Atonement isn't about atoning at all

I was fortunate today: a friend of mine (who works not far from where I work) had a couple of tickets to Atonement last night. She wasn't able to make it: her boyfriend had free tickets to something with Hossan Leong in it and both mutually forgot to inform the other. She decided to give up Atonement for Hossan Leong, and I got myself 2 free tickets to an Oscar-winner-to-be.

My own date's version of events is that the Hossan Leong show costed more, and therefore, in pure economic terms, giving up Atonement was a far better deal. Upon learning about Hossan Leong though, I told my friend that it was far more prudent to give up Hossan Leong instead.

Like she would. :)

And anyhow, I think I would have enjoyed Atonement alot more - why would I blog about it, no less?



Ed note: before proceeding further, there're going to be a whole lot of spoilers (from my POV at least), so read on only after you've either read the book, or seen the movie.



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

When I read Atonement a few years back, it struck me that I had probably just read the best book of my life (I think I've scaled higher peaks in literature since then, but alas, I've recently regressed a far lot further since). Atonement was, for me, a writer's novel. It takes someone who's read well and read a lot to empathise with the protagonist, and, by extension, with the author himself.

The movie as I saw it yesterday night (this being only a few hours ago) was faithful to the novel - this must be because Ian McEwan himself was a producer on the movie. The movie neatly segments into four parts, just as in the novel itself:

- there was the story of that one fateful day where Briony saw her sister jump into the fountain before the manservant Robbie, and the tragic misunderstanding borne of an overactive imagination;

- there was the horror of war and what it wrought on the young men of a generation, the story of Robbie and his promise, the promise to return to the woman he loves;

- there was the story of Briony and her atonement, and how she slowly understood what she had wrought. There was her experience as a wartime nurse and her wanting to tell the story that is consuming her;

- there was the story of the aged writer, Briony finally realizing the story, her last, and what it meant to tell a story itself.

Ultimately, the story that is told in Atonement is not about Robbie and Cecilia, though one will think it is, given that they get all the coverage. The story is also not about Briony: it is, cleverly hidden from the reader / viewer who the person pulling the strings was, and the smart reader / viewer will have already discerned, early on, that the writer was telling the tale, and the writer is Briony.

But... be a little patient, and listen carefully when Briony makes her soliloquy (in the novel, this was all in Briony's head; in the movie, it came out cleverly as an interview). What Briony was essentially talking about was about storytelling, and there were a few themes in there which made the book more than just another frame story (a mise en abyme), and which made this the Booker prize winner. The truth of the matter is this: I believe Briony, in this last part of the story, is actually Ian McEwan talking about himself; and particularly, himself as a storyteller and what it meant.

I remember reading the story so many years ago, and it still struck me how, in this last part of the book, everything that was fabricated earlier was an exposition in the struggles of a storyteller: telling it as it was (fact) or telling it for what it is meant to be (fiction); imagination and the dangerous course it sometimes runs; one's experiences in life, and how they come to be important in shaping the story; and what it means to set things right, even if they were never to be achieved in reality.

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

I felt for the characters: I truly did. It hurt to be wronged, disgraced and shamed; and set in an English class struggle it is all the more tragic what Robbie himself went through. It hurt to be separated from your love, and the pain of separation which drove Cecilia to part from her family, distraught and angry with your kin, is one that is beyond bearing. It must have been distressing to be Briony, to realise that you have wronged someone, and was ultimately the cause for the suffering and hurt to, not just our two protagonists, but, to a whole family as well. Briony realised that her actions of that evening was the cause of it all (like the first domino in a long chain of tragic events).

I felt it must have been carthatic to write about it all, and seek release - and I smiled when she talked about the happy ending that she wrote. An irony at the end: the truth is tragic, and the novel would have had closure the way it was without the fourth and final part of it. But that was Briony's closure, not ours, and Ian McEwan recognised that the novel wasn't great until he tore away the veneer of falsehood over it and pulled away the wool that covered our eyes all along.

That made the novel a masterpiece - and I can think of no better compliment than that for a writer.

Two Steps Behind

It's been 5 days in the Garden State of Melbourne and it looks set to be much longer now. Going by what is required, the work is going to be done by a partner in Australia, with my company being in a more supervisory and advisory position. I believe that this can largely be done out of Singapore. But given the tight timelines and strict deadlines, I guess there's no choice but to be here in Oz-land, stepping on tails and cracking the whips.

Coming to Melbourne in May is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it means that I get to meet my sis and her boyfriend again - the last time we saw each other, it was in rainy December. A blessing also when it comes to food and lodging: the food's largely covered by the per diems, and lodging comes courtesy of the company (of course!) so I'm living here like a well-fed happy consultant, with nary a care who cleans the room or washes the toilet (eh... it's not like I worried about these things back home either... )

It's a curse because I ended up being here (initially) with 2 Indian vegeterians. They're nice guys who took the trouble to explain all things Indian to me - I understood more about Hinduism and why Hindus are such tolerant folks when it came to other religions, and also why they aren't (Hinduism is both everything and nothing at the same time, but at a less abstract level than Zen Buddhism is); I understood also why a map of India from India is geographically depicted to have more land area than the typical atlas, and why Indians are outraged at seeing maps from so-called authorities on national borders; I understood that arranged marriages have a whole structure and organisation to them, that it is in and of itself a grand affair with parents on both sides involved, and brides chosen with much care, and that even if it was a love marriage, the logistics of an arranged marriage are followed nonetheless (70% of marriages in India are arranged marriages and they have one of the lowest divorce rates in the world!).

Oh wait, it's a curse because they are vegeterians and are really good at wrangling a situation to their benefit. :) When it comes deciding where to head to for dinner, the research on Indian restaurants in the area had already been done, and the decision was moot: 2-1 Indian curry place wins hands down. Oh yes there is a concession on one of the nights to go to a noodle joint, but the less than enthusiastic response from my Indian counterparts told me where their cuisine preferences lie. They are picky, cautious and particular when it comes to the food they eat - 'Rightfully so!' Ravi claims, 'because it is what you put into the system, and the system is all that matters in the end.'

Philosophical, that Ravi.

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

Melb's left an impression as well over the last 5 days or so. First thing I noticed on getting here is the water restrictions put in place. From the various sources I've got (sources include sister, cab drivers, receptionists at workplace and hotels among others), it appears like there's been a drought in the state of Victoria for a long time already, something in the area of the last 5-6 years apparently (according to one source).

It's probably been quite severe before, and there are actually water restriction levels that are put in place to control water usage (to some extent). This also explained why my sister's beat up car looked more beat up (dust, grime and dirt is obvious on a 20-year-old white Honda) because it hasn't been washed for months. Water restriction was at Stage 3 during my stay there and I can't help but think about other such similar 'levels' and stages out there: Hurricanes, Tornados, DEFCON, Terrorist Alerts etc. (for more details on water restriction levels, go here)

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

An additional curse, if you can call it that, is that our client site isn't located in town. Initially, the expectation was that the site might be on St Kilda Road, which was a hop, skip and jump away from the city centre. Following our own research on the Internet, hotel rooms were booked nearby.

However, upon further information provided by the client and other sources, it was apparent that the client site that we thought was the client site is not the client site that we were supposed to be at. The actual client site is in some suburb outside of town, in the 'city' of Whitehorse (I'm not gonna give away the actual 'urb' it's in because it just might give too much information away on my client and what I do).

The city of Whitehorse is not a city in the strict sense of the word: from the looks of it, it's an extension of Melbourne, or rather, a suburb of Melbourne. The road trip over here passes many houses, and it appeared like we never left the urban areas behind at all. In contrast, during my time in France, driving from one town to another is usually through forested areas and the distinction between one town and the next is usually clear cut (exceptions exist... like Fontainebleau and Avon, which are essentially two towns merged into one big urban mess).

I suspect, though, that Whitehorse might be a local municipality: i.e. it is more of a political entity than that of a geographical one. Given that I am in the airport transit lounge at the moment, I'll check that hypothesis out at some later date and perhaps qualify what I'm babbling about here. This might mean that the jurisdiction over essential services might be separate and distinct from the main Melbourne area itself - it might have its own police force, garbage disposal services, and the like.

Nevertheless, seeing the phrase Whitehorse brings back memories of my NS days. Singaporean males will know what I mean. The White Horse is that oft-used phrase describing a full-time national serviceman who is a 'priviledged son'. He is typically the son of an influential politician, rich and prominent business person, or some other similar e-literati (A l33t in netspeak). The name came about because the dockets (35A and 34B for those who care to recall) will have a white horse stamp on it to remind the unit commanders of the special treatment require for the rich kid.

Few people liked the system (for obvious reasons) and its existence was only very recently acknowledged.

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

Right. Boarding soon. Thank god for the new IBM Thinkpad my company has deigned to bequeath to me: this baby runs on juice for more than 2 hours at a stretch! (on those days I don't run power intensive programs on it like Azureus). The Thinkpad is a tool for the pro: it looks chunky for sure, but the whole charm of it comes from its ubiquitous black monochrome and the sleek black lines with hard edges and sharp corners. In other words: don't mistake this for a fluffy mac pretender; it is a work tool through and through. And it doesn't say 'I look like I might collapse' like the Dell does sometimes. Thinkpads are made to get you looking like the professional you are, and there's no looking like a pro than tapping away on one while in the airport transit lounge.

