I think, therefore I do [PRAGMATISM]

May 14, 2009
PRAGMATISM TODAY

By Kenneth Paul Tan

PRAGMATISM is celebrated today as a virtue. The ability to adapt to changing circumstances, to focus on achieving results and to compare options using cost-benefit analysis is valued over inflexible obedience to dogma.

In public administration, pragmatism is opposed to the worst forms of bureaucracy. In politics, closed-mindedness, extremism and fundamentalism are mitigated by various moderate 'third way' approaches that deconstruct competing ideologies like liberalism, capitalism and socialism in order to combine eclectically their best aspects, leaving behind the unhelpful, irrelevant and harmful.

In Singapore, pragmatism is held up as a pillar of governance, one reason for the nation's widely acknowledged economic success. The right thing to do in order to achieve continuous economic growth will depend on context, of course. For instance, when the Government needed to strengthen its moral authority, it refused to allow casinos to operate here. But when it became clear that a flagging tourism sector needed a boost, the Government abandoned this position and allowed not one but two casinos.

The pragmatist seizes opportunities and manoeuvres nimbly around threats, so focused on finding technical solutions for achieving the overriding goals that these goals can sometimes disappear beyond the horizon of critical consciousness. Pragmatism can thus degenerate easily into an expedient and uncritical focus on technical mastery directed solely towards the achievement of a limited set of human aspirations, shielded from philosophical reflection, moral reasoning and critique. Ironically, uncritical pragmatism can become dogmatic.

The focus on 'how to' without thinking about 'why' encourages an 'anything goes' attitude that disregards the larger implications of one's choices and actions. That humanity has been so successful at developing the technical means of mastering and controlling nature is testament to its remarkable creativity. Yet this narrow focus on technical mastery has endangered the very habitat that humanity needs to survive. It is the same drive for technical domination, fuelled by indiscriminate profit-making, that has enabled people to control other people in a deeply inequitable global market. Today, we have some agreement on the dangers of this logic as the world embraces the now-fashionable language of sustainability and contemplates the serious economic crisis that it finds itself in. But is this too little, too late?

To prevent pragmatism from degenerating into yet another dogma, we need to ensure that pragmatic decision-making does not occur in an intellectual void. Pragmatists must be informed by a rationality that can expand beyond the narrowly technical and into the moral-political and the aesthetic. This will require a critical understanding of the significant ideas and values that have shaped the world. Universities will have an important role to play in this regard.

But universities too are vulnerable today to the very same reductive pressures against which they must protect culture and knowledge. Can universities exceed the limited and limiting expectation that they must, first and foremost, serve the purpose of economic growth? Furthermore, it is not easy for a neo-liberal university to maintain genuine autonomy in a world where universities must compete fiercely in a global market for talent and resources.

In this context, success can easily degenerate into an uncritically pragmatic question of technique, with universities devoting their resources to mastering the techniques for scoring top marks in international ranking exercises. Thankfully, many universities have been able to play the game without losing sight altogether of their larger and nobler educational purpose. But there is tension and the balance universities strike may not always favour their nobler aspirations.

Traditionally, universities have been perceived as spaces that provide a temporary life of contemplation in preparation for the 'real' life of action in the world: The use of the word 'commencement' to describe graduation ceremonies reflects some of this thinking.

But thinking and doing should not be artificially separated thus and associated with student life and work life, respectively, with the former subordinated to the latter. The university experience should not be reduced to a stage in life that one has to put up with in order to obtain the right qualifications to get ahead in 'real' life. Universities must graduate people who are more than excellent technical problem-solvers. Doers must also be thinkers; and for higher education to be able to facilitate this, its thinkers should also be doers.

What we need is an educational approach that opposes uncritical pragmatism. Whatever the discipline or subject, curriculum and pedagogy can be designed to build not only technical competency, but also the capacity for philosophically informed critical thinking, a vital skill for leadership in the public, private and people sectors.

Pragmatism can serve us well in a diverse, multicultural and globalised world. But pragmatism can easily degenerate into an unthinking mindset, more dogmatic than any ideology it pretends to distance itself from. Uncritical pragmatism engenders the doer who will not think beyond the narrowly technical; who is incapable of moral reasoning, critical thinking, creativity and imagination; the doer who despises such things as naive, time-wasting or troublesome.

The doer-who-will-not-think engenders in turn, and imprisons in a stereotypical ivory tower, its opposite - the thinker-who-will-not-do. Universities must - now more than ever - break down these barriers between thinking and doing.

The writer is associate professor and Assistant Dean at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS. The above is an excerpt of the NUS Outstanding Educator Award public lecture that he delivered on April 28.

