Robin Chan responds

Remember a Mr. Robin Chan? whose letter to ST Forum (June 20), "Embrace elites in order to enrich our society" was discussed by Mr Wang, Takchek, wows at Singapore Ink, Jeff Yen, Heavenly Sword, and tangentially, on this blog; and not to mention the comments sections of the respective blogs. He has taken the trouble of leaving a long comment at Heavenly Sword to whom he was responding in particular. With the opening words alone he earned my respect:

I am writing because I found your comments to be constructive, eloquent and fair. I would be lying if I said your comments did not strike me hard. Writing is perhaps an art I have not mastered, and as I am having difficulty now, I was similarly unable to fully express myself in the short space of the column, which was, for better or worse, cut and edited.

Read the whole thing. One might not agree with everything he says, but I will not doubt his sincerity and good will.

On a different but related note, is it just me or am I noticing that ST Forum letters are finding a wider discussion in the blogosphere? Sometimes, a particularly controversial letter may generate one or two handfuls of published responses, but it is usually in the blogosphere that we meet a discussion that really gets down to details, from a range of perspectives too. And increasingly, the writers of the letters are themselves joining in--Mr. Chan being but the most recent example.

If you ask me, the blogosphere is doing its job as an engine of civic discussion.

Paths Not Taken: The False Spring of Political Pluralism in Postwar Singapore

This came to my attention in an email circular:

The 'Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Postwar Singapore' Symposium is jointly sponsored by the Centre for Social Change Research at the Queensland University of Technology and the Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore. It is the culmination of a three year project sponsored by the Australian Research Council, which has brought together researchers from three continents to study political and social movements that have operated in postwar Singapore outside and in rivalry with the ruling party’s hegemony. (From the draft program)

According to the website, the symposium is to be held 14-15 July 2005 at the National University of Singapore, and it is open to members of the academic community and other interested parties.

With papers that come with such titles as "History Spiked: The Death of the Liberal Ideal in Singapore Media" by Dr Cherian George, the symposium promises to be interesting.

Incidentally, "Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Postwar Singapore" is a project of the Queensland University of Technology Centre for Social Change Research (CSCR):

The project aims to recast Singapore's postwar history by studying the civil and political movements that have operated outside the parameters of imagination created by the ruling People's Action Party. The project draws from disciplines as diverse as history, cultural studies, anthropology, political science, sociology, law, gender and development studies, and architecture, and it studies an equally diverse range of ‘paths not taken’: party and activist politics; trade unions; commercial and professional organisations; social, intellectual, ethnic and religious movements, and; the media and service organisations. The project is intended to culminate in an international symposium and an edited book. (Website)

The "firstfruits" of the project is an "Index of Political Headlines of Singapore's and Malaya's Vernacular Press: December 1953-September 1961", which looks to be highly useful for students of Singapore's post-war history.

Makes me wish I will be back in Singapore for July...

update:

From this on the NUS Asia Research Institute page for the conference (which also includes what looks like a more definitive version of the program):

Observers are welcome to attend the conference, with no registration fee. However, limited spaces are available. If you wish to attend as an observer, please kindly email your name, affiliation / organization, contact number and email address to Ms Valerie Yeo at ariyeov@nus.edu.sg by Monday, 11 July 2005.

[Technorati: singapore]

John Boyd and the OODA-Loop

An excellent read for those with military interests. Highlight:

Over the 15 years between 1977 and 1992, Boyd became obsessed with expanding his insight in to a general theory of competition and conflict. To this end, he absorbed the writings of great military theorists, like Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and Jomini. He analyzed campaigns of the master practitioners, like Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Belisarius, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Grant, Manstein, T. E. Lawrence, Lettow-Vorbeck, Mao, and Giap. Beginning with the Peleponnesian War, he studied conventional battles and guerrilla warfare.

Boyd did not read books, he devoured them — marking them up, cross-correlating information in the front with information in the back, seeking out contradictions with every turn of the page, gleefully tearing each author's argument to pieces. After only six months, his copy of Clausewitz looked as if it were 100 years old. He never attempted to publish his work, but assembled all his research into a 13-hour briefing called a "Discourse on Winning and Losing." He gave the briefing to enlisted men and generals, congressmen, newspaper reporters, scientists, futurists, academics, anyone who would listen.

He thought that any conflict could be viewed as a duel wherein each adversary observes (O) his opponent's actions, orients (O) himself to the unfolding situation, decides (D) on the most appropriate response or counter-move, then acts (A). The competitor who moves through this OODA-loop cycle the fastest gains an inestimable advantage by disrupting his enemy's ability to respond effectively. He showed in excruciating detail how these cycles create continuous and unpredictable change, and argued that our tactics, strategy, and supporting weapons' technologies should be based on the idea of shaping and adapting to this change — and doing so faster than one's adversary.

While the concept of disrupting an opponent's decision cycle is an old idea in military affairs, Boyd's theory of operating inside an adversary's decision cycle — or OODA loop — and its relationship to conflict is a bold new conception. His strategic aim was to isolate his adversary — physically, mentally, and morally — from his external environment by destroying his view of the world: his orientation. The key to appreciating the power of Boyd's idea is to understand why the orientation function is the door through which a competitor can penetrate his opponent's decision cycle.

From Franklin C. Spinney, "Genghis John", Proceedings of the U. S. Naval Institute, July 1997, pp. 42-47.

Oxfam: Targeting the Poor

There were various news reports (including in the ST, June 26) a few days ago on how tsunami aid has not been reaching the poor, but has been benefitting the rich mostly. As the reports were based on the newly released report by Oxfam titled "Targeting the Poor" (.pdf file), I thought to blog about it only after reading the report for myself. Since the report is not that long, I won't summarise more than the main points here.

To begin with, it's not all bad news. The report acknowledges that the immediate relief effort had done its job of providing clean water and sanitation to the victims, stopping the outbreak of diseases such as cholera in the disaster areas. Likewise the swift delivery of food prevented any massive increase in malnutrition. Furthermore, the initial reconstruction has also help return many to their previous income levels, and moved them to permanent homes from temporary ones shelters. But there are problems.

Somewhat predictably, even natural disasters will tend to have an disparate impact on the rich and the poor; and the worry is that the disparate impact will accentuate as the reconstruction continues. For example, the richer ones were the ones with title deeds, registered fishing boats, businesses licences--allowing them access to programs that sought to replace destroyed property, leaving the poorer ones--who are usually the less educated ones to begin with, in the dust.

As I said, all this is rather predictable. In fact, I've blogged several times about the disparate impact of relief/reconstruction in January (see this and follow the links there). The chief concern at that time was the problem that a sudden influx of relief workers and cash can cause to the local economy--as it is usually the case that a minority (e.g., the educated ones, the ones who speak English) who will be able to cash in much better than the rest, at times leading to an unnecessarily worse off position for others who could do without the extra competition for resources. And there is disparate impact not just along the income divide, but also according to gender: the women had it much worse than the men.