Now... if only I can look like I'm actually doing work than blogging away. hehe...

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

See you in Singapore soon. Bon Voyage.

Letters from Bukit Timah / Frags of our Brothers

I was fortunate to be invited to attend a talk by Singapore's eminent economist, Dr Tan Kee Wee. Dr Tan is the Lilian Too of investors: while Lilian tells you what the stars have to say about the future economy, Dr Tan is more "specific" and "down to earth" in his speculations... i.e. he builds and uses econometric models to predict the future. In a nutshell, Dr Tan might be what you describe as a macroeconomic fortune teller.

Dr Tan's presentations are titled Investment Outlook Seminars and he has been doing them for a long while - Singaporean investors do listen to this sage and act upon his advice. However, what Dr Tan really does well is not tell people what to invest in; what he's good at is in explaining the intricate links between macroeconomic forces and current affairs, and why the world is in the funk it is in because of whose actions. It is a Macroeconomics 101 class that is a tour-de-force through the world shaping economic events of this century.

To illustrate his presentation, he uses movie themes. His theme this time round was inspired by Clint Eastwood's WW2 opus: Letters from Iwo Jima (which follows Flags of Our Fathers). With tongue firmly in cheek (Ed Note: I hate this phrase, but it is just so apt), Dr Tan titles his presentation 'Letters from Bukit Timah'. Following from here, I shall talk about what I understood of Dr Tan's presentation (which was interesting, humorous and a macro refresher for myself).

2006 was a year marked by a further ascent in the Chinese and Indian economies. In effect, the rise of the 2 nations are part of a bigger force known as Globalisation. As with any world moving force, there are both winners and losers in its wake. The winners are your i-bankers and MNC CEOs, who are laughing all the way to the bank because they can all buy low and sell high, that all-important principle. The losers are actually the low wage earners and workers of this world. While productivity has improved, wages have not followed suit. Tough luck workers.

Global Liquidity

Why has the world been able to globalise? It is all due to a phenomenon known as Global Liquidity (see this article to understand what it is; see this blog to know why it's a big deal). in a nutshell, global liquidity results in the world being flushed with too much money (none of which is going to people like you and I though). There were two factors that led to this situation:

1. The sinking of the Nikkei index - the Japanese economy tanked in the early 1990s (from its 40,000 high) and never recovered since then. What the central bank of Japan did was to lower interest rates in response, in the hope of stimulating entrepreneurship and investments (FDI). These macroeconomists all think we are motivated by borrowing rates: the lower it is, the more enticed we are to borrow money to start a business. However, what the lowered interest rates resulted in was a practise known as carry trade, whereby Morgan Stanleyish hawks borrowed in yen (cheaply, because the interest rate is low in Japan) and lend the borrowed funds in a high-interest currency, like perhaps the USD (at that point).

2. The dot-com crash - this had an effect because Alan Greenspan, at that time still Chairman of the Federal Reserves, decided to lower interest rates in the U.S. as well. For what reason? See factor number 1. What Greenspan inadvertently caused though was to make money 'cheap'. With borrowing rates low, the multiplier effect does its part in making more money available in the financial world.

To curb the effects that his action has caused, Greenspan has raised the rates again (this as of 2005 I think), but the effect of that won't be felt until much later. Therefore, the world as it is now is still enjoying (or suffering, depending on your point of view) the effects of global liquidity.

So what happens with money being so liquid is that the developing countries of the world, particularly your biggies like China and India, have a whole lot of USD in their pockets. A country like China is scared to be holding on to too much USD though. Why? Because buying too much USD with RMB will cause the RMB to rise, which will make its goods expensive, which will lower its exports, which means less income (ad infinitum as macroeconomic reasoning goes). So China uses its USD to buy US treasury bonds: low yield but stable returns. This is what every other emerging Asian economy does with its USD, to peg its currency artificially to the USD without causing its goods to cost more. Local Asian banks can thus keep their mortgage rate low and trigger what? You guessed it: property speculation (but that's another story...)

The Dominant Currency and Why no Hyperinflation

Come now to 2007 and we all start wondering why doomsday theorists all think this liquidity is supposedly a bad think. They naysaying economists all say so because too much money leads to that unhealthy economic phenomenon known as hyperinflation (my view of hyperinflation is that it is what makes the money we own as good as toilet paper, and I am not being lyrical here). However, we have not seen hyperinflation occur: Dr Tan says this is because all the money is being held by the ultra-rich (hence we are all not rich; hence we don't over-buy stuff and raise the demand curve; hence prices don't rise; ad infinitum reasoning ala macroeconomic theorists).

So... while there won't likely be hyperinflation (and you can bet your pants that the Fed will do all it can to prevent this by...... raising interest rates), there also won't be an alternative currency emerging anytime soon. The currency of the world is the USD.

Do you know why? Wow, Dr Tan's explanation of this conspiracy (it IS a conspiracy I tell you) totally blew me away. First thing you need to know was that, following WW2, the Bretton Woods Conference resulted in exchange rates around the world to be pegged to the USD, which was at that time based on the gold standard (i.e. you can buy USD and use it, at that time, to exchange for a fixed amount of gold... from Fort Knox I assume). What this did was to make the USD stable as a currency of choice: the European central banks love it, the Colombian drug barons love it even more.

The subsequent collapse of the gold standard and depegging of currencies did not diminish the dominance of the USD though: this was because another some Republican president had, by that time, convinced Saudi Arabia (and subsequently all of OPEC) to sell its oil in USD, and in USD solely. What to do? The oil-producing nations only want USD for their oil, therefore the economies of the world have to hoard USD to buy oil.

Okay, enough of a diversion into the USD as dominant currency. Serious contenders to this useless throne have been the Euro and, previously, the Yen. There might come a day though when the Chinese Yuan may prove to be THE world currency, but that won't be anytime soon (they don't want it either).

Bad for US, Good for ROW (Rest of the World)

So Dr Tan gazes into his crystal ball of an econometric model (200-300 equations of it; according to him, central bank models have >500 equations in their simulations). He predicts that a recession will hit the US in the 3rd quarter of 2007. To most economists, the recession has been looming for long enough: a treasury bond yield curve inversion has been observed for the last one year (see this article for an explanation of the power of this indicator). It is inevitable that it will happen sometime this year.

However, unlike the previous US recessions, emerging economies won't suffer alongside. Why? Because the US is no longer the main market for their goods and services. The world has shifted from doing business with the US to doing business with China and India. Most world trade is nowadays transacted with the Chinese and the Indians. Therefore, a US recession is unlikely to have the same repercussions as before.

On Singapore, Dr Tan says 'go for the champions'. The champs are your pharmaceuticals, financial services firms, building and construction firms (he always says there is a housing bubble building up... we're in the middle of a housing rush), the gaming industry (IR anyone?) and even something like the F1 (yay it's coming here!).

Sidetrack: Do you know that the Singapore economy is engineered to encourage you to SPEND? Spending stimulates the economy and it is what keeps a recession at bay (Macroeconomics 101 stuff). However, there are artificially designed laws which makes us spenders on a cyclical basis: COEs, which make a new car old every 10 years means that you WILL buy a car every decade; en-bloc sales, whereby property values will reach an optimum point every 30 years, this means property must be sold after 30 years (or it will depreciate). The Gahmen... it is very smart indeed.

WAR!

Dr Tan also thinks that there will be war in 2007. Who vs who? This is too easy: the US will attack Iran. (yup, this is starting to sound like a coffeehouse chat, but it REALLY is an economist giving his predictions here).

The big event of 2007 will be the US attacking Iran. The reasons?

1. Iran might have capability to develop nuclear weapons / it has too much influence over Iraq (civil war) / it can choke the Hormuz Straits etc. These are all very familiar doomsday theories which all have their inkling of truth.

2. The more wild reason is that the US wants to do that to protect the USD. Again I was floored by the reasoning, but it made some sense. Oil is sold in USD but there have been detractors in recent history. Prior to the 2nd Iraqi war, Baghdad started to sell oil in Euros. Of course, they got invaded and went back to the USD market.

Teheran has decided of late that it also wants to set up a euro-based oil exchange. This caused alarm bells to go off in Washington, leading to calls for an overthrow of the regime (and here we all think it's all cos the Americans are anti-Islamist).

But why protect the USD? Dr Tan's macroeconomic brain goes into overdrive at this point and explains how the US actually taxes the world economy through the depreciation of the USD. At this point, I thought it was a little too cheem to understand (and google / wikipedia aren't helping here, so I'll save the theory for examination another day).

So... do look forward to the next couple of months to be an interesting time in the Gulf: plenty of missiles in the sky, for sure.

Buy and Sell

Finally, Dr Tan gets to the part where all the crusty Singaporean uncles in the room wake up and prick up their ears: what to do and when.

