There is no such thing as being meritocratic

Taking a break from essay-writing to put up a short round of ideas, which surrounds meritocracy. It’s rather unpolished at the moment, so bear with me.

There is no way to be ‘meritocratic’. You can only be ‘anti-unmeritocratic’. (Yes, the double negative here isn’t the same thing as the original.)

That is to say, you can’t help people who are good. No one in authority should overtly recognise merit because that gives them an unfair advantage, which is unmeritocratic. Hence, meritocracy can only imply that one opposes unmeritocratic actions and no further. Hence, anti-unmeritocracy.

If I were to be completely meritocratic in an organization, I would have to have a completely laisse-faire attitude to who-does what and let a sort of natural selection weed out the poor sods and allow the best to rise up on their own.

It’ll pretty much be a Nietzschean method of doing things. Survival of the fittest.

So, do the fittest survive in Singapore? Not sure, writing a Malaysian essay which is pretty obviously a flawed or ’siloed’ meritocracy.

Malaysian democracy at its “best”? GE2008 and the future of Malaysia

I paid 10 Singaporean dollars (and skipped a few classes too!) to attend this short panel held in NUS on the Malaysian General Elections 2008 and where Malaysia was headed now with the transition power plans, racism, etc.. I felt that there’s a lot of insight on understanding the uncertainty : let me try to explain the dynamics of Malaysian national politics as described from the panel.

The mainly opposition panelists, except for Rita Sim who is at INSAP

The panel consisted of Pakatan Rakyat representatives Tony Pua, Elizabeth Wong and Nurul Izzah Anwar as well as Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, leading human rights lawyer and counsel to Raja Petra Kamaruddin and Rita Sim of INSAP (the MCA research wing).

Point 1: Abdullah’s basis of power

This is what YB Tony Pua pointed out: the reason why Abdullah is losing support is because there really are only two things that he potentially can offer to UMNO: the “gravy train” of government licenses, which somehow got diverted during his term, and he stopped pushing the “Ketuanan Melayu” line. Abdullah has been more pluralist in nature than his predecessor Tun Dr. Mahathir. Even at the beginning of his first election he went to open an NECF convention. He was not willing to use the ISA or force as much as Mahathir to silence dissent. This in turn made UMNO members feel that he has been giving too much license to non-Malays in opening up discussion of their position in the social bargain (social contract) of the Reid Commission.

Then the question is, can Najib perform those functions of collusion and championing Malay interests? I won’t speculate on linking Malay interests to larger Malaysian interest, I suppose that there’s a chain of reasoning. To deny such is seditious.

One line of thinking goes that in the face of wavering UMNO support due to Abdullah’s non-authoritarianism, UMNO needs to ratchet up the race card to ensure continual support from the Malay community. Hmm, maybe. I don’t have evidence for that. But among the non-Malays, it’s good reason to speculate that a racial riot followed by a quick clamp-down is something to fear again.

Point 2: the political fragmentation of Malaysian society

Not captured in picture: Malik being extremely witty

Rita Sim is a data warehouse. She really had a lot of facts and figures at her fingertips, and is deserving of her post at INSAP. She said that surveys prior to March 2008 had indicated the Chinese votes would swing, and indeed the Chinese vote did pretty much abandon MCA. However, the key classes that would determine the political future of Malaysia are the urban Malays. Not only are the Malays the fastest growing ethnic group (up to 60+% from an original 50% at the formation of Malaysia), and the number of Malay MPs have gone up since the last election, but also we have to admit that the NEP had worked to a certain degree and now there is this group of urban Malays who are more cognizant of issues such as corruption and good governance.

This really means that the Malays aren’t a politically homogenous group. There are part of them who are more religious oriented, there are some who are more liberal, there are some who are part of the UMNO structure of power. Ms. Sim pointed out that it’s certain that a segment will vote for PAS and another segment will vote for UMNO/BN, and that it’s the 40% Malay swing voters that will determine who will be in power. This gives us reason to think that the “loss” of BN might be due to the issues of good governance, corruption and rights. (Plus Abdullah had his overwhelming win in 2004 for the same issues too).

