My thoughts on the upcoming GE2020

Elections are coming in Singapore.

Personally, I think only parties that field at least 47 candidates are viable choices, since there are 93 seats for grabs. Anything less is saying, "We are not serious about taking responsibility for the country's future." It is like saying, "Let the other guy run the country, we just want to make noise." This line of thinking got Trump elected. See where that got the United States. I don't think I want Singapore to go down that path.

The political system in Singapore is not about single persons. Unlike the United States, where the President runs the government, the Singapore system is one where the ruling party gets to form and run the government. This means that in general elections, while people vote for individual (or group) candidates, they are actually deciding which political party they want to be the one running the country.

So any political party that does not field enough candidates to have a chance at forming the majority in Parliament is automatically forgoing the chance to run the country. It is admission that this party is not ready or able to run the country. If that is so, what assurance does the public have that this party is able to provide the proper check and balance if elected just simply for the sake of being the opposition to the ruling party in Parliament?

What I want to hear is how a party will run the country if it becomes the one that forms the government. "We will keep them in check" is an excuse for not being capable of doing the same job. We can criticise the government, but if no other party comes in with alternatives on how to run things, we are stuck with no better option. Then, we are just complaining to make ourselves feel better without actually doing anything substantial to make things better. Crudely, it is political masturbation.

To me, voting for an opposition party that does not want to form the next government is political masturbation--you feel good about it, but nothing substantial comes from it.

Is the United States still a democracy

In the past, I had been taught, and believed, that the United States is a democracy where people are free to make their own choices. In fact, the United States is supposed to be the leading example of democracy in the world.

Yet recent events over the past few years call serious doubts to this claim.

In a country where more than 90% of the people want greater gun control, nothing is being done to exercise the will of the people into actual laws.

In a country where people want equality for the races, nothing substantial is being done to address the disadvantages faced by non-white people. Yes, we see legislation being enacted to remove names of people from the Confederacy, we see the removal of Confederate statues. But these are the low-lying fruits that serve as optics. It makes it look like elected officials are doing something to address the issue. But removing symbols doesn't solve the problem of discrimination faced by black people. It doesn't address the disadvantages they have to face in daily life today because of more than a century of laws which intentionally put them and their ancestors at a disadvantage.

In a country where people believe in the right of every person to live, nothing is being done to protect people from COVID-19. Instead, politicians use party politics to divide the people to ensure those same politicians remain in power... the only issue is that their power comes at the expense of actual lives.

In a country where every person should be equal, due to the way political donations are handled, owners of corporations actually have a more significant voice than the average person.

A democracy is supposed to be versatile and adaptable, because it is supposed to be able to most readily reflect the will of its people, and we believe that the collective will of the people brings good to society. Yet the United States today has failed to address challenges facing its society because it has not been able to properly reflect the will of its people. Can we thus say that the United States today is still a democracy?

Half of 2020

Six months has passed in 2020. Half of 2020 has gone by.

In half a year, we had a global pandemic which killed more than 500,000 people worldwide. International travel has slowed to a crawl. Economies are stagnant as people try to figure out how to resume economic activities without exposing themselves to COVID-19. Some countries are acting in belligerent ways to take attention away from domestic problems. Global leader United States is becoming even more isolated from the world as it struggles to deal with COVID-19, systemic racism, and divisive politics in an election year.

Fortunately, homo sapiens is a resilient species, and we, as a species, will come out of this crisis no matter how bad the second half of 2020 can be. Individuals, however, may not all be so lucky. I just hope that as we deal with this crisis, we remember that it is compassion for our fellow human beings that makes us resilient as a species.

Reading "The Myth of American Exceptionalism"

The Myth of American Exceptionalism

I read the above article, and it struck me that this article was true in 2011 (when it was written) and all the more relevant today in 2020.

All powerful nations like to think they are exceptional. That they are special. Yet what makes a nation great is not being great, but that national strive toward being a great nation. It is the effort which makes a nation great and keep it so. When we become engrossed in our own greatness, that is when hubris will make us a footnote in history.

Teaching myself to play the Chinese traverse flute (dizi 笛子)

I am not a musically-inclined person, but I have always wanted to learn to play an instrument. One of them is the Chinese traverse flute, the dizi (笛子). Unfortunately, my "formal" music education ended with whatever music was taught in grade school, which is very very little. And there were other things that kept me occupied, like computer games, books, programming, taiji, and work.

So it took me a while to eventually get down to learning to play the dizi. And like many other skills, I am trying to pick it up on my own. Thanks to Amazon, it is easy to get a simple and cheap flute for initial practice. But I should have done a bit more reading before that, actually. I didn't realize I needed a flute membrane (which gives the sound more timbre compared to a Western flute). I ended up having to use a piece of tape for the time being, which allowed the dizi to be played, but lacked the timbre. Still, it was a first step.

And thanks to YouTube, it was much easier for me to learn how to play the dizi. YouTube videos provided two important pieces of information. One is the basics of how to play the flute, like how to hold, the shape of the mouth, and the sound that I should be aiming for. The other aspect is actually how to play a tune. I would search for the song that I want to learn, see how others actually play it (the fingering, to be exact) and try to match that with the score.