Dr Tan says:

1. Don't hold the USD... it is going to weaken.

2. Gold is good. Buy gold. It is cheap and it won't depreciate crazily like that stupid paper called money.

3. If you can buy uranium, go buy and hoard it. Prices will go up. (So will your radioactivity and geiger meter count)

4. Buy bonds. But be careful what bonds you buy cos there're a lot of junk bonds floating around. Avoid these. SG government bonds are good though (even with the crappy return)

5. Avoid US stocks - they are weakening. Uncle Sam is like the plague. Buy Chinese stocks. Buy Indian stocks. The stock exchange indices are on a path to the moon and are not looking back (yet). So buy these. In Singapore, go buy trusty Singtel: Dr Tan says it should hit 4 bucks end of the year.

6. Only buy high-end property, not your crappy HDB flat. Also, avoid ulu places like Seng Kang and Yew Tee: they won't be going en bloc in your lifetime, guaranteed. Always always always (and always) look for condos with en bloc potential.

7. And finally... in summary, Sell in March, Buy in June.

And so concludes Dr Tan's investment outlook.



Notes:
1. Lilian Too is a famous geomancer in Malaysia who popularised the art of Feng Shui. She's also an astute businesswoman who profits from selling (IMHO useless) knick-knacks to boost your luck.
2. You can listen to a podcast of an earlier presentation of the same information at this website.
3. Dr Tan's profile and other information regarding his presentation can be found here.
4. Some of the views expressed here are my own and not Dr Tan Kee Wee's. However, all failed attempts at dramatization are Dr Tan's fault - wah lau... don't you think it's corny that he called his talk 'Letters from Bukit Timah'?

The Great Recap Episode, Part 1

I guess it is a little late to do one of those New Year's posts. In Dec 2006, it's all fine to talk about how 2006 went for you. In Jan 2007, it's even more poignant to recall the good and bad times that rolled by. By Feb 2007, nobody really cares anymore (they're all smashed by CNY and Valentine's Day).

When it is well into 2007 (March?), nobody writes such retrospective tripe anymore - people just look forward rather than back.

Anyhey, I've got my recap tripe penned away (in longhand and in succinct point form) in my notebook since early Jan 2007. It's no good sitting in that notebook, which is now awash with scribbly blue script, mostly of soundbites captured during interviews that I conducted, and some of those itty-bitty common sense that wise men (and women) dish out to me.

Since it has no place in a notebook (of scribbly throwaway tripe), it shall go somewhere with at least a possibility of some longevity: here on this blog.

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

So what defines 2006 for me? We'll go with the following categories.

Places I visited
2006 was the year I visited the most countries ever! (in a single year that is). Of course, my log of visited countries comes nowhere close to the typical INSEADer - crazy travellers, all of them, especially when they descended on Asia - it still meant a watershed in terms of places seen (and money spent).

Where was I last year? In no particular order: Cambodia, France, UK, India, Holland, Thailand, Belgium, Spain, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Malaysia, and early in 2007 the Philippines. I was also briefly in the UAE (twice), but that was only in the cavernous Dubai airport (I never got out of there). Also, most of the time, I only visited one city (or the capital city) in the above-mentioned countries. The one with the most visited cities will probably be France, since there was significant driving through much its countryside during my 4 months or so there.

Personal Life
2006 was an upheaval. I gained new friends, and tragically lost a love and lost my grandmother as well. I learnt what it was to manipulate people, and what it felt like to be manipulated as well - I've never felt more used, and I've never been more cunning.

But alas, I never learnt the lesson of guarding one's heart. I've never learnt to harden myself and innure myself against hurt and sorrow. Guess that's why I get hurt and why I sometimes am afraid to care about others. (Ed note: don't write this kind of thing when you know who might read this blog... but who cares right?)

Friends
A year with significant time out of town = less time with friends I've come to loved and cherished. Sure, there were new friends to be had, but I don't think that friendships which lasted for less than a year seriously count: such relationships did not go through that test called TIME. I've lost touch with some good friends, but being home (and somewhat homebound now) has helped build back some of these relationships.

Side note: I felt touched to be invited to a few weddings for this year... it is wonderful when you haven't really spoken to someone in over a year, and the next thing you get is a wedding invitation. Touched.

On another note: For a brief period, my friends were doing the wedding thingy on me: invitations left / right / centre with nary a month to catch my breath. Now, they're doing the kiddy pwn on me: at least 5 friends in the last one year actively made babies (and said bye bye to their sex lives for awhile!), with a couple in the midst of pregnancy and the rest losing sleep and mulling over creative names for birth certificates. Good luck Moms and Dads!

Gawd I'm sooooo jealous of all of you.

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

And what of resolutions for 2007? A bit late when it is March to make such pronouncements, but these were heartfelt determined inclinations when they were first penned in Jan:

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

Strictly speaking, there are no resolutions. None.

I do have things which I feel I want to achieve for myself in the year 2007. Some personal goals perhaps. However, I do not think that telling myself that I have the resolve to do it in the beginning of the year will mean that I actually do them by the end of the year. It simply means that I don't want to do a self-non-fulfilling proclamation (it's like the self-fulfilling prophecy, but in reverse and applied to meaningless forgettable New Year utterances)

I'll tell you what I feel is a much better approach. Dear readers of my blog (all 10 of you, more or less!), I give you, below, my HOPES for the year 2007:

1) I hope for a job that I can excel in. I hope to see this job for its +ves rather than its -ves. I hope that my work life gets defined by its positive aspects more than its negative aspects, and that I come to appreciate the better aspects of it. (this comes from always having adopted the worst case scenario / outcome outlook with my previous job, which is just SO depressing)

2) I hope to mend fences. Fences with my ex. Fences with people I have offended in the past.

Speaking of which, a particular girl I hope to mend fences with is... ah, let's just say it is this GIRL. Said girl was annoyed by a particular late night activity of mine (which involved me barging into her flat at untold hours of the night demanding to deposit unowned articles of hers while unwillingly letting me in unwittingly witness her in her unflattering PJs - some friends will know who!), and thereafter, showed me what it felt like to get the Subtle Cold Shoulder.

Her style of the Subtle Cold Shoulder was to employ the Photo-Taking Exclusion Principle. Suppose you are in the vicinity of said girl and another girl / guy / whatever. Said girl is your typical camwhore (who isnt?) lugging that ubiquitous digicam on a string around to the whatever event that you're both at. The Photo-Taking Exclusion Principle that she employs will mean that you will SOMEHOW end up helping her take pictures, or be in the vicinity when pictures of her (and whoevers) are being taken, without YOU ever being invited to be in any of them (for more clarification on what it feels to be a victim of this phenomenon, take a look at my theory on the Sour Grapes Syndrome).

By the way, as of March 2007, I think I've mended fences somewhat with said girl.

3) I hope to learn to dance. Rather than just sway to the beat, or spasm on the dancefloor, or tap my foot, it'll be great if I can actually sashay instead. Salsa will probably be the way to go on this, but I do prefer going with someone I know though.

Ed Note: I'm afraid I'm putting this on hold for the moment while I get over this gymming phase-craze I'm currently into.

4) I hope to travel, and I hope to travel at someone else's expense, i.e. I don't spend anything on airfare, food, lodging. I guess this means I get a job and get paid to go places (and hopefully sneak off once in a while to shoot pictures!). I hope to see more of this wonderful world, and I hope to document more of what I see in pictures. I hope and I hope and I hope of all things that this will be something that can actually happen in 2007.

5) Of course, I always hope to write more - and to perhaps also explore whether I have any aptitude in this area. I love to put my thoughts on paper (online more than on paper these days). The problem is that I don't exactly have an 'angle', nor do I stand out amidst the rabble of bloggers out there (ranting and raving their very best). It's like, people blog about somewhat particular niches of experiences, while I talk about all and sundry (and dirty laundry to boot). So while this remains a hope, it is something I hope to have a little recognition for.

I can hope, can't I?

Happy 2007 (3 months in)



Notes:
1. Getting the Subtle Cold Shoulder (SCS) is a little unlike the Cold Shoulder. Getting the Subtle Cold Shoulder is like being in a social situation with the SCS-deliverer (and some other friends) who, through her actions / words / body language, cut you out of the pack you both hang out with. This is usually done in such an undetected manner that both victim and the pack don't come to realise it until the victim start feeling left out (in certain social proceedings, one of which is the camwhoring).
2. The Photo-Taking Exclusion Principle (PTEP) is applied whenever a group photo is being taken, and a particular member or 2 of the group is excluded from it, usually intentionally. The principle is sometimes applied for practical purposes (the group is too large to fit in the shot, someone is not present at supposed group activity), but is on occasion a hint of the Subtle Cold Shoulder being applied. Group-camwhoring is one of those social occasions when PTEP can rear its ugly head, particularly weeks down the road when pockets of the group get together to view photos (on the yearbook, Flickr, albums, wherever); the excluded often feel pangs of unease at being unphotoed.
3. Yes, I do like to come up with stupid, silly acronyms to describe social situations which probably don't happen to everybody. But hey, it's my blog right? That argument always wins. :)

Relationship X Expectation = Happiness

The ultimate pursuit is that of happiness.

Don't let the religious change your mind about that: I do agree that there is none nobler a purpose than the pursuit of God and the expansion of his flock. But good missionaries are generally also happy missionaries, and ultimately, they pursue God's plan because they are happy to do so. Therefore, and again I say it, the ultimate pursuit is that of happiness. (Caveat: ultimate human pursuit of a non-spiritual nature)

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

Of all the things that can make a person unhappy, I think the one that occurs the most often is that feeling of 'Being Left Out'. It's what I call the Sour Grapes Syndrome (SGS), though it doesn't always have to refer to contempt towards things we cannot get. And to explain it, I need to go into the concept of sociability and groups.

