Under ideal conditions, I would choose culture over economics.
But as an individual, I put my economics above culture for the sake of personal survival. That's why, successful individuals have learned to be adaptable, adjusting to the external environment while defining for their individual selves a sense of identity - rather than holding strictly to their culture while trying to change the external environment to their defined ways. This is the constant struggle between the liberals and the conservatives.
But then what is culture - Language, Way of Life or Way of Thinking?
Language, in the old unglobalised world, is an infinite variety of sounds made by people to communicate among themselves. In a globalised world, the sounds are now reduced to a few dominant ones for the purpose of mass communication. Purely from an aesthetic point of view, we should try to preserve as much as we can the exotic sounds of humans, within reasonable economic cost.
Further, our culture is defined by our way of life. And our way of life is defined by our social organisation for economic survival. The rural communities have their way of life, the urban centres have their way of life. We have a tendency to think of our culture as the way of life of our parents or ancestors, while we are busily adapting ourselves to the immediate environment for survival. Our way of life is the way we go about our daily business of living, with our "culture" giving us a sense of identity.
But the greatest meeting point must be the meeting of minds, when different people agree to think in a certain way although they may not agree totally with each other's view point. Do we think based on reason or emotion? That is the words of "wise" men and women have been preserved in different languages and handed down thousands of years for the enjoyment and enlightenment of modern people.
What is economics - the alleviation of fears over animal needs?
Animal needs are very easy to satisfy - as the vagabond or the beggar.
But the alleviation of fears over animal needs seems to be creating an enormous problem for the world, where the perfectly fine and living environment is covered with inanimate materials by humans so that they can control the environment. They compact themselves to maximise economic value, which is nothing but the labour of others for the benefit of oneself which is conversely the labour of oneself for the benefit of others.
Culture and economics are intertwined in constant evolution. We are merely in the midst of reaching for a new horizon.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Medium or Mediocrity
I am fairly neutral on the medium of instruction in schools, for one has to learn in school whatever it may be. Whatever the medium of instruction, it should be taught well by masters.
What I am really cross about is the pervasion of education in schools by mediocre teachers (and headpersons?). It seems that teachers in (some?) schools are the prime examples of stupidity, laziness, and all things which schools are supposed to teach students not to be. This is a grave travesty of decency, and a breach of public trust. If there should be reform in the country, we should start by throwing out the bad teachers.
In the modern world of the internet, children are knowledgeable but probably with an under-developed ability to think objectively for themselves and form their own opinions. Teachers must teach students how to think clearly: how to define an issue clearly, analyse objectively and draw logical conclusions.
If our people can think, we should have more reason than unchecked emotions in public life. We would have well-thought out long-term plans rather than last-minute fire-fighting. We would then have democracy based on well-argued differences rather than bigotry and narrow-mindedness. We would then have entrepreneurship and hard work rather than politicking and corruption.
We should fight against mediocrity, and allow a glimpse of excellence and brilliance and reason and creativity in some corner of society.
What I am really cross about is the pervasion of education in schools by mediocre teachers (and headpersons?). It seems that teachers in (some?) schools are the prime examples of stupidity, laziness, and all things which schools are supposed to teach students not to be. This is a grave travesty of decency, and a breach of public trust. If there should be reform in the country, we should start by throwing out the bad teachers.
In the modern world of the internet, children are knowledgeable but probably with an under-developed ability to think objectively for themselves and form their own opinions. Teachers must teach students how to think clearly: how to define an issue clearly, analyse objectively and draw logical conclusions.
If our people can think, we should have more reason than unchecked emotions in public life. We would have well-thought out long-term plans rather than last-minute fire-fighting. We would then have democracy based on well-argued differences rather than bigotry and narrow-mindedness. We would then have entrepreneurship and hard work rather than politicking and corruption.
We should fight against mediocrity, and allow a glimpse of excellence and brilliance and reason and creativity in some corner of society.