Another key point for my learning journey is the numbered music notation that most dizi scores use. Instead of drawing circles on lines, each note is represented by numbers, which makes it easier since each number corresponds to a hole on the dizi.

For slightly over a year, I have been practising almost daily, about 20 to 30 minutes each time. While I am still very much a beginner, at least I can play a tune (badly) now. The next step is to record myself more often so that I can listen to how I am actually playing. This will allow me to understand the mistakes I am making (a lot of them) which in turn will help me improve.

I want to improve. And so I practise.

Quick thought about the legality of assassination

Quick thought.

The United States has been carrying out assassinations, such as that of Osama bin Laden. Many would say that these people deserved to die since they were the leaders who perpetrated plans that led to thousands of deaths.

But, aren't assassinations the same as execution without trial?

If we are to believe in the rule of law, and that every person is entitled to a fair trial, then any execution without a trial contradicts this core belief.

Are we idealists? Or should we be pragmatic, and leave ideals to talk while our actions prove otherwise? Should we live as hypocrites, knowing full well that when push comes to shove, we will turn a blind eye on our ideals?

I have been raised to walk the talk. I only hope that when the pressure comes on, I can live as I was taught.

Badminton, table-tennis, and books

Long, long ago, when I was still very young, I used to live in a housing estate in Singapore. Singapore's housing estates are communities of public housing with many apartment blocks and common recreational facilities that anyone can use. These facilities usually include a badminton court and table-tennis tables. Which makes these two sports kind of popular as something to pass the time. (There are also basketball courts and open fields for soccer too, but these were never sports that drew my interest.)

I vaguely remember my mother getting a couple of badminton rackets. This allowed me to play badminton, hitting the shuttlecock around to each other. But I remained ignorant about the rules of the game; I remained largely ignorant about the game except that the goal was to keep the shuttlecock in the air.

So when I started to visit the public library on my own (I think that was Primary 3), my curiosity and love of books came together and made me borrow some books on badminton. I learnt the rules of the game (which has changed since...) I also learnt the names of the basic serves, how to perform them, and things like drop shot, drive, and smash. And the desire to be able to replicate what was written in the books motivated me to practise. Which I did. And that helped me get better at badminton, enough for me to slowly improve over the years to be able to play it at a recreational level with friends as a social event.

A similar experience awaited me when I was in Primary 4. A friend of mine was in the school's table-tennis club, and I wanted to pick up the sport to be able to spend more time with my friend. Having no idea how to play table-tennis at first, I was really bad... I was more a spectator at those regular after-school (or rather, before-school, since we were in the afternoon school session) table-tennis sessions.

And once again, I turned to the public library and books to help me. Books taught me about the rules of table-tennis, about what is the difference between a topspin and a backspin and how to execute them (in theory). The different ways of holding a table-tennis bat, and different ways of serving. Books gave me the idea of playing against the wall; which was basically taking the dining table and pushing it up against the wall so that I can play against myself at home. Being able to practise on my own meant I could play a lot more, and I soon got a lot better, so much so that I could spend more time playing rather than watching when playing in school against friends. (Given the lack of tables and abundance of players, we took turns to play. Short games where the loser goes back into the queue while the winner continues to play against the next "challenger". The better you are, the longer you get to play, which serves as a motivating factor to improve your game.)

Today, I look back and feel amazed with myself. I realized that I have been learning many things on my own through books. Badminton and table-tennis are just two of the sports that I picked up on my own through reading. There are other things too, which I will find time to write about.

But the common skill is: self-learning via books. A skill which has served me well over the years, and continue to serve me well today.

What may be in the upcoming Violet Evergarden: the Movie

Kyoto Animation was set to release Violet Evergarden: the Movie in January 2020, but it was delayed to April 2020 due to the horrible fire. Then, the movie was further delayed because of COVID-19. However, it looks like the movie will soon be out in theaters as pre-launch tickets are again being promoted.

As for what the movie will be about, it is hard to guess, but it is supposed to be an original story not covered by the novels. One of the trailers hints that Major Gilbert is alive (something which was covered in the novels, but not in the original 13-episode TV anime series).

So I am going to venture a guess... this original movie is going to be the happy ending that fans have been asking for. At the end of Episode 13, we saw Violet smile when she met a client (who was not revealed). The movie is probably going to include that reunion between Violet and Major Gilbert. And I think there will be quite some flashbacks to cover the "origins" of Violet, about how she came to become a tool of war. The novels covered some of it, including the time before she was "given" to Gilbert as well as after, and I think the movie may portray parts of this history to show why she became the expressionless killing machine.

From killing machine to a human with feelings. This would probably be the journey that the movie takes us through. Portrayal of her past, followed by how Gilbert got to learn about she "progress" toward becoming a normal person. How Violet starts finding hints that Gilbert may actually be alive. And Gilbert reaching out to reunite with her once he is satisfied that she has learnt to be human and is no longer dependent on him for orders.

Okay, this is probably not what the movie will be. But it is how I hope the movie would be. We just have to wait and see. I am guessing the movie will probably be released in end July or early August.

Updated 27 July 2020: The TV anime series deviated from the original light novels. For example, the final episode of the anime series did not feature Major Gilbert, but in the light novel, the fight with the rebels(?) was supposed to be the reunion between Violet and Gilbert. I guess this means the actual reunion in the anime will be somewhat different from the novel.