We human beings are sociable creatures and we seek other like minded individuals to form groups - it is a way for us to satisfy one of the following needs / urges: the need to validate one's existence on this planet; the urge to build bonds with another, find a soulmate, seek a friend or partner; the need to find others like ourselves; the urge to do things together with others of the same persuasion; and so on.

When we form groups (typically consisting of two or more people) bonds are built between individuals. In a 2 person group, there is only one bond; with 3 people there are 3 bonds; with 4 people there are 6 bonds; and the permutations increase exponentially the more people there are in a group.

We, therefore, find ourselves in a complex tangle of relationships when group sizes balloon. Some bonds will be stronger than others, and therefore, some of us will feel closer to one person over another.

So now, imagine that you belong in a group of 20 or so people. There are some 4 or 5 people who are pretty tight and you think that you are in that small circle of 4-5 people. You expect that, whenever these 4-5 people plan any activities, you will be invited along (because you feel... 'tight' with them). Unfortunately, your expectations do not quite meet up to their expectations of you: one or two of them don't feel that 'tight' with you.

Suppose then that those one or two (let's call them Amy and Amanda) decide to organise a small get-together over dinner. Amy calls Amanda, and they decide to invite the others within their perceived tight group. Both Amy and Amanda feel that you aren't quite as 'tight' with them and thereby omit you from their invitations (which they send via SMS, email, whatever). And woe betide calamitous Jane (Ed note: shites, where did that phrase come from?) YOU happen to learn of the non-invite.

What do you feel? You feel left out. Jealous. You feel like all you've ever put into those bonds you've built were meaningless. You feel upset that Amy and Amanda never felt 'tight' enough with you.

Sour Grapes Syndrome. Half of those times when we feel unhappy, I think we can attribute it to that feeling of being left out, the feeling that we were meant for good things but were deprived of them because someone else felt we were not worthy.

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

I am sure you've liked someone before.

Let's suppose you are a guy.

And you like this girl called Amelie.

You get close to Amelie, as others who are attracted attempt the same thing too.

Amelie isn't seeing anyone in particular, and you fancy your chances as being better than most.

One day, Amelie suggests that you both catch a particular movie that you both are interested in.

You agree. You are on Cloud #9 because the girl of your dreams has asked you out on a date. You're ecstatic and looking forward to the opportunity to clutch her hand / lend her your jacket to keep her warm / offer your shoulder to cry on during the weepy scenes / have your arm gripped tightly as she scream her lungs out when terror strikes.

So you show up at the appointed time, at the appointed place. Happy and looking forward to quality time with your object of affection.

Except that it isn't just with her. It is with her and her whole posse of other hanger-ons / best buds / bitchy girlfriends / brother / sister / dog.

Suffice to say, it is not a date. It is more akin to an outing.

You aren't happy. Why?

Because you expected a date with the girl you like. Not a freaking group outing with her other best friend or sister or third cousin. It is worser still when it is a competitor or another more interesting guy.

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

Expectations we built have a direct effect on our own happiness. When we get what we expect to get, when things go the way we want them to, we tend to be happier individuals.

Relationships too have a way of making us happy or unhappy. Relationships are also a function of the groups we form for ourselves - and what we feel about the relationships in our lives (the expectations) tend to colour how happy we are about those relationships.

Be realistic in how you feel about the people in your life. I think happiness comes from knowing that nobody out there is responsible for making you happy - only you yourself are capable of that.

You are capable of that because only YOU are able to manage your own expectations.

History Lessons

It is seldom that I blog about movies that I've watched. To escape the mundanity that was existence today, I sneaked off with a good buddy (out on an afternoon birthday treat away from work) to watch a movie about, of all things, dealing with the harsh reality of existence.

Ah, I'm being too harsh a critic. Half Nelson is a nice little film about a history teacher cum basketball coach who's also a drug addict. He teaches history primarily through the use of dialectics, the idea that opposing forces drive change, and history is about change.

The film also tracks his friendship with one of his students, a black girl who is quite self-reliant, and whose friendship with a drug courier shapes the other half of the plot. While the teacher descends into a drug-fueled life plunge just to escape a reality that he cannot change (even while he preaches it), the student finds herself confused into helping her brother's friend run drugs (it didn't help for her to also find out her teacher's a druggie).

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

Anyhow, that is the plot. Oh, and lead actor Ryan Gosling is nominated for Best Actor for the Academy Awards (who won last year? I don't recall).

For me, what was more interesting was to hear about the notion of dialectics (Check out this very simple to understand website to read about Dialectics - they even make references to the film).

To understand change, Dialectics philosophers preach that there are 3 rules (Ryan Gosling above has just written down the first one for his class):

1. Every object and process is made of opposing forces or opposing sides: a historically relevant example for Singapore would be its independence from Malaysia. On one side, there is Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP, who do not want Singapore separated from Malaysia; on the other, there is Tunku Abdul Rahman and UMNO, who can't wait to get rid of the pain in the neck that is Singapore.

2. Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one opposite overcomes the other: Racial riots were rife in Singapore, fanned in part by accusations of unfair treatment of Malays in Singapore, while Chinese were incensed by the federal government's policy of affirmative action. Singapore was also economically better off - there was concern of a shift in economic power from the main capital of KL to Chinese-dominated Singapore. The turning point came when the Malaysian parliament voted to expel Singapore from Malaysia as a way of ending the racial riots and rid themselves of the problem once and for all.

3. Change moves in spirals, not circles: For Singapore, there was no turning back. The separation from Malaysia resulted in it moving in a direction that was of its own design, free of intervention from meddlesome Malaysia politicians. However, we see that the forces that drive us apart ultimately also bring us closer - but not to the point of re-unification. Through diplomatic efforts, one force (the force of 'unity') bring us closer again through better ties - economically, politically etc.

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

I like this framework for change: I wished they had taught it in b-school or back in the consulting company I worked at. It would have made it easier to show people how system implementations are meant to change them (for good or for better, change is something to live with).

However, I don't think history's all about change: history is also about circumstances. Because of circumstances beyond our control, we are plunged into particular interesting crossroads in history. Because of circumstances which provides the power for one side to dominate another, that side can push change more effectively.

I think it is important to study change (or history for that matter) for the opposing forces there exist, the particular turning points (which is what leads to history teachers making us memorise meaningless dates), and the irrevocable but subtle movement of change in a spiral manner. It is also important to see why one side came to dominate another. It is also important to understand which circumstances made it possible for a change to occur.

Think about it.

Framing the Great Casino Debate as an Ethical Issue - Prelude

This was such a fun essay to write (over 2 days, little sleep, and hackneyed research done via the internet) that I thought it a waste not to put it on my blog. Here goes!

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

Singapore’s Great Casino Debate

An individual perspective of the ethical dilemma posed by the ‘Integrated Resorts’ proposal to Singapore as a society


Executive Summary

The purpose of this essay is to retrospectively analyze the debate over the proposal to build casinos in Singapore. The debate took place among the general public, the press and within Singapore’s ruling government (both within the Parliament and cabinet of ministers). The proposal was one by the Singapore Tourism Board to build casinos in Singapore in order to boost tourism revenue.

Beyond the economic benefits of the proposal, the public at large and many concerned public figures brought up the issue of social problems that can result from having a casino in Singapore. This essay aims to explore the dilemma between the obvious – and measurable – economic benefits that can be achieved through revenues from casino operations, and the subtle – and often subjective – social problems that arise from the introduction of such an ‘evil’.

Note: from time to time, the essay will utilize the phrase ‘Integrated Resort’ (IR). The IR is a resort concept synonymous with the model of casinos as seen in Las Vegas and Johannesburg, i.e. where the casinos are a component of a larger themed entertainment facility that is (sometimes) targeted towards the family. It is the author’s view that adoption of the IR concept (by the government in its proceedings) is meant to 1) de-emphasize the gaming aspect of the proposal, thus softening the perception that it might be condoning vice; and 2) target a broader market of tourists (and not just high-rolling punters or ‘whales’). The phrase IR will be used interchangeably to mean casino, and vice versa.


History of the Casino Debate

The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) was established in 1964 with the mandate to promote Singapore as a tourist destination. The STB undertakes projects such as the construction of theme parks and targeted overseas promotional activities to boost tourism-related visits to Singapore. For a long time now, it has advocated the development of a casino in Singapore to attract more tourists and increase Singapore’s share of the Asia-Pacific tourism market. Until recently, the government has always rejected the idea of building a casino. During the early phases of Singapore’s development as a nation, the government’s focus was on building Singapore’s manufacturing and industrial capabilities: there was no economic need for a casino given the growth in GDP and the prosperity enjoyed by the nation.

Lately, however, the government had decided to reconsider the decision. In 2004, the idea was once again mooted. The proposal was internally discussed by the Members of the Cabinet and the decision was announced to the general public in April 2005. A parliamentary debate was held in the same month to debate the issue, and opinions both in support of, and against, the proposal were aired. Similarly, a public debate also took place among concerned citizens, with opinions largely expressed in the press and on the Internet.


