreted to mean that unnatural sex between men and women is legal?

Joel's note: While he dives into legal minutiae, let me give you some selections from a speech in Parliament by Nominated Member Thio Li-ann in defense of 377A

[R]epealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties. ... If we seek to copy the sexual libertine ethos of the wild wild West, then repealing s377A is progressive. But that is not our final destination. The onus is on those seeking repeal to prove this will not harm society.

According to the prof, the Law Society of Singapore has formally opined that gay sex is not harmful. Back to the quote ...

... but "harm" can be both physical and intangible; victims include both the immediate parties and third parties. What is done in 'private' can have public repercussions.

The harm that Thio seems to have in mind here is the kind that, as Dan Savage argues, is caused by being closeted, not by being gay.

As law has a moral basis, we need to consider which morality to legislate. Neither the majority or minority is always right – but there are fundamental values beyond fashion and politics which serve the common good. Religious views are part of our common morality. We separate 'religion' from 'politics,' but not 'religion' from 'public policy'. That would be undemocratic. ... Human rights are universal, like prohibitions against genocide. Demands for 'homosexual rights' are the political claims of a narrow interest group masquerading as legal entitlements. ... You cannot make a human wrong a human right. ... Science has become so politicized that the issue of whether gays are 'born that way' depends on which scientist you ask. ... Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder. ... Singapore law only recognizes racial and religious minorities. Special protection is reserved for the poor and disadvantaged; the average homosexual person in Singapore is both well educated, with higher income – that’s why upscale condo developers target them! Homosexuals do not deserve special rights, just the rights we all have.

Her speech continues for pages in the same vein, getting more repugnant with every page. While I've been sharing this speech with you, the prof has reviewed the arguments that gay sex cause harm through HIV/AIDS and paedophilia and found them wanting. We rejoin the seminar talking about morals.

Problems with "enforcement of morals" theory. Singapore's law is arbitrary with respect to morals; abortion is legal, prostitution is legal, "enticement" is legal, casinos have recently been legalized. In Singapore, a man who is gender-reassigned to a woman can legal marry a man. Not many countries have done this. Singapore has announced that 377A will not be enforced. Unenforced laws can be worse than nothing. Parallels from the abortion debate in Singapore four decades ago.

Constitutional law

There is no explicit privacy clause in the Singapore constitution, so I'll focus on the equality issue. Discrimination is legal in Singapore when it is based on "intelligible differentia", the differentia has a "rational relation" to the purpose, and the purpose is legal. Now that 377 is struck and 377A retained, the equality argument falls apart because sex between women is not included, etc. There is no rational relation to the "objects of the Penal Code" since it doesn't prevent harm, protect public order, or preserve public health. Supporting details include condom provision, gay bashing, HIV screening, etc etc. The only object is moral/religious, which is not a legitimate object. South Africa struck down a similar law on equality grounds. In the US, Lawrence struck down a similar law on privacy grounds, but O'Connor argued on equality. Same in Fiji and Hong Kong, which decriminalized gay sex in about 1991.

Conclusion: 377A is not justified in law, is not constitutional, goes against public health etc, contributes to hate crimes, puts Singapore out of step with the rest of the world.

Comment: The problem with your argument is that Singapore has adopted a (unclear) definition of rights. The law does pass muster on "rational relation"; you can define the group of "men who have anal sex with men" quite clearly. Once Singapore finishes shifting its definition of equality, then you can make that argument, but not with the law as it stands.

Comment: a concurrence that an intelligible differential can be found in "men who have anal sex with men". But that leaves out "men who have anal sex with women". ... By rejecting morality as a basis, you can then make your differential argument (since, if I follow, without a moral argument there's nothing special about men having anal sex with men versus various other combinations). But I need to be persuaded that morality is not a legitimate purpose for Parliament. If it's declared an avowed purpose, why is that not a legitimate purpose? Non-enforcement is another issue, because the person who decides whether to enforce is the public prosecutor, who is insulated from Parliament. How does that affect your arguments?

A: ... There's a difference of opinion on morals.

Comment: States in the US have submitted to a higher federal law that makes state morals subordinate to federal law, and US courts are right to reject morality. But Singapore's a unitary state. That strikes me as slight of hand; doesn't that just shift the issue to the morality of federal law?

Comment: What about animal welfare and morality? Whose morality are we enforcing? Sometimes the law should enforce morality. But I agree with the MP who said he's uncomfortable with Victorian-style moral laws.