Nonetheless, it is interesting that Oxfam's present concern is not unmotivated by ideological considerations. Income distribution in the affected regions were not all that equal before the tsunami. Does part of Oxfam's implied plan for reconstruction include the (more intrusive) aim of equalising the income distribution of these areas? (Why is it their job?) Perhaps I am reading too much into it. Let's take it that the point is to help as many people as possible, especially those who need assistance more. Actually, OXFAM is explicit about an 'ideological' (not necessarily a bad thing) backdrop to their report and recommendations, as can be seen from the second and third (and to a degree, the fourth as well) of their four point recommendation (my emphases):

1. Governments and international agencies should proactively seeking to integrate the particular needs of the poorest beneficiaries The most efficient mechanism to ensure effective and inclusive aid delivery is to establish'real' bottom up accountability to the community. Poor people need to be included in decision-making mechanisms to ensure that the reconstruction programmes meet their needs. This requires their direct and equal participation in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of reconstruction programmes. Women, and widowers need in particular to be consulted and encouraged to participate.

2. Reconstruction aid should be provided more on the basis of need, with less emphasis on what assets people had prior to the tsunami. This is the only way to use the generous donations of reconstruction money to move towards the Millennium Development Goals of halving the number of people living in poverty by 2015.

3. Governments should reassess their reconstruction plans to ensure that they are focused on reducing poverty. Governments and international agencies should not be tempted to use quick fix solutions that benefit the most privileged and powerful interests of society or those with greatest access to existing structures and entitlements.

4. Women's work and wages must be prioritised in reconstruction programmes. Often women's needs and their role in the economy are not accounted for. If this is not addressed, poor women will be the worst affected and fall deeper into poverty.

I like the first point best. Really, if you're going there to help people, the least you could do is to ask them how you might be of help. On that score, I am happy that Oxfam did not say things like: more UN coordination, more bureaucracy--in other words, an even larger relief or reconstruction "footprint". A sure recipe for yet more disparate impact. It is not for no reason that some of the most successful efforts at doing exactly what Point 1 calls for has already been achieved by small outfits conscious of their limitations, outfits that are not even traditional relief organisations--the nature conservation group seacology, for example.

update: (July 6, 0110 -0400) Erich Wiedemann and Thilo Thielke, "TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: Choking on Aid Money in Africa", Der Spiegel (July 4). It's not about tsunami relief, but nonetheless not irrelevant, even if in a more distant way.

Just who are the beneficiaries of academic meritocracy?

[latest note: (July 10 0935 -0400) see also Soon Sze Meng's paper on the Scholarship System in Singapore, Vaughn Tan's critique of the same, and my further thoughts on the "freakonomical model"--especially the addition discussion in the comments where I spelt out the reasons why this model is ultimately inadequate.]

(note: major addition to this post below. another note: Thank you Singapore Ink and Simon World for linking. Some caveats in response to certain comments left at Ink and to forestall further misunderstanding: despite appearances, this post is not about Soon Sze Meng's letter, or the widening income gap, etc. (though I did leave some remarks in the comments section). Rather, it is intended from the beginning to be some--roughly philosophical--reflections relating to how we think about meritocracy. In particular, I wanted to explore alternative models of motivational structures that might support academic meritocracy. There is, however, a very concrete application: stop and think the next time someone talks about the meritocracy as a source of benefits for the scholar rather than society as a whole: what are the implications of that way of thinking? What are the implications if he were not to think like that? The final "Coda", however, is an appendix on various distinction issues that are often conflated; it does not belong with the post proper.)

* * * * *

This bit from today's ST Forum page (June 28) caught my eye. From "Help ensure social mobility for bottom 20%", by Soon Sze Meng:

When I was studying in Stanford University, I was surprised that more than 75 per cent of the Singaporean students did not live in Housing Board flats, even though more than 85 per cent of our population lives in HDB flats. These Singaporean students were mainly scholarship holders, and this begged the question whether the rich are the main beneficiaries of our meritocratic system.

Quick quibble: this is not the technically correct way to use "begged the question", but one that's been gaining ground, much to the unhappiness of philosophy types, such as myself. In any case, the writer does mean to raise the legitimate question: exactly who benefits from Singapore's academic metitocracy?

[Note: This is not meant to be a criticism of the writer or the ST editor who gave the letter its final shape. Take it as some reflections that were loosely inspired by the letter.]

Believe it or not, the question that the writer has in mind has not been properly phrased. This is because the answer to the one he stated is obvious. If the academic meritocracy is supposed to benefit anyone, it should benefit everybody. The point of a meritocracy in which the minority with merit (however defined), whatever background they are from (i.e., rich or poor), are advanced in society above the others, given special educational opportunities, and eventually responsibilities and power had better be the benefitting of society as a whole. This is supposed to be the justification of a meritocractic system in the first place. There could be, in principle, other justifications, but I think this is the official one. From this point of view, even if the meritorious happened to come mostly from a wealthy background, as long as they truly are advanced on account of their merit (and not their background), society as a whole would be better off. If society as a whole is not better off, then a plank is taken out from underneath the justifiability of meritocracy.

One could dispute whether the present system in Singapore really does benefit society as a whole, or whether any meritocractic system really does what it is supposed to do--but let me bracket those issues to come back to the question posed by the writer. It goes without saying that my previous discussion couldn't be the answer to the question intended by the writer, and the reason is simple. For him, to be a "beneficiary of our meritocratic system" is, for example, to be a scholarship holder sent overseas to receive a fancy education. This involves a rather different perspective. Previously, the meritocratic system is something by which everyone is benefitted, and giving the scholarship to someone who merits it is part of the means by which we are all benefitted. From the other perspective, the system becomes some sort of money tree (摇钱树) by means of which the scholarship holder is himself or herself benefitted.

Now the two perspectives co-exist. In fact, we might even see the scholarship system and its attendant prestige and promise of social advancement as a powerful incentive to draw out the efforts of the talented, the said effort being channelled by the system to then benefit everyone. In other words, paraphrasing Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence (or altruism or social consciousness) of the talented that we expect our economic development, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." (My apologies to the writer of The Wealth of Nations.)

Note that if this is so, the perspective of the talented might well be in a sense fundamentally at odds with what the system is meant to achieve (benefit for all)--a rather "freakonomical" state of affairs, no doubt, but not totally wacky either. It has worked wonders in economics, there's no reason why it can't work elsewhere. We just have to remember the caveats: it's not that the talented are necessarily selfish, just that nobody should really count on their altruism, only their self-love. It's not that the talented deserve their special position, but just that this is a way to harness their abilities for all.

