Category Archives: Anecdotes

Crowding out

In economics, there is this concept of crowding out when government spending drives out private sector spending because it soaks up available financial capital and drives up interest rates.

In Singapore, I think there is some kind of political and psychological crowding out. We have grown to be a hyper-meritocratic society and we are proud of it, believing that it is the best way of organising ourselves and our systems. And we rarely talk about the injustice perpetuated by the system because we don’t want to undermine this part of the cultural fabric.

Yet we are confronted with the reality of inequality in the society, where students from underprivileged families are expected to be measured and assessed equally before an examination in school with their peers who had better backgrounds and well-resourced parents, tutors and even siblings. How do we respond to that? Do we just say, the system will take care of it?

In many other societies, private charities, foundations and many other organisations step in to help. In Singapore, we almost think that it should be the government’s role. How many of us would think it is a gap worth bridging? How many of us, would think it’s the problem of school teachers, and try to load it on to the public service?

During PM Wong’s National Day Rally speech this year, he talked about some ground-up initiatives and community organisations, giving great examples of how we want to nurture the Singapore Spirit and encourage Singaporeans to step forward to shape the character of our society. He acknowledged that the government cannot force or direct this, but to encourage, recognise and celebrate.

And then he talked about this tension between the government and the people sector:

In many countries, you see such ground-up collective actions because the governments are not working, the governments are ineffective. So people are frustrated at the lack of action and progress. And they step forward to take matters into their own hands.

Singapore is in a different position. No one wants the government to do less. No one wants the government to become ineffective. Instead, we strive to be more efficient and responsive. And there are areas where we believe the government can and should do more – especially to provide stronger social support for those in need.

But it is not just about what the government does – and we certainly do not want to end up as a society where people rely solely on the government. It is about all of us – government, businesses, workers and unions, community groups and civil society – doing our part. All coming together for the good of Singapore and our fellow citizens. And moving forward together as one.

I think there will never be a straightforward way to demarcate, ‘this is the government’s job, this is private organisations’ job, this is the community’s role’. In many societies, cooperatives and community organisations provide many services – especially in more rural regions.

These organisational forms and structures could supplant and take up ‘market space’ (as new businesses may not be able to compete or provide similar services commercially since these organisations are already providing them effectively), or even ‘political space’ because government cannot claim credit for having achieved some of those social outcomes.

As a society, thinking about the sort of soft cultural institutions and the hard organisations, we might have to decide what kind of mix we want to form a society where we all have a stake in it and not just rely on a formal government structure. The way we have developed, where people are constantly moving around, uprooting themselves to get on the property ladder, not having a particular sense of belonging to a geographical community has made it harder to foster a sense of ownership or belonging to a group. It has also encourage a lot of selfish-thinking where people are just figuring out what rules or tricks they could follow on the path to prosperity and self-enrichment.

How can we help our citizens reclaim that responsibility and stakeholdership towards the Singapore society? How can we do that in a manner that continues to maintain our unity as a nation, and strengthen our identity as Singaporeans?

Media and narratives

I used to love The Economist, and I even used to collect various articles to prescribe them to read for my students whilst I was teaching Economics at A Levels. It’s been a great influence on the way I write and approach sharing my opinion on things, and I enjoyed the dry wit and British humour, but these days I find the anti-China slant a bit uncalled for.

Take the recent report on China’s dominance in renewables. One of the article that talked about the improvement of air quality in China has the headline, ‘China’s air-quality improvements have hastened global warming’. I used to laugh at The Economist’s self-deprecating humour and when they lambasted silly but political manoeuvres of US presidents. When they try to criticise illiberal practices in China, I get it and understand the Western liberal lens that drives those considerations. However, this is a blatant low blow, a stark contrast to the highbrow approach that I would usually associate with The Economist.

The article isn’t even so much about China’s air quality but the science behind how some of the aerosols emitted by coal plants could have helped with cooling the atmosphere and how geo-engineering techniques based on that could play a role in climate change. Though latest studies suggest this will probably not be enough to cope with challenges in the shifting agriculture landscape as a result of climate change.

We are entering a new era where narratives are being distorted by English-language media, and it doesn’t help the rest of the world understand China any better.

I recall in 2018, when The Economist started a new column on China called ‘Chaguan’ (which really means Tea House in Chinese), they wanted to understand China better and to help the world do that. That hadn’t quite work.

