Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Juggernaut: A book this government would wish you avoid

Just finished plowing through more than 500 pages of  "Juggernaut"; a book that explains Singapore like no other. I would judge this as one of the most important book I have read this year. It was a timely read. Written for an American audience about America and yet paradoxically could not be more relevant to us.

There is no mention of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew or the PAP in this book, but it will explain the hows and whys of Singapore most lucidly. We are often told that we are price takers. Yes, that is how what happened elsewhere is transmitted to Singapore. LKY had chosen for us to emulate the US as much as possible without losing our Asianess. That's why this book is pertinent. It is also why even some quarters in America admires us so much, and with it accolades from other parts of the world especially China.

But we could never sustain the system LKY has bequeathed us, and this book explains why. First the task gets harder and so the talent needed to be brought to bear becomes more difficult to find. Additionally it is impossible to avoid moral decay and we can see it in some of the candidates that were selected on the PAP ticket. It is very  much like playing ping pong against the wall. You could never win. All these means we are fated as a matter of time to become like the rest of the world. GE 2011 marks the transition although the change has been in gestation for perhaps up to two decades before.

The most realistic hope for Singapore is that the WP becomes the PAP that had not lost its way. It can be done because it will be working off a fresh moral slate. If we succeed, perhaps the author would visit us and rewrite his badly written last fifth of the book: his recommendation for America. This is a very tall order.

If you read this book, you will realize that Tony Tan doesn't know what he was talking about when he said that our best days are still ahead of us. He ought to read this book and get a jolt. But why should he care? Because if his family is more equal than the rest of us, according to "Juggernaut", he wouldn't be interested. Instead he would be keen that we do not read this book!

A now a word regarding Tan Jee Say's economic plan from the lens of "Juggernaut". It wouldn't work and in fact will make things worse in a hurry! We are living in a global system where fairy tales are fluke events, something which to his credit LKY understood better than most. If you want fairy tales, watch Disney. By all means encourage such stories to become reality, but don't try to create them unless you are a person of godly faith, and by God's grace you have been called to this special task to prolong the life of civilization because its time isn't up yet.

Now, what is the simplest way to describe this somewhat philosophical book? Let's just say Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad was completely familiar with its ideas minus the big words and concepts. He had a practical understanding of the whole thing.














A sample of some of the passages I highlight/make notes for myself from the book:

Reads like life in Singapore!

The path is paved for the opportunist in a way that it is not for the considerate. All he has to do is follow the crowd—go to the most esteemed school, take the most highly regarded classes, undertake the most salable extracurricular activities, interview for the big-name corporations, and climb their ladder as everyone would expect.


Morse, Eric Robert (2010-12-14). Juggernaut: Why the System Crushes the Only People Who Can Save It (p. 179). New Classic Books. Kindle Edition

LKY will tell you can't be help, he feels sorry that it has to happen. His son the PM will say, "leave no one behind" The author was explaining it is impossible to be an idealist. Fairy tales are uncommon.

Realpolitik is Machiavellian in that it is a pragmatic approach that works in securing the most good for the most people, notwithstanding the few who lose out in the equation, which is regrettable but acceptable nonetheless. (p. 232)

i.e., you haven't got a choice, and it is like LKY said.

change that occurred was in the necessity of competition. Whereas it had always been possible to decline struggle, now it was obligatory. (p. 232)

What happens when bring in foreigners to compete with us. Of course they don't need to be here to compete.

is assumed that anyone with a will to work should be able to find a job or in some way produce what people need and thus accumulate enough money to survive and thrive in the modern economy. But, as we have seen, in a closed system there are as many instances of failure as there are of success. If a number of individuals employ winning strategies in their actions, a number of individuals will employ losing strategies equaling the former in scope. (p. 234)

We ain't got a market system that works anything like what our leaders explain to us OK! Very close to us, the unequal bargain power between you and your employer. Remember Roman Tham's song?

that a market system in a closed economy is not really a market system at all. Without the free choice of individuals, the economy cannot be one of Capitalism, but rather what might be called ‘Vulgar Capitalism’, or an economy which appears to be made of men negotiating and making free trades with one another but which is in reality made up of a strict hierarchy of masters over servants, as it was in feudal times. (p. 269)

Well we have dividends from Temasek Holdings....

thought was that, as long as some small clique of elites was going to run the show, it might as well be a small clique of elites that was beholden to the people. Through democratic elections, the government was that clique. (pp. 298-299)


well-being can only come with wealth. But the state, by nature, cannot produce wealth itself; it can only provide wealth by moving it around from one sector to another. In order to move wealth around, it must first take it from someone or some group, which means coercion. (pp. 309-310)

A warning from Benjamin Franklin long ago. Wonder what is in store as we approach the end of this paradigm.

In the end, however, anyone able to take a step back and judge the dilemma will come to the same conclusion that Benjamin Franklin arrived at: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” As we will see, they who are willing to give up liberty for security receive neither as well. (p. 314)

The middle class will always be squeezed regardless of what the government promises. Elsewhere they alleviate the problem with deficit spending and debasing their currencies. The rise of Opposition politics could make us become like parliaments elsewhere. Not if the WP proves themselves exceptional. LKY worries about tomorrow.

the Forgotten Man is neither poor nor weak, the philanthropic do-gooders hardly notice him. He is not in need, so they need not concern themselves with him. The result is almost always that they end up taking advantage of him. “He will be found to be worthy, industrious, independent, and self-supporting. He minds his own business, and makes no complaint. Consequently,” Sumner adds, “the philanthropists never think of him, and trample on him (p. 354)

Doesn't the feedback we provide end up the same way the Americans give to their government too? Eventually in a different guise, we might also have our special interest groups monopolizing government.

In short, the town hall meetings were not geared toward communicating the people’s will to the politicians; they were organized to make the people feel like they had a voice even though they did not. (p. 398)

-->

No comments:

Post a Comment