The trick becomes that of designing the right system of incentives so as to make sure that everybody actually would be benefitted.

Deflating, isn't it?

continued (1210 June 28 -0400)

The above account--where the intention of the system as a whole stands in tension with the motivations of the individuals within the system--is not the only possibility. Let's call it the "Freakonomical Model" of meritocracy. In that model, the point of the meritocratic system is so that society as a whole would be benefitted by harnessing the abilities of the talented, and this is done by presenting them with a suitable incentive structure so that in seeking their own self-advantage, the talented ends up serving society as a whole. For the purposes of contrast, let me now paint an alternative model in which the motivation of the talent does not stand in tension with the intention of the system as a whole.

In Imperial China, the sure way to worldly success--not just for the individual but also for one's family--was passing the Imperial Exams with flying colors, thus landing one a magistracy in the Imperial Bureaucracy. If sonny became the Magistrate of Town X, the whole family stood to benefit greatly from the increased prestige, wealth, and opportunities for more advancements in the world for the rest of the family. Every family knew this.

But not all families could afford to provide every son with the expensive education in the Classics that was pretty much prerequisite to passing the Exams. Some families were so poor they couldn't even afford to have just one son educated. Enter the clan system: entire extended families would organise themselves, pool their resources, and select the brightest kids from among its members--the ones who showed the most promise at an early stage--and spend the pooled resources providing them with education, the best that money can buy. The point was that since not all the sons would have a real chance at becoming magistrates (or even passing the highly competitive exams) if they tried to educate them all, the most rational thing to do was to maximise the expected outcome by spending one's resources on a narrower front where they would be of most effect.

The selected son was expected to bring glory and material benefit to the clan as a whole if and when he makes it big at the Exams and lands a Job. Upon succeeding, he would then use his power and influence to protect his clan from encroachments of others and generally, to advance its interests in the world. Most importantly, his motivation for studying hard for the exams (not necessarily something he likes to do) was so that the common advantage of the clan will be served. There was a concurrance of his perspective and the perspective of the group.

Incidentally, the above--let's call it the "Communal Model" of meritocracy--is still discerned in the practice of many Chinese business families (in the past 100+ years, and still occuring today) sending their brightest kids overseas for an expensive education, with the aim that they will come back and take the company to greater heights.

There is a certain charm to the "Communal Model" of meritocracy. If implemented at the level of society, the meritorious might be seen as being motivated by the noble aim of give back to society what he receives from it (取诸社会还诸社会). There is no tension between their motivation and the intention of the system as a whole. But let me say up front that, despite appearances, it is not obvious that the "Communal Model" is simply superior to the "Freakonomical Model" of meritocracy.

To begin with, it is an idealisation to believe that every favored son who received special attention was in it altruistically for the common advantage of the group. A lot depended on them having internalised the values of the group. So even though there may not be incentives and disincentives of a more material sort as would be found in the "Freakonomical Model", there were usually powerful incentives and disincentives of a more social sort operative. Not "bringing shame to the family name" (败坏家门) but "bringing glory to one's ancestors" (光宗耀祖) were real concerns for these people. And there were social constraints on other members of the clan as well: not only would the scholar himself be shamed if he failed to attend to the common advantage, so would his immediate family (mom, dad, brothers, sisters, etc.) before the rest of the clan. There was thus every incentive for them to impress upon the favored son the utmost importance of doing right by the clan--lest we (the immediate family) lose our face before everybody else, or worse still, forfeit the clan's protection.

The point, again, is not that there were no altruistic people or sons who genuinely were concerned about the common advantage--they obviously existed, and there were probably many of them as well. Rather, the point is that the "Communal Model" likely worked as much because of a background of powerful social incentives that even the would be selfish freeloader cannot simply ignore. In a nutshell, the wily clan elders were not silly enough to depend only upon the good intentions of the favored sons. In any case, the system presupposed (without conscious human planning) a background of widely accepted familial values enforced by a sense of shame.

My own gut feeling is that elements of both models exist in Singapore's Academic Meritocracy. To see that, simply counterpose the contractual aspects of the scholarship system (e.g., how much one has to pay back if one breaks the bond) with the "moral" aspects (e.g., the social opprobrium upon bondbreakers).

Notice that both models sketched above agree on one thing: the point of the meritorcatic system is so that the group will be benefitted. One might think of this as the group's--be it society, the clan, the business family--investment on manpower (more precisely, skilled manpower), as WhiteOut correctly points out in the comments. Despite the difference between them, neither of the above two models support any notion that the scholar or favored son deserves or is entitled to his special attention, or that he is being rewarded for his talents--if "desert", "entitlement" and "reward" are meant to carry a weight that is independent of system as a whole. The point of the system is not to reward anyone or to give the talented what they deserve or are entitled to, but to make an investment in manpower so as to benefit the whole. This is not to say that some weaker notion of "desert", "entitlement" and "reward" cannot find their place within the system: the talented "deserves" or is "entitled to" his "reward" because that's the best way to maximise the investment, but not because there's anything special about him.

It is possible, however, to imagine models of meritocracy that build in stronger notions of "desert", "entitlement" and "reward" (see e.g., this for a suggestion). Whether they are plausible in their own right, or implementable in real life, is another matter altogether.

coda: Some important distinctions (1415 June 28 -0400)

By meritocracy I understand that to mean a system of social (or group) organisation in which the meritorious are given responsibility and power (over the rest), where merit is roughly defined by abilities plus effort of the individual, and usually indicated by his achievements. (Academic meritocracy is thus one particular species of the genus meritocracy, in which merit is defined in terms of academic abilities and effort, and such indicated by academic achievement.) We can now separate out several distinct parameters:

1. The underlying aim of the meritocracy; e.g., an investment on manpower, or to give the meritorious what is due to them on account of their superior abilities, etc.
2. The criterion of merit within the particular meritocratic system; e.g., academic ability, military prowess, enterprise, some combination, etc.
3. The specific responsibilities and powers given the meritorious; e.g., they rule over the rest, they are given special duties and jobs, etc.
4. The schedule of social advantages accorded the meritorious; e.g., superior status and wealth, or only superior prestige but not wealth, or neither, etc.
5. The methods by which merit (or just potential merit) is operationally determined; e.g., by standardize testings, or number of captured enemy heads, etc.
6. The methods by which the potentially meritorious are cultivated (if any); e.g., special scholarships, leisure for education, apprenticeship with the masters, etc.
7. The domain of operation of the meritocracy; e.g., the whole society, or some organisation (e.g., association or company), etc.
8. The structure of motivation by which the meritocracy is kept running; e.g. the self interests of the individuals, a conscious desire to advance the common good on the part of individuals, the sheer imposition of a military overlord class, an underlying ideology or noble lie, some combination, etc.