Singapore’s 60th

I sat down and listened to the National Day Rally speech with a break in between. In terms of delivery and finding the stories to tell, I’d say Lawrence Wong did well. He also positioned the 4G team well, and to a large extent, it almost feels like political campaigning. The election results this year have shown a good amount of trust in the PAP government and reduced tolerance for weak opposition candidates. So I’d expect that the ruling government would lead confidently and start working on rolling out a vision.

I think the elements of vision involve more of the old playbook, unfortunately: another committee to work on the economy, more new towns and spaces earmarked to be developed, and then programme funding or tweaks to support Singaporeans, in terms of reskilling or upskilling.

There’s this common thread that Lawrence Wong seem to have been emphasizing, but I’m not sure I observe much of it on the ground. He seems to be recognising that general sense that the government had been dominating decision-making, and so there are generally more attempts to involve the people, to gather feedback, or to listen in. If that was his diagnosis about the sentiments, it is correct. It is not something to be ‘fixed’ overnight however. And it will take time to create a culture where people contribute responsibly to policy-making, and to concern themselves with the needs of the wider society.

Over the years in Singapore, there had been more individualistic attitude – because the government’s approach to just about everything involves sticks or carrots, more often than not, there’s this general attitude of ‘what’s in it for me?’ From the NDR speech, I can see Lawrence Wong urging less of that individualistic attitude, more of the ‘we’, but I wonder what are some behaviours that the government or the civil service can lead with, in order to foster and encourage that.

Experience curve pricing

So it started when I was reading Cedric Chin’s writing about Morris Chang, and then about Texas Instruments dominating semicon industry through the invention of the Learning Curve pricing. Here is a situation where a large company basically finances its product into dominance by sacrificing some early profits as they expect lower prices to generate sufficient demand to increase utilisation of their machine, improving product yield through improvements in the manufacturing process.

This enabled Texas Instruments to dominate the industry as the anticipated increase in manufacturing yield (as a result of the ‘learning curve’), enabled more aggressive pricing, pushing out competitors, increasing market share for Texas Instruments, and thereby creating more scale advantages to drive more yield improvements. This is a remarkable use of financing to use scale economies to dominate the market. Essentially, most of the digital tech companies tries to use this as a means to eventually dominate a market of their niche.

The original idea of the learning curve of course came with manufacturing, and I believe this idea was applied at the scale of the entire industry in China when it comes to solar panels, Li-on battery architecture and now probably electric vehicles. By massively subsidising the products and creating demand not just domestically but also in foreign markets, China successfully increased utilisation of their capital equipment, improved their manufacturing capabilities and cement their advantage further.

While other markets are still focused on ‘costs’ of deploying solar, or using batteries, China took a different perspective, one that was driven by manufacturing capabilities and learning curve. I believe Japan had desired such an approach as well, having been subsidising certain markets and technologies, including development of hydrogen cars as well as residential hydrogen appliances (see ENE-FARM home use fuel cell system).

Sometimes when we wonder if we are too early into the market for something, when it comes to the government that is willing to orchestrate a strategy at that sort of industrial level, one can mobilise the resources to create the future rather than wait for the right time.

Rethinking business moats

Popularised by Warren Buffett, the idea of business moats is simply some kind of persistence or stickiness in demand that businesses have, which can keep them going. Basically it is really anything that helps to reduce competition to a business. This is important in the real world though we tend to celebrate competition in economics. Business moats are actually necessary for innovation, and avoiding a race to the bottom.

Moats are largely about maintenance of a profit margin. The stronger the moat, the higher the margin would be but having a moat itself makes a lot of difference. In fact, we tend to worry in economics about moats because we think it creates high margins. That’s not always true. You could have low margins as a moat itself – because being able to keep your costs low would keep competitors at bay. The point of moats is more about the persistence of the margin.

The most significant problem with competition is that you are in a dynamic environment that keeps you on your toes. Now you may think that is a good thing. But if we keep having to compete with competitors who are just diverting your customers easily through one-off gimmicks and popping up in different places, dislodging your margins here and there, it is not going to make a significant dent in your profits, but it certainly takes up your attention and ability to consider longer-term growth and innovation.