Language: A Perspective
Language is important for cultural as well as for economic reasons.
Within a community, it is important that there be a common language that everybody can communicate. In China, it is Mandarin. In India, it appears to be Hindi and English, though there are many other languages in use. In Malaysia, it is Malay. In this situation, language defines the culture and influences it. It is always lovely to listen to locals speaking their own variant of the language. The variety makes for cultural richness.
For economic purposes, it is important to be conversant with the trading language. Within the local economy, it is Malay. Within the global economy, English is the dominant language for commerce, as Spanish and Portugese were in the olden days. In the last few decades, Japanese was thought to be important. Now, Mandarin seems indispensible.
In the field of learning, especially Mathematics and Science, the current contention is that English is the proper medium of instruction. This objective kills two birds with one stone - to enhance the use of English and to enhance the learning of Mathematics and Science - which implies the availability of super-teachers who are good in all three subjects. The idea behind this may be to create an elite scientific class of students who could compete in the international arena.
This idea is not flawless: (i) The Chinese schools have always claimed supremacy in the teaching of Mathematics in Mandarin. (ii) It may be hard enough to get ordinary school children to master their Mathematics and Sciences in their own languages, without adding the burden of learning the English. (iii) Teachers may not be up to the composite task of teaching English, Mathematics and Science at the same time.
At the end of the day, knowledge in multiple languages is important for survival in the global economy. Proficiency in Malay (for culture) and English (for economic survival) is important. Some may wish to add Mandarin or Tamil or Hindi to the arsenal of modern-day survival kit, but as supplementary. While Malaysia is unique in that all these three languages are well spoken in the country, they are by different segments. For integration, there is a need to strengthen the teaching of languages in schools. The education system may take a Malay+English+1 language policy, with Malay as the medium of instruction in national schools, English as a compulsory area of study, plus the need to choose an option (Mandarin, Tamil, Japanese, etc.).
This language formula can be applied to the vernacular schools. In Chinese schools, the medium of instruction is Mandarin, with Malay as a compulsory subject, plus an option (English, Tamil, etc). In Tamil schools, the medium of instruction is Tamil, with Malay as a compulsory subject, plus an option (English, Mandarin, etc.).
For Mathematics and Science, the teaching should be in their respective medium of instructions. For Science, maybe the answer is to leave the terminology in English.
Within a community, it is important that there be a common language that everybody can communicate. In China, it is Mandarin. In India, it appears to be Hindi and English, though there are many other languages in use. In Malaysia, it is Malay. In this situation, language defines the culture and influences it. It is always lovely to listen to locals speaking their own variant of the language. The variety makes for cultural richness.
For economic purposes, it is important to be conversant with the trading language. Within the local economy, it is Malay. Within the global economy, English is the dominant language for commerce, as Spanish and Portugese were in the olden days. In the last few decades, Japanese was thought to be important. Now, Mandarin seems indispensible.
In the field of learning, especially Mathematics and Science, the current contention is that English is the proper medium of instruction. This objective kills two birds with one stone - to enhance the use of English and to enhance the learning of Mathematics and Science - which implies the availability of super-teachers who are good in all three subjects. The idea behind this may be to create an elite scientific class of students who could compete in the international arena.
This idea is not flawless: (i) The Chinese schools have always claimed supremacy in the teaching of Mathematics in Mandarin. (ii) It may be hard enough to get ordinary school children to master their Mathematics and Sciences in their own languages, without adding the burden of learning the English. (iii) Teachers may not be up to the composite task of teaching English, Mathematics and Science at the same time.
At the end of the day, knowledge in multiple languages is important for survival in the global economy. Proficiency in Malay (for culture) and English (for economic survival) is important. Some may wish to add Mandarin or Tamil or Hindi to the arsenal of modern-day survival kit, but as supplementary. While Malaysia is unique in that all these three languages are well spoken in the country, they are by different segments. For integration, there is a need to strengthen the teaching of languages in schools. The education system may take a Malay+English+1 language policy, with Malay as the medium of instruction in national schools, English as a compulsory area of study, plus the need to choose an option (Mandarin, Tamil, Japanese, etc.).
