Societies prosper and last due to the strength of their institutions

This is the conclusion derived from reading “Why Nations Fail” by Acemoglu and Robinson, and from reading “The Origins of Political Order” by Fukuyama.

Societies begin to decay when a particular group of people are able to exploit their privileged positions and use it to direct resources to their own private use. Typically, these privileged groups will want to benefit their friends, allies and relatives although not too much that they can overcome the ruler. Opportunities to success become closed and inequalities increase. Meantime, the privileged attempt to extract more resources from society and continue to use more exploitative means, while at the same time, closing off critical thought and openness to new ideas. The extreme examples today include the DPRK, and Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. One could argue that the influence of US legislation by lobbyists constitute a worrying trend, but ultimately, the democratic process of elections and possible mobilization of various civil society groups can still form a robust check on potential abuses of power. 

In Singapore, there is no sign that the elites are buying their power through financial or other means. While there are weaknesses in oversight processes, ordinary people and citizens, together with the selective transparency of the bureaucracy, still counts as a limited check. Despite rumours/fact of the children of ministers being awarded their scholarships, they are not given positions by fiat, nor can they demand it. In principle, elections still constitute a check on the power of the incumbent. Civil society is respected and influential in limited domains. While the PAP is powerful, it is not invincible. 

As with any sufficiently developed society, the elites, despite their diversity, will still go through similar processes of socialization, be it all through their lives as children of privilege, or during their entry into highly privileged positions as adults. Due to the limited numbers they will get to meet each and socialize, but that does not mean that they are a monolithic bunch. Singapore’s elites still constitute a sufficiently-broad base that no particular group can wield unlimited power but remain constrained by the actions of others. 

Singapore remains an open society, and possibilities of creativity still exist, though hamstrung by the small market here. There is nothing institutionally stopping the processes of innovation, and there are no edicts that prevent explicitly the enactment of new ideas - in fact we are very much encouraged to act on new ideas. Singapore has decided that there shall be no development of an alternative Internet, as PRC or the DPRK has done, nor will we become blocked off from global services. 

There is much to celebrate on 9 August 2012 in Singapore. The strength and integrity of our institutions deserve our cheers. 

• Life’s a riot. You think you know where you’re headed to and then something happens that takes you in an unanticipated, unexpected direction. Be open to where life can take you.

• Grades are only as important as you make them to be. There’s more to life than mugging. Help out in community projects. Volunteer. Attend things you didn’t regard as significant. Learn from those who’ve gone before you. Start a new project. Be brave and plunge into the unknown.

• Persist. Things take time to develop. Give the time to think things through. Don’t wait for things to happen. Do your best but also recognise that things have their own timing. Persist at something you want to achieve. Networks need persistence and time to grow. Maintain them.

• Give, and keep giving, because you never know what you might receive in return. Treasure the people around you and give them your attention and presence.

• Be ready to change your mind, and give others the chance to change theirs. You will meet all sorts of people - those with perspectives you’ve never heard of before. Your ideals and values could change. So be ready to change your mind, and give others the chance, even if they don’t. 

nevver:

Aldous Huxley

Lately I have been re-reading Wired for War. Before that I had been reading a whole range of topics on the subject of neuroscience, emotional development, human psychology and the like. 

Research in neuroscience and development psychological has led me to think about the outsized role that early childhood development has on the constitution of the person in adulthood. 

The mother remains the emotional centre of the young child during the formational years. These are the years where the individual begins to learn to feel secure to the adults around him/her. Developmental events during this time creates the foundation for either a secure adult, or an anxiety adult. 

Adolescence is another period, where the individual begins to form their own unique identity. The source of identity during this period builds on the foundation of  emotional stability established in the earlier periods of life. 

Why does all of these matter? These micro-psychologies matter because the emotional stability of individuals are the foundation for the kinds of societies we become. The emotional fabric we weave as children become the foundation of the kinds of adults we become. A society of anxious, inwardly-insecure people can drive people towards the pursuit of material outcomes at the expense of other good and important things in life. I wonder about the link between psychological insecurity and outwardly behavioral trends - I wonder if a real link exists. The correlation is tantalizing - that insecure people would want to attach themselves to outwardly tangible things, such as fashion and material wealth. 

The attachment to physical things becomes a sign of weakness. Not being able to feel secure with their own existence, people latch onto things they can have a firm hold on. Material objects acquire this is importance - having property, having the latest gadgets, or having status symbols. This is to signal to others who they belong to - they belong to the future, they have the capability and capacity to obtain these items of the future that others can’t have yet. Individuals who are secure on the other hand, would not require these external objects as validation, if the logic follows. Individuals who are inwardly secure can tap into their rich inner lives for the security, even for extroverted people. 

How does this affect governance? Any organization becomes a source of emotional attachment, and so it matters for individuals the kinds of cultures that people get attached to. A country is a sum of its various organizations be they private or public, be they religious or secular. The kinds of emotional attachments that people form to these organizations matter, because these attachments also form the bases for their interaction with other organizations. 

Lest this view become too reductionistic, I want to avoid this by recognizing that every level of interactions has its own dynamic. The interactions of individuals within the organization would differ from the interactions that organizations have with one another. Nonetheless, the state continues to have a massive role in setting the context for the kinds of interactions that different institutions will have with one another. 

Theories of emotions, psychology and neuroscience matter nonetheless because all abstractions aside, individuals will determine how those interactions are shaped, not organizations in the abstract. The quality of relationships between and within organizations is the quality of the individuals and their communicative power. 