Q and A about what offensive is.

The penal code shouldn't deal with some of this: for example, if necrophilia is banned, and bestiality isn't, what about sex with dead animals? The penal code shouldn't need to address this.

A symbolic law that isn't harmful may be okay, but this symbolic law clearly causes harm.

Q: Singapore is the only first-world country (out of 31 under IMF criteria) which bans homosexual sex. Why are we still in this position? There was no AIDS in the 1880s when the law was written; it's just a smokescreen. What is an act against nature? What about in-vitro fertilization? They said the anus is for the excretion of waste - so they won't get colonoscopies? (I trimmed a very long-winded non-question.)

A: ... I take offense to your attack on my colleague (says the prof who argues 377A is unconstitutional to the rambling commenter)

Q: this curious animal, the unenforced law. I suppose there's an analogy to jurisdictions which have a moratorium on the death penalty but still have the law on their books. Perhaps that's the closest parallel. (The tone in the room got a bit awkward as the moderator tried to bring the previous rambling commenter to a point)

Q: It's a Christian morality, which we've seen defended by a Christian minority. It worries me, when it came to abortion and to casinos, Christian concerns were rejected by the government, but on this issue, it was different. Why does this Christian morality win the day when Christians are only 15% of Singapore? A: that's a difficult question, I'm just a humble lawyer. ... This is not just a Christian; may not be in Hinduism, Taoism. But it seems to me this could end up a turning point in Singapore politics. MM Lee and his legacy have been pragmatism. Here was a narrow and open debate on ideology. I think pragmatic reasons point clearly to legalization but the government didn't go that way.

Q: I want to go back to your first point. I can see the headlines tomorrow: NUS law prof says homosexuality now legal. (A: I was just being provocative.) You are arguing that 377 was the law that banned male anal sex all along and everybody was arguing the wrong section. A: not exactly. Why are there two different sections with vastly different penalties? Historical formation of the law.

Q: India is going through a similar issue (Because of the common colonial origin, the Indian law is also section 377.

Q: you spent a lot of time talking about equality, but the constitutional issues in Lawrence are concerned with liberty.

Joel's note: As a post-script, here's Thio Li-ann's article in the Straits Times defending her speech:

"Can we disagree without being disagreeable?", Thio Li-ann, The Straits Times (Singapore), 26 Oct 2007.

Why, in the interests of objectivity, had the 'ex-gay' phenomenon not been investigated?

[...]

I hope Singapore will not end up with an uncivil civil society by allowing public debate to degenerate into fruitless name-calling and distorting issues by speaking misleading half-truths.

[...]

Furthermore, specific issues should be debated, rather than making emotional and vague appeals to 'fairness', 'equality', 'inclusivity' and 'tolerance'. The concrete issue is: What should we exclude or include?

[...]

To approach morally controversial debate with maturity, the solution is not more government, but self-government.

To recap: Why can't I deny you your rights without you getting upset about it? We should discuss the misleading, mostly untrue 'ex-gay' phenomenon but not speak misleading half-truths. Please make your argument against banning male homosexual sex without using fairness or equality. We can use self-government while we debate the government prohibition against you. You can dig up the whole thing in your local library but it's not any more coherent that my excerpts.

1. Create slides with your points in bullet form. This helps depersonalize your presentation so people don't pay attention to you.
2. To help make it worse, put everything you are going to say onto your slides. That way your audience will have even less reason to listen to you.
3. Extra bonus bad: read out loud from your slides. Minimizing your audience's cognitive load keeps them less engaged.
4. Double-extra bonus bad: turn your back on your audience. Eliminating eye contact reduces the human connection even more.
5. Speak in a monotone at a constant speed. Since you are reciting facts that don't even interest you, your audience need not be interested either.
6. Do not practice. By not practicing, and especially, by not practicing by speaking out loud, you can preserve your hesitations and speech disfluencies for your audience. You will also reinforce your dependence on your text.
7. Stand still. By moving, you will only attract attention.
8. Speak for many minutes more than planned, so that your audience feels trapped and impatient.
9. To help with this, you may want to mention every fact relevant to your topic rather than focusing on the most important ones.
10. To help even more, remember to not practice. I can't emphasize enough how important not practicing is to bad presentations.
11. For technical bonus points, use colorful slide backgrounds so that some of your text is illegible. Even if the text is legible, a few superfluous frames and decorations can go a long way in distracting people.
12. For extra technical bonus points, use sound effects and animation in your presentation. Your audience will appreciate them as much as they do cell phone ring tones.
13. Final technical bonus opportunity: don't pre-load and pre-test your files on the equipment. Starting your presentation with tedious computer manipulation helps reduce interest even before you start speaking.

