10 more thoughts on the ministerial pay hike

Much has been already been said about the issue, but as I read through the blogs, they all seem to make the same points over and over again. Here are 10 thoughts (not all original) that are perhaps, not so commonly found in other blogs:


1) Progress or Regress?

Like Aaron and KTM, I found the various issues raised to be unoriginal, recycled and boring. Blogs all say the same thing until I became quite sian to read another blog post on ministerial salaries (two notable exceptions). Why are they boring? Because we have talked and THOUGHT about such issues before, and this recent commotion offers little, if any, new insight. Hence boring.

Yet, the others do not seem to be as bored. If bloggers are bored, they wouldn't be blogging so much about the issue, and there would not be such an uproar. In fact, Inspir3d (of Intelligent Singaporean) claim this is the first time the blogosphere has reacted so strongly, and hence it is a sign of progress towards further liberalization of the political scene of Singapore. This issue is also enshrined in IS as a major blogosphere event, just like the WSM affair.

Why are others not bored? In fact, they seem excited even. I would like to suggest a hypothesis: the blogosphere at large is not really thinking about the issue. What most of us are doing, is mere cow-beh-cow-bu. If you got a gripe against something, do you get bored complaining about it? I know I don't. Now, I think there is nothing wrong against voicing disagreement. In fact, I think it is good and necessary to do so. What I think is not so good is the that perhaps in being so eager to voice discontent, we fail to think. And when there is mass-unthinking on the plogosphere, this is not progress, but regress.


2) Good Articles in Mass Media

There has been little or no mention of two articles written by the traditional media which I thought were quite good. The first is an article by Chua Mui Hoong in the Straits Times on Saturday March 24th, "Beyond knee-jerk reactions, hard issues remain". Ms Chua criticized knee-jerk reactions (rightfully, in my opinion) but also stated that there are "hard issues" which need to be answered, such as the appropriateness of the formula used to calculate salaries, as well as the KPIs of ministers. The second article was by PN Baliji in TODAY, and again talked about KPIs. Baliji was willing to grant that our ministers do a good job, but unless they can produce some tangible and transparent KPIs, they cannot hope to convince the general population.

I thought the two articles were worth mentioning not just because they made valid points and contributed to the discussion, but also because the blogosphere often holds the perception that the traditional media does not have a mind of its own and never criticizes the government.


3) Separating Politicians from Civil Servants

In Yawning Bread's article, Alex Au drew a distinction which I thought was quite important. Ministers are political office holders, and strictly speaking they are not civil servants, yet they are on the same pay scale. [Civil servants are apolitical, they cannot be affiliated to any political party.] This current pay hike will affect both ministers and senior civil service officers. However, the jobs of both are quite different. I personally think that the pay hike is slightly more justifiable for senior civil servants than for ministers. Does having justifiable reasons for raising the salary of senior civil servants justify raising the salaries of ministers also? So perhaps there is a need to de-conflate the salary scales of these two groups.


4) Why Be Minister?

I wondered aloud in my previous article if there were people whom the PAP approached but rejected the offer to enter politics. To my surprise, WANG replied to that, but on Kitana's blog instead. I thought he made a good case why being a minister (in Singapore) might not be an attractive option, and here are his points, paraphrased:

a) Being paid a large yet highly scrutinized salary upfront results in much negative publicity Take this current commotion over minister pay hikes. Are prospective politicians more or less likely to enter politics now? (Ironically, the whole idea of increasing pay was to attract talent, but the uproar might just cause the opposite effect.)

b) Being under constant scrutiny and public attention, and that means constant criticism. True for all politicians (and celebrities), but perhaps especially true in Singapore's case.

c) Success in other vocations and careers is better recognized, and more greatly "praised", than doing a good job as a minister. When is the last time someone, other than the press (or young PAP), praises a minister for anything at all?

d) The burden of being responsible for the welfare and the lives of over 4 million people. This compared to the burden of being responsible to only the bottom line of a company.

e) Engaging in philanthropy is praiseworthy for a non-politician, but the same act for a politician is doubted of its sincerity. Your character gets doubted, by virtue of the fact that you are a politcian.