Every meritocratic system will incorporate a specific combination of values to each of the above parameters (there could be more, but these are the more obvious ones). This means that when discussing "meritocracy", we should be clear whether we are talking about meritocracy in the abstract (i.e., every plausible combination of values to the above parameters) or a specific meritocratic system (i.e., a given combination of values to the above parameters). In addition, it also means that if we want to "critique meritocracy", we should be clear if we are critiquing a specific meritocratic system, or the principle of meritocracy simpliciter (i.e., the set of all possible meritocratic systems). And we can also distinguish between internal and external critiques. In an internal critique of a specific meritocratic system, we argue against the value given to a parameter on the basis of that given to another parameter (e.g., "if what we really want is to advance the truly academically capable, then an exam system is not a good way to go"). In an external critique of a meritocratic system, we argue against the value given to a parameter on the basis of something external to the system as a whole (e.g., "the very notion of advancing those with academic merit is contrary to the requirements of equality"). A special form of critique (could be taken as either internal or external depending on how it's spelt out) would be to show that the specific combination of values given the the parameters cannot be instantiated in the real world, e.g., given the truth about the specific conditions of the domain in question or human nature in general.

The power of social incentives

Now we all know that Singapore is supposed to be really good at this: shaming those who break the law. Hence "Corrective Work Orders" (CWO), which is, of course, a distant cousin of the loanshark's spray-painting the defaulter's name all over his HDB flat (æ¬ é'±è¿�é'±...).

But looks like the city of Chicago is onto it as well. In an attempt to crack down on the illegal sex trade:

The city has begun posting the names and photographs of alleged "johns" on the Police Department's Web site for all to see, including spouses, children, employers, friends and neighbors, Mayor Richard Daley announced Tuesday. (Chicago Tribune)

And they didn't learn it from us either. The inspiration is the work of the maverick economist Steven D. Levitt and his journalist friend Stephen J. Dubner in their book, Freaknomonics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (amazon):

The two run a blog (so who else is left without a blog nowadays) as well, on which you can read more about the Chicago PD's latest employment of the "social incentive", among other things.

The book, by the way, was quite a page turner. I bought it intending to read it on the way to Belgium, but ended up finishing most of it before I left. There's a chapter on whether real-estate agents really have their clients' best interest in mind; about school teachers cheating on their students' tests and how they were caught by a statistical demon of a computer program; match-fixing in sumo wrestling; how the KKK was brought down when their passwords were leaked; I like this one: if drug dealers make so much money, why do they still live with their moms; a rather unsavory one on how legalised abortion actually reduced the crime rate in the US; on whether good parenting actually makes a difference; and most amusingly, on whether the name given to a child makes a difference to his or her life prospects. It's not everyday that you discover that there actually are parents who name their kid "Shithead" (pronounced shuh-TEED).

update: (July 5, 0730 -0400) Not all economists are impressed:

For someone steeped in the social sciences, Freakonomics can be a fun and useful read. But if you read just one economics book this year, make it something else.

Fair enough--the book is not really about economics; once you get to "social incentives", you are definitely beyond the usual confined of the discipline. When I revised the subject earlier in the year, it was by reading Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy and Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One. Projected next pitstop: his Classical Economics Reconsidered, and finishing the whole of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations for once.

Blaming words

From the BBC (June 20), "Farmers stew over 'couch potato'". Quote: "When people blame words they are actually blaming the society that uses them. Dictionaries just reflect the words that society uses."

Meulaboh, six months on

Continuing from here: from ST (June 24), "Meulaboh makeover". Two main points.

Stronger concrete pier:

The 195m pier, to be completed by next February at a cost of $6.4 million, is a joint project between the Singapore Government, investment giant Temasek Holdings and the Singapore Red Cross. It will play an important role in reconstruction efforts.

'A ship can carry more goods than a truck so it will be a more economical mode of transport,' said Mr Jimmy Koh, managing director of Antara Koh, the project contractor. The pier will help significantly in reconstruction efforts, as it will be a key entry point for essential materials and supplies to Meulaboh.'

Located 100m to the south of the old Dermaga Ferry Jetty, now demolished, the new pier will be able to withstand earthquakes measuring up to 7 on the Richter scale, winds of up to 100kmh, and waves of up to 2.15m in height.

Nice--and needed too. I think the pier will--even after reconstruction actitivites die down, contribute something to the economy of the area. The Indonesians seem to think so:

One Acehnese, Mr Khalidin, 45, said the pier will make travel easier. The policeman, who lost his wife and two children in the tsunami, said: 'The roads are bad, and the damaged jetty has cut off Meulaboh from other parts of Aceh. So, I really hope that it will be built as quickly as possible so that our lives will go back to normal.'

Bigger, better-equipped hospital:

Work on the 80-bed Meulaboh General Hospital also got under way with yesterday's signing of the memo of understanding.

Mr Lim Theam Poh, manager of the international services division of the Singapore Red Cross, said: 'We are seriously looking at streamlining the workflow system, improving the X-ray rooms and relocating the intensive care wards. There will also be a dispensary, administrative unit and outpatient clinics.' Training programmes will also be offered to doctors and nurses.

As previously posted, the SRC has been rotating medical teams through the area. The hospital idea goes back all the way to mid Jan (see this and this) and it's good to read that it is going somewhere.

Activities of Ordinary Singaporeans:

Ordinary Singaporeans are also continuing to help.

More than 50 staff of KK Women's and Children's Hospital volunteered for stints in the outskirts of Aceh.

The Singapore Red Cross will help the Indonesian authorities build a kindergarten and a maternity clinic in Meulaboh, said Mr Yeo.

Mercy Relief has also been involved with several schools, orphanage and housing projects. That includes the upgrading of facilities in the Muhammadiyah Secondary School and the Panti Asuhan orphanage.

It's been six months since the Tsunami and by the looks of it, though much has improved, much else remains to be done.

Books to read for the summer

The non-dissertation related ones, that is. These just arrived from Amazon.com (Baroque Cycle vol. 1, 2 and 3; Hayek). I expect to read them mostly while waiting for the laundry or when commuting:

On the first three, one reviewer has this to say:

OVER THE PAST YEAR OR SO, Neal Stephenson has produced a minor miracle: not one, but three bestselling nine-hundred-page novels, all focused on obscure topics of cryptography, monetary theory, and philosophy. Eschewing word processing, he wrote them with a fountain pen--in order, he said, to get himself into the mindset of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the eras in which the books are set.