And a few comments I don't want to force into the conceit of the bad presentation list. Slides are mostly bad. Only use slides if there is something you want everybody to see at the same time, presumably because you are saying something interesting about it. For example, a diagram or chart or something. I think there is an argument in favor of putting something in text for the benefit of audience members who aren't comfortable in the language of the presentation, but if so, it should be on paper handouts so that everyone who needs to read what you are saying can do so at their own pace. Also, paper handouts should be in prose, not in bullet points.

If it were up to me, the minimum acceptable presentation would be performed without notes or bulleted slides. And presenters would be cut off completely at the time limit and judged accordingly. People in class need the conclusion less than the presenter needs to internalize the importance of practice and time management.

Long-time member of parliament and minister for many different departments. He has his own Wikipedia page and also some strong criticism. I wonder where that last site is hosted—surely if it was hosted in Singapore it would be shut down already? Hm. It's registered by " Domains by Proxy, Inc.". The route to the server goes through Los Angeles and Atlanta. Now on to our speaker.

Oh, and we are at a noon meeting in a lecture hall with the blackout shades drawn and the lights all the way up. One or two speakers have pointed out this nonsense without any effect. Since then I've tried to make it a habit to open the blinds (there are glare shades you can leave in place while letting in most of the light) and turn the lights down when I have the opportunity. But last time I did that, it took about 5 minutes before somebody else came in noticed the room was only well, not blindingly lit, and turned the lights back to max.

From here on, plain text is the speaker:

I'm not good at speeches because I fall asleep listening to them. I like Q&A better. Joel's note: fairly generic Singapore governance speech. We have limited resources, business hub, etc. It's not possible to have policies that please everyone.

Someone told me "You guys cheat all the time" "Why?" "You have the database, you see the good students, you pamper them, and when they get out they want to work for you." Through that process we ensure there's a core group in Singapore who have the talent to do things right.

Joel's note: He's right, he really isn't good at speeches. He has a rambling style and hesitant speaking style that make it extremely hard to follow his point. Having briefly skimmed the criticism site linked above, which calls him incompetent, it's tempting to concur simply based on how bad his speech is. Not only because of the poor delivery, but because he doesn't give any hints of interesting thought. While he drones on, I'll continue with the research.

The authors of a book called "Escape from Paradise" claim:

He fell into extreme disfavor with the Singapore Government. On Dec. 2, 2002, it was announced that he had been removed from Singapore's People's Action Party (PAP) all powerful Central Executive Committee. This was the beginning of the end for Yeo, which is what happens when a Cabinet Minister and his wife go out on a limb to ban a book that brought attention to a property transaction, that stuck fear into the Yeos. Escape from Paradise did not say what Helen Yeo had done. However, when she threatened to sue us, we let it all hang out on the web.

He's still rambling. Deregulation, phones, cheap IP calls, low-cost airlines invited into Singapore. Etc. Finally the concluding sentence. "All of these relate back to having clarity in policy making." 35 minutes. Meanwhile I found this book, which looks like it might be worth a read.

Q: What's the relationship in Singapore between policy making and politics. How are stakeholders involved? A: The stakeholders with the loudest voices are private companies and mumble. We try to listen to the stakeholders; are their inputs self-serving or do they provide greater clarity. [about five minutes of ramble that adds nothing to his answer] We have to hold the ground every 4 years or the people will vote us out.

Q: can you give some examples of where the policy-making process went wrong and how it was corrected? How important is it in your opinion for people to be able to complain? What opposition do you face in re-election? A: If you have 20 people, not everybody will agree. (Joel's note: A revealing comment, I think, because it suggests that 1) there are about 20 people present in whatever meeting really makes decisions, and 2) Yeo thinks those twenty people are all that matters.) The core of the policy, few people would disagree with. Just because people argue at the margins doesn't mean the policy is really wrong. The "stop at two" policy—I thought it was wrong because I came from a family of 12. But later on I realized it was a good policy. ... Many people have the perception that there's no dissent allowed in Singapore. but this is not true. In Singapore we engage the dissent and argue, and many times convince them. And people who can't stand the heat may leave. ... Competition: I faced competition twice. Explanation of GRC (a mechanism the PAP uses to help maintaing a monopoly on power) as a means to ensure minority representation. Once I faced the strongest group of 5 opposition ever. I got 80.1%. So competition is there. We don't buy votes in Singapore.