5) The Most Charitable Case

Very few bloggers explored what the most charitable scenario for the government would be (in trying to justify the ministerial pay hikes). This is my attempt (see also my previous article):

There is a great shortage of talent in the higher echelons of the civil service, including the pool of politicians, and there is a constant leak of talent into the private sector. Higher salaries is found to be a major reason why civil servants (and politicians) leave the service and enter the private sector. The current talent pool in the civil service is so depleted that there will be projected problems in the governance of Singapore of the future, and the panic button is being pushed. After examining what are other ways to attract talent back to the civil service, they found that the only easily adjustable parameter is salaries, and increasing the salaries was the only route to take. In other words, there is no choice. If we don't increase the salaries now, talented people are not willing to take up our leadership positions, so we are stuck with crappy leaders to lead Singapore through a potentially dangerous era ahead. This spells disaster for everyone in Singapore.

This is the most charitable case for the government that I can come up with, and I have to admit that IF this is truly the scenario, then I do think that the raise is salary is quite justified. However, there is little evidence that the situation is indeed as dire as this scenario. Furthermore, if such is indeed the scenario, why doesn't the government just come out and say "look, we don't have any more good talent left. If we don't try to attract them back, we're all screwed"? Or perhaps they have tried to say that in their politically correct ways, but their PR is just not good enough? Or is such a statement too politically costly to make bluntly? More politically costly than the current attempts at justification for the pay hike?


6) Necessity and Fairness

Consider my most charitable case mentioned above. I mentioned that I think the pay hike would be justified in the most charitable scenario. But I never said that it was fair. Many bloggers have mentioned that ministers do not deserve such a high pay, and that it was unfair to receive a salary which is intuitively more than they deserve. I have intuitive sentiments along the same line. However, I admit that if the most charitable scenario is true, then it is necessary to give the ministers such pay (although some might disagree about the necessity part).

The question to ask here is, just because an action is necessary, does it make it fair? I suspect some of us will say yes, some will say no. I think this is the distinction between consequentialist and deontological conceptions of ethics [yes, again]. If you think what makes something right or fair is the consequences, then you probably think that it is fair to raise the salaries, despite the obscene amount. If you think necessity and fairness are two different issues altogether, then you are probably a deontologist. But if so, it might be useful to note that criticisms on deontological grounds carry little weight if the government is going to make a decision on consequentialist grounds, especially where the potential consequences are very grave.


7) Gahmen VS Bloggers

Ben laments that he cannot find one, not even one, supporter of the pay hike. This is not exactly true, since in some ways (see point 5 above), I can be considered rather sympathetic towards the reasons for the pay hike. Nevertheless, it is true that practically everyone in the blogosphere is against such a move. On IS, Inspir3d categorized the views as "The Government's Case" and "The Blogosphere's Reply". It is as though the blogosphere was in total agreement as a whole, and stands in unified objection to the government. The truth is probably that there is a variety of views on both sides (but perhaps the opposing views within government ranks are silenced by the party whip).

But rightly or wrongly, there is clearly a perception of "us" against "them". Again, this appears to be yet another manifestation of the famous "great affective divide". That the "gahmen" just cannot identity with the rest of the general populace, and is simply clueless about the ground. I agree that communication between the government and the ground leaves much to be desired, and the government has much room for improvement, especially in the PR department. Nevertheless, I think many may people fail to see the symmetry of the divide: the gap in understanding may not just be the fault of the government failing to understand the ground, but also the ground failing to understand the government.


8) Emergence of Young PAP Blog

There is one notable exception to the blogosphere's united objection to the ministerial raise, and that is the Young PAP Blog. Due to the work of a spammer, apparently unrelated to Young PAP, the blog shot from obscurity to become one of the most visited blogs overnight. I had previously mentioned that I welcome the Young PAP Blog into the blogosphere. In fact, I think the emergence of this blog is pretty much the only sign of any progress being made in the blogosphere (see point 1) during this period of time.

I have actually been rather impressed by Ms Elaina Oliver Chong, one of the primary bloggers behind the Young PAP Blog, although she had made some very careless mistakes which perhaps, betrayed her n00b-ness to blogging. For example, when giving examples of what kind of sacrifices a minister makes for his country, she listed carrying babies. Any of the points I already mentioned in point 4 above would probably have been better. In a reply to a comment, she pasted a whole ST article ("What's this place worth to you?" by Paul Jacob), which was generally an eloquently articulated piece of rhetoric, and will hardly be convincing to her detractors, who would (and did) accuse her of just repeating government propaganda. Chua Mui Hoong's article, (see point 2), located just next to Paul Jacob's one, would have been a slightly better choice, if she wanted to quote an article.