Violet Evergarden

I had wanted to write about Your Lie in April. But then, I watched Violet Evergarden.

I don't remember ever crying so much.

If Your Lie in April brought me to tears because of the love story, Violet Evergarden is a story much closer to heart.

It is about learning about feelings. As someone who has been running away from my own feelings... learning to feel is a demanding task. The story of being ex-military and having to fit back into society is another part of the story that strikes too close to my own heart.

When more than half the episodes in the series bring you to tears, you do not deny that you love the series.

When you know a sequel movie is coming, and want to watch it, yet fear to go because you know you will end up as a crybaby in the theatre...

I hope they will show the movie sequel soon. Because it hints that Major Gilbert is still alive, and there may even be a reunion with Violet. But I also dread that day... I may end up dying from dehydration in the theatre... losing all that water from crying too much.

The wonderful job done by Kyoto Animation. If only Yokoyama Masaru or Aketagawa Jin had been in charge of the music... but then, I would have died from crying and won't be here to write this.

Side note: When I first started watching this series, I didn't think Violet was human at all. The references to her being a tool, being so cold and expressionless, and having metallic hands left me with the impression that she was a robot. I thought it was a story about a robot learning about human feelings. It didn't help that the ghostwriters were called Auto Memory Dolls, which further conjured an image of being nonhuman. Until a bit further down the series... when I realized that her metallic arms are replacements for REAL arms lost during war. And even further down, when an episode showed how she actually lost those arms trying to save Major Gilbert. That one really really hit me hard...

Update 17 July 2020: Just found out that Violet Evergarden is known as 紫罗兰永恒花园 in Chinese.

 

Note to self: Watch at night and alone. It is hard to go out with swollen eyes. And wipe tears with a good soft towel.

Reporting on nothing

When this read this article,

Japan detects foreign submarine passing near Amami-Oshima

my first thought was, "This is an empty report that potentially misleads."

Quoting the article (bold and underline my own):

it traveled westward through the contiguous zone around the island on Thursday afternoon.
The submarine did not violate Japanese territorial waters around the island, it said.

There was no international law that was broken. It is like a newspaper article reporting "An unknown person walked in front of the gate. He did not trespass the property."

What it does is to stoke suspicion about which nation the submarine belongs to. By deliberately not stating the nationality, it leaves it up to the reader to imagine, which usually becomes a self-reinforcing loop. We will use this to confirm our suspicion. Even though there was no fact provided.

For all we know, it could have been a U.S. submarine. Given that it is outside territorial waters, any nation's submarine could have operated there legally.

Sometimes, you do not need to provide false information to mislead. Not providing key information can have the same effect.

Future prospects of MRR ESPA and MRR ESPE 3D printer boards based on ESP32

Just some thoughts on how a future version of the MRR ESPx series of boards will be. Recently, Espressif released the ESP32-S2, which is a microcontroller that still comes with WiFi, but somewhere between the ESP8266 and the ESP32 in capabilities. But the ESP32-S2 has certain features that makes it interesting as it shows what a future ESP32 may look like. And I am hoping to create a new MRR ESPx board based on the new ESP32 when it eventually comes out. And according to Espressif's CEO, that won't be a long wait.

One feature I am looking forward to is USB OTG that allows the chip to be programmed directly from USB without the need for a USB-to-serial chip like the CH340 used in the MRR ESPA and MRR ESPE. This will save quite a bit of space on the PCB for other things, like more MOSFETs for heating elements and fans as well as supporting more stepper motor drivers. Supporting more MOSFETs and stepper motor drivers is already possible now since there are spare I2S stepper stream pins available.

Another feature is that the new ESP32 will likely have more GPIO pins. Native pins are needed for inputs, so this means more thermistor and endstop inputs.

The ESP32-S2 also has support for LCD via I2S and SPI, so this is something we should see in the new ESP32 too. While it is not really needed (the webUI is more than enough for everything), since Marlin has recently added TFT support for STM32 boards, it would be nice to be able to have something similar for the ESP32 too (using the LVGL library).

A quick summary for a new MRR ESPx series board:

- Support for more stepper motor drivers (maybe a total of 7)

- Support for more heating elements (maybe a total of 4)

- Support for more fans (currently 4 controllable fans, maybe total of 6)

- More inputs (total of 6 endstops and 6 temperature sensors)*

- Programming via USB directly using USB OTG*

- Bigger connectors for VIN and VBED to allow up to 30A on the bed

- Support TFT**

- TMC stepper driver configuration using jumpers for both SPI and UART modes

* Depends on actual features of new ESP32

** Software implementation required

No work has started on this yet. I am really waiting for the new ESP32 to come out, so it means that this will be in deep freeze for a while. Work on the hardware aspects of MRR ESPA and MRR ESPE will also be frozen since I do not see any benefits for trying to improve it when we know the new ESP32 is round the corner (okay, probably six months to a year down the road may be a more realistic timeline).

Get the boards here.

Facebook page
Facebook group for users

YouTube channel

Github repositories:

MRR ESPA

MRR ESPE

Kyoto Animation and the portrayal of female characters

It is almost a year since disaster struck Kyoto Animation (aka Kyoani or KyoAni). But the animation studio is slowly working to get back on its feet, and I am looking forward to their future works, including the next work in the Sound! Euphonium series which will feature the protagonist's third year in high school.