This language formula can be applied to the vernacular schools. In Chinese schools, the medium of instruction is Mandarin, with Malay as a compulsory subject, plus an option (English, Tamil, etc). In Tamil schools, the medium of instruction is Tamil, with Malay as a compulsory subject, plus an option (English, Mandarin, etc.).
For Mathematics and Science, the teaching should be in their respective medium of instructions. For Science, maybe the answer is to leave the terminology in English.
Monday, September 8, 2008
September 16
September 16 is significant in that it shifts the focus from Malaya's independence on 31 August 1957 to the formal declaration of the formation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963 (which incidentally is also Lee Kuan Yew's birthday).
But the date of Malaya's independence was first announced by Tunku Abdul Rahman, the then Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya, on 20 February 1956 at the Melaka Central Padang - that Malaya would gain its independence from Britain by August 1957. This was immediately after the London conference; instead of heading to Kuala Lumpur, he went to Melaka to acknowledge Melaka's significance as the starting point in the history of Malaya. The Federation of Malaya Independence Bill was passed by the British House of Commons on 12 July 1957, paving the way for Malaya's independence on 31 August 1957.
The formation of Malaysia was made concrete when the Malaysia Bill was signed on 9 July 1963: for Sarawak by Temenggong Jugah, Dato Bandar Abang Mustapa, Abang Openg, Ling Beng Siew and PEH Pike; for Sabah, by Donald Stephens, Dato Mustapha, Khoo Siak Chiew, G S Sundang, WS Holley, and WKH Jones; for Singapore by Lee Kuan Yew; for Malaya by Tunku Abdul Rahman; and for Britain, by Harold Macmillan. The Malaysia Bill was passed by the British House of Commons on 22 July 1963.
In Sarawak, Stephen Kalong Ningkan became the first Chief Minister with the first state cabinet formed on 22 July 1963 - the date held on most dearly by Sarawakians. Independence celebrations were postponed from 31 August to 16 September, when Tun Abang Openg appointed Governor of Sarawak on 16 September 1963 - the date which has been known as Malaysia Day.
Could 16 September take on a new significance in future - as the Day of Justice or Judgement?
But the date of Malaya's independence was first announced by Tunku Abdul Rahman, the then Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya, on 20 February 1956 at the Melaka Central Padang - that Malaya would gain its independence from Britain by August 1957. This was immediately after the London conference; instead of heading to Kuala Lumpur, he went to Melaka to acknowledge Melaka's significance as the starting point in the history of Malaya. The Federation of Malaya Independence Bill was passed by the British House of Commons on 12 July 1957, paving the way for Malaya's independence on 31 August 1957.
The formation of Malaysia was made concrete when the Malaysia Bill was signed on 9 July 1963: for Sarawak by Temenggong Jugah, Dato Bandar Abang Mustapa, Abang Openg, Ling Beng Siew and PEH Pike; for Sabah, by Donald Stephens, Dato Mustapha, Khoo Siak Chiew, G S Sundang, WS Holley, and WKH Jones; for Singapore by Lee Kuan Yew; for Malaya by Tunku Abdul Rahman; and for Britain, by Harold Macmillan. The Malaysia Bill was passed by the British House of Commons on 22 July 1963.
In Sarawak, Stephen Kalong Ningkan became the first Chief Minister with the first state cabinet formed on 22 July 1963 - the date held on most dearly by Sarawakians. Independence celebrations were postponed from 31 August to 16 September, when Tun Abang Openg appointed Governor of Sarawak on 16 September 1963 - the date which has been known as Malaysia Day.
Could 16 September take on a new significance in future - as the Day of Justice or Judgement?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Storm from the Arctic
Last week, satellite images showed the Arctic has become an island as ice melts.