Again, that’s predicated on the basis that Sabah and Sarawak stay in BN control. While previously there were only worries of Kelatanese seccession, now that Sabah and Sarawak have a greater share representation in parliament under UMNO, they’ll fight for a greater share of the economic pie. It seems that perception is that they’ll have to be managed as they’ll always fight for the highest bidder. It might be an over-simplification of their political stance, but it sufficed for the discussion without Sabah/Sarawak representation at the forum.

All in all, this means that the unity of Malaysia as a whole has to be appreciated. We’re a lot more diverse lot than simplified into the typology of MCIO and that leaders have to play a balancing act between different groups, including their own supporters.

Can a multiethnic party surface in Malaysia? To an extent, I don’t think so, for the same reasons why PKR or DAP haven’t got much success despite official rhetoric. A single party cannot cater for all the fragmentated votes along racial lines, what more across it in their vernacular languages? On the other hand, PKR has it’s own representativeness as well.

Point 3: the importance of the judiciary

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar had the most salient points in this. The importance of the recent appointment of Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi, former BN member and most junior of all justices, as Chief Justice is that if an the opposition takes a bid for government and calls for a no-confidence vote in the current PM (whoever it is), it will eventually boil down to a constitutional court case. With a judge sympathetic to the BN (whether Tan Sri Zaki is or not is speculation on my part), it provides a safeguard for BN to maintain dominance in the system.

He also points out his lack of confidence in the Malaysian system (saying the equivalent for Singapore apparently is prosecutable, meh). That’s why judicial reform is so important and I personally feel kinda bad that there hasn’t been many articles being published at Project Malaysia on the theme of the judiciary — also because very few of us are an expert in law. Political science, we don’t touch that stuff.

My thoughts

Some people would kill me because I don't have a completely flattering picture of YB Nurul Izzah

Malaysian democracy? From this picture, it does seem that Malaysia is a kind of democracy. Politicians are held accountable to the citizens through elections, like how Samy Vellu was removed from power. Indrect means to influence political decisions also seem to be present: the journalist who published Ahmad Ismail’s incendiary remarks was quickly freed because presumably Ong Ka Ting pulled a few strings with the top leadership, apparently citing loss of BN support from MCA members. However, the strength of these means seem to waver depending on the case in point. I don’t have a consistent theory to explain when politicians have to bargain in the interests of citizens. But it does seem clear that political office as an member of parliament does not imply that you represent anyone.

But it seems a consensus at the forum that repression against civil liberties have loosened a bit — although perceived by Malay ultranationalists to be disadvantageous to the cause. Ketuanan Melayu is still a contested issue, even though the Conference of Rulers have called against it.

What does this mean we should look at? For one, how Najib generates his legitimacy, both in his UMNO supporters, and the other, among the other Malaysians. What mix of coercion and ideological hegemony will he use, and what will that entail for the perception (as well as actual incidences) of corruption and good governance of Malaysia? How will that affect civil liberties in Malaysia? How will Abdullah’s final reforms — if he is able to put them in place — affect Najib’s government?

Really, good governance is tied up in politics, regardless of what politicians say.

Have a drink in the name of understanding Malaysia in a deeper manner.

Ninja edit: for the pictures!

Chandra Muzaffar says, understand the Malay ultra-nationalist

In order to strengthen accommodation, it is imperative that Chinese and Indian Malaysians understand the nature and extent of accomodation that has taken place in our society… how many non-Malay leaders and intellectuals have shown any appreciation at all of the colossal, monumental sacrifice on the part of the Malays — consenting to equal citizenship for non-Malays and thereby surrendering their dream of a Malay nation and becoming a community among communities in a new multi-ethnic society? One of the reasons why the magnitude of this sacrifice is not appreciated is because of the non-Malays as a whole have an external rather than internal view of Malaysian history.

— Chandra Muzzafar, “Quaranic Universalism, way to fuse diversity”, NST 1994

Yesterday I put up a quote by Antonio Gramsci, Italian neo-Marxist and fervant revolutionary, telling us that we need to be aware of the place of our ideas in a larger political context of competing ideas. I think Chandra Muzaffar’s lines are very very important to the formation of Bangsa Malaysia. It literally hinges upon it because the negotiation of the nuances of the meaning of Bangsa Malaysia depends on how much this group is able to accept the concepts which liberals, Islamicists and other intellectual traditions want to put in.