Joel's note: yes, he really did just cite beating the best opposition ever 80-20 as evidence of fair elections. As with Blair's unfortunate answers on Iraq, he gives every impression of believing his own answer

Q: What changes have there been with the three prime ministers? Are there two factions within the cabinet? A: I joined with LKY. No change in substance, only in style. He's mellowed since then. He challenged you, and you either stood up to the heat or you shouldn't be there. Goh was a lot milder. The policy that was hottest was the integrated resorts. No gambling means no gambling. Even today there are dissenting votes.

Q: Based on your speech it seems like one of the keys to your success with difficult policies is a very cooperative business sector. Why is this? A: A sense of trust. Built up over many years of working together that they know, at the end of the day, that we have their interests at heart. Government doesn't create wealth, it consumes wealth. We depend on the private sector to create wealth.

Q: something about the Philippines and the power of the church. A: Our system is much simpler than many other countries. Many policies don't have to go back to Parliament to be approved. Otherwise policies could be watered down.

Q: I recently became a PR (permanent resident), thanks to your investment plan. I've been fascinated by the Singapore story and you guys have done a fabulous job here. One limitation in the future could be land. How will you deal with that? A: regionalize, internationalize. Do only what absolutely needs to be done in Singapore. Singapore can have a maximum population of perhaps 8 million; you can do a lot with 8 million. Involve countries in region in Greater Singapore. They should realize it's win-win.

Most of our guest speakers are selected opportunistically; they're already booked in Singapore for some reason and LKYSPP finds out and nabs them. I wonder what Tony Blair is doing in Singapore, other than meeting LKY (the person, not the school) as the dean not-so-subtly hinted.

Executive Summary

Blair is very graceful and sympathetic, with some self-deprecation. He makes a good impression. His answers to questions on Iraq, the defining failure of his term, are insultingly bad.

Dean's introduction

A plug for NUS and LKY.
• After globalization, the world has shrunk literally [? if? and? Joel's note: I sensed a Friedmanism coming up and flinched, missing what exactly he said] not metaphorically.
• A few Blair key achievements not as well known in Singapore.
  • Reformed not only the Labour party but also the economy.
  • Few know that Blair came very close to losing a vote on university fees. He pushed through a fee increase that may have saved universities.
  • Peace in Sierra Leone and Ireland.

Total time of introduction: about 6m30s.

Blair

Singapore, one of my favorite places in the world.

Joke about British media.

Joke about wife being the scholar of the two

There are very few times when you can say that the intervention of one person made a difference in a nation but Lee Kuan Yew is such a person. I managed to get an audience with him many years ago, when I was an opposition MP. Somebody told me he was the guy to meet. I asked him, "tell me what you know about politics," which he did.

Joke about bad predictions and the publisher who turned down Harry Potter.

The two big characteristics of the world today are the sheer pace and scale and scope of change [more or less sic]. As Prime Minister, I was Prime Minister for ten years, you kind of become institutionalized. I never had a mobile phone until the day after I retired in June. I had to learn to do an email. I texted a good friend of mine, not realizing that only my number, not my name, appears, and got a text back, "sorry, but who are you?" I thought, "It's only been 24 hours."

Talking to Clinton about the Asian financial crisis 1997-8. I realized, only a year into my premiership, that the UK economy was going to be affected by something that had nothing to do with the UK.

Kosovo crisis caused problems throughout Europe. Irrespective of what I thought was happening in Britain at that time, this issue was going to affect us as a nation. ... partnership with Clinton, we did act. (Joel's note: I'm not writing everything he says verbatim, but I am typing "Clinton" every time he says it).

What happens in another part of the world can, to a far greater degree than even before, impact right around the world. Different analysis of politics, issues to do with global governance, and the solutions. If you'd asked me six months ago in detail about the subprime market .... I finally got to say just a few months ago, "I don't know". The thing is, as the result of this, right around the world people are worried. The big question being asked by the citizens of this world—I happen to think that globalization is a greater opportunity than problem— ... the reaction to globalization. ... In the UK, every stage of reform is tightly fought over. Indeed I almost lost my job over the university reform. It was necessary as things become increasingly global. Very virulent terrorism, around the world and deeply rooted.