Boo-boos aside, I am quite eager to see how the Young PAP Blog develops and continues to engage the rest of the blogosphere from now onwards.


9) Just like GST?

Many bloggers, including myself, noted that the announcement of the salary hike was very close to the announcement of the GST raise. Some bloggers, cynically postulated that the real rational for raising the GST was to line the pockets of ministers. Myself, and others like KTM, noted that announcing so close to each other is politically costly. Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, on the Young PAP Blog, quite cleverly argues that the GST hike helps to stimulate economy, and actually makes the ministerial raise more justifiable.

There is another sense which I think the GST hike and raising ministerial salaries are linked. They way they were announced is very similar. The GST hike was originally announced last October, and promised to reveal an offset package during Budget (in February this year). Note that this announcement was made 4 months before the Budget and the revealing of the offset package, and 9 months before the actual implementation of the GST hike (this July). Why was the announcement broken up into two parts (the first part, the announcement and the justification, and the second part, the actual facts and figures) which were announced 4 months apart? Similarly, it is only now announced that the salaries will go up and why, but by how much, that will be announced later. Why did they break up the announcement into two parts again? Will we wait 4 months before they give the actual figures?

I am not very sure why they break up such "bitter pill" announcements into two parts, but my guess is that this is a PR related move, and has something to do with helping to dissipate negative opinion. True enough, when the GST hike was announced in October, there was a huge commotion in the blogosphere. But when the offset package was revealed during budget debate this Feburary, there is much less noise heard. Have bloggers, and the general populace, simply got bored of the issue because they ranted enough about it 4 months ago? Are discontenting views that easily pacified?


10) The Peculiar Nature of our Domestic Politics

How would this situation look like if it occurred in another country, where instead of a single dominant party, there are two strongly contending parties? No doubt, the opposing party would be taking full advantage of this negative publicity to try and deconstruct the ruling party as much as possible. Yet, our opposition MPs have been largely quiet, except for NCMP Sylvia Lim, who criticized the "insensitive timing" of the announcement.

Usually for democracies, the mandate of rule is determined by vote. This means that if we find our leaders lacking, such as being corrupt or self-serving, we can vote them out and replace them with their competitors. Because there are opposing parties, politicians will try their best to convince the voting population of their sincerity and the honesty of their servitude. Although technically we voted in the ruling party, and hence we are a democracy, this model differs slightly for Singapore. Our opposition parties are just too weak to be considered a serious check and balance against corrupt or self-serving policies. As a result, anti-corruption measures need to be built into the parliamentary system (tough anti-corruption laws, independent investigative body which reports directly to the PM Office, etc), perhaps so as to convince the voting population that a single ruling dominant party can still be free from corruption, and unquestionable in character.

I am not criticizing the fact that our government has belonged to a single dominant party since independence. In fact, much of our progress and achievements today would not be possible otherwise. Nevertheless, the fact that you a single dominant party and there is a lack of a strong and credible opposition, sometimes means that it is difficult job to convince the population that you are not in a carte blanche situation. That really, you are not increasing your own salary just because you can, but because you have no choice. Just how are you going to convince the population when there really isn't any real check and balance against you? This is a difficult task, but such is the rules of the game when you are a single dominant party. I do think however, that the PAP have dug themselves this hole, so they probably will not receive much sympathy in this area.

[I thank Cognitive Dissonance, for much of these ideas were formed and shaped during a recent conversation we had over coffee. I also thank KTM for being the inspiration behind some of these thoughts. Lastly, if you have not done so, do drop by Perspective Unlimited to congratulate Bart and his wife on the birth of their first child =)]

welcome to the fold: you are in hostile territory

recently, there has been some "spamming" going around the plogosphere on posts related to ministerial salaries (Dr Huang, Ben, Kitana, Lucky Tan, Ian, etc), and they all come in the form of two comments. the first is a cut and paste of this blog article, left by a pseudonym of "Young PAP". the second goes: "Ms Elaina Olivia Chong is the Vice Chairperson of Young PAP Women committee ok! U should show your respect." left by the pseudonym of "I love PAP".