When I view the defence of Utusan Melayu by Cheras UMNO and the molotov cocktail attacks on Teresa Kok’s house in light of Chandra Muzaffar’s statements, I start to understand the motivations (even though I don’t support it). It’s indicative of a mentality and representative of a system of logic not close to the non-Muslim community. I think its a weakness of the social bargain of Malaysia formed in the Reid Commission in the sense that some Malaysians have shed their predilections as members of their own racial communities and thus they feel that the social bargain doesn’t apply to them, but yet some haven’t due to the racial silos of “multiculturalism” and uneven material development. We’re in that tumultuous transition period where the latter have a problem with the former.

SPOILER ALERT: Max Payne movie is a tragedy, just like the game

One paragraph review: Well, yeah. It’s a shame that it didn’t turn out the way it should have. Max comes off as one-dimensional, pacing suffers from a problem and the noir didn’t turn out too well. There are things that I do like about it, but I wouldn’t recommend much of it to just any person.

Fanboy: What is the essence of Max Payne?

Boom went the movie.

I don’t really care about the liberties that they take with the storyline (which they do, obviously). What I do care about is the portrayal of Max Payne as a character. It’s like taking Caliban from Shakespeare’s Tempest, but depicting him as a pure savage — the nuances that make him such a compelling character are lost.

Similarly, the movie comes off like that. It has lost a lot of Max’s character in favour of telling the story of what happens to Max Payne. That’s not the same thing as Max’s story. The story of Max Payne is a psychological journey. It’s a story of a man who translates his inner self-loathing into a dogged chase for vengeance. It is a story of a man whose inner voice sees the world as unfair and oppressive, and compresses into hyperbolic self-narrative. These are the things that turn Max from your regular joe with a gun into a compelling character. The tragedy is, that’s not there in the movie. For instance, in the game, Max thinks to himself:

Max Payne said:
Something in the night felt like a door had been opened, an echo of the past, an old monster snapping it’s eyes open in the depths of my brain. Closing your eyes forces you to look at the darkness inside.

Sometimes, Max waxes philosophical about the hand that life dealt to him.

Max Payne said:
Death is inevitable. Our fear of it makes us play safe, blocks out emotion. It’s a losing game, without passion you are already dead. It’s all a matter of perspective, tied to time and place. Love and friendship, life and death.

There’s also all the pent-up guilt that Max faces. In the game, Max investigates a warehouse where gunshots were heard, and found a dead woman. To himself, he said:

Max Payne said:
Like all the bad things in my life, it started with the death of a woman. I couldn’t save her.

And finally, when his quest for revenge is finished at the top of the Aesir building, Max finally sees beauty in the harsh lonelines of NYC:

Max Payne said:
My ghosts released me from their haunting. Down below, New York City glittered like diamonds on black velvet.

That’s the kind of thing we should see in Max Payne. For once, we should have seen less showing and more telling. The beauty of Max Payne’s (the game) storyline is that we got to know the intimate thoughts of Max, his inner struggle with his demons. The movie focused too much on the action, which it didn’t do too well, and could have redeemed itself with compelling narrative.

However, the storyline was plodding, since it didn’t introduce Max as a character we can sympathize with. Instead, his backstory of the murdered family was only made clear in the middle when B.B. starting telling Internal Affairs Agent Jim “Ludacris” Bravura of Max’s background. Compare this with the game, which establishes how much Max has lost while talking with Alex Balder, his long-time partner:

Max Payne said:
You’d make me work undercover in some hellhole. Sorry Alex, Michelle and the baby come first. See? My last smoke. It’s bad for the baby.

Mona also gets the short end of the stick with Mila Kunis. She’s too petite to play Mona Sax. She definitely broke it for me when she was sticking out an MP5 at arms’ length at Max, and you could see her arm trembling. Sorry, not badass enough to handle guns, and I don’t care for her character. Not enough implied sexual tension which later became the central question in Max Payne 2.