Joel's Note: I just want to shout, why, why were you Bush's lapdog? I'm slightly serious. I really want to speak up. otherwise this whole thing is just a farce. he says the obvious, we clap, nothing happens, we go on. I guess the polite form of the question would be, "had the UK resolutely resisted the call to war in Iraq, what would have been the result?"

He's reciting globalization issues, climate change, coal, price of oil, etc etc. Didn't hear agriculture subsidies mentioned. Energy policy is now right at the center of G8, etc. Just before I ceased being PM, I took two decisions that didn't get a lot of attention. One was a deal with Norway to supply 30% of UK gas. I also, very controversially, agreed to replace the existing nuclear power stations. Those are decisions that wouldn't be on the agenda a few years back.

Immigration. As a result of the pace of change and interdependence, 200 million people are trying to migrate at any given moment around the world. If you took the migrants out of the city of London today, the city would collapse. I think if you look at the challenge of Africa, millions of people dying every year from preventable diseases, wars killing hundreds of thousands, rich in resources but full of poverty, I think that's a challenge for the rest of the world. I'm alarmed at how I can see conflicts in Africa involving some of the extreme forces we see in the rest of the world. The world should invest in improving Africa.

What are the solutions to these? The solutions cannot come through the agency of any one power alone. Open up benefits, not protectionism. Terrorism cannot be resolved simply be security means, but also to persuade those that might be at risk of being recruited to terrorism not to do so. A global view. The challenges are global in nature; the solutions have to be multilateral and global. We have a complete mismatch between the need for such solutions and the capacity to deliver them.

Even the most powerful country in the world cannot force WTO agreements. The ultimately power doesn't lie in military force (re: terrorism); it lies in persueding moderate people in the Islam world not to join the terrorists. But the roots to this are very deep and the answer cannot simply lie in one nation's military force; you can see this in Afghanistan (I think he said).

The G8 today is an important forum but it was absolutely essential that we involved China and India. The biggest challenge is climate change. The world wants to act. There's been a sea change in America. I'll tell you the honest truth (Third time he's used that term) China won't agree to a deal that stops China's growth.

Britain has two strong alliances, one with the US and one with Europe, and we should keep both alive. One part of the media was anti-US, the other anti-Europe, and thanks to my persuasive powers by the end of my term some were anti both.

In the end we're not going to solve these problems without the emerging powers as well as the traditional powers. Some of the solutions aren't going to come from government and multilateral. Some of the most effective campaigns have come from civic groups. Grass roots. Partly because this is something I want to devote a lot of time to myself, but partly because it's of fundamental importance to the world, I don't think we can deal with this outburst of religious extremism unless religions show they can engage. The fact that you celebrate all the main religious festivals in Singapore is interesting; it would be extremely controversial to suggest that they should. (Joel's note: yesterday was Deepavali but I have no idea what that means because I spent the whole day at home writing my negotiation paper so that I could hand it in this morning and come hear Tony Blair speak)

If we want a unifying global governance there must be fairness and justice. One of the reasons I wanted to take this role on of special representative in the Middle East, which most of my friends are skeptical about, is if we want to demonstrate to people in the faith of Islam that we are fair, we must deliver the Palestinians a state.

Peace in Ireland: actually what happened was Ireland became prosperous in the EU; the people of Northern Ireland decided they wanted that prosperity, a new generation impatient with the violence; global influence in solving an unsolvable problem. I also learned about the shrewdness of the Irish—we had the first child born in 10 Downing Street in 150 years; you have to wonder what the other Prime Ministers were doing in there—Irish politician chatting with him about the wonderful thing, new addition, what are you going to call him, lovely. I saw him again months later after my son was born. He had a wonderful suntan. I asked, where did you get it? He said, well, I have to thank you, it was due to that conversation we had a few months ago. The bookmakers were offering very good odds about the name of your child.

Joel's note. Other question to ask: what is your fee for speaking today? Who is paying you?

Joel's note. he converted to Catholicism when he retired. was anglican. allegedly talked to the pope about it. I wonder if he was able to negotiate a special Catholic package for himself. Get the pope to throw in a few indulgences.