The three volumes are 927, 815 and 892 pages respectively--but the writer is right to offer the following retort. In his acknowledgements of various scholars on the period--17/18th century Europe and America--whose work made his own project possible (he finds himself emphasising that as the same scholars "may be chagrined by [his] own work's many excursions from historical truth", readers "who want to know what really happened should buy and read their books...") he mentioned "Sir Winston Spencer Churchill's six-volume biography of Marlborough, which people who are really interested in this period of history should read, and people who think that [he is] too-longwinded should weigh." Hear, Hear.

Anyway, I heard that it's very good. Really, a (fictional) trilogy that warrented its own wiki page had better be good.

Talking about Marlborough (1650-1722), the Duke's full name and title is: The Most Noble Captain-General John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, Earl of Marlborough, Baron Churchill of Sandridge, Lord Churchill of Eyemouth, KG, PC; Prince of Mindelheim; Prince of the Holy Roman Empire. Yes, Sir Winston is a descendant of the Duke--Winston's father was the third son of the 7th Duke of Marlborough.

I've seen the six-volumes before in NUS close stacks, but have never read more than a few chapters of the first volume. One of these days, one of these days...

The Hayek is another kettle of fish altogether--looks like there is a wiki page for it too, though much shorter. Let's just call it a continuing interest in the intersection of economic and political theory.

Singapore Red Cross continues to work in Meulaboh

1. SIF, the Catholic Archdiocese and Medical Guild, various Buddhist societies, and other NGOs--some 19 projects approved to date to use funds from the Tidal Waves Asia Fund (list dated May 15). The projects run from S$78,450 for the office hardward of a Project Co-ordination Office--to help "facilitate the reconstruction efforts of NGOs and VWOs groups in Nias", by the group Tomorrow’s Hope, to S$553,237 for the building of a "multipurpose community centre for 5,000 families in the Hambantota area (Sir Lanka), including quarters for teachers, and various centres for sports, kindergarten and health centre" by the Mahakaruna Buddhist Society, to S$12,656,280 for the construction of "3,000 2-room low cost housing units in Meulaboh", by Habitat For Humanity S’pore Ltd.

2. To date, the SRC has cycled 11 medical relief teams through Meulaboh while a 12th is currently operating there. It seems that the teams have been kept busy, treating some "100 patients a day at the PMI-SRC clinic in the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC) Camp in Meulaboh." The call for volunteers for the 13th and 14th teams are out: "The Singapore Red Cross appeal for registered general medical practitioners and nurses in our continuing efforts for Meulaboh, Indonesia."

te salutant

Konfabulator comes to Windows!

(note: not exactly news--only that I've just noticed it...)

With all that talk about OS X Tiger and its fabulous Dashboard (and yes, I've installed it on my iBook), PC users can now enjoy some widgetty fun with Konfabulator 2.0, now available for Windows XP/2000. I've only got the few I actually use running on my PC (below)--the moon is a "werewolf monitor" (shows the phase of the moon).

Incidentally, when Tiger/Dashboard was first unveiled last year, there was some unhappiness expressed by the creators of Konfabulator (Macworld News, June 29, 2004):

When Apple Computer Inc. CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the company's next generation operating system, Mac OS X Tiger, at the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in San Francisco on Monday, many of the new features were met with applause and cheers from the crowd. But one new feature, Dashboard, generated an equal amount controversy for the company as Apple demoed a feature that many onlookers claim share many similarities to a shareware application called Konfabulator.

Arlo Rose and Perry Clarke developed Konfabulator, which is a JavaScript runtime engine for Mac OS X that lets you run files called Widgets. Widgets can do pretty much anything you want them to, according to the developers, from simple utilities like alarm clocks to games to AirPort signal strength, stock quote grabs and more.

Arlo Rose has this to say:

"It doesn't make any sense to me," Arlo Rose, the developer of Konfabulator, told MacCentral. "Why would a company piss off a developer whose whole purpose is to try to get more people to come to this company's platform by doing cool things? If this is what they do with the products they think are the best, then why would anyone have any reason to develop more cool stuff? I certainly don't."

Some people, however, disagree with the claim that Dashboard is just a rip-off of Konfabulator. Whatever the case, Widgets have come to Windoes. Not that similar things have not always existed--for example, Active Desktop, which has existed since Internet Explorer 4.0/Windows 98.

update: Konfabulator reviewed at Ars Technica.

New Pier for Meulaboh

It's been a while since ther's been much news of the progress in places such as Meulaboh, Indonesia. So it's a delight to read this in TODAYOnline (June 22), "A Singapore hand in building this Meulaboh pier", by Lee U-Wen:

FOREIGN Affairs Minister George Yeo will make a one-day trip to Indonesia's Aceh province tomorrow, to attend a groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of a new pier in Meulaboh. The reinforced concrete pier, which is 175m long, will replace the badly-damaged Dermaga ferry jetty, just 100m away. The project is part of the Singapore Government's US$10 million ($16.54 million) reconstruction fund, pledged in January for the tsunami-hit countries of Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives...

The $6.4 million pier project is jointly supported by the Singapore Red Cross Society and Singapore's investment arm, Temasek Holdings. When completed in February next year, it will facilitate the shipment of essential supplies into Meulaboh, said a Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesman.

Mr Yeo will also witness the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the Indonesian government, to affirm Singapore's undertaking of the pier's construction.
This agreement includes the refurbishment of Meulaboh General Hospital, which Mr Yeo will also be visiting. His trip will include a stopover at a Singaporean-funded orphanage.

Mr Yeo will be accompanied by officials from MFA, Ministry of Defence, the Building and Construction Authority and the Red Cross.

The 'e' word again, and again

(last updated 2056 hrs June 21 -0400 below)

Is it just me or did I count multiple occurances of the 'e' word in today's ST (June 20)? Two articles with it in the title, one forum letter, and a few others that have it in the body (but not in the title). Hopefully, I'll find time to get to them.

In the meantime, two dictionary definitions--being dictionary definitions, they don't actually decide any substantive issues--but nice to lay on the table so that the terms are clear.

- elite:

1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status.

2. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.

- elitism:

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

I don't believe that any complex society can do without an elite of some sort or other--that is, a minority among the larger population that enjoys some sort of superior status. The criteria for inclusion in the elite of any specific society, however, will vary from society to society--formal education, skills, wealth, birth; and so will the specific nature of this superior status--it could be political, cultural, economic, religious, whatnot. [Add: academic meritocracy furnishes one set of specifications to these variables.]

Nevertheless, not all societies--not everyone--are actually comfortable with elitism. And I'm not even talking about the connotations of the word, but focusing strictly only on its conceptual content. The key to the notion of elitism is the word "deserve" (and "entitlement") in the definition. One could conceivably believe that a society cannot function without an elite without thereby being committed to the notion that the elite deserved their superior status--they do a necessary job, nothing more, just like the rest.

continued: (1025 hrs Jun 20 -0400)

Looking through the ST articles, one theme that struck me is the notion of self-esteem. For example, in "Let's talk about being elite" by Eunice Quek, the writer talks about how the streaming system produces "self-disappointment" among those with middling grades and says that "we should celebrate when students who are not academically gifted excel in their exams through sheer hard work". (Aside: don't we? I thought that both native ability and achievement are celebrated by the system?) Mr Wang also has some comments about Robin Chan's article, "Embrace elites in order to enrich our society" that contains the same theme.

