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.

• Due Monday (and completed): 3000 word research paper for SMIG (States, Markets, and International Governance). Mine was on the power struggles between state and non-state actors in the case of the Great Firewall of China and circumvention attempts. What does it mean, if anything, if the CIA funds private companies or non-profits to help Chinese citizens read the internet? The answer is good for 35% of the class grade.
• Due Wednesday: eight-slide presentation for microeconomics. This is done with in our G3s, and happily my two partners were more on top of it than me. Our case was competition and the New York City taxi medallion market. This is 99.5% done as my G3 bats it around one last time.
• Due Friday: ~2500 word paper for Negotiation. My topic is mismatches in negotiation styles. Cannot discuss the quantity of work done on this paper to date.
• Due next Monday: first draft of field study for Theory and Practice; this is in our G5s; my group studied the Food Control Division of the Agri-Vet Authority. They were very generous with their time and gave us three rounds of interviews.
• Due some time next week: Negotiation journal; 1500 word paper on our country graphs for microeconomics (that's in our G2; this is the Vietnam import/export graph with which we got help from the former Thai finance minister. That citation's going to look pretty good :).)

On the one hand I wish these assignments were better staggered; on the other hand, many of them were until students begs for postponements, and it's not like anything kept me from finishing them weeks early. I had a great first six weeks this semester and then started running out of steam. Time to finish strong. And thank goodness for classmates whose energy complements my laziness.

Naomi Novik, Empire of Ivory
Book four of Temeraire. More of the same. Perfect! (This series cannot be described any better than EW's blurb, "This book is for anyone who's read one of Patrick O'Brian's nineteenth-century-set naval adventures and mused, You know what would make this better? Dragons.")

Vikram Chandra, Sacred Games

Just as his first book, Red Earth and Pouring Rain, was utterly accomplished, so does his second book, a decade later, feel like a worthy mid-career work of an absolute master. Chandra dials back the multi-layered storytelling to merely overflowing, and gives us a fairly straight story of organized crime and police in Mumbai. Spoiler: just one little bit of a taste: pages 838 to 876 contain a rich and convincing complete life story, with a background of classism and racism in a town in rural India, of a character who was nameless during his brief appearance in the main story many hundreds of pages before. This little novellette was so good it would have been worth reading 837 pages of junk just to set it up. This was easily one of the best books I read this year.

Cecelia Dart-Thornton, The Lady of the Sorrows.
I have fond memories of reading "The Ill-Made Mute", by Cecilia Dart-Thornton, so I picked up its sequel. Apparently those memories are quite vague, because the only parts of the recap that rang a bell were that the protagonist had been mute and disfigured but got fixed by the end of the book. Within a few pages I was reading this:

It was difficult to sit still inside the house of the carlin, within walls, and to know that Thorn walked in Caermelor, in the Court of the King-Emperor. Now the renewed damsel was impatient to be off to the gates of the Royal City. At the least, she might join the ranks of Thorn's admirers, bringing a little self-respect with her. She might exist near him, simultaneously discharging the mission she had taken upon herself at Gilvaris Tarv: to reveal to the King-Emperor the existence of the great treasure and—it was to be hoped—to set into motion a chain of events that would lead to the downfall of those who had slain Sianadh, Liam, and the other brave men of their expedition.

And it made every bit as little sense to me as it must to you. I was reading gems like this:

The long tables, loaded with dinner service, made the High seem by comparison austere. Myriad white beeswax candles in branched candelabra reflected in fanciful epergnes of crystal or silvered basketwork, golden salvers lifted on pedestals and filled with sweetmeats or condiments, sets of silver spice-casters elaborately gadrooned, their fretted lids decorated with intricately pierced patterns, crystal cruets of herbal vinegars and oils, porcelain mustard pots with a blue underglaze motif of starfish, oval dish supports with heating-lamps underneath, mirrored plateaux and low clusters of realistic flowers and leaves made from silk.

Maybe I've been buried too deep in academic papers, but when I see prose like that I expect to see footnotes and a bibliography. By the time I hit this on page 32:

Thorn!
But no. Of course not—it was just that she had not been expected to see a tall figure wearing the subdued Dainnan uniform here in the palace suites, where braided liveries stalked alongside jeweled splendors. This man with brown hair tumbling to his shoulders was not Thorn, although he came close to him in height, and if she had not first seen Thorn, she would have thought the Commander exceedingly comely. He was older, thicker in girth, more solidly built, his arms scarred, his thighs knotted with sinew. At the temples his hair was threaded with silver. Proud of demeanor he was, and stern of brow, but dashing in the extreme.
The warrior leader's hazel eyes, which had widened slightly at the sight of the visitor, now narrowed. Somewhere in remote regions of the palace, something loose banged peevishly in the rising wind.