No painkillers this time, but Max does get a shot of invincibility from Valkyr the drug, which helps explain his insane rampage at the Aesir building (but Max has always been lucid… almost too lucid to the point of romanticising his story). The Valkryies are a nice touch. Slow-mo gunfighting has become a staple of action movies since the Matrix (arguably further), so no creativity points there and nothing much that made me go, woah, awesome.

So whatever. I’ll take the Ludacris Jim Bravura. I’ll take the lack of New York’s snowstorm of the century. I’ll take the lack of Vladimir and Vinnie Gognitti. I’ll take the lack of blood-lined dream sequences that make Max’s inner life so tortured. But you know, the Max Payne in the movie, is not the Max I know.

Gramsci says, theory and practice combines to form Buddha

Critical understanding of oneself… comes through the struggle of political “hegemonies,” of opposing directions, first in the field of ethics, then of politics, culminating in a higher elaboration of one’s own conception of reality. The awareness of being part of a definite hegemonic force … is the first step towards a progressively higher self-consciousness, in which theory and practice finally unite.

– Antonio Gramsci

Writing an essay on Gramsci and the Malaysian state as an extension of John Hilley’s book, “Malaysia: Mahathirism, Hegemony and the New Opposition”. More awesome quotes as I read/research. Basically I look at the Malaysian government’s instruments of ideological hegemony — how they rule over us by promoting their “propaganda” (as opposed to opposition propaganda).

But the idea is that we have to be acutely aware of where our thoughts are placed in an hierarchy of ideas. You and I might be decidedly liberal in Malaysia and have sufficient justification that our ideas are right, but being aware that our ideas have their political place against other ideas is a form of higher self-awareness.

More tomorrow.

[live] Lessons from the finalists at Public Policy Challenge

I’m liveblogging from the finals of the inaugural Public Policy Challenge in Singapore. It’s like a business case competition but for government policy instead. This might be useful for people who want to “revise” for future Public Policy Challenges.

Team One-Sixy-Five from NUS.

Pros: They focused a lot on POLICY DIRECTION, in the sense of “here are the problems, and this is what needs to be done” without the baggage of actual programmes. I found that their suggestions and our suggestions have many similarities, but their approach is more broad and shows their rationalization process rather than ours in “here’s the solution programme , this is why we chose it”.

Cons: They didn’t seem to have completely consistent or well-thought out policy direction and seem to flounder in Q&A.

Things you must do: Still look at policy.

Crisis situation: good stuff doing consideration of a quite comprehensive consideration of many different ministries resources and interests. They also gave foreign policy, which I kinda neglect is also policy.

———————————
Team PVP

Team PVP, 2nd finalist to take the stage

Crisis situation: has a more hands-on approach than 165. Also spills over to economy and proposes a program but doesn’t not elaborate much. I feel that their crisis situation wasn’t as broad as 165, and they don’t have a wholesome foreign policy.

Pros: Shows graphs. SHEEET. and more graphs (although only to illustrate general cost-push inflation). Follows the questions to the T (1. What are the key trends? 2. What must we pay attention to? 3 … ). Clear identification of variables and show cost-benefit analysis, which must appeal to some PS21/NPM junkies. Best is that they’re highly aware of current scheme and propose modifications, and I think that’s why they got into the finals.

Cons: Feels very messy compared to the previous, probably because of a greater focus on programmes. At times, their presentation feels tedious. Judge points out that they left out higher income group.

Small conclusion: don’t ask questions back to the judges.

Intermediate conclusion: Doesn’t matter what policy you suggest — they suggested quota on foreign workers, sooo not liberal — but as long as you show that all policies gel and the rationale is sufficient. At this iteration, it’s about how much policy you put in at the semis (as opposed to programme), and how well your argument at finals.

Interesting Note: There’s a flaming liberal as the last speaker. Cites Benedict Anderson’s “Imagined Communities” and recommends online presence of Speakers Corner. Stuff on Television. “We must seek opportunity in strife”.

Interesting Note 2: Nice to grandstand a bit.

Interesting Note 3: Judge is pissed. He’s nitpicking on their policy-programmes. Don’t ever get into this situation. He tries to drag them to the slaughterhouse. They’re apologists for their decisions now.