This opens up the North-East Passage through Canada and North-West Passage through Siberia, for Europe to reach Asia throught the North Pole.
This opening of the trade route through the Arctic is as momentous and the first circumvention of the earth and the cutting of the Suez Canal. There could be an economic revival in the Northern Hemisphere within the next 50 years.
However, as traffic increases through the Arctic, heating up the place, there could be accelerated melting of the ice cap.
Stormy weather ahead for the world on a mega scale.
This opens up the North-East Passage through Canada and North-West Passage through Siberia, for Europe to reach Asia throught the North Pole.
This opening of the trade route through the Arctic is as momentous and the first circumvention of the earth and the cutting of the Suez Canal. There could be an economic revival in the Northern Hemisphere within the next 50 years.
However, as traffic increases through the Arctic, heating up the place, there could be accelerated melting of the ice cap.
Stormy weather ahead for the world on a mega scale.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
How To Be Optimistic about the World Economy
Many, I believe, find solace in optimistism. Let me be helpful.
Assume the world to have been decoupled from the US economy so that nothing the US can do or say can hurt anyone (true?).
Assume the economic power in ascendent is China. The brilliance of the Chinese means they can always find a way out of any problem. If the world go in recession, China alone will survive - by building the fastest train from Beijing to Shanghai, by building the highest railway to Tibet, by building the biggest dam in the world.
I constantly remind myself that the Chinese have been brilliant for the last 4,000 years. What is it in the last two decades that makes the difference?
The most important factor has been the inflow of foreign direct investment, on the argument of the cheap Chinese labour and the largest market in the world. The first two decades have ridden on the first factor: cheap Chinese labour.
Whether China has a large market or not is yet to be seen - afterall, China has always had the largest population in the world. To turn the population into market, China must put cash in people's hands. So China have to pay higher wage rates, which means higher costs of production. Whether China growth can be sustained depends on whether China can innovate.
China therefore must be able to produce higher value-added goods for which its people desire. Only then China can raise wages and creates its own internal markets. If not, China will still have to rely on the global market to make dividends for their investments.
Critical to China today is whether it can stand tall without further FDIs and generates its own investments.
Assume the world to have been decoupled from the US economy so that nothing the US can do or say can hurt anyone (true?).
Assume the economic power in ascendent is China. The brilliance of the Chinese means they can always find a way out of any problem. If the world go in recession, China alone will survive - by building the fastest train from Beijing to Shanghai, by building the highest railway to Tibet, by building the biggest dam in the world.
I constantly remind myself that the Chinese have been brilliant for the last 4,000 years. What is it in the last two decades that makes the difference?
The most important factor has been the inflow of foreign direct investment, on the argument of the cheap Chinese labour and the largest market in the world. The first two decades have ridden on the first factor: cheap Chinese labour.
Whether China has a large market or not is yet to be seen - afterall, China has always had the largest population in the world. To turn the population into market, China must put cash in people's hands. So China have to pay higher wage rates, which means higher costs of production. Whether China growth can be sustained depends on whether China can innovate.
China therefore must be able to produce higher value-added goods for which its people desire. Only then China can raise wages and creates its own internal markets. If not, China will still have to rely on the global market to make dividends for their investments.
Critical to China today is whether it can stand tall without further FDIs and generates its own investments.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Is the China Economy Really That Invincible?
The US$40 billion spent by China on the Beijing Olympics is small compared to its 2007 nominal GDP of US$3.4 trillion.
Does this mean that China will not suffer the usual post-games growth hangover?
Is the China economy really that invincible?
It will be noted that during the preparation for the Games:
1. Metals and commodity prices rose to their highest levels yet.
2. Visitors to China and Beijing were discouraged so that triple-star Beijing hotels were complaining of only 40% occupancy during the Games.