The Economic Rationale for the IRs

The STB’s invitation for IR concepts attracted 19 submissions, and out of that pool, it was estimated that if 2 IRs are built, SGD 5 billion will need to be invested and 35,000 jobs will be created for the whole economy. The economic impact is significant: when fully operational, the 2 IRs’ contribution will increase Singapore’s GDP by 1% annually. The construction of the IRs will thus contribute significantly to boosting Singapore’s economy through foreign direct investment, the construction sector during the ramp-up phase, and the services sector in its day-to-day operations when completed.

On a related note, Singapore’s tourism industry has been on the decline. Singapore’s dollar share of Asia-Pacific travel has been falling: between 1998 and 2002, Singapore’s share of East Asia Pacific tourism receipts fell from 8.2% to 5.8% ; between 1994 and 2003, Singapore’s Total Expenditure of Visitors (TEV) fell 38% from SGD 7 billion (See Table 1). In considering the proposed IRs, the Singapore government was hoping to boost its flagging tourism industry – previously, the STB had experimented with theme parks, coordinated promotional sales events and contrived festivals. All had failed to revive an industry that is in decline – the only key success area has been in the promotion of Singapore as a location for business travel and Meetings, Incentive Travel, Conventions and Exhibitions (MICE). In effect, the Singapore government recognizes that Singapore (on the whole) as a tourist attraction is not viable with its current offerings and it needs to seek new means of attracting visitors to Singapore.

Table 1: Total Expenditure of Visitors (S$ Million), Yearly (Source: STB Website)
Year TEV (SGD Million)
1994 7049.8
1995 7350
1996 6755.5
1997 6207.4
1998 5493.6
1999 6033.3
2000 6292.6
2001 5699.3
2002 5425.8
2003 4315.6

Additionally, the Singapore government has recognized that its position as a desirable manufacturing base is no longer tenable. Investments in the manufacturing sector have stagnated at around SGD 8 billion and MNC capital expenditure have migrated to low cost countries in recent years. A recent case is California-based Maxtor Corp, a hard-disk drive manufacturer. In 2006 it closed two plants in Singapore and moved the operations to China – in addition to the retrenchment of 5,500 Singaporean workers, the move also affected small local suppliers of Maxtor Corp . The slow decline of the manufacturing sector has prompted the government to pursue growth in more lucrative sectors – in particular, a key growth area for Singapore is the services sector, within which the IRs are expected to generate investments, income and jobs when they are built.

Another compelling reason for setting up the IRs is that tourism within East Asia Pacific is booming. In particular, with China easing travel restrictions on its citizens there will be increasing demand for gaming facilities within a reasonable distance (in the future, the majority of Chinese travellers are most likely to be punters seeking to gamble, and current legislation in China forbids the construction and operation of casinos). Whether or not Singapore went ahead with the decision to build casinos, the surge in demand for such services will compel regional countries to compete and offer such services. The competitive situation is such that supply will rise to meet demand, whether or not Singapore chooses to compete for that particular tourist dollar.

While Singapore is able to attract investors due to its various advantages over its South East Asian neighbours, prospective investors are just as likely to set up casino resorts in locations such as Phuket and Bali – locations which are not far from Singapore in any case. As such, a pre-emptive measure to build IRs in Singapore might minimize the eventual impact of subsequent competition in the South East Asian region.


The Gambling Landscape in Singapore

The officially legal gambling channel comes in the guise of the Singapore Totalisator Board. It operates two businesses: the Singapore Turf Club, whose main source of revenue come from betting proceeds earned from horse-racing and totalisator operations; and Singapore Pools, whose revenue comes from running lotteries (operated via 3 distinct and separate means, namely 4D, Toto, and Singapore Sweep) and football betting. The proceeds from the operation of the two entities are channelled to charitable causes, the arts, community development and are generally meant to benefit other worthwhile causes in Singapore .

Other than the officially sanctioned means of gambling, Singaporeans also have access to ‘jackpot rooms’ in some country clubs and semi-union based clubhouses. These gaming facilities often take up a small area and only provide slot machines. Elsewhere, Singaporeans also punt on gambling sites on the internet, without regulation or restriction by the government.

Beyond the locally available options, Singaporeans also travel overseas for the purpose of gambling. The two most popular (and accessible) modes are Genting Resort in Malaysia and cruise ships to nowhere. Genting Resort is within a 5-hr coach ride from Singapore and offers full casino facilities along with a resort and theme park. Cruise operators in Singapore run cruise ships which operate casinos onboard (once they have sailed to international waters and are, legally, not within Singapore’s jurisdiction). The ships typically depart and return to Singapore without calling at any other ports.

It is thus a fact that Singaporeans can access gambling facilities easily. In a ministerial statement by the Prime Minister during the IR debate in parliament, he said that “Every year, Singaporeans spend $6 billion on legal gambling in Singapore, and another $1.5 billion in cruises and offshore casinos.” It appears to be clear that there is profit to be made from the $1.5 billion in gambling proceeds that go overseas.


The Social Problems

The first and foremost question in the debate was whether the casino components of the IRs will undermine societal values. As a society, the government perceived Singaporeans as valuing fairness, meritocracy, integrity and hard work. In some quarters, it is feared that the presence of a casino will erode the Singapore work ethic: the casinos might promote the idea of dependence on gambling and luck as a means of making money (as opposed to hard work). The prevailing view on this issue is that the government needed to act as custodian and enforcer of Singapore’s core values: in allowing IRs, it might be seen to compromise on this stance. The contrary view is that the government should not act in such a paternalistic manner, since such core values are hardly perceived to be accepted nationwide nor are they necessarily applicable to each and every Singaporean individual.

A concomitant danger was that the setting up of a casino might lead to increase in incidences of organized crime and law and order issues. Activities associated with the operations of casinos run the gamut of illegal money lending, prostitution, money laundering and criminal gangs. It has been observed that such a situation had already occurred in Macau: the involvement of triads in Macau’s casinos has led to rampant prostitution and other criminal activities. There is much concern that Singapore’s reputation as a safe and secure place might be ruined if the IRs ever degenerate to that level.

The third concern is that the presence of casinos in Singapore might lead to an increase in cases of problem gambling. This is particularly so in the case of pathological gambling, which is a mental health disorder much akin to a gambling disorder. Sufferers become preoccupied with gambling and are compelled to bet frequently and with increasingly higher stakes. Sufferers also experience withdrawal symptoms if prevented from gambling. Pathological gamblers have been known to gamble too much: to the point of both causing harm to self and family.

Two high profile cases during the period of the debate highlight the extent of the problems created by problem gamblers. Chia Teck Leng, 45, was formerly a finance manager at Asia Pacific Breweries. He got addicted to gambling in 1994 after going for a cruise and was taking on severe debt to finance his gambling habit. Later, he falsified documents purportedly from his company and cheated banks of a total of SGD 117 million. He was caught and subsequently sentenced to 42 years in jail. While in prison, Chia Teck Leng wrote a paper entitled ‘Taming the Casino Dragon’ exhorting the Singapore government to institute seemingly discriminatory measures to prevent Singaporeans from being addicted to gambling. This is a case of a problem gambler who took to crime as a solution to his problems – these are the kind of gamblers which opponents of the IR proposal have been most vocal in warning about.

On a more tragic (and also extreme) note, Simon Lee, 40, jumped to his death from his high-rise flat after killing his wife and two young children in a murder-cum-suicide pact. Simon Lee was found to have crippling gambling debts despite earning SGD 2,000 a month. He had also been gambling for more than 10 years on horses, numbers, soccer, and in casinos. Apparently seeing no solution to his plight, he decided to end his misery by killing himself and his family. This is an extreme case of a problem gambler who took his own life – most of them go into financial ruin but rarely go so far as to commit suicide. Unfortunately for proponents of the IR proposal, such high-profile cases make sensational news. Opponents of the IRs, whether they are religious groups or other social concern, argue that the IRs will accentuate the number of such incidents if left unaddressed.


The Decision

On 18 Apr 2005, the government announced the decision that the IR proposal will go ahead and planned to evaluate bids for two sites in the months to follow. A debate in parliament brought about opinions both for and against the proposal, but since the decision had already been made by the cabinet, the parliamentary debates in no way changed the outcome of the decision.

What it did achieve though was that it highlighted the divisive nature of the casino issue: on the one hand, proponents of the proposal tended to be biased towards their views of the economic realities of Singapore and recognize the potential upsides in building the IRs. Opponents of the proposal, though, tended to hark upon the social ills associated with casinos, but often do not have substantive evidence or data to support their claim – information on other cities which are exposed to similar issues were inconclusive as to the full impact, and mitigating factors, of the proposal to build an IR.


Preventive Measures Adopted

In addressing fears over the erosion of the Singapore work ethic and core values, it is perhaps notable that the Prime Minister made a mention towards a less paternalistic approach. Lee Hsien Loong, in his speech during the parliamentary debate, mentioned the role of schools, the family and religious and social groups, in the inculcation of values, and the transmission of civics and moral education . It is a clear signal from the government that, whether or not the IRs are built, the onus is on society to build its own value systems and transmit them to future generations of Singaporeans. The evils associated with gambling as a vice already exist (in its various guises) and values as they are now will not be significantly degenerated as a result of the IRs.