Commentary: The structuralist in me sees the pro-democrat tendencies of educated university students.

Overheard: They’re in the finals because they wore blazers.

———————————
Team Quintessential

Team Quintessential

Pro: They framework specifies between issues in a big hierarchical diagram and have lots of tables.

Con: Complex diagrams get confusing.

Pro: Their framework gives their analsyis methods, using a SFA test (Suitability, Feasibility and Acceptability).

Average: They also do about the same thing as the last team for ministries response to the crisis situation. They draw out tables. Useful, but presents too much information. Might as well close my eyes.

Pro: Take into consideration communication strategies. The previous judges talked about that.

Con: More information overload in a hierarchical diagram! Don’t do it in powerpoint slides. Worse, hierarchical diagrams in a table. Not sure if the reasoning and demonstration of it is sound.

Point of departure: They actually propose a radical policy direction to push alternative fuels as a solution to inflation since we import it as we buy fuel like it’s the end of the world.

Con: Focuses too much on the constraints and context. When are you going to get to the policy? When they do get to the policy, SFA analysis in a table looks daunting. Maybe should split to a written policy and actual slimmer policy presentation? Actually, the tables look really good if it were in a report, but not in a powerpoint presentation.

Minor Reedeeming Pro: They’ve got time to actually do the work. Sorry our group is lazy because two people are friggin down with the flu.

Most awesome quote: “Let me examine to you the issue.” [sic] (I’m sorry, I’m horrible.)

Con: It’s only Second Recommendation now, *sigh*

Pros: Well, you can’t deny that they’re comprehensive… but like all substantiated things, it’s boring. I wish best luck to the Judges.

Thought: I think that they willl win since it’s 75% content and 25% presentation. I give them 0 for presentation and 75 for content if I could be bothered to pay more attention to their argument. Model civil servants.

Notes: Remember to consider budgeting and where-is-the-government-going-to-find-the-money-to-do-it. and short-term and long-term solutions.

Interesting note: They quote Mencius: “Everyone has a heart for others.” UH OKAY awesome logic

Interesting note 2: I perk up at summary. Not good.

EDIT: Winner is team PVP. Meh.

Singapore may just be the world’s first Utilitarian state

At the Public Policy Challenge 2008 Dialogue with Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean!

Rajan asked a question about pragmatism. Many governments’ policy often are based on ideology. Since pragmatism doesn’t exactly give what set of principles and assumptions, then what does this government base it on?

Rear Admiral Teo basically told a stor about a ship, in which one shot destroyed the entire image of Russia. The shot was ideological, ruthless pursuit of ideology can destroy the ship of state. Essentially, whatever works.

But then Edwina doggedly asked, still, how do you decide between which group of people do you benefit?

Of which his answer can be succintly summed up as, the most benefit for the most amount of people.

Teo Chee Hean is utilitarian.

Note to self: writing a political science essay

I have trouble writing essays. Here is a list of things I am aware of to make sure that I don’t cock up with my essays again. PLEASE CHECK OFF TO CONFIRM:

This blog post could be alternatively titled 'good reason why undergraduates never identify with university advertising'

1. Do not be in the midst of completing an addictive video game while writing an essay. They take up time. Unless I are able to attention-switch efficiently and with great discipline, which I am not. y.

1.1. Turn off the internet for a while. Damn facebook. Damn forums. Damn internet comedy.

1.2. I find that I write better when I semi-sleep. I can’t think at the keyboard.

1.3. Morale is important. I do not want to hate my essay.

1.4. The actual essay is important. I hate essays which I have no interest writing. I do not want to hate my essay.

1.5. I find that I shut myself off from people and my appetite dies from everything when writing essays. Start early to avoid starvation and loneliness.

2. It takes me on average, 1 day to write 1000 words with research kinda-done. So a 5000 word essay takes at least five days of writing alone.

2.1 Research itself is quite unquantifiable. But offhand, I want at least one reference per two hundred words. Think about it: 10 references for 2,000 words isn’t really a lot to reference. Preferably, 8 references to a thousand words would definitely be more ideal. I am so dead.