In this post, I actually want to touch on ONE key thing that I like about Kyoto Animation. It is about the studio's portrayal of female characters.

Anime can be very demeaning to girls and women in general, portraying them in highly sexualized way using stereotypes and overemphasizing physical characteristics. Some anime even thrive on such portrayal. But this actually hurts any story, because any character development is watered down by the unrealistic visuals.

Kyoto Animation is different. Somehow, it is able to portray female characters as characters with depth, who can be typical female stereotypes yet avoid being sexualized or outright lewd. Girls can be cute without making them weird. They wear short skirts but somehow do not convey them as being sexual objects.

Kyoto Animation is able to portray girls and women as girls and women. Being female adds to the character's depth, not take away from it. The way a character dresses, wears her hair, walks, talks, acts... female characters can be cute without being empty. They can be cool, pretty, sexy, irritating... but their appearances do not define them. Instead, it is their character that defines their appearances. And that is what draws me to the works of Kyoto Animation. This studio is able to repeatedly use anime as a way to tell a story and not let anime be the story.

Before I go, here is a YouTube video discussing Kyoto Animation which I thought is a good look at it too. Just to share.

U&I (K-On!! song)

(Today is kind of an important date. And I thought this song from K-On!! actually expresses what I feel quite well, so rather than reinvent the wheel, I will just post the song here.)

キミがいないと何もできないよ
キミのごはんが食べたいよ
もしキミが帰ってきたら
とびっきりの笑顔で抱きつくよ

キミがいないと謝れないよ
キミの声が聞きたいよ
キミの笑顔が見れればそれだけでいいんだよ

キミがそばにいるだけでいつも勇気もらってた
いつまででも一緒にいたい
この気持ちを伝えたいよ

晴れの日にも雨の日も
キミはそばにいてくれた
目を閉じればキミの笑顔輝いてる

キミがいないとなにもわからないよ
砂糖としょうゆはどこだっけ?
もしキミが帰って来たら
びっくりさせようと思ったのにな

キミについつい甘えちゃうよ
キミが優しすぎるから
キミにもらってばかりでなにもあげられてないよ

キミがそばにいることを当たり前に思ってた
こんな日々がずっとずっと
続くんだと思ってたよ

ゴメン今は気づいたよ
当たり前じゃないことに

まずはキミに伝えなくちゃ
「ありがとう」を

キミの胸に届くかな?今は自信ないけれど
笑わないでどうか聴いて
思いを歌に込めたから

ありったけの「ありがとう」
歌に乗せて届けたい
この気持ちはずっとずっと忘れないよ

思いよ 届け

Learning to play chess

Back in primary school, the days after exams were carefree days when we would still have to go to school, but were left more or less on our own as teachers were busy grading papers. The syllabus has been covered so there was really nothing to do except wait for the school holidays to come. So we did our best to spend time in school by... playing.

We would play card games and board games. Some would just chat away. Others would read a book (a very rare sight...) And chess was one of those games that we played. There was chess as we know it (played on an 8x8 black-and-white chessboard), and we also played Chinese chess. I knew how to play Chinese chess because my father taught me a bit when I was young, but chess was something foreign to me.

And so I did what I did best.

I tried to pick it up on my own. By reading about it, then trying it.

I followed that familiar pattern. I would go to the library and look for books on the topic. In this case, it was chess. So I borrowed books about the basic rules of chess, then books about the standard opening moves, and finally those that analyzed past games.

Basic rules because chess is a rule-based game, and the rules serve as the foundation for getting started. The standard opening moves are necessary because it prevents one from making simple mistakes as well as understanding what my opponents are trying to achieve. And analysis of past games because they provided me with a deeper insight into how the game is actually played and how to think ahead.

I never became one of the better chess players in class. Chess was just not my thing (I preferred Chinese chess), but at least I could hold my own against better players to give them a small challenge. It did give me a way to interact with other people in class, and further reinforced in me the self-learning technique that would prove useful to me as I continued my journey in life.

Chess. One of the things I taught myself.

Emotional low and one's best work

The best work is created when one is at an emotional low.

It is only at an emotional low can a person fully express all emotions. And it is emotions that give life to a work.

When we are at an emotional high, we are too happy to remember the sad times, the angry times, the sour times. We can create works of emotional high, but such works usually lack emotional richness because they only portray a single aspect of human emotion.

When we are angry or sour, that emotion usually clouds everything else out of our minds. Anything created in such times would be a disaster.

But when we are in an emotional low, that is when we are desperately trying to find happiness. That is when we remember all other emotions even as we are experiencing the current one.

It is when we are the most rich in emotions, even when we may not have anything else.

When life has turned away.

When friends have turned away.

When even the gods have turned away.

Standing alone, looking at everyone's back.

That is when we are truly alone.

And truly ourselves.

And that is when our works will truly reflect who we are. In all its richness. In all its colors and flavors and depth that make us who we are.

Those works that we create out of necessity. A necessity born from the need to recognize who we are when everyone has turned away. A necessity to keep us alive because no one else will do it for us.

I am me.

Who are you?