because of the consistency of how the first comment never fails to be followed by the second comment, it is safe to assume that "Young PAP" and "I love PAP" are the same individual, or two individuals working together. i am of the impression that the original author, Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, is not the one behind this spamming of comments (although i could be wrong). it is quite possible that this "I love PAP" chap could be an over-enthusiastic pro-PAP netizen who wanted to use Ms Chong's article to rebut the views espoused in the aforementioned blog posts. it is also not an impossibility that this spamming was actually done by an anti-PAP netizen, to draw overwhelming attention to the Young PAP Blog (currently over 115 comments on their latest blog post) as well as to destroy street cred (the second comment by "I love PAP").

whatever the case, well or ill-intentioned, our attention has now been drawn to the Young PAP Blog, which i believe, had been escaping plogosphere attention since its inception in late February (interestingly, about 3 weeks after the announcement of PAPAnons). i recommend, for those who haven't, to go read the entire blog (only 16 posts so far). with one notable exception, i actually find the blog rather well-written. I may not agree with all the views, but i have to admit that it is, for the most part, intelligently and coherently articulated.

i am particularly impressed that there are actual written criticisms on the government on issues pertaining to the GST hike, anti-protectionism of SMEs and the current CPF schemes. and Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, regardless if you hold her vice-chairpersonship in high regard or not, seems to be a pretty good blogger. (she also responds to comments, and seems rather respectful). i think this helps to dispel previous fears that PAP-affiliated bloggers have no room for individual opinions and are forced to trumpet the official views of the ruling party, i.e. nothing but mouthpieces of propaganda. i think it may still be too early to judge, but the indications are healthy.

i for one, welcome the PAP into the blogosphere. even if they are nothing but propaganda, this is hostile territory, and to be anything but anti-establishment is to go against the grain. if they are still willing to wear their allegiance on their sleeves (unlike one other blog which has partisan roots but chooses not to disclose that fact), and yet manage to respectfully and sensibly engage the views of their detractors, they just might succeed in their agenda in convincing the blogosphere that the ruling party isn't that horrible after all. or they might not. but i applaud them for trying.

[a separate issue: go read the full transcript of Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's speech to the foreign correspondence association, also found on the Young PAP blog. i think the term "ceremonial censorship" may have been quoted out of context, leading to criticisms by several bloggers. the example used in the speech was of the censorship of 100 pornographic sites, even though thousands others are available, which is old news. he might not be talking about blog censorship. if so, perhaps it is the CNA article which is to blame for this, and earlier today i criticized CNA too.]

unimportant omission?

my attention was just drawn to this article on CNA.

the article was about a recent email exchange between Mr Philip Yeo and a blogger, and Mr Yeo invited the blogger to tea. the blogger agreed but wanted another party to be present and also wanted to record their conversation and put it up on his blog. Mr Yeo refused, saying he did not want to be "interrogated" in presence of a "witness". the article also mentioned about the issue of "how the young should speak to an older person", and the article concluded with Mr Yeo's views about the young generation perhaps not having a value system and if so, that will spell "no future".

this is not news for those of us who have been following this, this and this. i have nothing to say regarding Elia's conditions for Mr Yeo's invitation to tea. i also have nothing to say about Mr Yeo's reasons to decline, or even Mr Yeo's comments in the article. [although i suspect some other bloggers might find Mr Yeo's comment about young people being "worse than mercenaries" somewhat ironic in light of the recent debate on ministerial salaries]

i do, however, have something to say about the fact that CNA failed to mention that the blogger mentioned in the article is the exact same blogger who was threatened a lawsuit for defamation by Mr Philip Yeo in 2005. did CNA think this was unimportant and irrelevant information in the context of the article, and hence okay to omit? [did CNA think this wouldn't be noticed?] would all the insinuations about the above mentioned blogger (and all young people) being disrespectful and lacking values still be the same, if such information was given in the article?

somewhat disappointing journalistic standards, to say the least.

[related: the recent Sunday Times also published an article on the "spat" between Elia and Mr Yeo (including details about the 2005 issue). see here and here.]

talent, salaries and a greater cause for concern?

As expected, the announcement of the increase in ministerial salaries caused much commotion in the plogosphere. Many bloggers talked about if we use higher salaries to attract people into public service, we might attract self-serving individuals. Others might have talked about the formula used to peg the salaries and asked if that was the appropriate formula. These are important issues that need to be thought through, but I will not be talking about such issues in this discussion. Instead, drawing from the views of MM Lee and Ben, I want to first discuss the issue of "talent".