I think that was probably when I gave up any hope, and it was probably about 30 pages too late. Sadly, I spent many minutes that afternoon waiting for a night bus (d'oh) with only that book for company, and was driven by desperation to read as far as page 70 or so. I guess the silver lining is that, with a better book, I might have waited the full three hours until the night bus service started.

Professor Moon Chung-In, Korea's Ambassador for International Security Affairs, gives a seminar on the topic of the Korean summits. "I" refers to Prof. Moon unless otherwise noted. I confirmed with Professor Moon at the end of the seminar that all of his remarks were public.

Invited to talk to the East Asian Institute to "rekindle" interest in Korea in a China-focused department. Joel's note: He's on a first-name basis with Dean Kishore, of course (a former ambassador). I should have a blog category just for Kishore.

I've been to North Korea seven times recently. Went to the first and second summits (in 2000 and 2007). To get from South Korea to North Korea, we have to go to Beijing and take one of the twice-weekly flights to Pyongyang. But recently we drove with special permission and it was less than two hours.

The first summit was just for the two leaders. We 32 other delegates were behind a plane. But the second summit we all shook hands with Chairman Kim. No outside leader had received the same reception; it was like a Tiananmen square welcome.

Joel's note: I hear lots of symbolic things but he's not describing very many substantive changes. The first point of the 2007 declaration is to implement the first declaration. Some more contact for separated families.

At the first summit, the people invited were the vice-marshal, party secretary, member of national defense commission. All elders. At the second summit, there is an agreement to have meetings in Seoul. The North Korean defense minister sat next to the South Korean defense minister. Vice-minister-level South Koreans who are part of the six-party nuclear talks were invited to the head table (breaking hierarchy). President Roh asked why, and Chairman Kim said, you're so interested in nuclear things, this way they can ask questions. Three men known to be "the most powerful military men in North Korea" were also invited. This is a sign that Chairman Kim is really committed to implement the summit resolution.

President Roh's agenda: peace (including denuclearization, peace treaty), common prosperity, new horizon for unification. Reminded Kim that both parties signed an agreement to keep the entire Korean peninsula non-nuclear. Kim didn't reply directly but invited Roh to listen to the report of the North Korean delegate just back from meetings in China. Some back and forth but Roh is optimistic that North Korea is serious so far. Agree to have a summit to end the Korean war. Roh conveyed Bush's message from Sydney about declaring an end to the war—provided North Korea makes progress in denuclearization. Kim replied with interest, "but it's very complicated". Discussion about if it's a three- or four-party discussion; the fourth party would be China. In 1953 the president of Korea didn't sign the peace treaty because he wanted Truman to invade North Korea; refused to sign the peace treaty as a protest. The UN commander (US admiral, but not on behalf of US) and "Chinese Volunteer forces" signed the armistice agreement instead.

As you know North Koreans are linguistic nationalists and refuse to use Chinese characters. But at North Korean insistence some Chinese characters were included in the declaration. They mean (I think he said) "mutually beneficial, complimentary relationship".

South Korean shipbuilders would like to cooperate with North Korea to better compete in low-end market.

Unification predicated on de facto, not de jure. Will have more meetings more frequently, prime minister talks. EU model.

So, some progress with the second summit, but some issues remain. Trust. North Koreans suspicious of economic zones and openness. North Koreans are willing to change without using the word of "change". But Americans, and some conservatives in South Korea, cannot accept it.

Virtuous circle between economic cooperation and peace. But what if vicious cycle emerges? Too much polarization in South Korean politics - what if conservatives repudiate agreements that liberals reached. America matters. We admire Bush's courage in changing policy—he has learned by trial and error. But if there are problems like 2002, things can go back to chaos.

Joel's note: my question, if I get to ask it: 'Observing from the perspective of US domestic politics, my understanding is that 1) Bush rejected Clinton's policy in favor of tough talk; 2) North Korea used the time to make nuclear bombs; 3) Bush returned to Clinton's policy and now we're basically back where we started in 2000 but with more nukes. How accurate is that description? ' Hrm, that's a long-winded question. 'How effective has Bush's policy towards North Korea been?'

