A sign of spring - Kawazu sakura (河津桜)

Spring is finally arriving... as shown by the blooming of the kawazu sakura (河津桜), a type of cherry blossom that blooms slightly earlier than the rest.

We went to Miura a few days ago to enjoy a view of the blooming flowers. There were kawazu sakura trees lining the railway tracks.

And as we walked along the tracks, we got to enjoy a great view of the blooming cherry blossom, as well as other flowers. Spring is indeed here (or almost here... it is still cold).

Even the birds are out, frolicking amongst the flowers.

And hiding amongst the reeds.

The kites are out hunting for food too.

Mt Fuji on 21 Mar 2012

Here's a picture of Mt Fuji taken on 21 Mar 2012, in the evening, just as the sun was setting.

Ski at Akakura

We went for another ski trip in Feb 2012, to Akakura (赤倉) in the Myoko Highlands (妙高高原).

The kids were still too small to ski, so we rented sleds for them to play with.

The snow was really good... it had been snowing heavily for the past few weeks before we arrived, so there was lots of snow. In fact, it was snowing so heavily on the day we arrived, that it was hard to drive. But we were greeted with a beautiful snowscape.

And you can even spot the tracks of hares in the beautiful snow... a sign that life exists even in this harsh winterscape.

The 4m of accumulated snow, from all that snowing this winter...

Dilemma... or double standards?

We believe in freedom, we talk about giving people equal chances, we say we do not discriminate... yet at the same time, we have immigration policies meant to keep people out of our country, even if they want to come in. Even if there are two persons of the same capabilities, and both want the same job, only the one in-country gets the job; the other person, if he does not meet immigration requirements, cannot get into country to take on the job.

Singaporeans have been complaining about foreigners taking up jobs in Singapore, about foreigners not being able to fit into our culture. We are looking at stricter immigration rules to prevent foreigners from easily staying in Singapore. The same can be said of the US (although if you are willing to fight for the US by joining the military, you can become a US citizen). France is also looking at introducing stricter immigration rules to keep out immigrants.

Protecting the interests of citizens is what governments do. But countries also have guiding ideologies that define them in the international arena, and thus their foreign policies. So this becomes a dilemma... how to safeguard the interests of your own citizens, yet not contradict yourself when dealing with other countries? Is the country's ideology the priority (because it is what attracts people to the country, and it was what the country is founded on) or is the priority the citizens?

Singapore the IT city... not!

I am returning to Singapore soon, and my little adventure trying to get Internet connection once I am back made me realise that Singapore is not the IT city that we claim to be.

A small comparison:
Japan's telcos offer wireless broadband with speeds up to 76 Mbps, at around 4000 yen. That's like S$70-S$80. Bring the small little wireless router with you and you can use Internet anywhere as long as it is within mobile phone coverage.
In Singapore, ADSL broadband for 10 Mbps would cost you S$40-S$50... and you can only use it at home (where the ADSL modem is located).
For a flat rate of around 1000 yen (S$13?) in Japan, you get unlimited calls and SMSs with other mobile phones under the same telco. (US telcos offer similar plans.)
In Singapore, although the plans cover free usage (up to certain number of minutes and SMSs) regardless of telcos, the plans are still expensive (minimum plan around S$20, with very little free minutes/SMSs).

So Singapore's IT is neither fast nor cheap. IT is so much a part of people's life nowadays, yet we are paying more money for less service. Why? We pride ourselves on being an IT-savvy country... but maybe that's only within Southeast Asia, and even then, that's probably temporary since other Southeast Asian countries are catching up. Compared to other developed countries, we are still lagging behind. Have our telcos grown complacent because of lack of competition? Or are we just an empty shell, looking good on the outside but nothing inside?

Improving customer service

In preparation for the big move back to Singapore, I needed to make arrangements for Internet connection. After looking through Singtel's website, I thought I would choose their exPress 50 plan, but after emailing them, I was told that I would have to sign up on-line. But after signing up on-line (filling in a form, they should then contact me), I didn't manage to link up with Singtel to complete the signing up process. So I decided to give them a call.

Well, I am still in Japan, but once the line got through to Singtel's customer service, I was made to wait for about 10 minutes before someone actually picked up the phone. After explaining my case, I was made to wait another 2-3 minutes while they connected me to sales. After talking to sales, I was told that the earliest they could get my fibre connection up was mid-May. Wow! What am I going to do for two months for my Internet connection? So I had to sign up for ADSL plan instead.