Let this following view be called "Assumption T":

"Talented individuals are those individuals who possess great intelligence, critical thinking and decision making skills. Possible manifestations of talent include good business acumen, success in professions such as law and investment banking (and perhaps engineering, medicine, and scientific research). One metric of identifying talented individuals at a young age is academic success."

Assumption T (or similar versions) seem to be the main view of "talent" when SM Goh was talking about Singapore "leaking talent". Some bloggers questioned if Assumption T was elitist and claimed that it ought to be debunked altogether. When talking about justifying ministerial salaries, what constitutes "talent" comes into question again. Not just mere "talent", we are talking about the very "top talent" or "the best". Again, assumption T seems to be called into play here, and some bloggers are already starting to question if "intelligence and brilliance" alone makes up "talent" for the case of ministers, if certain "values" are found lacking.

The purpose of this post is not to debate Assumption T. Personally, I am not certain about what makes a good minister or a good policy maker, and for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to accept that talented (Assumption T) individuals make good ministers and civil servants. And we don't just want a "good" minister, we want the "best". In fact, according to the views of the young-PAP bloggers (currently running amok all over the plogosphere), because Singapore is so difficult to govern, we need nothing short of the VERY BEST to do the job, or else we are screwed. I personally think part of the reason why Singapore is so difficult to govern is due to both internal and external forces, and part of the internal forces could possibly be blamed on the government for trying to have their cake and eat it. Nevertheless, I'm willing to buy the argument that the future of Singapore (think aging population, competition from China and India, etc) does not look quite as rosy and hence we want really really smart people at the helm at such a difficult time.

Given so, does this justify raising the salary of ministers who are already earning $1.2 million per annum? I personally think it is difficult to make the case, but something else caught my attention: the timing of such an announcement. Why is this announced so close to the GST hike, which already cost the government much political capital? Is this not political suicide? Why could they not wait, and announce it, say, one year later? What did they have to lose if they did that? Cynics might say: implementing one year earlier is one more million dollars earned (or whatever the raise in salary is), and the money grubbing ministers are just being greedy in implementing it now. Maybe the government is confident in its ability to manage public opinion, and hence see no need to delay the salary raise. But perhaps this is a sign of something else, which could be a greater cause for concern that even the millions involved in raising ministerial salaries.

What I'm thinking about is that there could be a problem in successorship, not just for ministers and politicians, but also for important positions in the civil service. I suspect that the civil service is facing a huge HR problem (or projecting a HR problem in the near future) in the leadership echelons and is, heh, leaking talent into the private sector and overseas. Incidentally, the bond-breaking problem is related to this. Our most talented (using Assumption T) individuals are lured to the public sector via scholarships, but some break their bonds and leak away. Even if they serve out their bonds, many leave the public sector once the bond ends because they can earn much more being financial bankers, or if they work for Google or Microsoft.

I think the situation might be dire enough that the debate is no longer about "can we find talented people with the right values to be civil servants", but "can we find ANY talented people at all to be civil servants". Keeping in mind that 20 years down the road, we really want the very best, top talent, to lead Singapore through difficult times, and just "quite talented" may not be good enough. (Not to forget that MM Lee will (probably) not be around anymore then.) Other indicators which point to this could be the disappointing showing of MP backbenchers in the budget debates. Perhaps it is the ministers themselves who are the most embarrassed when the Straits Times criticized the backbenchers for only being cheerleaders.

If there is a serious HR problem, then this raise in salaries could be seen as an attempt to try and rectify that. There might be a neglected sector of talented (Assumption T) individuals who might have the desire (and the "correct heart") to be civil servants, just that they find the job prospects of Google or private practice much too attractive in comparison. Raising salaries might attract such individuals back to the public sector. [One question: how large is this sector of individuals?] Nevertheless, raising ministerial salaries seems like a clumsy move, which looks like it will cost much political capital. Perhaps a less clumsy move will be to raise public sector salaries, but NOT the salaries of MPs and ministers.

This leads me to suspect that maybe the PAP has already asked several individuals to drink tea and they have all replied "I am flattered but I would rather remain a lawyer/CEO/doctor, because I get better pay and perks". And of course we're not not going to hear about these individuals because they might change their mind in the future, but if information that these folks rejected the offer was leaked out, then they will be much less willing to enter politics in the future. And if these folks are really talented (Assumption T), then perhaps Singapore loses out.