But is it really the job of an education system to make people feel good about themselves? Actually, let me play the devil's advocate here and push it further: why should any of us feel good about ourselves anyway?

But let me leave that aside for now. I'm interested in the underlying conditions for the possibity of low self-esteem--in the specific form of being disappointed with one self--in the first place.

Here's a thought: the problem facing the lowly peasant in historic hierarachical societies was hardly "self-esteem". One is born into the social pecking order--by a divine dispensation--or so the belief was and, in that specific sense deserves one's place in life whether lowly or noble. But historically, the problem for those at the bottom was never "I feel bad about myself" but "life is hard, the nobles oppress us, I hope the crops don't fail, etc." This suggests a couple of things.

One, a conscious concern with one's "low self-esteem" likely (but not always) indicates that life is not (materially) bad for those who suffer from this problem. The pressing issues of getting food, warmth and shelter are out of the way, giving one the time and energy to focus inwards (which, by the way, suggests a comparatively strong notion of self-consciousness).

Two, it also suggests that such problems arises when esteem is understood to be given upon the basis of something that is at least partly up to me. If one's place in life, the social goodies one access to, etc., are purely or mostly up to God--i.e., up to a dispensation that is out of one's hands--then the likelihood is that one wouldn't feel bad about oneself when if dealt a bad hand. One might feel that it's a bad hand, sure, but no issue of self-disappointment arises there. On the other hand, if those same goodies are perceived to be "up to my achievements"--things are different. Failure to acquire them could now be taken to indicate a failure on my part (and not just an inscrutable decision on the part of God Almighty, say).

Not all that surprising: after all, in order for me to feel disappointed about myself and in that specific sense have low self-esteem, I must have a sufficiently strong sense of self, and importantly, I must also hold myself to expectations the meeting of which I believe are in some sense up to my effort.

Incidentally, those expectations need not be self-directed in all aspets. I have to have expectations of myself if I can be disappointed with myself; but those expectations I have of myself could be tied to expectations that I perceive others have of me--e.g., I hold myself to the expectation that I would fulfill those expections others have of me. But ultimately, it's the expectations I hold myself to (whatever their sources) that do the work generating the possibility of self-disappointment.

The above further suggest a number of different ways to get rid of a sense of low self-esteem. Obviously, one wouldn't have a problem with with low self-esteem if: have a strong sense of self, hold oneself to expectations the meeting of which one believes to be up to oneself--and then go on to meet those expectations. Alternatively, one also wouldn't have a problem with with low self-esteem if at least one of the conditions fail to apply, i.e., (1) one does not have a strong sense of one's self; (2) one does not hold oneself to (as many or as high) expectations; or (3) one does not believe that meeting those expectations is a matter up to one's own effort.

to be continued...

last bits: (2056 hrs June 21 -0400)

...or maybe not after all. See the interesting follow up by wows at Singapore Ink. I wasn't actually thinking of Mr. Chan per se in making my observations above; but still, the phenomenon of being self-disappointed at failing to secure a PSC scholarship is intriguing, and I am very inclined to wows's analysis:

But I suspect that in a way Robin Chan’s problem is not “low” self-esteem. His problem is that he is, like many, ill-equipped to define one’s “self” in any way other than through singular and narrow conceptions imparted to him through his education. He was only lucky enough to have skirted his problem by getting an SPH scholarship, re-integrating himself into his achievement-belief system.

Hence to me, the role of education is not to make people feel good or feel bad per se. It is to equip kids with the imagination and skills so that they never [Ed: I would have said "don't have to"] feel bad just because they are taught only one way through which to feel good.

With the following caveat: this goes way beyond the education system. There's a whole society behind it.

add: more reactions from takchek and Jeff Yen; and Heavenly Sword.

(Previous posts that might be relevant:
- Random thoughts on Meritocracy
- Meritocracy and dystopia
- PM Lee on an "inclusive elite" in Singapore
- PM Lee on an "inclusive elite" in Singapore II
- "Elite"...what's in a word?
- Letters on why the word "elite" is still cool)

Behavior Modification

The title is not even mine, but taken from a sub-heading in this article from the New York Daily News (June 17). A delegation of some 250 New Yorkers bound for Singapore early next month to attend the 117th session of the International Olympic Committee are being advised about "customs and etiquette for doing business in Singapore". The guidelines, apparently, are "similar to the those offered by the Singapore Tourism Board." No kidding. The section ebtitled "Behavior Modification" goes: "If you're part of New York's Olympic delegation to Singapore, here are some helpful hints..."

DON'T'S
# Do NOT spit, litter, jaywalk, chew gum or smoke in prohibited areas.
# Do NOT sell, import or advertise the sale of gum.
# Never touch, hug or kiss a person of the opposite sex at a business meeting.
# If you're a man, do NOT offer to shake a woman's hand unless she initiates the gesture.
# Do not compliment a businesswoman's appearance as this may be misconstrued as an amorous advance.

DO'S
# Present business cards with both hands, print side facing up. When receiving another's card, take it with both hands and look it over before you file it away.
# Always use your right hand when shaking hands.
# When introducing a group, the person of highest status should be introduced first.
# Be punctual for meetings and arrive as a group, lined up in order of rank.
# Cover arms and legs when visiting temples and mosques.

Frankly speaking, I'm not even sure if we natives keep to all of these guidelines ourselves; I mean, when's the last time we "line up in order of rank" when attending a meeting as a group?

additional:

Frommers have more on etiquette in Singapore. The part on "Chinese etiquette and customs":

As for Chinese etiquette and customs, that can be rough. So many elements of Chinese culture make no sense to Westerners that I couldn't possibly cover the whole range. The younger generations are not as strict as the older folks about these points of cultural etiquette, but if you find yourself in a situation, even common sense can't make you a good judge of proper etiquette. You could give a beautiful brush painting to a Chinese as a gift, and the tiniest bird in the background could be a bad omen laying a curse on all of their future generations. Seriously.

If you are invited to a Chinese occasion or need to buy a gift for someone, the best thing you can possibly do is consult a Chinese person for advice. This is where hotel staff comes in handy. What color should I wear? What is the proper attire? Will this gift be nice? You'll thank them later.

I can give you some basic rules of thumb that will help:

Don't wear all white or all black if you're invited to a festive occasion; these colors are for mourning. The same is pretty much true for all-blue and all-green outfits. Reds, pinks, oranges, and yellows are great for such gatherings.