Time of talk: about 42 minutes. On to Q&A.

Q: Can you list two or three things G8 has solved? A: there was a $20 billion program of nuclear cleanup after the collapse of the USSR, funded by G8. Very little proliferation has come from former Soviet bloc. Also 2005 Eaglewood summit on Africa. But there's no point in a hundred countries signing a global treaty on climate change if it doesn't include the US and China. I actually think there is a lot we can do around an informal G8 type of mechanism. Can get a lot done with frank meetings without all the bureaucracy attending.

Q: Only one question? "yes." "Please spare me 3?" "you're negotiating? two" "two and a comment." There's intelligence there may be a Tony Blair school of governance. also a question about civil servants or China or openness, I missed the details. A: Not a school, but you're right I think governance is very important. Many good schools already. I agree that there should always be movement towards greater openness.

Q: There's a story that when Bush assumed power you asked Clinton for advice, and he said be his friend. Was that good advice, and what advice would you give the president. A: I think it's a good idea for British PMs to get along with American Presidents, but Clinton did say that. Not a fairweather friend. I am arguing today for a broad agenda; our Western agenda would be far more effective if we were leading the way on climate change, middle east peace, etc. You never ever want a weak American president in the White House, you want someone prepared to be tough when toughness is needed. I noticed several times in the last few years that countries were going to do something but didn't because of a tough person in the White House. I realize defending Bush isn't popular around the world. I don't regret taking the decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States. Thing could have been done differently etc but I stand by my decision. (scattered applause)

Q: How do you reconcile between ?? missed it, and the art of leadership is saying no instead of yes, when yes is easy. A: Thank you for summarizing my speech back to me, you have a future in politics. I learned as a leader you can't please all of the people all of the time. At the end of it I was trying to please some of the people some of the time, but .... Everyone wants more spending on social services and nobody wants to pay more tax. One of the most effective speeches I ever heard in politics was made by a Republic at the 1980 convention to nominate Reagan. This guy got up and said, when did the Democrats ever say no to anybody. "listen to the people", yeah but sometimes they disagree and you have to lead. The time to trust a politician most is when they're telling what you want to hear least.

Q: I'm a reporter from the Straits Times. As the middle east envoy, you said ... the gulf between intentions and abilities. You wrote in an article on values that America is sometimes a difficult friend to have. Can you enlighten us on that. A: I don't think saying the US is a difficult friend to have is a wildly controversial statement. US is the global superpower, it's always going to be difficult to be alongside, but it's always better to be alongside. Whatever criticisms, the basic strengths are still there. Are people trying to get into it or out of it. People are trying to get in, not just because of the economy, because of the constitutional freedoms.

Q: On the case of Iraq, after 1 million displaced, ... are you still as assured of your position today as you were 4 years ago.A: I think I'll disappoint you with my answer, which is that it's good that Saddam is out of power. People say why did you go in there; if they drive us out of Iraq through terrorism, they then drive us out of Afghanistan; if they learn our will is in inverse proportion to theirs, then I tell you we're in for a very very long struggle indeed. It's tragic that many people are dying but we'll never beat them by giving in to it or letting them say we're causing it. They've elected their government and should be allowed to have it.

Q: I'm from Nigeria. You mentioned Africa in your speech. What is your advice for those of us who want to be leaders in Africa?A: The best thing is that, I'm delighted people like you are coming to schools like this, so you can go back and be leaders. One of the basic things we need is non-corrupt government in these countries. People like yourself going back to Nigeria and playing a role in politics ... there is a lot to be done in respect to governance; I sometimes think we would be better off in the Western world focussing less on aid and more on helping with governance.

Q: Do you think too many countries are involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? will it easy as you described in Ireland? A: The problem is those who can help solve it have tended to step back and those who can exploit it have stepped forward. We need the US to step forward and the arab states, and create the two-state solution. The capacity issue for the Palestinians is as important as any other single thing. Negotiating the terms is not impossible; you could put an average group of educated Israelis and educated Palestinians together and get the same agreement worked out. The problem is you work the matrix of security concerns, Palestinian capacity, Israelis lifting restrictions, create a space in which a state can come about. The viability of the Palestinian state to govern itself.

Q: This is a question punted by LSE president. Will you be president of EU? A: we'll move swiftly on, shortage of time you know

Q: Will Europe accept other permanent members on the security council A: If you make the nations more representative, it'll have to happen. we're in a different era today than in the postwar period and we in Europe simply have to accept this.