It is such long-term thinking that a business moat creates, which can support the maturing of a system. Yes, other institutional factors contribute to the growth and development of markets. But pure ‘perfect competition’ in the manner it is traditionally thought isn’t one of them. Many developed countries and markets have that sort of dynamism and competition. Just go to a weekday market in a mid-sized town in Africa. But that in itself does not produce the sort of progress that capitalism is touted to produce.

What underlies the success of market capitalism is ultimately the ability not just to accumulate capital but to be freed of that savage competition to engage in more medium to long-term strategic competition. And that is enabled by business moats.

Culture & Consulting

Having worked in consulting across cultures, I have begun to recognise some cultural behaviours when buying consulting across different countries and the attitudes towards consultants. Having advisors is nothing new; the monarchs of ancient times have had advisors to support them for as long as they existed. These advisors offered more than just advice, insights or knowledge that leaders did not possess (or did not think they possessed).

They offered assurances when it was scarce. Soothsaying, contrary to what people might think, actually means telling the truth; with ‘sooth’ being an old English term that meant truth, as opposed to ‘soothe’, which means to calm. And the advisors also provided perspectives that during times of wiser monarchs, could contradict the conventional wisdom or call out the folly of the leaders.

So if we distil it down to the value that consultants provide today:

  1. Knowledge of what may not be known to the client: this is when consultants are selling their expertise, and familiarity with a topic area that clients are not familiar with
  2. Assurance of a particular course of action, decision, or information: this is when the client needs something verified, checked, validated and confirmed. The confidence and conviction of the advisor matter here as well, compared to those who hide behind jargon and ‘expert lingo’.
  3. Sparing partner or challenger to ideas: consultants can be valued in bringing new perspectives, especially an outside-in view of things thereby co-creating more valuable solutions or decisions with the client.

I begin to recognise that Asian firms especially with rather paternalistic leadership tend not to use consultants the way the West use them. So for example, when it comes to knowledge, the Western clients may appreciate specific subject matter expertise that comes through years of experience and in-depth research. In contrast, Eastern clients may value knowledge of implicit/unwritten local rules and norms rather than expertise in a more technical subject. The more institutionalisable the knowledge set is, the less likely an Eastern client would appreciate it as worth paying for.

Western clients see assurances from consultants as important while Eastern clients prefer to take the risks of not having check through things by themselves. This might have something to do with the way trust is formed. In Asian societies where getting things verified can be read as a sign of mistrust, it is challenging to value such independent checks and perspectives. The very deed of using independent validation can almost be an insult.

Finally, when it comes to having a sparing partner, the typical harmony-loving, and conflict-avoidant Asian culture would really struggle with the idea of paying someone to challenge you. In fact, leaders might instead assert the power of their wealth/influence over people so that they would not be questioned.

In this sense, Asian cultures tend towards getting advisors who can provide knowledge that is undocumented and unavailable in the public domain, and are often independent individuals with the specific gifts of being able to reveal ‘truth’ to the client. They also prefer that the knowledge advisors gain about the client cannot be easily disseminated. And as far as possible, they only care about knowledge that cannot be institutionalised.

This means that it is incredibly challenging for most professional, western-chain consultants to survive solely from serving a pool of Asian clients. If anything, they usually have to ‘survive’ off the big multi-nationals who are growing into new, and perhaps opaque markets, or needing more capacity support. In other words, consulting has grown out of an increasingly international market, yet not overly uncertain because surely some stability is necessary for consultants to be deemed to have accumulated enough lessons and experience to share.

Random musings as I continue to build up my knowledge and capability of managing a consulting practice.

Problem-solving or answer-finding

I am a Singaporean. And one aspect about Singapore highlighted by many stories of its growth and early leaders is the notion of pragmatism. Yet I feel that this notion probably has been overplayed.

Pragmatism is used to suggest that the ends justify the means. Now within the context of school, it could mean that you can get your grades by rote memorisation as opposed to genuine learning. Or that you could simply find the right answer to copy than to solve a problem yourself on an assignment.

Same goes for the worker at work – just find the answer, don’t bother solving the problem. This may mean finding out how it was done before; or to figure out what others who had the same problem was doing. One could argue those are problem-solving heuristics. Maybe. But I call those “answer-finding”.