Gifts should never be knives, clocks, or handkerchiefs, and don't send anybody white flowers. (The sharp blades of knives symbolize the severing of a friendship; in Cantonese, the word for clock sounds the same as the word for funeral; handkerchiefs bring to mind tears and sadness; and white is the color of funeral mourning.)

When giving money, an even amount in a red envelope is presented on auspicious occasions, and an odd number in a white envelope is presented at funerals. There's no correct amount, but if there's a meal involved, the amount should at least cover the cost. By the way, the Chinese do not open gifts in public.

The main rules regarding table manners revolve around the use of chopsticks. Don't stick them upright in any dish, don't gesture with them, and don't suck on them. Dropped chopsticks are also considered bad luck.

As for greetings, Chinese men and women are all pretty well accustomed to the standard handshake.

And finally, the business card thing again:

If you're conducting business in Singapore, you'll most likely be exchanging business cards. All Chinese Singaporeans present and receive business cards using both hands, as if giving or accepting a gift. If a card is given to you, read it and make a comment about it. "Nice card" or "You're the director of the department!" will do. Hang on to it a bit before putting it away -- to stow it immediately is a sign of disrespect.

This is going to make me wonder the next time someone leaves a comment "nice blog"...

update (June 23 1940 hrs -0400)

The story was picked up by the ST (June 21) and just today, someone just had a ST Forum Page letter (June 24) published on the matter--"Why can't a man offer to shake a woman's hand?" by Gerald Koh Ker Jen. He mentioned the point about "a man should never offer to shake a woman's hand and to leave it to her to initiate the gesture", the one about "we should not compliment a businesswoman's appearance as this may be misconstrued as an amorous advance" and "when a group arrives for a meeting, members should line up in order of rank". His overall comment:

I was surprised to read about these behavioural guidelines and shocked that these are the guidelines issued by the STB. It is one thing to advise visitors to do as the Romans do but another to portray Singapore as a rigid, draconian society, instead of the modern country that it is, with mature people working in a conducive business environment.

Karayuki-san

Article from The Japan Times (June 18) about a forgetten aspect of Singapore's history: the "countless Japanese women who worked here as prostitutes between the late 19th century and early 20th century, women who were referred to simply as Karayuki-san." The ending paragraphs:

This year, which marks the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, is a good opportunity for Japanese to hark back to the past and look to the future. One can draw a lot of lessons by taking a glance at the history between Japan and Singapore, especially Japan's 1942 invasion and occupation up to 1945. Ordinary Japanese know little about the killings of ethnic Chinese in Singapore by the Imperial Japanese Army during the war years.

Sugino of the Japanese Association wants Japanese to face up to history involving their own country and other parts of Asia in order to strengthen friendly ties. "It is important that those planning to live in Singapore from now study the present and past of Singapore and develop a clear understanding of Singapore, including Karayuki-san and the war," he said.

As apposite as ever.

To Leuven and back (Part 4)

Part 1|2|3|4

The last session of the conference was on Saturday (June 11) lasting until lunchtime. After that, a great lunch (I mean, all the meals had been great) and most of the participants parted ways. Some have to catch early trains back to Leiden or somewhere in Germany, others (from elsewhere) took the opportunity to tour more of Europe. I stayed in Leuven to see more of the city and to do some mandatory shopping.

As mentioned before, Friday is Fish and Flowers, Saturday is general market day. Sure enough, the stalls were out early:



One of the graduate students from K.U.Leuven showed me the local toy shop. Unfortunately, most of the interesting stuff were made in Thailand or somewhere like that. The books were in Dutch. I did eventually find something. Yes, the cat "squeaks", in German too. (The Haba website)



It didn't take me long to realise that most of the interesting stuff around here will not be suitable for a trans-Atlantic flight, especially considering that my suitcase is not all that large. Clothes are not cheap (though I've been assured that they are much more expensive elsewhere, say, in Brussels or Leiden)--in any case, hardly specifically Leuven. In the end, it was down to chocalates, boxes of it. This is Godiva country after all, though I stayed away from that particular brand. As one of the participants (he's Japanese teaching in Taiwan) said to his wife (Taiwanese), if we buy this stuff, people might think that we picked it up at the Taipei airport. Good point. So I went for some other brands--Leonidas and Neuhaus, both come with a bit of history too (some of the chocolates I bought above).

Jean Neuhaus, founder of Neuhaus Chocolates, originally from Switzerland, first set up shop in Brussels in 1857. It was his grandson--also a Jean Neuhaus--who invented the "praline"--a bite sized filled chocolate.

Leonidas, on the other hand, was first started in the early 1900s by Léonidas Kestekides, an American of Greek descent. He went to Brussels for the world fair as a member of the Greek delegation from the United States and was awarded the bronze medal (1910) and the gold medal (1913) for his chocolate confectionery and patisserie. As the website puts it: having also fallen in love with a beautiful young girl from Brussels, whom he later marries, Léonidas decides to settle permanently in Belgium. I especially like their "Belgium in a box" set.



It was late in the afternoon by the time I was done shopping, and taking more photos of the city (pictures above). Just as I was about to look for a cafe or something of that nature, I ran into one of the participants, a Harvard Prof. We ended up wandering more of the city together. Turns out there is a much more mundane side to Leuven--nondescript (even bland) housing, warehouses, etc--I guess not everyone can live in the fabulous city center. Some where near the city limits, I chanced upon this cat shyly looking at us:



We had a long chat about our research interests too, which was nice because he didn't really speak much during the conference discussions. But I guess he prefers less crowded situations. The discussion was mostly about the methodological issues in the study of ancient philosophy, so I shall not bore you with the details. Enough said that I learned quite a bit from the conversation we had. One of the participants rather cheekily said during the last session of the conference that the organisers did a great job bringing together both good and nice scholars. But as I see it, the discussions--both during and beyond the sessions--were so valuable precisely because people were nice. Not in the sense that everyone was only concerned about pleasing each other, but in the sense that even the disagreements (and there were many) were carried out without rancor and in good cheer. It is possible that the very academic nature of the topic does help (though that has never been a good guarantee).

Sunday morning, I caught the morning train to Brussels airport together with the Japanese participant and his wife, parting ways there--myself to Frankfurt for the flight back to Toronto, the two of them to Amsterdam for a flight to Taibei. Following a fairly uneventful flight across the Atlantic Ocean, I found myself back in the warmth of my home.

(end)

To Leuven and back (Part 3)

Part 1|2|3|4

Friday morning, as I made my way to another hotel to join my professor/mentor from Berkeley for breakfast, I stumbled upon the Leuven's market day. One of two actually. On Friday, it's Flowers and Fish (yes, this is Catholic territory after all) while on Satuday, it's general market day. As it was still early, the sellers were still setting up, but there's enough out for a few shots (below). Seeing all the flowers reminds me again that I am in the heart of Flanders fields, where poppies blow...