On the issue of increased criminal activity, it is no doubt that the authorities in Singapore will be strict in this regard: historically, Singapore’s enforcement agencies have been tough on vice and related activities. There will be the formation of a special police unit to supervise law enforcement in all activities related to casinos. A casino regulatory body will also be established to help manage some of the social impact of the casinos: for example, the regulatory authority will screen principal shareholders, directors, and employees to minimize any infiltration of criminal elements into casinos. The regulator will also monitor supplier relationships to ensure that all transactions are above board, and also seek international best practices for dealing with money laundering and other associated criminal activities.

Most of the debate focused on measures to curb incidences of problem gambling, and to proactively help gamblers and affected family members cope with such problems. Firstly, the IRs will put in place an entrance levy fee of SGD 100 per visit, or SGD 2,000 for visits over a calendar year. The entry levy is designed to signal to the public at large that gambling is to be considered an expense, and not a money-making enterprise. It is also meant to discourage casual gambling. The minimum age limit for entry is 21 years so as to prevent children and teens from being unduly exposed.

Another measure to limit the exposure of compulsive gamblers is in the institution of exclusion measures. Compulsive gamblers may voluntarily opt for self-exclusion, or they can be coaxed by concerned family members to be counselled and apply for self-exclusion with the National Council on Gambling (the authority set up by the government to regulate the gambling industry). The Council goes further: it will bar those also in poor financial health such as bankrupts, people with poor credit records and people on welfare, from entering the IRs in the future. The voluntary exclusion and other exclusionary measures are already used in other casinos around the world.

To deal with the problem of pathological gamblers, Singapore’s Institute of Mental Health runs a Community Addictions Management Program (CAMP). CAMP acts as a centre for treating addictions (among which are gambling addictions and substance abuse related addictions) and also conduct public education messages to that effect. With the spotlight now on measures for dealing with gambling addiction, CAMP now has the mandate to improve facilities and meet world-class benchmarks as set by experienced addiction centres in the US.

In addition to a treatment facility, the Ministry of Health also focused on public awareness campaigns in the mass media, investment in research on treatment practices, and working with voluntary welfare organisations to deal with problem gambling. Despite the small number of cases (an estimated 100 patients were treated for gambling addiction in 2004), the Singapore government has demonstrated an ample commitment towards dealing with the potential ills that might be introduced with the IRs.


A Personal Point of View

Singapore’s Great Casino Debate highlights the case of an ethical dilemma faced by the Singapore government. The decision to build the IRs was based on economic rationality: the IRs will bring in foreign investment, create jobs and spur the growth of the economy. In its decision making process, the government sought the feedback of its citizens and various social groups: however, no one other than the members of the cabinet had the voting ability to influence the decision – even when the issue was debated in parliament, the cabinet had already made the decision to go ahead with the IRs (having internally considered the issue over several months).

A more populist approach might be to hold a referendum on the issue (as advocated by a particular opposition party). In that way, the rational actor (in this instance the Cabinet of Ministers) can transfer the responsibility for making the decision to society as a whole, rather than bear the burden of the decision alone. However, this argument detracts from the fact that the government had been democratically elected by its people, and is thus given the mandate to act on their behalf on issues of macroeconomics (as far as the economic rationality of it is concerned).

What a referendum might have served to do though is to allow the public to shape the outcome of the decision based on its own values system. The argument goes that the government might not fully represent society’s values or moral concerns, and a general referendum will serve to better reflect the moral pulse of the country. On this note, I am somewhat more supportive of the notion that the public should be allowed to decide, although the imperative economic urgency of the situation did not warrant the government allowing a possibility of the motion being defeated.

Of more interest to myself as the author are the types of ethical values espoused during the debate itself. The majority of the opponents’ arguments centred on the effects that the IRs will have on society and the individual. The particular worries about erosion of societal values, crime and individual gambling problems stem from the adoption of a deontological point of view. Deontological ethics holds that decisions should be made solely by considering one’s duty and rules within which one operates. It is an approach with an emphasis on the how things are done rather than what things are achieved. The call among opponents to the IRs has been for the government to address issues of possible social problems and the measures adopted.

Another subset of the opponents comes from a religious context and they espouse a ‘virtue ethics’ perspective. The major religions in Singapore are Islamism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. Vocal opponents of the IR proposal have come mainly from among Muslims and Christians opposed to the immoral principle of allowing vice on what is viewed as a grand scale.

The proponents adopt a more utilitarian approach instead. Utilitarianism is an ethical dogma that holds that the right action is the one that produces the most utility for the whole of society (in our context), i.e. the ends justify the means, so long as most of the people benefit from it. As for what measure to adopt in the case of measuring the utility, the proponents of the proposal point to the obvious economic benefits, and look upon the social costs as somewhat minuscule in comparison to the huge benefits to society that the IRs will bring.

For the case of the IR proposal, the utilitarian argument won out in the end: the IR proposal makes good economic sense. As for the social costs associated with gambling and the presence of a casino, the measures seem to be substantial enough. On a more reassuring note, the government has promised that it will continually monitor and improve any social programs aimed at curbing problems stemming from the IRs.

Personally, in considering the various perspectives adopted in the Great Casino Debate, my research has drawn mainly on publicly available information, particularly from governmental sources. I am not personally an advocate of the actions of the PAP government, but with regards to the IR debate, I have found the speeches and statements made by various government ministers and MPs to contain concrete well thought out arguments for their case. From a civic perspective, I have also drawn upon information from other sources such as local news sites and other grassroots political commentary sites which are not regulated by governmental agencies.

Finally, to reiterate, I am of the view that the IRs, or the casino component of the IRs, will bring significant economic benefits to Singapore. The social costs as a consequence of the IRs will probably not be significant enough to overwhelm the benefits achieved, though this is something that can only be known in the future. As of now, the preventive measures put in place to curb the erosion of societal values, crime and problem gambling seem to me to be substantial and are ethically the right thing to do: in a sense, these actions are the social responsibility of the government given the economic action (the IRs) they have undertaken.

From my own moral standpoint, I do not think that gambling is immoral. I believe that gambling has the ability to ruin lives, but I believe in the right of the individual to exercise the freedom of using his financial resources as he pleased (provided it does no harm to others – here I adopt the deontological view). Researching the Great Singapore Debate has shaped my perspectives on gambling, the IRs, the ills, and the leadership exhibited by the Singaporean government.




Notes (Ed: Originally appearing as footnotes to the essay - I didn't have the time to figure out how to do it in Blogger):

1. ‘Whale’ is a gaming industry parlance for serious gamblers who are heavily funded and high-rollers, with the ability to stake millions in gambling transactions.
2. The Cabinet is composed of elected Members of Parliament (MPs) who are chosen by the Prime Minister to be Ministers. The Cabinet is responsible for all Government policies and the day-to-day administration of the affairs of the state. It is collectively responsible to the Parliament. Source
3. Total Expenditure of Visitors (TEV) is one of the key performance indicators of Singapore's Tourism Sector. TEV measures the total revenue received by Singapore from tourism activity. It includes all payments and prepayments for goods and services made by visitors, as well as high yield shopping expenditure.
4. Chia Teck Leng's paper also mentions his experiences, and details expounding why the ‘house’ always wins.
5. In May 2006 Las Vegas Sands won the bid to operate the IR on the Marina Bay site. Recently, in Dec 2006 Genting Resorts won the bid to operate the second IR on the Sentosa site.

Articles referenced (I've lost my bookmarks for these pages, so no links here):

• Alex Au, ‘Casino Decision: A Bigger Question Looms’, The Straits Times, 12 Nov 2004
• Seah Chiang Nee, ‘Tragedy and the Casino Debate’, Little Speck
• James Gomez, Workers’ Party Policy Statement on the PAP Government’s Casino Proposal

Parliamentary speeches referenced (I've lost my bookmarks for these pages, so no links here):

• Speech by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, on 21 Apr 2005 at Parliament House
• Speech by Prof S Jayakumar, Minister for Home Affairs, on 18 Apr 2005 at Parliament House
• Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on 21 Apr 2005 at Parliament House
• Speech by Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for Health, 19 Apr 2005 at Parliament House

Closer

"If you believe in love at first sight, you'll never stop looking"

Are we close friends? As with all vague notions, there is no metric with which I can measure the distance between us. I can't say that we're close friends because of reasons A, B, C... and so on. I certainly can't claim we're close friends because we see each other more often than others within our circle (well, outside my circle, there are friends who're indeed closer).

Can I build criteria? I think I've tried:

1. How often do we see each other a week?
2. What is the amount of time we spent exclusively in each other's company?
3. When we need to confide / talk, how often do we think of calling each other?
4. Are we... just friends? Or is there some other underlying attraction?
5. If so, is this what close friends do, or is this because other emotions are at play?
6. Have we fought?
7. How did we make up after that?
8. Do you love me? Does that still make us close friends, or something worse?

Vague notions and vague answers at best - when something as tenuous as a friendship needs to be defined along quantitative measures, what does one make of it?