On a larger scale, these notions of emotional and psychological attachments form the bases for notions of security and defense, be they from a physical, or psychological perspective. At its heart, warfare remains a psychological tool - a tool to dissuade or destroy the will of a potential adversary to wage war. The means of warfare - the tanks, ships, aircraft and missiles are instruments of that will. The interplay between will and means drives the security dynamic. The characteristics of the will is the centre of focus - and it is in this respect that more attention is paid to the psychological and neurological foundations in the analysis of conflict. This interface is where the mashing between Brooks and Singer becomes useful. The psychological and emotional health of the population that’s both the target and the perpetuators of war becomes important. Only on this foundation can the debates about the development and deployment of technologies can be meaningful. In essence, the question becomes - what does the development of robotics and networked-operations say about the emotional and psychological health of the society? The reverse question is also meaningful - how does emotional and psychological health support/advance/resist/dissuade the development and deployment of technologies in warfare?

Would the world be safer is it had more self-secure individuals? Yes. Without the need for external attachment, the pursuit of material wealth would be diminished greatly. And without that, the need for natural resources,  the associated degradation of the environment and the cost to human welfare would also be greatly diminished. Without the insecurities would also greatly diminish the impact of charismatic leaders tending towards destruction.

Friends ask me questions about the futures work, and this I think, will form the backbone of my responses:

The future is neither a complete mystery nor a pre-destined. The weather is one example of this. The physics of fluid mechanics is well known; we know very well the basic equations of how moving air and water behaves. Even in the supposedly deterministic, Newtonian-universe, there’s room for surprises. Slight variations in initial conditions can lead to divergent outcomes with time.

People have agency, although that agency is also constrained by time and circumstances. Karl Marx wrote, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” We live between constraints and freedom.

The story of life itself is another such example. Despite the abiotic conditions, life begets life. Whole ecologies are created. Despite the constraints of chemistry and physics, the wonders of life present a testament to the powers of creation and possibility. Despite the constraints around us, we still can create microcosms of opportunity. They are endless, and as far as we can tell, infinite.

Singapore is an example of constraint and freedom. We face fundamental constraints of a limited space. We also don’t have the privilege of a rich historical tradition. Yet, we have created for ourselves microcosms of opportunities in the world and for ourselves.

We are an audacious dream made real. What we’ve given to the world is an inspiration, for countries and their leaders to think about how to move their people from poverty to prosperity. The world learns with us how to deal with constraints and diversity and live abundantly in a world of multiple cultures, and act against radicalism.

We have to continue to dream audaciously, rooted in reality. A gaze only to the future is daydreaming and futile. Our rootedness will allow us to work towards those dreams.

Every now and then we ought to close our eyes and dream a little, and then to wake up and work towards them.

“My peers and I come from a time of great changes, whether we realize it or not. I was born in 1987 on the day a stock market correction. I vaguely remember the first Gulf War. And then the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. The panic over the Y2K bug and anxieties about a new millennium. 9-11, the War on Terror, the dot-com bubbles and bust, SARS. More bombings. The rise of China, then BRICS then all sorts of emerging nations in elaborate acronyms. And then of course, the still-unraveling economic crises. Where our parents talked of the Soviet Union, we talk about Russia. Where Communism was real, but only theory for us. Where “tag” and “poke” meant physical things, not mouse-clicks. That we now hold in our hand computers more powerful than the ones that went to the moon. In Singapore, we once feared too many children, but now fear too few. Where we now allow casinos where once they were taboo. We now have the flourishing of the arts, where nature now does not always give way to development. These developments have led to all sorts of changes in the society, where the social and cognitive fabrics are being rewoven on very different terms. We don’t know what the new rules are, and there is no final pattern to refer to. Those graduating in recent years have had to deal with the character of disruptive change ever since university days and before. And increasingly, even more so in the years to come. Change – amplified and deepening is the norm now more so than ever before. My peers have dealt with them. The skillsets, visions and stories we have are the result of having to deal with this very essence of deep and intense change. To those surfing on the waves of these changes, disruptive change is not something “major”. Disruptive change is “meh”. We live it, embrace it, and move on to the next one, or create it. There was no manual for how to use Facebook or Twitter, or any of those platforms. There were guides, but even these guides could not be sufficient for the explosion of uses for these media. We don’t know the ultimate game that we are playing; the game we play now is the one that keeps on going, and the aim is not to let it stop. We just have to decide what game is it that we are playing in the first place.”

Spent a lovely day with photographers and nature lovers at Lorong Halus. This picture is a reflection of how compact Singapore is - here, nature is literally at the doorstep, where these flats are concerned. 

pls-revert:

by Mary-Jane Leo
(*edit: published in Ceriph 4, available at BooksActually, Kinokuniya, and GRAPHEME zine lab. Thanks good people who reblogged with this info!)

Mary was lonely and needed 

a Partner with the same 

	>!> Strategic Thrusts <!<

in life- that is, she wanted a love

who liked rainy days and cloudwatching
adventures in spain tumbling
		tumbling
		     tumbling
away 
 	d
	  o
	   	 w
		 	n

				rabbit holes.

This aim had not been in her purrrrview.
			
Living in an enclosed bubble as a minion (Class 3.14)
of a Class 10 Senior MGR, she was often using
Microsoft Outlook and Lotus Notes efficiently.

She arrived at the office reception at 8.47am
so that she could reach her table at 8.48am
so that she could pee by 8.52am
so that she could go to the pantry and
queue behind other minions
to fill her glass jug by 8.58am
so that she could go back to her cubicle
turn on the laptop, wait for the light to
glow blue, and sit down, ready, by 9am.

Read More

humein:

Goodbye, Singapore.