My professor was staying at the Gasthof de Pastorij, one of loveliest boutique hotels I've ever seen. The facade is nothing to write home about, but the inside is extremely cozy and tastefully done up; with only seven rooms to boot (first picture below, building on the right). In any case, I'm willing to give high marks for any Gasthof that serves freshly baked bread, smoked salmon and mackerel--among other things--in the breakfast spread. Since I'm already thinking of going back to Leuven (with wifey and Penny) at some point, I'm definitely considering the Pastorij.

Just round the corner from the Pastorij (first picture below, tall church building in the background) is the Sint-Michielshek, one of the 'seven wonders' of Leuven (also second to fourth picture).



Though the main theme is Flowers and Fish, it doesn't mean that other stuff are not available as well (first three pictures below). Too bad I didn't have a lot of time to shop that morning--conference session starts soon and my paper was the second one. I did find some time to snap a few random statues that dot the town center later in the day (fourth to sixth picture).



(To be continued...)

To Leuven and back (Part 2)

Part 1|2|3|4

Thursday evening--after the first day of the conference--one of the organising professors brought the visitors round for a walk, showing us some of the city sights as we make our way to dinner at the Groot Begijnhof (more below).

We began at the Stadhuis (Town Hall), right at the Grote Markt (Great Market), construction of which began in 1448. The statues were added later in the 19th century (first two pictures). Just at the other corner of the Grote Markt is the Tafelrond (Roundtable), started in 1480 under Matheus de Layens, who also did the Stadhuis (third picture). The present building is, however, a 1927 reconstruction. If you look carefully, you'll see a large poster of a scene from V-E Day 1945. They are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII. We also stopped by the University Chinese Cultural Center (fourth picture) where a celestial sphere (fifth picture) is also found.



Along the way, I was deep in conversation with a couple of the conference participants and didn't take many photos. But the Groot Begijnhof ("Beguinage" in French) is another thing altogether. A Begijnhof is a sactuary for the Begijntjes, a lay Catholic sisterhood who lived like nuns but did not take monastic vows. This particular one is a UNESCO World Heritage monument. It consists of about 70 houses and convents with the oldest dating from the 16th century. The lay sister who use to inhabit the place are no more and the buildings have been since converted into hostels for the university--only female scholars need apply and there's a waiting period of one year (pictures below).



The restaurant where we had our first dinner is right in the middle of the Begijnhof (pictures below). There is also a garden with tables for alfresco dinning, but we were booked indoors. Dinner was excellent, and someone commented that a waiter looked a little like Anthony Hopkins--much to his amusement.



(to be continued...)

To Leuven and back (Part 1)

Part 1|2|3|4

Tuesday June 7, 10pm: took off from Toronto Pearson Airport; after an 8hr flight, arrived at the Frankfurt/Main Flughafen (first picture, tunnel between terminals) local time Wednesday June 8, 11:50am. It was followed by a short 1hr flight from here to the Luchthaven Brussel, arriving 2:35pm (second to fourth picture, enroute to Brussels).

The close-but-not-quite relation between Dutch/Flemish (Nederlands) and German is nicely illustrated by their words for "airport" (Luchthaven, Flughafen; also "Luft" = "air" and "Flug" = "fly" in German).

Notice the utterly flat terrain? Yep, this is very much "invasion route country" (or 兵家必争之地) from very ancient times: everybody (Romans, Goths, French, Germans, whatnot) on his way to invading someone else passed through here. Just one example: Waterloo is not too far from Brussels.



Among the very first things noticed in Belgium: like Singapore, this is very much a multilingual country. Very roughly: the northern half speaks Flemish, a variety of Dutch, while the southern half speaks Wallon, a variety of French. But you would expect a country that's basically in the middle of it all--a "Mitteleuropa" (or perhaps "Mittel-westlich-europa") of sorts--to speak the languages of its powerful neighbors. The signs are at the airport are in Dutch/Flemish, English, German and French. The train announcements are also in the four, if not, three of the four (dropping the German).

From Brussels, it's a fairly straightforward journey by train to Leuven (the first half rhymes with "blur", the second with "oven"; Louvain in French), making one connection at the "Brussels-North" station (first picture below). The scene that greeted me just as I emerged from the Leuven station (second picture) immediately convinced me that this is a great location. The hotel (third picture), though basic, and vicinity (fourth picture) did not disappointment.



Here, smack in the middle of a mostly Renaissance city, are a handful of Chinese restaurants on the same street, all within the vicinity of my hotel. One of them (first picture below) is right across from my hotel room. There is also an Asian grocery-medicine hall of sorts (fourth picture). There is also a Thai restaurant down the row. Too bad I never found the opportunity to try any of them, to see how "Chinees" food tastes like. The presence of the MacDonalds near the town center, however, is a much more prominent sign of globalisation (fifth picture). But they did it quite elegantly this time. The facade blends in with the look of the neighborhood, and from what I was told, they even serve real coffee. I guess the city officials here would not be impressed with the application to do business in their beloved town otherwise.



After some adventures asking for directions (most here do speak English, even if with a heavy Nederlands/German accent...ja), found my way to the Sinologie department of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (or just K.U.Leuven) at 7pm for the reception, only to discover later that I missed the group that met at the hotel lobby so that a guide can bring us there. Oh well, it was an interesting walk looking for the place. Soon enough, all except one of the scholars involved showed up (the last one arrived by a later flight)--many of whom are people whose books and articles I read over the years but have never met before. In fact, I only know one personally, a History Prof. from Berkeley (a close friend and mentor), though there turned out to be quite a few with whom I share mutual friends.

First impression: the organisers really put thought into the invitation list--a nice balance of more established scholars and graduate students still working on our PhDs; mostly Sinologists but also some Philosophy people. And everyone is so friendly, so without airs. Most of all, though some of the participants obviously know each other well, they were not cliquish at all.

I am counting seven Dutch/Belgians (incl. two PhD students and one recent graduate), four Germans (incl. two PhD students), five Americans (incl. two PhD Students), one Britisher, one Frenchman, one Israeli (an Ukrainian Jew), one Japanese (teaching in Taiwan), one Hong Konger (PhD student in Oxford), one Chinese (teaching in the US) and one Singaporean (PhD student in the US but now based in Canada). The two languages that everyone is guaranteed to speak are English and Chinese, but I'm guessing that I will be hearing a lot of Nederlands spoken over the next few days, considering that some of the Germans present appear fluent in that as well. It promises to be good.

Just as we departed to our hotels for the evening, one of the organisers brought us to a room with a view of the city.



(to be continued...)