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

I have a friend - close enough, but not close enough to touch rub my emotions raw - who is very good at one thing: she is good at asking questions. She asks questions relentlessly, and her style of presentation is to shoot questions at her audience, make them ponder, and rattle off more questions in quick succession. The questions always demand an answer, and the way that it is asked, the answers are proffered in no small measure. The questions are always good, but the answers to them always seem to invite her to probe more, like a hungry unsatiated hippo (eating up those balls... hehe... pardon the slight digression into the 80s).

But although she asks questions well, she doesn't seem to give answers. It is a one-sided relationship: she asks the questions, you give the answers. And there's no point in asking questions of her because she doesn't have answers. Or it might be that the answers she's collected, she's keeping them for herself, unwilling or unable to share them. Perhaps she cannot distill the answers she hoards into something that someone else can understand. So the questions always come flying, but the answers don't. And in such a relationship, the answerer always feel drained, like he's being sucked dry of knowledge without any replenishment in return.

"Ask and it shall be given unto you" but can one ask incessantly? Very unchristianly behaviour to be expecting reciprocity on this account, but one can't help feeling like he isn't getting a fair bargain.

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

"If you believe in love at first sight... take a closer look"

You must be wondering, do I have a point to all this? Like with all good things, I'm getting to my point - in my fashion.

I think that, with regards to how close a friendship really is, one can only ask vague questions of oneself and invite unwillingly qualitative answers. As with my inquisitive friend, the questions one can ask only invite further questions, until such a point when no answers can be elicited.

A close friendship cannot be one without some measure of attraction (my opinion). At some base level, one has to be attracted to the other - with same-sex friends, it doesn't necessarily mean you're gay. The attraction has to be of a kind where one finds a quality in the other that one desires, whether it be that the other is beautiful, or smart, or in possession of some such attribute.

The thing is, the level of attraction cannot exceed a certain (vague) point - beyond that (vague) point, it tilts towards something more akin to attraction and liking, where one party comes to desire the other. When Desire plays the matchmaker, that friendship isn't close anymore: it is means to an end, that end being one of desire, and at its most debased, lust.

A close friendship does not need frequent contact, nor does it need two people to spend any significant amount of time with each other (again, my opinion). In fact, when two people spend too much time with each other, it's more likely they will end up detesting the other, finding each other's bad habits beyond reproach and letting familiarity breed contempt.

Time apart from each other allows room in which one can grow, and change in ways that only a close friend can appreciate. Being in frequent contact means the subtle changes go unnoticed, and that is always a loss to the unobservant one.

Finally, getting closer doesn't mean one should not fall in love with the other: it just means that such emotions need to be embraced and expressed - with much grace and some acceptance of the fact that the friendship might not be the same thereafter. Never, ever, bottle up your emotions - when one does, the time will come when emotions burst forth in a torrent and there will be no way to pretend one never felt them.

And when it comes to that point, can one remain close?

George Michael sings it thus, and it speaks for me: 'I keep my distance, but you still catch my eye.'

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

"Those who love at first sight are traitors at every glance"






Notes:
1. Quotes in italics were taken from taglines for the movie Closer (2004).
2. Hungry Hungry Hippos is one of those meaningless games from the 80s. You take the lever of one of 4 hippos and manoeuvre it to 'eat' as many balls as possible. The player with the most balls eaten wins.

3. The George Michael song? That line's taken from the song 'Last Christmas' by Wham!

Planes, Trains and Automobiles; A new Period

A combination of a few things put me out of blogging action for a while:

1. I've gotten lazy.

2. I was catching up on anime I haven't seen. Anime freaks out there should go catch Kanon and Death Note (the anime, not the movie, though I've heard good things about the movie too).

3. I started re-playing this very long-winded turn-based time-consuming ego-feeding empire-building game which took too much time (because I had too much of it currently). It distracted me from one true purpose of having this laptop (which is to blog with)

4. I was on holiday... with my ex... it was really fun hanging out with someone you know well, but you may never know people well enough (I've come to realise that people can change - someone you think you know now won't be the same person you know later). That makes life interesting, but I'm not looking for interesting experiences nowadays. I just want a life. Period. (punctuation notwithstanding)

5. I was suffering from a writer's block of sorts - there were things I wanted to blog about, but I couldn't put them into words.

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

There was an idea to talk about one oft-cited topic: Love. Or rather the reasons for love. I think that love is based on a primal urge to procreate, and as human beings, we are driven to find love because we want to have sex and to reproduce (from a biological point of view, of course). It just gets complicated that we develop feelings along the way: stupid things going by names such as jealousy, hatred, ecstasy - you know them well.

But then, I thought about the fact that too many people have expounded on this topic already, and what can I add to the people who actually read my blog? (I think my regular readers have reached a number that I can count with both my hands!).

So I shan't discuss love - I don't have it now, and I certainly am hungry for it, though I'm beginning to think it is a function of a biological urge.

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

There is this post that I wanted to do regarding Singapore Airlines though - I even took notes while the incident was playing out. I was flying out of Changi Airport (Singapore) to Bangkok on an SQ flight (my first in years) and a situation occurred which prevented me from boarding the plane for a long while.

It started with me queueing to check in at Terminal 2's Row 7 check in counter. The first irritating thing is that there is actually a very long queue: it was a rope-lashed snake with 4 bends, which meant one having to navigate an airport push trolley onto people's ankles at least 4 times. One snaky queue feeding something like 12 counters (or positions depending on whose choice of words you chose), of which some were available and some were intermittently closed. I soon found out why there were positions that had to be 'intermittently' closed.

There was actually a lady, not in the usual SIA counter staff garb (the one counter staff wear with the distinctive SQ kebaya pattern for a top and a schoolgirl skirt), standing at the head of the queue directing people to the various counters. She looked authoritative, and she even 'selected' people to skip ahead to the front of the queue, depending on how late they are for their flights. There seemed to be a bias - she seems to move Caucasians ahead of the pack more often than not, but I was probably just being too sensitive. Maybe these ang-mohs just have a thing for checking in late.

Anyhow, this was the situation 2 hours prior to my flight. And I finally got to the counter to check in. I presented my passport, the girl tapped away on the keyboard. I was kept there for something like 5 minutes before being told that a situation had arisen where I might not get a seat on the flight.

Time-out... Now, typically, I think the usual SIA customer will be outraged and suitably angry at this point. "WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU CANNOT PUT ME ON THAT FLIGHT?" might be something I have uttered in utter desperation. With my Outraged Customer Hat on, I might have made a scene or a huge fuss out of the fact that I come 2 hours early to find myself not checked onto the flight. Not impossible yah?

But I am not a usual SIA customer: this is my first SIA flight since I was 10. So I put my
Operations Consultant Hat on instead and decided to find out why she said that.

The reason, oddly enough, actually made sense operationally. SIA is an airline that connects people via Changi airport between people flying out of Europe and Australia going to destinations in Asia (and vice versa, though it was the former case for this situation). A flight out of Sydney coming into Singapore was delayed, and a bunch of the passengers on this particular flight missed their connection in Singapore to other destinations in South-East Asia like Bangkok, Manila and Hanoi.

Knowing that these people are going to miss their scheduled connections, the system did the next best thing it could for them: it put them on the next available SQ flight out to these destinations. One of these next best flight happened to be SQ62 to Bangkok: my flight. All this probably happened even before I showed up at the airport. It made sense then and there to secure the next flight out for these folks, but obviously some things have not been well thought through.

For one thing, the flight was already overbooked - this is a typical airline practice: there is some complicated system to actually calculate yield rates and airlines know that they can overbook an aircraft because there will be cancellations. However, I was flying out on a Hari Raya-Deepavali holiday weekend, which probably screw things up a bit because complex booking algorithms can seldom account for irratic holiday weekend travel patterns.

So while pushing delayed passengers on subseqeunt connecting flights made sound business sense, the fact that the flight was OVERBOOKED, and that it was a HOLIDAY WEEKEND meant that there WILL be people actually boarding that flight in Singapore and one cannot discount that they WILL want to get on the flight.

But... Singapore Airlines, well-known for providing the BEST service to customers put their delayed customers on the next flight out nonetheless. So what was the effect of this happening?

You should have seen the scene at Changi Airport Terminal 2 Check in counter Row 7. Customers were told they needed to wait while the front counter staff scramble to get them seats. My bag was checked in: my bag could actually get on the flight while I had to wait for my turn. I sat on the seats next to the check in row, observing other passengers suffering the same fate. Irate ang-mohs are a sight to behold: this lady was frustrated, furious and screaming at one of the supervisors. Quite understandable: this is Singapore Airlines you're talking about, and what level of service is it that you cannot check in someone who's arrived two hours early?

In providing the best possible service for the folks boarding a delayed flight in Sydney, it has made it impossible for the folks boarding a confirmed flight in Singapore. Pretty well thought out for a world class airline, I must say.

Now, let me assume the Front Counter Staff Hat and see the real victim in all of this. I make no bones about the fact that the real victim isn't myself, the customer. The real victim is the Front Counter girl and mine is named Elline (I never found out her last name). It's a good thing I have had an opportunity to work behind a counter myself (A&E, NUH, something from my previous life as an IT consultant) and I understood what she was going through - I think I was the most reasonable customer for her all of that busy morning.