It took me about 30 minutes to sign up for Internet connection... that's an international call, with IDD and roaming charges. Given the advances in information technology nowadays, it is a wonder why such services aren't provided at Singtel's website. As the leading telecommunications provider in Singapore, Singtel doesn't make good use of IT for business (customer service). It would have been convenient and cheap for me if they had on-line chat customer service (like HP). And I really don't think 10 minutes waiting for a service staff to pick up the phone is a reasonable wait.
Customers = Business
If you are going to make customers wait, they are likely to bring their business somewhere else. Saving costs in customer service only makes you loss money (in terms of profit not realised) in the long-term. This isn't the first time Singtel has shown itself to be lacking in customer service.

Comparing Rome and China

I hadn't had a chance to read this book yet, but I thought it is quite interesting to compare the two empires Rome and China. Both were great empires of their time, extending their influence even beyond their borders. But after the Roman empire fell, it never recovered. The Chinese empire, however, has risen and fallen various times over history. It would be interesting to try and find out why the Chinese empire managed to rise again after it had fallen, while the Roman empire didn't.

The Internet and universal values

The Internet is so much in our lives now, allowing us to share ideas and communicate with people from all over the world. We write blogs, we have friends on Facebook, we can buy books online using Amazon.com, see videos from all over the world on Youtube, and search for all sorts of data from all over the world using Google. The global reach and pervasiveness of the Internet seems to suggest that it is also easier now to spread "universal values", such as democracy, equal rights, etc. The "Arab Spring" seems to suggest that this may be true, since part of it was coordinated using the Internet.

However, even as the Internet allows us to become aware of our commonalities, does it not at the same time allow us to learn more about our differences? Besides spreading "universal values", does it not at the same time deepen the divides based on our differences?

Embracing defeat

This is not about the book with the same name, though it is similarly about Japan. Somehow, through my interactions with the Japanese, I get this impression from them that they feel it is okay to lose. I mean, I am not against being willing to admit defeat, after all, that is one of the mentality important for taiji (which I practise). However, the Japanese seems to think very lightly about the concept of defeat. It almost seems to me that they think it is okay to lose. They don't seem to understand the severity of losing. The concept "there is no prize for second place" seems like an alien concept to them.

Maybe it is because they have never really lost... no foreign power has ever conquered Japan except for the US, which occupied Japan after WW2. And even then, the US treated the Japanese very different from other occupation forces; there was no widespread rape, pillage or oppression. Then again, it was also because the end of WW2 was also the start of the Cold War, and the US needed a cooperative Japan to contain Red Soviet. Having never suffered under the hands of victors, this might be the reason why they do not have a concept that defeat can bring dire consequences.

Two short books on China

Two short books to introduce. Both are by C. P. Fitzgerald. Sometimes, older works can provide a different insight, given the contemporary views.

A CONCISE HISTORY OF EAST ASIA is a short book dealing with the history of the Chinese, Korean and Japanese people, with each of them given their own sections.

China: A Short Cultural History. Third Edition. is a short book, first written back in the 1940s but edited in the 1950s and 1960s. It deals with the history of the Chinese people, with the author's thoughts that the Chinese people share many similarities with the American people.

Both are old books, but you might still be able to get them from Amazon.com via affiliated sellers.

Meeting ex-PM Nakasone

I had the privilege to be able to attend a talk by ex-PM Nakasone Yasuhiro (中曽根 康弘) last week. Besides serving as the Japanese Prime Minister from 1982 to 1987, he was also the director-general of the Defence Agency in the early 1970s. He is turning 94 years old this year, and his body is weak, but his mind and speech are still very clear. For example, he talked about how relations between countries can only be founded upon the personal relations of their leaders. It was a short talk, lasting less than an hour, but it gave me a chance to meet this renowned Japanese politician.

One year since the earthquake

One year has passed since the massive earthquake that struck northeastern Japan on 11 March 2011. Till date, only 6% of the debris has been cleared. The incident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant is still not fully concluded and will likely remain so for some time. The government is still working hard at securing funding for the rebuilding of the earthquake-struck areas. Many people are still displaced from their homes. However, the LDP, instead of working together with the ruling party (DPJ) on a solution to the problems, is instead working on getting the DPJ to call for early elections. One can only wonder if the priority is to provide the Japanese with a stable livelihood, or for the LDP to get back into power.

Reading "The Asian Military Revolution"

I have just finished reading this book, "The Asian Military Revolution: From Gunpowder to the Bomb (New Approaches to Asian History)" by Peter A. Lorge. It talks about how, while Western civilisation was changed by the introduction of gunpowder, Asian countries were not. This is because Asian countries already had the political, economical and social background to allow gunpowder (and guns and cannons) to be used on a large scale, but Western countries had to change their political, economical and social structure in order for them to employ guns/cannons on a large scale. It was not Western countries, with their guns, that allowed them to dominate the world for the past few centuries. Rather, it was because Asian countries had their own internal problems and weaknesses during that same period of Western expansion, that allowed the Western countries to be able to exert their influence in Asia.