3. Factories were moved out of Beijing to lower the city pollution.
4. Parallel construction by the private sector to take advantage of the games.
The basic point to note is that, for the two-week event, part of China had been put to work simultaneously to ensure that the project was completed on time. Indeed, it was and how spectacularly.
In economics, we call this "bunching." The problem with bunching is that all sectors are made to work simultaneously to achieve one point. Once that objective is achieved, all the forces suddenly disappear. While US$40 billion was spent directly, there could be more spent indirectly down the line to the basic supplies and infrastructure to ensure that there is no supply bottleneck. The multiplier could be huge (I would say 10x). When you expand capacity, you build whole facilities and they are chunky.
Now, suddenly, there is a vacuum. Only a small vacuum, they say.
There is a plan to plug that small vacuum with a small US$40 billion stimulus package.
Even if this is approved, there is still the demand shortage for the indirect expenditures which had to go in to build the extra facilities in order to ensure that all related projects either directly or indirectly were finished on time at one particular point in time.
The high global prices, although now softening, will already have their impact on global demand, and that impact is negative.
Now, the problem with negative impact is that it cannot be quickly resolved. There are ramnifications which take time to reverse. A person shot but not dead cannot be assumed to be able to get back on his feet immediately once the firing stops; he needs time to recover. So does an economy.
The high global prices will also induce increases in supply which, if already started, will produce excess capacity and lower prices in the next two or three years. These supply capacities will be in areas in addition to those related to the games.
The final factor is that, fromt the economic point of view, the expenditures related to the games are unproductive. They do not create an increase in productive capacity that can be considered as investments for future economic growth. The reverse seems to be the case.
I wish to suggest here that there is a demand vacuum, no matter how small, in the China economy, as well as a potential further increase in excess supply capacity in the world economy which together will create a possible implosion in the global economy in the next 2 to 3 years (2010).
Does this mean that China will not suffer the usual post-games growth hangover?
Is the China economy really that invincible?
It will be noted that during the preparation for the Games:
1. Metals and commodity prices rose to their highest levels yet.
2. Visitors to China and Beijing were discouraged so that triple-star Beijing hotels were complaining of only 40% occupancy during the Games.
3. Factories were moved out of Beijing to lower the city pollution.
4. Parallel construction by the private sector to take advantage of the games.
The basic point to note is that, for the two-week event, part of China had been put to work simultaneously to ensure that the project was completed on time. Indeed, it was and how spectacularly.
In economics, we call this "bunching." The problem with bunching is that all sectors are made to work simultaneously to achieve one point. Once that objective is achieved, all the forces suddenly disappear. While US$40 billion was spent directly, there could be more spent indirectly down the line to the basic supplies and infrastructure to ensure that there is no supply bottleneck. The multiplier could be huge (I would say 10x). When you expand capacity, you build whole facilities and they are chunky.
Now, suddenly, there is a vacuum. Only a small vacuum, they say.
There is a plan to plug that small vacuum with a small US$40 billion stimulus package.
Even if this is approved, there is still the demand shortage for the indirect expenditures which had to go in to build the extra facilities in order to ensure that all related projects either directly or indirectly were finished on time at one particular point in time.
The high global prices, although now softening, will already have their impact on global demand, and that impact is negative.
Now, the problem with negative impact is that it cannot be quickly resolved. There are ramnifications which take time to reverse. A person shot but not dead cannot be assumed to be able to get back on his feet immediately once the firing stops; he needs time to recover. So does an economy.
The high global prices will also induce increases in supply which, if already started, will produce excess capacity and lower prices in the next two or three years. These supply capacities will be in areas in addition to those related to the games.
The final factor is that, fromt the economic point of view, the expenditures related to the games are unproductive. They do not create an increase in productive capacity that can be considered as investments for future economic growth. The reverse seems to be the case.
I wish to suggest here that there is a demand vacuum, no matter how small, in the China economy, as well as a potential further increase in excess supply capacity in the world economy which together will create a possible implosion in the global economy in the next 2 to 3 years (2010).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)