Often, the Front Counter Staff (FCS) have to handle things on two fronts, both of which are beyond her control in the first place. There is the irate customer on the one hand: the FCS has to deal with frustration, irritation and emotions which are generally beyond their level of comprehension. People hate to wait, and having reached the front of a queue, people hate to be told that they have waited for nothing. The FCS needs to be gentle, reassuring and understanding all at a time when they might be screamed at, shouted at and verbally abused. A crying FCS is a typical sight when things in the backroom get out of hand.

And this is where the FCS faces the biggest ordeal: things happen in the backroom which are beyond her control, and which she might have an inkling of an idea about. The FCS is tasked to provide the best possible service and her KPI is measured based on that - customer waiting time, turnaround time, service etc. But her KPI is affected by backroom events such as the one I have mentioned above.

So, the FCS can try to explain the situation to the irate customer, and at best hope that the customer will understand. It is a tough job with a frequently high turnover, but you do develop a thick hide after facing the worst of them. Elline, my SIA FCS of Row 7, was kind enough to explain the situation, checked in my bag, got me to wait patiently while she put up the sign that said 'Position Closed'. She then ran back and forth between some unknown backroom location and the front counter, all in the name of getting me on that flight.

Me? I was thinking a few things while making notes about the ordeal (I was too free, no book to read, no laptop to punch away on). Firstly, I should have just used SIA's Internet Check-in: much easier, no hassle, and my bag can be carried on. Alternatively, I should have gone in as baggage: bags can get on the flight, passengers cannot. It is SIA, I kept repeating to myself, and it has the best service. Yup, to the irate ang mohs it sure does, since their tempers are well on display. I can still picture this supervisor saying "Sorry... sorry" over and over again to customers who complained.

But I guess there are miracles. Half an hour before the plane was to fly, Elline got me onto the flight. But well, it was the last available seat on the plane - all the way at the back, no choice of aisle or window (I got aisle), near the area where the stewardesses prepare the food. I thanked her, asked her for her name - this is so that I can write this post with a name in mind. The FCS are not nameless assistants to your customer experience: they are also human beings.

I ran, boarded and enjoyed the rest of my trip to Bangkok. But I don't think SIA is that good anymore: Does it make sense that providing good service meant bumping up delayed passengers onto a connecting flight, at the expense of kicking off full-paying passengers who are booked on that flight? I'm tempted to assume my CEO of SIA Hat but I think not: its enough that I blogged about it - if they offer me a job, I think I might even try to help think through strategic imperatives to DEAL with it.

They need some serious re-thinking there... Singapore Airlines.

Get Off My Case

A job in consulting hinges on aceing that weird thing known as the case interview. Supposedly, a case interview tests how well your thought processes are and whether you are able to think on the spot, have a structure to approach problems, and still be creative enough to find a solution.

Naturally, I feel a need to be honest and frank about what case interviews achieve. My frank opinion... case interviews are nonsense.

In fact, most interviews are. One can learn how to bullshit his way through any interview given enough practice, vault guides, help from career services and sheer hardheadedness.

Likewise with the case interview: you really do know what the other guy is asking for and it is just that well-known S word: Structure, structure and structure. So give that guy a bloody structure, and then watch out for signals that you're on the right path.

See, I think that's the trick with case interviews: you give some kickass hoe-down structure and then anticipate and look for reactions. It isn't about being well structured: it's about picking up on the non-verbal cues and hints that your very nice interviewer drops along the way. And that is why I think some of those people with the most stellar CVs fail at that critical juncture: the case interview.

So what is the interviewer looking for really? Ok, so you know you have to give him that dirty S-word. Three rules right? Rule number one: You don't talk about Fight Club. Rule number two: You don't talk about Fight Club. Rule number three...

Oh sorry, wrong movie. Ok, so the three rules work like this. Think of this as greyscalefuzz's framework for case interview success and someday I might be famous and write some self-help book on aceing that case interview (not that the vault guides, various consulting club manuals and career guides aren't doing the trick already).

Rule number 1: Give that guy a structure. ANY structure as long as it makes some kind of sense and is general enough to encompass whatever he is talking about. The safest structure is the 4Cs, and my version of it goes 'Company', 'Customers', 'Competitors' and 'Conditions'. Well twist it around and also add in things such as 'Profit = Revenue - Costs' and you should be well on your way.

Rule number 2: Be flexible. The last thing you should do is expect to stick to your structure. When you see that something you're touching on is making some leeway, abandon anything that sounds iffy and dive deep into the issue the interviewer has so kindly given you the hint about. So if you struck a chord when talking about the 'Company' and the interviewer mentions something about metrics and KPIs, be prepared to change tack and discuss measurements and stuff. Don't get hung up on your stupid 4C structure and keep harping back to it because, as is already obvious, that isn't what the interviewer is looking for.

Rule number 3: Look out for nonverbal cues and hints. Be one step ahead of the game and when given the slightest hint about something, pick on it and expound on it. The thing is to watch out, listen well, and then talk the topic to death. If you have the glib of tongue (which you should try to have, or you'll just be a mediocre case cracker), then be prepared to talk round a topic until something logical sticks.

Hmm... maybe rule number 3 doesn't sound so well expressed there. See, what I think most of the case interview hinges around is one being able to see that an interviewer has given one a lead. A lead may take many forms: perhaps the interviewer has voluntarily given you data, in which case that would be the most direct way to steer the discussion towards what has been given to you; perhaps the interviewer has mentioned that he would prefer to take a different approach; perhaps the interviewer expressed interest in a particular sub-area of your structure.

Whatever it is, a case interview is not meant to be approached with a formula in mind: take it as a chance to build some rapport with the interviewer and demonstrate your train of thought - always speak out loud.

And I think that is key: to make yourself heard - no, not your airheaded self, but what your brain goes through when solving a problem - and heard for the right things.

Oh hey, btw, I am no definitive authority on case interviews, but heck I think I have heard enough bitching about screwed up case interviews to say something about what went wrong. So there.

Authenticity and Change - To Be or Not To Be

I was intending to reply to a comment to my previous post when I realised that my comment to that comment became longer than a comment merited, and my comment to that comment became its own post.

Confusing? You bet. That's what life's like when you comment too much. Instances of comments outdoing the post are all too common. Commentable comments aside, they somehow have little pride of place in the blogosphere - most comments are given RSS feeds to track back to (thus, comments kind of get... lost).

Still, the comment my friend made was regards authenticity. Bahloo said "If you are yourself and you don't like what you see, should you change or learn to accept it?"

Tough question. But if I can claim to having any pet topics at all, two of them are likely to be about authenticity and change.

My view on change is that it has to be accepted as a constant. It is like one of those undeniably powerful forces in life that shapes and molds one, and denial of, or resistance to, change is typically futile. One has to ride it out, take the punches like a man and move on.

My view on authenticity is that one should strive to be genuine, whether it be in dealings with others, or, more importantly, dealing with oneself. When you can see yourself for what you truly are, and acknowledge your wrinkles et al, then you can truly be comfortable with yourself, and therefore with others.

To change yourself requires a whole lot of courage - for one thing, it means recognising that you are not the person that you want to be right now. To me, it is not unauthentic to change; it is unauthentic though to change superficially. It is unauthentic, and a whole lot sadder, to change what you were born into.

For instance, take fake breasts. Suppose you are a girl and you don't like your breasts because they are too small. So you get implants and in so doing, double your cupsize overnight. What have you changed? Perhaps bigger breasts gave you confidence you never had, garnered you more attention from prying male eyes, and added that bounce in your step. But is that you? Do you really need fake breasts to become a new person?

My honest opinion: if you can face what you see in the mirror, you're authentic. Doesn't matter that cosmetic surgery gave you what you were not born with. What matters is that you re able to live with yourself as the kind of person you manufactured yourself to be. And in your dealings with others, when you can project your self-concept (your idea of who you are) that is consistent with your self-ideal (how you think you should behave), then you are consistent with yourself. There is nothing wrong with upping your self-esteem in artificial ways.

But I do object to people denying what they were born into. To over-dramatise it a bit, imagine a taiwanese Qiong Yao soap opera (complex relationships, prodigal sons, wayward daughters, unfaithful husbands, the works). A boy was born into a humble family, single mother raising 5 kids all on her own. Imbued with a hard-nosed work ethic and the notion that hard work and striving gets him far, he works hard and through his own merit, rose to a position of power and wealth. But when quizzed about his background, he disavows having been born of a single mother and living in poverty. He does not acknowledge his mother, despises the conditions he was born into, and feels disgust at dealing with his hicksville siblings, thinking them to be like moths drawn to the glory of his bright flame.

That is an unauthentic change of self: you may have achieved what you have desired and set out to do. You may have authored your rise to fame and glory, wealth and riches. But if you deny your history, if you deny your family and relations in some vainglorious attempt at attaining a higher state of self, then you do not deserve to be what you are. Assuming and attaining that isn't change of a genuine nature, for it meant change at the expense of denying what you were born with.

I don't like assumed attitudes and I certainly don't like airs. If there is one last thing I can say about the subject, it is that if you are not yourself, you are not doing yourself any favours. Sooner or later, the real self is revealed. Sooner or later, the truth is unearthed.