[This is new, and yet not new. In one of my more philosophical classes, the question of science and knowledge and the explanation of the world about us, it was pointed out that the "Science" is about How to do, not What to do, or Why do. The older world and older "wisdom" was about explaining the world in terms of meaning. Why was the world created. How should one act towards another. Pragmatism at its most basic is still an "-ism" which means that there are some fundamental unquestionable doctrine or dogma.

It may be that we can never eradicate all "-isms", but perhaps we will have the wisdom to know when to leave one "-ism" and take another one.]

Single mums not 'leeches'

May 14, 2009

WASHINGTON - MOST US single mothers work, live in the suburbs and are white, according to a report released on Wednesday, shattering the stereotype of single mothers as inner city-dwelling leeches who have babies to claim state benefits.

Beginning in the 1960s, US single mothers were depicted as largely black, urban women who had babies to get government handouts, said the report by the Eleanor Foundation, a group that helps working women to achieve and hold onto economic independence.

Past governments in the United States have tried to dissuade single motherhood by radically cutting 'already very limited social supports' that were available to women, the report, which was compiled by Malcolm Bush of the University of Chicago and Gary Orfield of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, said.

But the caricature of the single mother is false, and US government policies toward single mothers have not only failed to decrease the number of households led by women only, but left many women in the United States and the children they are raising in great difficulty.

Large numbers of single mothers don't earn enough to provide the basic essentials of life, the report said. 'The financial stress these mothers face is demonstrated by the percent of their income they spend on housing costs. In 2007, 85 per cent of them spent 30 per cent or more of their income on housing costs, a condition that the US Department of Housing classifies as 'housing burdened',' the report said.

More than half paid 50 per cent or more of their income to put a roof over their and their children's heads, making them 'housing distressed' under the Department of Housing's criteria. And yet, homes built in new communities are constructed for a happily married couple with two incomes - even though around 40 per cent of US kids are born out of wedlock and more than two in five marriages end in divorce.

'A basic principle of housing and urban planning should be to provide accommodation for the kinds of families we actually have,' the report said.

Under President Barack Obama, who, the report points out, was raised by a single, working mother, and a progressive legislature, the United States should bring its policies towards single mothers into line with other Western democracies.

Women should be provided with benefits such as longer paid maternity leave, quality preschool amd health care for all, and accessible education and training opportunities to improve their lot, or the cycle of single mothers struggling in the face of extreme difficulty will continue, the report says.

'If Americans understood that single mothers are working very hard in this country with less help than they would receive in virtually all other advanced societies in the world, and that the future of our society depends on the success of their children, we might be able move toward much less punitive and more productive policies to help get them onto pathways to economic and career success,' the report said. -- AFP

[So are Singaporean's Housing distressed? Or Housing Burdened?  Should housing policy be to build houses for the families we actually have, or for families we think we should have? Or pretend we have?]

Marriage or bust

May 14, 2009

It is not quite a push-up bra, more a push for marriage. Triumph International Japan has launched a 'Husband-hunting Bra' to support women while they look for a partner. It has a countdown clock, showing the marriage deadline set by the wearer, that will stop and play a wedding song when an engagement ring is inserted between the cups.

Enabling the disabled is a moral duty

May 14, 2009
GRACIOUS SOCIETY

By Andy Ho

ALL MRT stations now have at least one barrier-free access route. Over half of SMRT's fleet of 66 trains are wheelchair-friendly. And SBS Transit has 22 wheelchair-accessible buses.

While all this does constitute progress, the problem for the disabled is that stretch of journey to and from a train or bus. There are still streets without kerb cuts, pavements that are too steep, corridors that are too narrow, entrances or even bus stops without ramps, open drains and so on. However, the Government is spending $60 million to make all roads, walkways, taxi stands, bus stops and access routes to MRT stations barrier-free by next year.

These issues and others were discussed at the International Conference for Accessible Tourism 2009 organised here by the Disabled People's Association recently. One main idea was that making facilities more accessible to the disabled (and elderly) can help boost tourism. Whether compelling as a business argument or not, we as a society should not have to stoop to such an instrumental rationale to justify a fight against what is discrimination based on disabilities.

If there are only stairs to the workplace or sports facility, say, the wheelchair-bound have no independent access to these places. If there are only printed words without Braille, the blind are hampered. The disabled suffer impairments largely because of environments created without their needs in mind. Disability is not merely a physical problem lodged within the individual; it is also primarily a problem that arises from the built environment. Yet this is not how we usually think about the disabled. Instead, we think about them as innately saddled with biological deficits, so what they need is just medical or surgical treatment, including physiotherapy. And some public aid, perhaps.