A director and a screenwriter

I am... well... somewhat an anime fan. It started with Shinkai Makoto's Your Name. Of course, I did watch the occasional Studio Ghibli films before that, but it was really with Your Name. that I started to seriously consider anime as something to watch.

I still think Miyazaki Hayao is great, and Shinkai Makoto is up there with him. Hosoda Mamoru (Wolf Children) is a great director too. But today, I want to write about two others in the anime industry. Two whom I would love to see a collaboration.

Okada Mari is a familiar name to those who watch anime, she was the one who gave us Anohana. While she has tried directing, it is her story-writing that captivates me.

Yamada Naoko is another familiar name, a rising star in the industry who gave us K-On! and Liz and the Blue Bird. I really like the way she uses camera angles, colors, the overall style that makes an anime more like watching a live adaptation. How she is able to capture the personality and feelings of each character on a two-dimensional medium.

So a "slice of life" anime series written by Okada Mari and directed by Yamada Naoko would be... simply amazing. If the music is by Yokoyama Masaru, that would be all the more amazing.

Anyway, I am not that great at explaining the works of Okada Mari and Yamada Naoko, so I thought I would let YouTube people do it for me. Enjoy.

Suki and the Japanese mentality

Suki (好き) in Japanese means to like, to prefer. At least, that is the most direct way to translate it into English. 'Like' as in to like to read, to like a color, to like an animal, or to like a person.

But at the same time, suki implies romantic interest too. Suki can be used to say you simply like someone for his or her personality, style, mannerism, or it can be used to imply an infatuation. And it is this broad range of meaning that makes it wonderfully Japanese.

We may have heard that the Japanese dislike conflict. They seek harmony, and I think suki is a very good example of this dislike of conflict. Imagine telling someone, "I love you, I am infatuate with you" only to have him or her reply, "Sorry, I only see you as a friend." The use of suki here allows the person saying it some leeway for retreat. The person hearing it also has room to maneuver without putting the person saying into an embarrassing position. "I like you (as in, I am implying I am infatuate with you)." If the feeling is not reciprocal, the other person can reply along the lines of, "You are a great friend too." As there was no outright confession of love, there was therefore no outright rejection too. But both sides know exactly what it means--"sorry, I don't feel the same way."

It is this vagueness, this implied meaning, that is the beauty of the Japanese people and the Japanese language. And also... the bane of non-Japanese who are trying to figure out why the Japanese people do not mean what they say. They mean exactly what they say; it is just that those who do not have enough knowledge of the implied meaning are not able to fully comprehend the full range of what is said (and what is not).

So before you scratch your head and think, why is my Japanese friend saying one thing but doing something else, it may not be that he is not being truthful with you. It could well be that you did not catch the implied meaning of his words.

And if a Japanese friend says he likes you... be sure you know what message you are sending before saying you like him too!

The pursuit of freedom

A random thought about the pursuit of freedom in the United States versus that in China.

The freedom to act is not a foreign concept to humans. We all understand what it means: it is the balance between our desire and that of the society we live in. And this freedom can be anywhere between total anarchy and total oppression. Human society, however, is never at the extremes, so we are always somewhere in between.

This choice of where to be varies from society to society, and society's choice is based on its history and circumstances that shaped that history. I think the United States and China serve as two good examples for comparison.

Before China was unified under the first emperor of the Qin dynasty, China saw centuries of warfare, centuries of suffering. Central government was weak, resulting in local dukes (who eventually declared themselves kings) striking out on their own, each seeking to further his own power. This eventually led to development of two key schools of thought: Confucianism which focuses on the benevolent rule in a well-ordered society, and Legalism which focuses on the use of laws to regulate society.

Another two millennia of history reaffirmed a concept in the Chinese people: chaos is bad, order is good. When society falls into chaos, people suffer. When there is order, people prosper. This serves as the Chinese society's motive for seeking social order over individual freedom.

The United States' experience is more differently. With its history being European settlers trying to survive in a new land with potentially hostile natives, the earlier generations had to survive on their own without reliance on help from a government located an ocean away. Whatever government help there is locally was sparse and thin. The individual had a need to take individual action for survival. This created the motive for society's desire to have greater freedom of individual action. Again, this was born from a need, the need to survive in a new land.

So which is better? That, I think, is the wrong way to look at it. The degree of freedom given to individual action is not something that should be homogeneous. First, how each person views individual freedom versus society's rules stem from centuries of cultural and historical shaping. It is then further influenced by the current state of social and economic circumstance. If we see it under such a lens, the American pursuit of individual freedom for the rest of the world is by itself an oppression of freedom: it denies the other societies (and the individuals in those societies) their freedom to choose a model that suits them.

If we are to accept the freedom of individual action, then we must respect the individual's choice of choosing to be limited by society's rules.

There is no single right way. Only when we start to see the world in the full range of colors instead of black and white will we be able to really prosper as a human race.

Democracy, the will of the majority, and groupthink

Just a random thought.

Democracy is about the will of the majority. Yet is this an inherent trap, a self-fulfilling prophecy? A road down to groupthink?

In a democracy, the will of the majority gets executed. The minority may be given a voice and heard, but whether it is heeded or not is entirely up to the majority. If you look at politics as a zero sum game, the winner is the majority while the loser is the minority. (Life is not so simple, and most of the time, the majority does heed the voices of the minority to afford the minority some benefits. But it depends on the goodwill of the majority, which can differ greatly from society and between issues.)