It led me to think, maybe the author is correct. Because in China's history, there have been many instances in which a weak government resulted in China being invaded and ruled by the tribes from the northern steppes. But if this is true, the international system and standards that have become a part of our life may change. Because these are Western systems and standards that became widespread with the expansion of Western influence, and if Asian countries regain their past influence, they may well impose their own systems and standards (as they had in the past).

Another thought: when the Western countries came into Asia, they were able to exert their influence because Asian countries were in a time of internal problems. It probably led Western countries to think that their system is superior to the Asian ones, and leading them to attempt to force their "better" system onto Asians under their control. Now, we are used to the Western systems, but are they really suitable for Asian cultures? Will we see a return to a world of varying systems instead of a universal (ie. Western) system?

Parting with MTG cards

I used to play Magic: The Gathering back in the mid-1990s, but only for a year or so. Since then, I haven't touched those cards, and after deciding to part with my D&D books, I have also decided to part with my MTG cards. Some of those cards have already been auctioned off; I am now in the process of auctioning off the remainder (about 1500 cards in all). Most of the cards are Revised cards, though some are from Ice Age, and a few from other early expansion sets such as The Dark and Fallen Empires.

Meanwhile, I will stick with Forge.

Chinese, now and then

Singapore is a country of immigrants. Our forefathers came from all over the world, though a large proportion were from China, and some from India. The immigrants from China back then were a hardworking lot, willing to work hard and long hours. They were also aspiring, improving themselves and ready to grab opportunities to go up the social ladder. The wealthy Chinese gave freely to society, building schools and helping the poor.

Today, Singapore still has immigrants from China coming in. Yet we only hear negative things about them, about how unscrupulous they are in their quest for money. What has changed? Why are the Chinese immigrants now different from the Chinese immigrants back then? Where are the Confucian values, the hallmark of Chinese civilisation?

Or could it be that they are still the same? That the only reason why we hear so much about them is because bad news travel far and fast, and in this world of fibre communications and media sensationalisation, the few bad eggs are emphasized a thousand times?

Calligraphy piece - 智取天下徳服人

My latest work, which says "智取天下徳服人", this is still a practice piece, I will be using this same phrase for my work intended for an exhibition towards the end of this year.

"The Clash of Civilizations" and thoughts on Japan

I recently read Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order". I know, it was published some time ago, I should have read it earlier. But nonetheless, I read it, and it triggered some thoughts about Japan.

Some Japanese feel proud that Japan was singled out in this book as the only single state civilisation. It gives them a sense of superiority, a sense that the Japanese people are unique in this world. And that may be exactly what Huntington is implying. The Japanese are unique, and therefore, in the world order, they are a lonely people as well. They are not a part of Western civilisation. They are not a part of Sinic civilisation. They do not have sufficient religious claims to be Hindi, Muslim, Buddhist or Orthodox. And they are geographically separated from Latin American and African civilisations. They are, in short, without friends.

As Huntington said, "Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle." The current world system is based upon Western civilisation's ideas, one fundamental being that the player recognised on the international stage is the state. If we then follow the assumption that states serve to further their own goals, then we will come to the natural conclusion that states are selfish and, because no state is exactly the same as another, there are bound to be differing standards. This understanding is implicit within Western civilisation, but when viewed from the outside, becomes a "double standard". It makes it hard for other states to accept Western civilisation standard; they fail to understand how the West can say one thing, yet implement it differently across the spectrum. Japan is probably a good example. When it tried to gain membership into the Western club after tremendous effort spent modernising, it was continually frustrated by Western "double standards".

Copyright laws, nonproliferation of WMDs, even democracy, are Western standards meant to protect the interests of states from the Western civilisation. The current world order is full of such standards; even the United Nations is a Western idea. Western civilisation was able to, in short time, gain control over a large part of the world. And it has developed a system of standards to guard its interests, even as it is losing control over some parts of that world. The question is: Do we continue to subscribe to a system of standards imposed upon us by a single (Western) civilisation? Or should the world order reflect the current distribution of power, meaning that as other civilisations gain power, their standards should be adopted into the world order? Maybe, just maybe, all that "chaos" in the world now is because of the West not willing to change the world system to accommodate the rising powers from other civilisations.

Japan's future is gloomy indeed. If the future world order is going to be organised according to civilisations, we shall see the US continuing to lead the Western bloc, while China will likely build its own Sinic bloc centred on itself. Russia will undoubtedly lead the Orthodox bloc. Japan is unlikely to become a full member of any of these blocs, given cultural differences. How will Japan survive, much less to say compete, in a world of bloc economies, without a bank of resources?