Q: Is Japan becoming marginal in six-party talks. A: ... . Japan has asked the US not to remove North Korea from the terrorist list unless kidnapped citizens are returned. During the honeymoons with Bush/Koizumi and Bush/Abe, US and Japan were a two-party group blocking the six party negotiation. Now five want it to move forward but Japan is alone blocking it.

Q: what is the difference between the two parts once they are unified? I'm not as optimistic as you are about unification because the two parts are so different. Unification may be symbolic only unless North pursues market reforms. So, will Korea change their whole system as China did? A: North Korea cannot pursue reformation like China, because North Korea is the center of the universe and Kim Jong-Il is a star in the sky. He cannot learn from others, others should learn from him. It's a serious problem—we have to understand how they think. Unification like Germany, by absorption, is impossible. I visited seven factories in Pyongyang in May and I see clear changes. Officially, Kim doesn't want to follow the Chinese model but internally, please come and pursue the Chinese model. The problem with American policy makers is they don't give a shit about this duality of Korean thinking; they just take what they say at face value. You know why they are having a hard time? Because they virtually killed Asian studies everywhere.
You can tell how long North Koreans have been in the Kaesong economic zone; one week, still North Korean, six months, dress and makeup like South Korean. We have to handle North Korea with care or there will be very negative consequences for the peninsula and north-east China.

Q: I've studied German integration and I'm more optimistic about Korean integration. Your efforts are more realistic than Bush/Samuel Huntington who are killing themselves with their actions.

Q: What about the stability of North Korea? A: I reconfirmed the power of the Defense Commission. North Korea is ruled by the National Defense Commission, not the Party. Even if one of his sons succeeds him, the military will rule North Korea. The North Korea specialists in China believe in stability; US-trained analysts are more panicked. Amateurs like Mark Showl (?) and Nick Eberstadt worry about succession.

Q: Do you think Kim really decided to give up nuclear weapons? How will vicious cycle be avoided in six-party talks? A: It's better for us to assume that Kim has made the strategic decision to give up nuclear weapons. "curvilinear problem in regression" (J: ?) North Koreans do not have endogeneous intelligence production function. They rely on South Korea, China, etc. Kim Jong-Il reads reports from analysts that repeat outside opinions (literally: opinion columns are plagiarised for North Korean internal intelligence reports) about how North Korea will be changed after unification. Better to keep things moving and open and active, take what you can get as you go (my sloppy paraphrase). If you follow the rational choice argument, there is no end, no solution. The point is, we should go in two ways. We want verifiable and irreversible dismantling. We make progress; it could take ten years, but meanwhile we engage. North Korea wants elimination of hostile intent by US, US recognition of North Korean sovereignty, US non-interference, some US economic assistance. If those are met, North Korea will give up nuclear weapons. For vicious circle: we are bound by six-party system.

Q: What advice on China's antagonism to Taiwan? A: In Korea, the first and second summit talks changed lots. After the first talk, the North Korean people were no longer hostile, so the South Korean people are not hostile. Until mid-1960s their living standard was higher; until mid-1970s North Korea was more industrialized. There used to be hostility between us when we met outside of Korea.

Q: Does South Korea have the leadership to unify with North Korea? A: Even conservative party has a very generous deal for North Korea in their platform.

Q: What do North Koreans think about China? A: Dualistic. North Koreans don't trust China, especially since China normalized relations with South Korea. Both playing double-game.

Q: I'm very curious about Kim Jong-Il. His retention of power is beyond our expectation. Can you give us more details or inside information? A: He's been in power since 1994 but he's been preparing since 1971. Longest training period of any leader. (Joel's note: I guess Prince Charles won't lead anything.) Cultivated allies in the military, cabinet. Versatile. I introduced the president of the (public) Korean Broadcasting System (which at the time was banned from NK because of a negative series about NK) to Kim; something about competition with two other, private SK broadcasters; Kim said, "I prefer to watch state-owned television." He knows what's going on outside. One of the most knowledgeable leaders of all the leaders we met. He's a victim of structural rigidity created by his father. He's rarely in Pyongyang, touring the countryside. I learned (re the academic debate between structure and agent) that structure matters. He believes the "openness" is promoted by the US to undermine his regime but if American recognition and normalization is offered he'll take it.