I believe ministerial salaries is a cause for concern, especially since the raise in salary is probably not an insignificant amount, and perhaps could be better spent in say, workfare. But if there really is a talent shortage in the leadership (or future leadership) of the public sector, and for the nation, then perhaps this is a greater cause for concern.

this is not a book review

i just finished reading Thinking allowed? (politics, fear and change in Singapore) by Warren Fernandez (currently foreign editor of straits times), and i have 3 thoughts to share:

firstly, this had got to do with a subjective perspective lens. the first time i came across this book was several months ago, shortly after i first started blogging. during that time, i was still relatively influenced by anti-establishment views on the blogosphere, including this report on the resignation of Mano Subnani from TODAY. because of this report, i was very wary of Fernandez, and was highly skeptical and suspicious of his book, believing it to be but disguised propaganda. [back then, i was also too fearful to borrow any books authored by Chee Soon Juan or James Gomez (even though they were openly available for borrowing in the national library) for fear that the gahmen will track me down using my library records.]

i re-borrowed Fernandez's book recently as i remembered that i have not finished reading it several months ago. quite surprisingly, i actually found myself agreeing with much he had to say, which would have been unthinkable several months ago. i still thought he was too fervently patriotic in some of his articles, but i find that he was generally very well-reasoned and moderate in most of his views, something which i definitely would have disagreed with the first time i read the book. now of course, the book was the exact same book which i read several months ago, so the only factor why i have such different views of his book has entirely to do with my own predispositions. in particular, i am currently not as anti-establishment as i was several months ago, and this affects the way i judge the reasoning of other people, Fernandez in this case.

secondly,i found it almost uncanny that the issues which are discussed by Fernandez are exactly the same issues being dicussed in the plogosphere today (such as ageing population, the education system, immigration, bilateral relations with neighbours, ethnic sensitivities and OB markers). this is noteworthy because some of the articles compiled in the book, are written as far back as 1989. in fact, Fernandez noted that former DPM Dr Goh Keng Swee criticized Singaporeans for being too obsessed with examination results, way back in 1967.

why are such issues so "timeless"? (Fernandez calls them "old chestnuts"). the fact that we are still discussing the same issues as 10 or 20 years ago, does this mean that we have not solved old problems and we have not progressed? will we still be discussing such issues 10, 20 years from now? to be fair, i think different issues have different reaons for lasting so long. issues such bilateral relations will probably always be existent due to the nature of foreign affairs.

the issue of an ageing population, and the related issue of not having sufficient retirement funds are "time bomb" issues. they might be recognized over a decade ago, but the full effect of such issues won't be felt until a decade or two in the future. nevertheless, the nature of such issues require action to taken way in advance (like now) to prevent a real crisis from happening in the future. the increasing competition from China and India might be a similar "time bomb" issue.

some issues, such as criticisms of the government being too paternalistic, not open to feedback, and too restrictive on freedom of speech, sound exactly the same 10 years ago as they do now. one might easily accuse the gahmen to be stubbornly refusing to change or are simply not interested to change, and that continual existence of such criticisms are proof of their unwillingness to listen to feedback. this is however, a more complicated issue than meets the eye. one factor to consider is that blogs and the internet are nowhere as proliferated ten years ago as they are now, thus resulting in what appears to be more vocal criticisms, which may not be an accurate reflection of the actual number or the actual percentage of the populace who hold such critical views. are more and more people becoming critical of the gahmen, the same people, or less and less people? the nature of blogs and the internet makes it hard to gauge.

lastly, more than once during reading this book i was lead to contemplate the possibility of me starting to blog about politics. if you have been observant, you'll notice that i don't blog anything at all about political or policy issues. i have 3 fears of blogging about politics or policy: fear of being guity of claptrap, fear of attracting flak, and and fear of gahmen scrutiny. as time passed and the more i blogged, i feel less and less of the last 2 fears. i am however, still quite fearful, being someone who only 6 months ago was a completely apathetic young singaporean, that when i open my mouth i don't know what i'm talking about, and i spout nonsense.

however, i am feeling the increasing sense that should not matter as much on the plogosphere. blogging ought to be more about expressing my own (carefully thought out) views. people are free to engage and disagree, and quite possibly i may be persuaded to change my views when i come across a better argument. at the end of the day we are all better off because we had the opportunity to engage in a dialogue and learn from each other, even if we cannot agree, or even if we turn out to be wrong.

perhaps it is time for me to be a little less fearfully but a little more opinionated?