And no one wants to be the loser. Which means that no matter how much something may matter, people in the minority may choose to silence themselves and appear to side with the majority instead of being classified as "the losing side".

It means that those with differing views may choose to keep silent to keep themselves on the "winning side". It is the road to groupthink.

It is therefore of utmost importance that democratic societies have in place systems to guard against groupthink. To make it part of the system that it will never allow itself to be blindsided into bad decisions just because a majority of the people agree to do so.

At the social level, it means a strong education system for the masses. An educated population is essential for a democracy to properly function, because only an informed public can actually make the right choices based on facts instead of feelings.

At the legal and political level, it means having laws and frameworks in place that generates debate from differing angles without penalizing the minority view. Without such a guarantee, even the most informed of public may stray into groupthink since it is human nature to want to be on the "winning side". It may even entail having deliberate processes in place to implement things for the minority, to show that it is not just the will of the majority that gets implemented, but that the society takes into consideration the well-being of all of its members, whatever their differences may be.

Remember, democracy only works when people are willing to voice differing views without fear of being sidelined, disadvantaged, or prosecuted.

Do we need a common enemy to strengthen an alliance?

Nato chief urges nations to stand up to ‘bullying’ as China power rises

Excerpt:

Nato’s chief has warned that China is “multiplying the threats to open societies and individual freedoms”, as he urged like-minded countries to join the military alliance to stand up against “bullying and coercion”.

Jens Stoltenberg, secretary-general of the transatlantic security alliance, said on Monday that the Covid-19 pandemic had “magnified existing tensions and trends when it comes to our security”. China’s emergence as the world’s second-largest military spender demands a “more global approach” from the 30-country Nato group, he added.

There is actual more to what Stoltenberg said. The full article can be found at:

Remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on launching #NATO2030 - Strengthening the Alliance in an increasingly competitive world

While I agree that the rise of China is a fact that cannot be ignored, I think leaders need to be more cautious in the words they use, and they need to back their words with facts. Words like "bullying" and "coercion" and even "multiplying the threats" need to be backed with facts, otherwise, they are just fear-mongering.

Yes, China is spending a lot on its military. But so does the United States, and the United States spends more. China's use of economic pressure for political gain is not unheard of. But the United States has often used the U.S. dollar as a tool to force countries to comply too. If Chinese pressure is bullying and coercion, what is U.S. pressure? A guiding light? That smacks of racism, that only Western societies (and by implication, predominantly white societies) are entitled to tell others what to do, while others are expected to follow and not try to do their own things.

It really makes me sad. NATO is a long-standing institution that can be a stabilizing force. But it can only be one if it is led by leaders who are able to discern between facts and biased perceptions. The United States under Trump is probably a greater threat to global stability than China, with its unannounced missile attacks on other countries and unilaterally pulling out of international deals.

Strengthening an alliance is not about finding a common enemy. It is about working on a common issue. When our leaders start to see this, then NATO and other international organizations will truly be strengthened.

It is hard to move supply chains out of China

Japan wants manufacturing back from China, but breaking up supply chains is hard to do

I wrote about this before, and I am just sharing this article the talks about how difficult it can actually be.

While governments can talk about bringing supply chains out of China for the purpose of national security in times of crises, the current international system has interweaved our supply chains in such a way that we have become highly dependent on each other. This system was U.S.-led and it benefited U.S. allies and friends back during the Cold War. That was when this big entanglement of markets were all "under one roof"--that of U.S. leadership, and allowed nations to reap the benefits of their comparative advantages in manufacturing certain products.

Today, however, it is becoming a bit more difficult because this "common household" is splitting apart due to the growth of China and the United States perceiving it as a strategic rival. So there is that impetus to go back to bringing U.S. allies and friends under one roof, while excluding China and its friends, much like during the Cold War. The problem is that the current system is too entangled, and it will take a lot of time and effort to actually be able to effectively split into two camps again.

And there is always that lingering question for private companies... if they heed their governments' policy and move out of China, what happens if China comes out top in the strategic rivalry between great powers? You can thus see why private companies are a lot more cautious than governments in this matter. After all, international relations is talk and paper. But global businesses have brick and mortar assets that need to be paid for with real money. An unwise move can have long-term financial impact for a company.

A collection of thoughts after an online seminar

Some thoughts after attending an online seminar today. The topic? China. I guess that is what people are talking about nowadays (other than COVID-19 and racism in the United States).

Anyway, this is a jumbled collection of thoughts about different issues mentioned during the seminar ("Debunking China’s New Normal: A Year After the Reed Bank Incident"), so please forgive me if the blog post doesn't flow coherently.

It is very obvious that China has been taking a more aggressive stance on the international stage. We see this very clearly in the South China Sea, and also in its rollout of the Belt and Road Initiative as well as recent criticism of the United States in COVID-19 and racism. Yet such an aggressive stance... is it a miscalculation on China about its current political power? Or is it a calculated move aimed precisely at provoking U.S. response? How can this even be a possible alternative? Well, increased presence equates to higher spending, something which takes away government funds that can be better used for things like building social and economic infrastructure for long-term growth. It also exposes the possibility that the United States may take a harder stance against China which goes against the principle of being open and inclusive. This increase in U.S. hard power response may end up undermining U.S. soft power.