But framing the issue in this manner construes the disadvantages which the disabled suffer as naturally, not socially, caused. If disability is a biological flaw, any request to modify the environment is seen as a demand for 'special rights'. Any remedy we choose to 'offer' we see as something charitable that comes from the goodness of our kind hearts.

Moreover, the media tends to portray the disabled as either feckless cripples or intrepid overcomers. Such unrealistic representations cause the able-bodied to stereotype the disabled in negative ways. Unsurprisingly, a study presented at the recent conference reported that people here are generally reluctant to aid the disabled when they need help to get around.

We tend to locate the 'problem' in the disabled individual whom we see as having a personal biological shortcoming. So we try to 'fix' him instead of fixing society to adapt to his abilities.

However, if we re-think their impairments as not so much a lack of ability but something normally found within the whole gamut of human abilities, then we may begin to see that the problem resides chiefly in how our environment is built with no or little regard for the disabled.

Because we build the environment for the average (able-bodied) person, we in effect build barriers for those unlike that average. Conversely, if the built environment were adapted for the whole range of human abilities, the disabled would suffer virtually no functional limitations.

Perhaps we should re-imagine disability as a problem located in the intersection of the individual and his environment. This might help us begin to see disabilities as being less biological and more social in nature.

Disability rights activists have suggested that once we grasp how the built environment unfairly privileges the able-bodied while disadvantaging the disabled, it can be argued that we are morally obliged to remedy the environment as a matter of civil rights, not special privileges.

The Building and Construction Authority has had a masterplan for a disabled- friendlier built environment since 1990, when it introduced the Code of Barrier- Free Accessibility in Buildings. It believes we can get there by retrofitting buildings built before 1990. Perhaps. At any rate, this recession may be a good time to increase public spending on such work while also improving post-1990 and newer structures as well.

Yet there has not been sufficient urgency on the matter because we as a society don't quite see disability rights as civil rights. What we need is a law requiring all public and private institutions to modify their physical structures as well as their policies and practices to provide a suitable environment for the disabled. Only a Singaporeans With Disabilities Act can afford the disabled equal opportunity and equal protection.

Some may lament this 'rights' talk. Without it, however, our society has continued to regard the disabled mainly as incapacitated individuals who need our charity. 'Rights' talk may compel society to reexamine the policies and processes that hamper the disabled daily.

The law can change mental structures, not just physical barriers. A law that construes disability rights as civil rights would give all citizens a duty to understand the disabled better. Over time, this might well lead to a more capacious notion of equality and perhaps to a more gracious society as well.

[Interesting new perspective.]

'Time to open up'

May 13, 2009
PLEDGING OF SHARES

Investors say their interests are at risk when key stakes are force-sold
By Yang Huiwen
INDUSTRY players are fighting calls by investors to force chief executives and controlling shareholders to be more transparent about the shares they have pledged.

Investors say their interests are at risk because they are not told when a chief executive pledges his company holdings for a personal loan.

They find out only when the shares are sold to meet margin calls - a step that often leads to uncertainty surrounding the company's business.

But some corporate leaders claim that more regulation by the Singapore Exchange will stifle the market and discourage companies from listing here.

They also point out that pledging shares as collateral for loans is a common practice and forcing more disclosure would be an invasion of privacy. The issue flared up in recent months after the major shareholders of Beauty China and Sino-Environment pledged their entire stakes in the firms to get personal loans.

When the founders were unable to pay up, the banks force-sold their shares, which led to these founders losing control of their companies and sparking a crisis at both firms.

Last year, the botched takeover of Jade Technologies by Dr Anthony Soh was scuppered by a forced sale of his pledged shares.

The way these private deals can contribute to major disruptions at the company level has sparked calls for reform. It is common practice for banks to make loans to companies on condition that the key people running the company remain in control.

Mr Robson Lee, partner at Shook Lin & Bok LLP, said the rules on disclosure of share trades of directors or substantial shareholders should include substantial share pledging and mortgaging of shares.

He said that when a CEO or controlling shareholder pledges his shares, there is a risk that there could be a change of control at the company.

Daydreamers faster at...

May 12, 2009

VANCOUVER (Canada) - CONTRARY to common opinion, daydreaming is not slacking off because when the brain wanders it is working even harder to solve problems, new research has shown.

Scientists scanned the brains of people lying inside magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines, as they alternately pushed buttons or rested.

The scans showed that the 'default network' deep inside a human brain becomes more active during daydreaming.

But in a surprise finding the scans also revealed intense activity in the executive network, the outlying region of the brain associated with complex problem-solving, neuroscientist Kalina Christoff told AFP.

'People assume that when the mind wanders away it just gets turned off - but we show the opposite, that when it wanders, it turns on,' said Dr Christoff, co-author of the study, and head of a neuroscience laboratory at the University of British Columbia in Western Canada.