Yao Ming, Kobe Bryant and bond-breakers

[This is my second attempt to use basketball analogies to desribe apparent disagreements over the blogosphere. Some knowledge of NBA's system of drafting and trading players may be required to fully comprehend this analogy, and I apologize if anyone finds my analogy incomprehensible.]

In 2004, Kobe Bryant was in the final year of his contract with the Los Angeles Lakers, the only team he had ever played for (for 8 years) and the team he had won 3 championships with. Despite later proclamations that he wanted to be a "Laker for life", he did not sign an extension of his contract which was earlier offered to him. Why not? Being a bona fide NBA star, Kobe Bryant would be the hottest commodity in the NBA trade market when his contract expires. Beside the Lakers, several other NBA teams would also make offers to Bryant, hoping that he will sign on with them. The Lakers, not wanting to lose out, will offer an even more lucrative contract to Bryant, to lure him away from the other competing teams. Rejecting the initial contract extension would mean that he would get offered a even more lucrative contract later, so obviously it makes sense to reject the extension, even if it was the team you wanted to play with anyway. Such was the mentality of Kobe Bryant, and such was the mentality of probably all NBA players, and when NBA teams propose contracts to NBA players, they know this full well. At the end of the day, NBA players look after their own interests first.

Another celebrity NBA player, Yao Ming's contract with the Houston Rockets was expiring in 2007, making him probably the hottest commodity of that year. Yao Ming is considered by many to be the best player in the center position in the NBA, and many teams, including the LA Lakers, will be interested in signing Yao Ming. However, before his contract expired and before he could be offered different contract proposals from different teams and choose the most lucrative, Yao signed a contract extension with Houston, in a move totally opposite to what Kobe Bryant did a year ago. Why did he do so? Did he not know that if he waited until his contract expired, he would probably be offered better deals by other teams and Houston? One of the reasons Yao Ming gave was that his "heart is always in Houston", and that he is deeply grateful to the organization for helping him overcome the various obstacles preventing him from being an NBA player several years ago. Unlike Bryant (and probably every other NBA player), self-interest was not the only issue in his mind when deciding which contract to sign, but also loyalty, honor and gratitude. This was somewhat an oddity, because no one really expects Yao to be loyal to Houston, and it is quite difficult to make the claim that Yao was obliged to be loyal. NBA players just do not function that way.

***

There is currently a long discussion going on in Aaron's blog about scholarship bond-breakers. Aside from the fact that I didn't know such a diverse group comment on his blog, I also realized that regarding the ethics of bond-breaking, there were distinctively two camps of views. One camp, which I shall call the "Yao Ming" camp, came to regard scholarships as not just a legal contract, but something like an agreement between gentlemen. There is a promise involved, and it is on your honour not to break such a promise. If a scholar does not feel so, then he/she should, for such is a nature of a scholarship. The other camp, the "Kobe Bryant" camp, just believes that a scholarship is but a legal contract. There is no implication of being immoral if a scholar breaks his contract, but still pays up the liquidated damages as described in the contract.

Of course I am not the only one who realizes this dichotomy, and that the basis of such a difference of views lies in a gap in our fundamental beliefs of the nature of scholarships. But perhaps what is interesting (or pointless) about this debate, is the realization that it is quite impossible for a Yao Ming to argue by deductive reasoning alone, that a Kobe Bryant is wrong, and vice versa. Lucky Tan uses the analogy of one person liking blue shoes, and another liking green shoes, and we argue about which colour of shoes is better. Although that may be an accurate description of differing worldviews, typically a blue shoe lover does not accuse the green shoe lover of being immoral in choosing a green shoe over a blue shoe.

I think this is an interesting case study in differing worldviews (fundamental beliefs), since it unlike the other usual case studies (abortion, homosexuality etc ), religion does not come into the picture here. Aaron, and perhaps other Yao Mings, do not just say that "oh, if the scholars are fellow Yao Mings then they are immoral for breaking bonds, but if they are Kobe Bryants, then it is okay". Aaron believes that all bond-breakers, regardless if they are Yao Mings or Kobe Bryants, are being immoral for breaking the bond (ie, moral permissibility of bond-breaking is not agent-relative, to some extent). And probably, even if the scholarship bodies themselves realize that most scholars are Kobe Bryants (which I personally believe to be the case), and they actually prepare and design the scholarships with the Kobe Bryants in mind, that still does not deter the fact that bond-breakers ought to be regarded as immoral.