2.2 Take into account “dead references” — stuff that I looked up but eventually had no use anyway, and I’ve actually got to do way a lot of research.

2.3. Make a complete and neat bibliography as I am doing research. It will help you keep track of what you’ve looked up and you don’t have to rummage for the reference later.

2.4. I can only borrow so many books. Find a way to keep track of the books if it exceeds that number — which it should.

5. Finding a suitable research question is F**KING hard. It’s killed several of my essays before.

5.1. Therefore, I should always talk to someone when formulating a research question. The best are lecturers since they know whether the research material is there or not (which is the next thing you need to find out at undergraduate level since you can’t go out to do original research).

5.2. Talking about your essay and your thoughts on the subject is always good. It helps anticipates objections, which makes stronger arguments and more things to write about. [which is always good]

5.3. Finding a suitable research question also entails finding a reasonable answer to the question. If you want to be a scientific, you won’t know it until you’ve done sufficient research.

5.4. It really means that research questions are a chicken and egg thing. To know the research question, you need to know the answer. To know the answer, you need to do research. To do research, you need to know the research question. (F**k.)

6. Always pose a ‘variable x’ causes ‘variable y’. It’s called science.

6.1. Always comment on the ‘trailing’ theoretical literature to show you’ve done your chops and to make obvious what you’re contributing to the literature. It helps boost the reference and word count too. Spend about 1000 words to a 5000 word essay.

6.2. Evidence of ‘x causes y’ and qualification should be the bulk of the essay. Ideally, I should spend 3000 words to a 5000 word essay on this . I may scale as necessary for shorter essays — but not as though I have any shorter essays left!

6.3. If x causes you to think about your essay, x should be done more.

If you have practical essay-writing tips, please feel free to leave them in the comments.

SPOILER ALERT: “Closer” shows why you people cheat on each other

I just watched “Closer“, a pretty successful 2004 film directed (and written)written by Patrick Marber (and directed by Mike Nichols — thanks Lynn). Oh basically it’s about two men and two women and they all sleep with each other for various reasons. It’s really deeper than that, which is the whole point of the film and those reasons are what’s important. I can appreciate it, but I don’t like the film.

Why don’t I like it? Because it’s about four people f*cking about, literally and figuratively. The story reduces to this: Dan meets Alice and falls in love with her quite magically, but later falls in love with Anna. But Anna knows he’s with Alice, so she does the smart thing and rejects his advances. Dan plays a practical internet joke on Larry, who then also serendipitously meets Anna. Larry and Anna get married, but Anna and Dan have an affair. They both confess this to their partners quite dramatically, and Dan and Anna are together finally. However, Larry gets Anna to have pity sex with him to sign the divorce papers. Dan finds out, and can’t stand it and leaves Anna, who goes back to Larry. Dan confronts Larry, and Larry tells him where to find Alice who has been missing since. Dan finds Alice, and almost as Alice and Dan are about to fly off to New York for a happily-ever-after, she dumps his sorry ass. Good riddance.

Sounds like a soap opera with better production value and better thought-out reasons. That’s why I don’t like it.

It’s not a BAD movie. If you can stomach the non-epicness of human drama, there are many things going on for it. That includes the high production value, memorable lines, and a good script. But it’s all billiard balls to me. They’re just round balls knocking about on a pool table.

You know how people criticise two-dimensional “flat” characters? These are what they are. I can grant that there are different sides to these characters. But a square has four sides and still is two dimensional. That’s the same for these four idiots: even though they display different motivational tugs, all they really care about is their relationships with each other.

Look at the poster. It’s a bland picture of four pretty good-looking people and nothing else. That just sums it up: four people and nothing else.

I guess for the purposes of actually focusing on the dynamics of a relationship between four people, it’s entirely necessary to cut away everything else in their lives that don’t pertain to the story. But four people that care only about getting someone that they “love” to “be with them” — I couldn’t care less. Nothing I can do for you, nothing you can do for me. I hope you lead a happy life.

Do you know why people cheat on each other? They get bored and want a new f*ck. Cut down on the drama, leave his/her sorry ass and find something else to do besides finding another person to replace him or her so that you maintain some shred of social validation.