Western media's coverage of anti-Beijing sentiments have shaped our views. We actually think that there are many in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan who dislike Beijing. Yes, it is true that such people exist. But we also need to ask ourselves, what is the percentage of the Chinese population (PRC, HK, ROC) that actually think the CCP is wrong? That want a more democratic government for the Chinese mainland? And are willing to try and do something about it? After all, talk is cheap; there will not be any real change unless people are willing to make it happen. At the end of the day, we need to ask ourselves if media coverage is selective, and therefore cannot be taken as representative of the sentiments of the large Chinese population.

And if anti-CCP or anti-Beijing sentiments are taken as a sign that the CCP does not enjoy popular support and can thus be challenged, the very same can be said of the United States. Look at the protests there. They are against the U.S. government's policy, but does it mean the 50 states are going to secede from the federal government tomorrow? And going back to selective media coverage, the U.S. media initially gave wide coverage to violent protests in the United States, which did not truly reflect the fact that most protests are peaceful. Yet the initial bias allowed right-wingers to shift the narrative away from the racist treatment of African Americans and police violence. The media was called out and has since given more focus on the peaceful aspect of the protests. I think we need to guard against selective coverage of the democratic movement in China too.

In the rivalry between China and the United States, the one who comes out top will be the one who can win hearts. It will need to win the hearts of the international community. The United States looks like it has a head start, since many developed countries agree with U.S. principles regarding the international system. However, we must also remember that U.S. intervention in the past has resulted in many countries that resent the United States, and these countries can easily become friends of China, especially if China dangles a carrot or two.

The United States has always been the leading advocate for freedom of navigation. And the legal basis for this freedom is UNCLOS. Yet the United States has not ratified UNCLOS, although it continues to observe UNCLOS almost in its entirety. This selective adherence to UNCLOS, however, leaves a hole for exploitation by China, who can always selectively adhere to other international systems by citing the U.S. example. Personally, I really hope the United States will ratify UNCLOS, because any day UNCLOS is not ratified by the United States is another day that China can exploit this "hypocrite" narrative.

Regarding the territorial disputes in the South China Sea, Taiwan may not be the best partner to bring into the picture, since the current nine-dotted line has its roots in the KMT days. It is the ROC that declared the Paracel and Spratly Islands as being part of China, and Taiwan has reaffirmed that stance in the past. So claimant countries looking to Taiwan for help in this issue may not end up with their intended results.

Just some random thoughts. I will see if I can better organize them into something more coherent for a proper article.

U.S. criticized for its handling of protests

America's rivals return fire on human rights after U.S. protests

A bit late, but I read this a few days ago, and thought, "As expected." In addition to China and Russia, countries criticizing the U.S. include Turkey and Iran. These are not major powers, but they are willing to criticize the U.S. now. Is this is sign of eroding U.S. hegemony?

The U.S. used to be the global advocate for human rights. Its constitution granting equality to all men, the freedom of expression, its position as the land of freedom and dreams; these used to be symbols of the ideals that people should aim for.

Yet the U.S. continues to have a society that turns a blind eye on racism, income inequality, and the lack of access to basic needs such as healthcare for a significant portion of its population.

It is easy to criticize others to take attention away from oneself. But that is kicking the can down the road; it is still there, waiting to trip you in the future.

I only hope the U.S. finds a way to solve its problems. Show us all that it can be done, give us the hope that it is possible to achieve the ideals we hear being preached for decades.

Give us hope.

The case against working hours

Our concept of working hours likely stemmed from the industrial revolution, when we needed people to work in factories, performing simple physical/mechanical tasks. Instead of having people stream in at different times of the day to complete their individual tasks separately, it was (and still is) more efficient for everyone to be present at the same time, each performing his or her task in an assembly line. Semi-finished products can be left on the assembly line to be completed the next day.

However, do we really need such working hours in most of the work we do nowadays? One reason for having a common set of working hours is the requirement for meetings to coordinate effort. But unless you are holding meetings that last eight hours, you don't really need everyone to observe the same working hours. It is easy enough to have a "core" time when everyone is supposed to be present (physically, or today, virtually) for ad-hoc meetings.

In fact, given that everyone has a different biological clock, and their own personal commitments outside their working lives, it only makes sense to totally do away with working hours except in places like assembly lines and physical stores (which is not really working hours but more like opening hours). This allows people to better make use of their time, which leads to better productivity and more balanced lifestyles.

This is especially so with the current technologies that allow virtual working spaces. Do we really need everyone to turn up at the same time, and leave at the same time? I think it is time we understand how we came about with the concept of fixed working hours, and review its validity in today's circumstances. There is no point carrying on with legacy concepts that no longer have merits today.

A systemic issue that needs a systemic solution

Note: This post is not denying that racism exists in the United States. Rather, it is more about the technicality of calling it systemic and thus "blaming the system" rather than taking ownership for what is actually widespread racism in the entire society.

Call me skeptical, but I have had enough of people saying racism in the U.S. is a systemic issue.