Q: Something about corruption. unintelligible question. A: answered with other question before.

Q: Leadership: who is going to take it and what kind of leadership will be taken? (sadly, the questioner after asking that verbatim added a bunch more sentences. Finally dean tries to cut him off. Note that the last six or seven questions were asked in sequence and then answered all in one go, which is a good system because it produces a sense of urgency which helps both questioners and speaker get to the point.) A: there will always be a role for hard power but it will always be possible to develop multilateral institutions. I actually learned a lot coming to Singapore for the first time back in the 1990s, this is a remarkable achievement. You were able to go out and forge a country for yourself. Britain needs some of this. we need to work out our place in the new world. we should be proud of our history but not limited by it. The real reason we won that Olympic bid here in Singapore two years ago is, we said London is a multicultural city, we're proud of it, we're not doing you a favor by agreeing to host the Olympics, we actually want you to come and see what we've created. And what you've done here in Singapore, your leverage economically and politically is so much more than it "should be" given the size and population, because you've thought ahead. The role of leaders is to think ahead and think what their place is now and in the future.

An open letter to the prime minister from Catherine Lim, a Singaporean writer who was chided by the last PM, in 1994, who told her to join a party if she wanted to express her opinions about politics.

Speaking about OB markers (which I discuss here; I believe the threat quoted in the textbook is the very one directed at Lim in 1994), she says

The second feature of the new model of governance is the systematic use of fear to silence existing dissident voices and discourage potential ones. While there has always been a climate of fear under PAP rule, the new model seems to have developed it into a distinct strategy of control, making special use of an instrument that has come to be known as the ‘out-of-bounds markers’. These are rules which stipulate what Singaporeans can and cannot say should they choose to criticise the government. The effectiveness of the markers is derived from their being deliberately left undefined and unexplained, for two obvious reasons. Firstly, it allows the government to have its own interpretation of each case as it arises, to suit its purpose. Secondly, since no one knows when or whether the markers are being overstepped, everyone plays safe by practising self-censorship, which can be a more effective curb than direct censorship.

Microeconomics

Last regular class. Tonight's presentations are on exchange rates by country. Some discussion of ratios; what does "1.45" mean when used to describe the cost of the Singapore dollar? Currency traders write "USD/SGD.....1.45" when one US dollar is equal to S$1.45. You can see how that can be confusing. Currency is so much fun because everything is relative, nothing's fixed. You can't say that A went up, you can only say that A/B went up. Imagine all the currencies floating in space, with nothing solid around. If they all drift "up" but one moves more slowly than the others, it actually drops.

Adding to the confusion are NEER and REER. NEER is nominal effective exchange rate; it's the exchange rate of A versus a weighted basked of other currencies. It's the closest you can come to talking about A without talking about A/X. It's A vs the crowd. REER (real effective exchange rate) is the same thing but each currency, including A, is adjusted for local inflation. Note that the rate called "real" doesn't correspond to a real number that you could get at an exchange window. Timor-Leste's banking authority has a nice explanation

China. The yuan dropped dramatically from 1980 from 1980 to 1993, as measured against the dollar, against a basket, or against an inflation-adjusted basket. The rate against the dollar has been fixed or nearly fixed ever since, but the real and nominal rates have fluctuated.

Chile has tried many different exchange rate policies. When the inflow of US dollars started to decline in 1982/83. Huge recession; real exchange rate plummets due to high local inflation.

Malaysia. Huge shock in 1997 as the ringgit plummets by every measure. About 3 minutes into a 5 minute presentation, after much discourse, the first of two partners says "I'm going to start with ...". Sigh. What's the secret to public speaking? Practice. This is the very last class presentation of the semester, and it ends up going 8 minutes. Is there the slightest hint that anybody's practiced for any presentation all semester long? Nope. The second partner for this presentation started at 4:30. Minute seven is too late to offer "a short explanation of short selling". This is the same pattern that shows up in a lot of papers: asked for a two-page memo, many produce four or five. I wonder how much this reflects peoples' work habits? Do most produce big brain dumps on every angle imaginable to prove mastery of the subject? This is the absolute opposite of my style, which is to try and find a handful of important points and ignore the rest. Maybe that's a project manager's instinct to rein in scope at all times. The secret of prioritizing is not in what you make number one, it's in what you choose to ignore.