I personally am a Kobe Bryant. My reasons for being so are experiential. I have several friends who are scholars, and I know a couple of bond-breakers myself, I generally sympathize with their plight and feel that labeling them as immoral seems unfair. I wonder if Aaron (and other Yao Mings) got to know such friends of mine and listen to their stories, would they still believe that bond-breaking is immoral? Or perhaps, if myself (and other Kobe Bryants) listened to Mr Philip Yeo and how bond-breakers create all sorts of problems for the organization and the nation, then maybe we might change our minds? Although it has come under criticism of late (in Parliament!), I still believe that "anecdotal evidence", is often the most persuasive evidence we have when it comes to issues which cannot be easily agreed upon by reason alone.

[My thanks to Cognitive Dissonance for her helpful input in a recent discussion we had on the issue of bond-breaking]

quarter life crisis?

today is my 25th birthday. how am i going to spend it? i'm probably going to stay at home and read blogs. this has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the post, but i just wanted to whine and mope. =P

both BL and Mr Wang felt inclined to give advice about career choice recently. BL shared his personal story (which is also found here), and talked about finding a dream and a passion and making it into a career. this prompted me to think about my own situation.

some time ago, i had a passion for the study of physics, and i thought of becoming a professional scientist. yet, shortly after i started studying physics proper, i realized how painstakingly difficult it was. i quickly lost my initial passion, and i let the window to be a scientist close on me without regrets. during the same time, i discovered philosophy and loved it. i even thought about being an academic in philosophy. yet after a while, upon digging deeper and facing several difficult challenges in the study of philosophy, my love for the subject waned. i do not know if the window to be an academic has closed on me (i may need to check with Huichieh about this), but if it has indeed closed, i don't think i will feel much regret. not to long ago, i decided that what i wanted to be was a successful professional musician in Singapore. but yet again, after being exposed to how musicians struggle to make a living, as well as the politics and the ugliness of the local music scene (plus parental objections), i started to question if this was really what i wanted to do. after i started blogging, i practiced my instrument less and less.

i suspect i am the kind of person which gets bored easily. although at one point in time i may be very passionate about one thing or another, my passion leaves as easily as it comes, and i'm back at square one. i'm not sure if i can take BL's advice on taking "a dream and a passion" and "make it into a career". probably i will lose interest halfway and just give up. i'm 25. too young to know what i want to do for the rest of my life. maybe i still won't know when i'm 40. nevertheless, i'm too old to sit around, mope and do nothing. i have responsibilities, and i need to start thinking about earning a living, and providing for myself and my family, if not for a passion, then for the sheer sustenance of existence. yet, when time passes, more and more windows close, and the options of what i can choose to do get less and less. will there come a time when i regret letting a window close on me?

one of the best speeches i read recently is this one by Steve Jobs. "you got to find what you love" he says, and talks about his against-the-odds stories of how he founded Apple and Pixar. no doubt he is encouraging, just like BL, that we stick to our passions and persevere against the odds. but what i took away from reading that speech was about finding meaning in our individual lives. and meaning starts with identifying what we love.

i think what we are passionate about and what we find meaningful need not necessarily be something that we want to turn into our career. although it is important to try and reach for the stars, and there will be stories such as BL's and Steve Jobs to remind us that it is possible, at the end of the day, not everyone will make it. many of us are doing jobs we aren't really passionate about. i don't think there is necessarily any less dignity in that. the questions we need to ask is "for what do we work for?", "what do you find meaningful?", "what gives you happiness?" and the answers to these questions depend on the individual and the individual alone.

is ultimately what gives you meaning in life your family? then i believe there is no lack of dignity to work hard for your family (but pls find the time to spend with your family because your presence and company is as important as your income hor). do forming personal relationships and close bonds with friends what gives you meaning in life? then i believe there is no lack of dignity to work so as to support your lifestyle of spending time with friends and close ones. is what gives you meaning in life the obedience and servitude to God? then i believe there is no lack of dignity in whatever job you do, so long as you try your best to live your life in piety and humility.

what do i love? what do i find meaningful? what gives me happiness? to be perfectly honest, i'm not sure. i'm only 25 mah. maybe, just like the things which i am passionate about, these change over time also. i dunno. but i think finding out is the first step. exploring and finding out more about yourself is also what life's about isn't it?