A systemic issue is when the laws explicitly discriminate against people of color. If there is a law allowing slavery, that is a systemic issue, and the systemic solution is to abolish that law.

But if discrimination against people of color takes place even when there are no explicit laws supporting such discrimination, it is not a systemic issue. It is a social issue. It is a human issue. It is happening because the people are acting thus.

And a social issue requires a social solution. A human issue requires a human solution.

And the responsibility for such a solution lies in each and every member of society. Not with leaders. Not with elected officials. But by the actions of every individual.

"A systemic issue that requires a systemic solution." That is a cheap way of saying, "I see an issue here but I am not solving it." An easy way to shirk responsibility.

If you are a person of color, how are you living your life to show people that racial stereotypes are not true?

If you are a person with privileges, what have you done to extend that privilege to those without such privileges?

It begins with me. Not with politicians. Not with police chiefs. Not with elections. But with each and every person recognizing that he or she is part of the problem, and also part of the solution.

Satire: Protests in the U.S.

Disclaimer: This is satire, it is not true. This is not news. It is my way of trying to cope with the current reality which is so far removed from what I used to know.

Fake headlines:

China passes U.S. Human Rights and Democracy Act

Putin and Xi discusses draft of UN Security Council Resolution calling for sanctions against the U.S. for human rights infringement

U.S. postpones elections indefinitely due to protests

Tanks deployed against protesters in D.C. streets

5,000 protesters arrested for rioting in U.S. cities

It is so strange, that we can take headlines about Russia, China, North Korean, Iran, and many other countries, and apply them today to the U.S.

Some thoughts about the protests in the U.S.

I have previously written about my thoughts regarding the Hong Kong protests. Today, there are protests all over the U.S. due to the death of George Floyd. The protests in Hong Kong were (are) about Beijing's influence/interference in Hong Kong's self-administration. Those in the U.S. are about police violence against people of color.

A peaceful protest is the most powerful. And we have seen those from Gandhi and Martin Luther King. We see them today in certain places in the U.S. too, like this sheriff who marched with protesters instead of trying to "dominate" them.

I have also written about how people can hijack a protest. Like when the protests turned violent in Hong Kong. I think we are seeing the same thing happening in some places in the U.S., as people with their own agenda mix in with the crowd and start acting in ways to incite violence and looting. This takes attention away from the original reason for the protests, which was police violence against people of color. Right now, the coverage has shifted to show the violence rather than to focus on the reason.

It is good to hear that protesters are "policing" themselves, stepping in to stop violence. But there will always be those who try to profit from these protests. I just hope the media is able to discern between the protesters, with their legitimate demands, and those who are there with their own separate agenda.

The more the media talks about the violence, the less coverage they give to the legitimate demands. Do not let the violence become yet another shiny object that draws attention away from the real issue.

Another thing. Calling in the military to quell protests... sounds really authoritarian. June 4, the anniversary of Tiananmen Square, is just round the corner. I hope Trump does not make a decision that will overshadow that fateful day, when the world saw on TV a single man standing up against a Chinese military tank.

We human beings are not perfect. There are ideals of freedom and independence and self-determination that we all want to pursue. Our human nature usually results in the implementation being less than ideal. But that does not mean we stop trying and give in to our human nature. The U.S. is not just a country; it embodies a lofty ideal that provides a shining beacon in a world dimmed by human nature. I only hope this shining beacon does not get extinguished by a single man and his hubris.

Is modernization necessarily Westernization?

It is no secret that the West were the ones who started on the path of industrialization and modernization first. As we modernize, our ways of life change, our economies change as we come to become capable of producing more and communicate faster and wider.

In the earlier days, being modern is tied with being Western. It was Europeans who had those steam machines. It was Europe and the U.S. that had trains and cars and steamships. It was Europe and the U.S. that had telegraph and then telephones. As other countries followed the path of modernization, they also started to adopt Western appearances to show that they are on the path of modernization.

We took on a different way of dressing. We adopted new ways of cooking and ate a wider variety of foods. We even adopted a different way of telling time.

But is the adoption of such outer appearances a sign of a change in thinking? Are we becoming more Western in looks because we are becoming more Western in mindset?

Does modernization mean we become Westernized in thinking too?

I would venture to say, no.

A society's culture and thinking is shaped over a very long period of time. And yes, it changes with the time as it interacts with other societies, through major events, but history and experience add to it, not replace it. The adoption of a Western appearance may be more for convenience. Societies have always took in new ideas that work for them and gotten rid of those that are no longer applicable. A new way of eating, dressing, and maybe even governing. Adopting an idea or ten does not necessarily mean we are adopting an entire culture. Japan modernized, but it continues to retain its old way of naming the years using era names. China has taken the modern concepts of communism and socialism and used these as convenient labels for its modern way of government. But has Chinese worldview fundamentally change? Maybe not. Has the Japanese worldview fundamentally changed? I don't think so; we can still very much recognize a Japanese way of doing things.

If we do not become more homogeneous (aka Western) as we become more modern, then the key to humanity's continued progress is to learn how to handle differences and diversity. While the West may have been the first to modernize, the Western way is not the only path to modernization. Only when we accept that there are many paths to modernization, and that modernization is different from Westernization, will we be able to better understand the differences in our systems, the diversity it offers, and how we can work together to make things even better.