Padd Solutions

Converted by Falcon Hive

Santayana Night

Posted by moses @ 09:38 • , , • 0 comments


It's new year's eve again, and I feel no compunction to join the merry-makers out there. As it would often seem to me, New Year's Day is just another day. Why would I suffer the vicissitudes of a crowded night in anticipation of it?

This year, though, I do feel that the coming of the year has some sort of significance—perhaps as a celebration of the passing of days past and of hope for the future?

Well, you're likely to reap what you've sowed for the past year or even earlier, so you shouldn't be too surprised at what's coming. And wishing for luck is meaningless. I just don't like the vague idea of hope, without a good reason behind it, as it soon translates disappointment—as many will find out once again.

Maybe, for this year, the fact that the new millennium is entering into its teens is a fact worth celebrating? After all, when will you see a 9-year-old millennium turn 10 again? But, the interesting idea aside, does that really make a difference?

It seems hard to find much significance when the coming of the year does not by itself bring about change. But I think I found a good and simple answer.

Ultimately, the greatest meaning that could be ascribed to the occasion lies not so much in looking towards the new year as in looking at the passing one. And it's not to look at the past for some sort validation for present decisions on the future, but to look at past mistakes and to learn from them.

I think that's what new year resolutions amount to if they're any good at all—you tell yourself not to repeat the mistakes of the past year (or years). That's much more concrete and meaningful than having a vague and ephemeral hope for the coming year, or a determination to do a random assortment of things that you don't have much reason to believe you would end up doing. It gives a genuine reason to be hopeful.

And with that in mind, I hope you have a happy new year.

He who controls the past...

Posted by moses @ 23:14 • , , , • 0 comments


I just remembered an article I read a few months ago that talks about how and why Singaporeans are forward-looking and orientated towards the future.

Basically, the article says that because Singapore does not really have a glorious founding history to look back to (its independence was viewed with a sense of disaster and failure – i.e. failure to unify with Malaysia), Singaporeans are forced to forge a sense of national identity that is always focused on future possibilities for the nation.

Quite the bon mot there. Unfortunately, just as the article talks about myth-making, this is itself a myth.

Singapore is forward-looking inasmuch as policy makers and government planners make plans (or try to) for the future. But how many people are involved in making such decisions? Many Singaporeans don't even get to vote on who should represent them.

The truth is Singaporeans are always justifying their choices with reference to the past. How many times have we both heard and argued that we can be sure the current government or system is the right one because of its track record? Even the article suggests the same notion: Look at what we've built – surely that means we're making the right choices?

Even discounting the fact that the article itself argues for the unreality of the time present as such (to Singaporeans, it is merely "an incidental passage towards time future"), it is a mistake to be too focused on the successful present. Present success has little bearing on present decisions. It can only validate past decisions. The economic accomplishments of Singapore are not due to decisions made today or even yesterday, but decisions made as far back as decades ago.

The rationale that you make certain decisions today because similar decisions made in the past have proven to yield good results today is not self-sufficient logic – it is not necessarily the best way to make decisions. Since the consequences of today's decisions lie in the future and are unverifiable, we cannot simply make judgements based on the empirically verifiable. We also need to question the reason behind our decisions today, keeping in mind that the present is different from the past.

It is a matter of fact that Singaporeans persist in following the ways of the past because those worked. They don't find it necessary or urgent to question such assumptions in light of the fact that 2009 is very different from 1969, to consider that maybe it's time to change their political outlook for the future of the country. Moreover, there is a perpetual wealth of self-congratulatory messages, while criticisms tend to either be confined to the trivial or dismissed as dismissive of the achievements of the nation thus far.

If the article can say that every National Day Singaporeans come together to look towards the future of the nation, we can equally say that every Election Day they come together to put their confidence in the past.

I wonder which is more significant.


An expensive naiveté

Posted by moses @ 18:57 • , • 0 comments



I read with some amusement a student-written editorial in a campus newspaper. It deals with the issue of cutting bankers' bonuses, and its conclusion is that we shouldn't because we will lose out if we do. It makes me wonder if it's not the case that at least one of the writers is an aspiring banker.

I call into question the article's portrayal of a symbiotic relationship between bankers and society. Yes, they generate income, provide capital that ultimately creates jobs and etc. But this is a bit like saying you need your abusive husband because he earns money. Sometimes, you have to weigh whether the abuse you get is better than being independent, though no doubt the latter will be hard.

I say this because of two fundamental problems with bankers and their performance. First, there is no balance between risk and reward. Everybody wins when the times are good, especially bankers, with their large bonuses. However, when things take a turn for the worse because of the latter's decisions, society is left to foot the bill. Sure, plenty of bankers lost their jobs, but that's after they have profited massively from the bubbles they created. Besides, many others who were not in the driver's seat of crisis creation also lost their jobs. Is it surprising that people are angry, especially when the bankers want to keep their bonuses despite all this?

And aren't the trillions that taxpayers have spent to bailout the banks a good enough demonstration of a lopsided relationship? Privatising the gains and socialising the losses – that's a good description of current practice.

Second, bankers' performance is overrated. The article says that bonuses "should be directly linked to a bankers’ long-term performance and should not reward reckless risk taking". But the point is that's not how they work. Bankers are rewarded for the right results regardless of whether they did it right. They get the money as soon as they show that they are turning a profit. The large bonuses are not given only after they can show many years of consistent results, the ultimate proof of good performance. That wouldn't be something the bankers want either, and hence they would also quit. Thus, the article's call for not cutting bankers’ bonuses can only mean one thing, and that is the continuation of a broken system.

The conclusion that I draw is therefore very different: We should cut their bonuses until the bankers have something to show for them. Otherwise, all we are doing is incentivising bad behaviour. It might be hard to cut a hand off, but we should if it turns out to be gangrenous.