As a consultant, I cannot help but recall clients who are asking, “but have you done this same thing before with another client or somewhere else?” This is answer-finding, not problem-solving.

The Singapore today needs trail-blazers and problem-solvers; as it always had. But decades of overemphasizing pragmatism means we prefer to pay for answers than purchase problem-solving capacity. We desperately need to shift this culture and move towards real problem-solving than answer-finding.

Chinese translations

It’s the Easter weekend and when I do translations for church material I’d inevitably chance upon interesting ways in which the (early) Chinese believers saw things differently from the western believers or denominations. It was somewhat reflected in the manner the translations and terms showcased different aspects of the faith.

Looking into the Chinese terms also encouraged me to dig deeper into the English terms that I’ve taken for granted.

Maundy Thursday – this refers to the Thursday before Good Friday. And as it turned out, ‘maundy’ refers to the word ‘command’ in Latin and is referencing Jesus’ command to the disciples around serving one another just as He had washed their feet for them. The Chinese term was ‘濯足节’ – which focused on the feet-washing.

Good Friday – referring to the day of Christ’ crucifixion. Christians referred to it as ‘good’ as a reflection of the manner it reflected how Jesus had paid the price of death for our salvation. In Chinese however, the day is ‘耶稣受难节’ which means it’s the day of suffering for Christ. The focus was more on His suffering for us.

Easter Sunday – that is of course the day when Christ tomb appears to have been opened and his body gone. However, easter actually refers to something about spring and harvest and corresponds more to some other festival that happens to coincide with the Passover season of the Jews. In Chinese, the term is ‘复活节’ which literally means the day of resurrection, once again pointing back to the day in the gospel.

When I shared these with a church elder who was not familiar with Chinese language, nor the terms in Chinese, he was surprised and commented that the Chinese terms were pretty literal. Perhaps they are, but they are very direct and quickly points us back to the gospel too!

Trump tariffs

We live in interesting times and as an economist, I find it hard to resist commenting on the events I’m living within. I got into economics because I’ve been fascinated by trade, the amazing ability for the world to grow in production just because it is able to specialise in different things and thereby contribute to overall growth and prosperity of the world. The challenge is that being good at different things can affect how the overall increase in wealth or production is distributed. But if we care mainly about the world being able to do more together at the same time, we just want to maximise trade. On the other hand, if we care about only what we get individually, on relative terms with others, then yes, trade can get contentious, even if we are getting more on an absolute scale than if we hadn’t trade.

There is quite a couple of forces within the US economy that is generating the symptoms that we are seeing including the huge trade and budget deficits. None of them is going to be easily resolved through the use of trade tariffs. And yes indeed, there will be a need for the world system of trade, foreign reserves and financial exchanges to shift. The question of how it will shift and whether the transition is smooth or not will depend on both the actions of US and the rest of the world. Trump’s approach of bringing people to the negotiating table doesn’t make so much sense when he is simultaneously weakening his hand while trying to strike deals with multiple parties.

What that shows is a highly ego-centric or US-centric view of the world that will prove to be self-destructive. I’m not saying that the whole of US thinks or act this way but the fact that such a leader is voted into office makes things more difficult than it is. Obviously the electoral college system might need to be rethought or reformed but there’s probably too much gaming of the system that is taking place.

Back to the point about tariffs. By imposing a broad sweeping tariff system across the world, what will happen is that overall cost of living and consumption will rise in the US given how much it is dependent on imports (the deficit themselves reflect that). The goods or services where demand is more price sensitive might find themselves switching more towards domestically produced ones assuming that they exists and can be priced competitively. Otherwise, the status quo + higher tariffs will prevail. The government will maybe raise their revenue from customs but the US consumers are ultimately paying these tariffs. So on the trade front, nothing really happens, and on the government budget front, the government is probably going to get a bit more revenue to reduce their budget deficit.

If we assume that the reason for US budget deficit is that the government isn’t taxing enough relative to their spending, then it means they will have to somehow find ways to obtain more from the value that they are bringing to the markets. Perhaps it is the rule of law, or regulation of the markets, the government isn’t charging the fair amount to the beneficiaries, or allowing too much leakages (think corporates avoiding taxes or billionaires parking their returns in offshore tax havens). If we assume the richest ones are the most mobile, then applying tariffs would simply worsen the inequality situation in the US.