The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest daydreaming might be a better way to solve problems than intense focusing.

'People who let themselves daydream might not think in the same focused way as when performing a goal-oriented task, but they bring in more mental and brain resources,' said Dr Christoff.

She argued that now people might change their attitudes towards daydreamers.

'Within ourselves, we have absorbed that attitude that mind wandering is a bad thing. We're harsh on ourselves, if we catch ourselves mind wandering,' she said.

'A more playful attitude might allow you to call in more resources.' People typically spend one-third of their waking time daydreaming. 'It's a big part of our lives, but it's been largely ignored by science,' Dr Christoff said.

The study is the first to use MRIs to study brain activity during 'spontaneous thoughts and subjective experiences,' said Dr Christoff.

'Until now the only way was to use self-reports that were not always reliable.' -- AFP

We should remain very, very afraid

May 9, 2009
STRESS TESTS ON U.S. BANKS

By Paul Krugman

HOORAY! The banking crisis is over! Let's party! Okay, maybe not.

In the end, the actual release of the much-hyped bank stress tests on Thursday came as an anti-climax. Everyone knew more or less what the results would say: Some big players need to raise more capital, but overall, the kids, I mean the banks, are all right. Even before the results were announced, Mr Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, had told us they would be 'reassuring'.

But whether you actually should feel reassured depends on who you are: a banker, or someone trying to make a living in another profession.

I won't weigh in on the debate over the quality of the stress tests themselves, except to repeat what many observers have noted: The regulators didn't have the resources to make a really careful assessment of the banks' assets, and in any case, they allowed the banks to bargain over what the results would say. A rigorous audit it wasn't.

But focusing on the process can distract from the larger picture. What we're really seeing here is a decision on the part of President Barack Obama and his officials to muddle through the financial crisis, hoping that the banks can earn their way back to health.

It's a strategy that might work. After all, right now the banks are lending at high interest rates, while paying virtually no interest on their (government-insured) deposits. Given enough time, the banks could be flush again.

But it's important to see the strategy for what it is and to understand the risks.

Remember, it was the markets, not the government, that in effect declared the banks undercapitalised. And while market indicators of distrust in banks - such as the interest rates on bank bonds and the prices of bank credit-default swaps - have fallen somewhat in recent weeks, they're still at levels that would have been considered inconceivable before the crisis.

As a result, the odds are that the financial system won't function normally until the crucial players get much stronger financially than they are now. Yet the Obama administration has decided not to do anything dramatic to recapitalise the banks.

Can the economy recover even with weak banks? Maybe. Banks won't be expanding credit any time soon, but government-backed lenders have stepped in to fill the gap. The Federal Reserve has expanded its credit by US$1.2 trillion (S$1.8 trillion) over the past year; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become the principal sources of mortgage finance. So maybe we can let the economy fix the banks instead of the other way around.

But there are many things that could go wrong.

It's not at all clear that credit from the Fed, Fannie and Freddie can fully substitute for a healthy banking system. If it can't, the muddle-through strategy will turn out to be a recipe for a prolonged, Japanese-style era of high unemployment and weak growth.

Actually, a multi-year period of economic weakness looks likely in any case. The economy may no longer be plunging, but it's very hard to see where a real recovery will come from. And if the economy does stay depressed for a long time, banks will be in much bigger trouble than the stress tests - which looked only two years ahead - are able to capture.

Finally, given the possibility of bigger losses in the future, the government's evident unwillingness either to own banks or let them fail creates a heads-they-win- tails-we-lose situation. If all goes well, the bankers will win big. If the current strategy fails, taxpayers will be forced to pay for another bailout.

But what worries me most about the way policy is going isn't any of these things. It's my sense that the prospects for fundamental financial reform are fading.

Does anyone remember the case of Mr H. Rodgin Cohen, a prominent New York lawyer whom The Times has described as a 'Wall Street eminence grise'? He briefly made the news in March when he reportedly withdrew his name after being considered a top pick for the post of deputy Treasury secretary.

Well, earlier this week, Mr Cohen told an audience that the future of Wall Street won't be very different from its recent past, declaring: 'I am far from convinced there was something inherently wrong with the system.' Hey, that little thing about causing the worst global slump since the Great Depression? Never mind.

Those are frightening words. They suggest that while the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration continue to insist that they're committed to tighter financial regulation and greater oversight, Wall Street insiders are taking the mildness of bank policy so far as a sign that they'll soon be able to go back to playing the same games as before.

So, as I said, while bankers may find the results of the stress tests 'reassuring', the rest of us should be very, very afraid.

NEW YORK TIMES