Of course, looking at another group's report for the Taxi medallion case, which is light years better than my group's, with better research and a more economics-oriented analysis, plus colored charts and graphs!, I can see the drawbacks to my approach.

My question is, if a central bank has to intervene and spend billions of dollars of foreign reserve, did they (the bank or the government) just lose most or all of that money? Did the country just become 30 billion dollars poorer? I didn't get a direct answer when I asked in class, though the prof helped clarify the difference between buying foreign reserves and selling them. Buying foreign reserves is nice: your local companies, having sold a million dollars of widgets to Americans, comes to you (the central bank) with a million US dollars and you can just print some local money and give it to them. Free money (okay, there are some inflation issues and whatnot ...). But if you have to spend your rainy-day US dollars to prop up your rapidly depreciating local currency, you are not exactly losing the wealth that your reserve embodies, but you are exchanging for ... rapidly depreciating assets. So I would assume that a good chunk, if not all, of the foreign reserve spent during a crisis is indeed lost forever.

So China is buying huge amounts of foreign money every day. Why isn't its inflation sky-high? The central bank issues bonds to "sterilize" the new money. That is, if Chinese exporters go to the central bank with US$10b they made today, the central bank gives them CNY75b and also issues almost CNY75b in bonds at the same time. So the people buying the bonds give the central bank CNY70b, and the total money supply stays fairly constant. In 20061H, China sterilized 88% of inflows. So the money supply in China stays fairly level (mostly—see also here), keeping inflation low as China's economy continues to explode. But the foreign account balance remains way out of whack, pissing off the US. Now the central bank holds US dollars, but owes renminbi; if the US dollar drops vs the renminbi, which it pretty much has to in the long run, the central bank will lose a lot of money. I imagine China's thinking on this future problem is, some currency problems in the future are a small price to pay, and a small problem to have, if it helps us industrialize the whole country. So, if I have this right, the US is getting huge amounts of cheap goods from China (and outsourcing the pollution required to make those goods to China) in exchange for some cash and expertise now and lots of IOUs on future US production (US Treasury bills); in exchange China is getting the cash and impetus to modernize. Even if the US debt to China ends up getting paid at a discount, it seems like both countries still come out ahead.

Microeconomics

A classmate gives a special presentation on the self-regulation model on construction in Singapore. The problem for regulators is, if you miss something, it's really hard and expensive to fix a finished building. So you take a long time to carefully check all the plans and demand lots of changes. And you probably still miss something. So it's not a great system. The notion is to get the contractors and engineers to self-regulate. Unfortunately, I couldn't identify from the presentation the specific things that Singapore does to make this work and avoid the obvious fox/henhouse problem.

Imperfect and asymmetric infomation. Dealing with moral hazard. Some solutions include deductibles, health screening for insurance. Regulatory role in markets. Improve transparency; limit secrecy.

Adverse selection. In markets with asymmetrical information and a mix of good and bad products, you end up with bad products taking up a disproportionate amount of the market. (Joel Spolsky claims this has already happened in the programmer job market, where the good programmers are rarely on the market but the bad ones get recycled there every few months. Based on my experience hiring, I can't disagree.) Charts and graphs ensue. Extended warranties as hard-to-fake signals of car quality. Caesarean rates in Brazil: as high as 98% in private hospitals.

As much schadenfreude as I get from this story of conservative authors suing the ultra-right-wing Regnery press, what prompted me to post is the quote below. The authors accuse Regnery of selling books very cheaply to wholly owned subsidiaries such as the "Conservative Book Club", thus reducing the royalties paid to authors.

"The difference between 10 cents and $4.25 is pretty large when you multiply it by 20,000 to 30,000 books," Mr. Miniter said. "It suddenly occurred to us that Regnery is making collectively jillions of dollars off of us and paying us a pittance." He added: "Why is Regnery acting like a Marxist cartoon of a capitalist company?"

I love the cognitive dissonance. The thought process implied here starts with tribalism: "everyone in my tribe is good and everyone in your tribe is bad", taken to the next level: "everything bad is in your tribe". If a conservative business is acting poorly, by definition it's acting non-conservatively. E.g., it's impossible for anything sharing my ideology to be bad, so it must actually have your ideology. It must be a betrayal.

Any similarity to the mainstream conservative thought these last years, or to the stabbed in the back meme, is no doubt coincidental.