Anecdotes Archives

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.

Maundy Thursday 2025

Today is the night before Good Friday when we commemorate the last supper that Jesus had with His disciples. And interestingly the Chinese name for this day refers more to the washing of the disciple’s feet.

In the church I attend, the message preached focused on Jesus’ warning to Peter in Luke 22:31-34. Peter had imagined his faith in God to be much more than he eventually was able show with his actions. But the comforting words from Jesus was:

“But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭32‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Peter’s faith faltered but eventually did not fail. He returned to the Lord and was restored. I thought deeply about what Peter went through that night.

He said he was ready to go to prison and even to death with Jesus in verse 33, so what went wrong? Peter was not short of courage, he trusted in Jesus’ power and might. He was ready to fight that night at Garden of Gethsemane so much so the gospel of John recorded that Peter took arms and struck the ear of the servant of the high priest.

But what was probably shocking to Peter was that Jesus called out his violent response. In John 18, it was recorded after Peter injured the servant.

So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”
‭‭John‬ ‭18‬:‭11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

And in Luke 22, Jesus reportedly said “Permit even this.”

Yes, the same Man whom the disciples marveled at when the storm was calmed at sea, now effectively says “let them have me” without putting up any fight at all. It is exactly another moment when the disciples would be thinking “Who is this? Who would respond to the treachery with such calmness? Who would respond to such corruption with love and grace? Whom have we chose to follow and what are we bringing upon ourselves?”

Peter’s thoughts about his faith in Jesus probably just vanished before him. Can he go to prison with Jesus and even death without putting up a fight? Will he submit himself to the enemies the way Jesus did?

Unlike most disciples who fled, Peter followed Jesus and his captors. Peter tried to figure out what they were doing to him and find chance to be of use or help. He actually was braver than any of them. But when confronted about being a disciple of Jesus, he denied. There was fear for sure, and he must have been so overwhelmed by the night’s event. But more significantly, he probably wasn’t so sure if he was a follower of Jesus anymore. The denial of Jesus perhaps wasn’t about a moment of weakness but a sense of loss. But it was needed for Peter to discover what he actually had been placing his faith on instead of the Lord he had thought he was following.

So when the rooster crowed and reminded Peter of what Jesus had said, he was probably jolted back to his senses but not before being filled with shame, despair and utter helplessness. He wept bitterly.

Peter would eventually return to Jesus. In John 21 when John told him Jesus was the one at the shore, Peter immediately jumped into the water to swim towards the shore. And sure enough Jesus restores him and calls him to encourage the brethren (“feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep”).

Our faith will be tested again and again; what is the basis of what we believe and how far are we going to lead our lives premised on God’s word and promises? Only time and our lives will tell; but it is more for us to know and respond and to learn to return to God each time.

Trade-offs rather than solutions

Tom Bilyeu posted something insightful on Linkedin a few days ago that’s worth mulling over. He said, “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.”

And that the belief in a perfect solution can cap your growth as it paralysed you from making decisions as you wait for the perfect solution to come by. It may also be just because you are endlessly searching thinking that the ideal solution will emerge.

Yet when we do chance upon some things, we do recognise them as solutions. I realised that this is because we have priorities in most settings and it is the priorities that determine what we value more and what we value less. The trade-offs then allows us to exchange things that are less valued for things that are more valued. The ability to do so increases the overall value and hence becomes a ‘solution’.

There may be times when the things being traded off against are both valued – and then it takes that strategic mind, one that is able to look into different versions of the future to try and determine which elements in the trade-off is more important and would have lasting impacts.

Ultimately, there is no way one can navigate life and decision-making without the ability to prioritise things. If we see everything as equally important, we suffer from the plight of Buridan’s Donkey and never get anything done.

Strategy and the Greeks

I was watching Carl Sagan’s explanation of how the Greeks knew that the earth was spherical and how Eratosthenes (then head librarian of Alexandria) calculated the circumference of the Earth without even leaving his home country. It’s a brilliant one worth watching:

Brilliant men in the past would have mastered astronomy, geometry, and mathematics and played the role of military strategists. The ability to make observations in nature and draw interpretations were essential to determine the approach on the battlefield.

Yet, today, with technologies supporting the interpretation of observations and supplying multitude of information to leaders, there’s less of a need for the ‘strategist’. Rather, the tasks of looking and interpreting the various information is decentralised and the information comes together already processed for decision-making.

In such a world, we use resources to displace thinking. Eratosthenes will have to pit his wits against the rocket ships, satellites and scientists with funds for expedition who will say that his calculation yields a figure which is ~2.5% off the mark.

The role of strategic thinking has diminished in importance in the societies which are highly developed and well-resourced. Every now and then, someone comes from seemingly nowhere and overcome an incumbent with all the position, and the resources. A David and Goliath story. In many ways, DeepSeek is an example of that; especially when put in contrast with Sam Altman’s response to a question from an audience at a talk where he said that any worthy competitor to OpenAI will have to invest massive resources and datasets to train another LLM to achieve the prowess of ChatGPT.

I think we need to go back to a culture that appreciates strategic thinking and this sort of brilliance. And believe once again that it isn’t just about resources and overwhelming others with abundance. For those who feels limited by their resources, let the ability to think strategically provide a channel and means to defeat the giants.

Innovation and commercialisation

How should research funding be assessed? What makes good spending on research? Should it be about patents filed? Or about the number of significant breakthroughs per dollar spent? How about revenues generated from licensing a technology? Or royalties on the patent? Is that really the best way?

What if a drug that could save many lives was discovered? But then it would take much more investment to get the drug tested and so on? What if the research funding itself wasn’t able to get innovation through to the stage where commercialisation would be successful?

The original question was really hard. And one of the things that my research into intellectual property rights regime revealed is that it never was about the patents system or the risk capital that drove innovations. Often, it’s merely the ability to disclose and disseminate information, especially knowledge that would otherwise have been kept a secret, that would have helped push an overall system towards being more innovative.

After all, the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain during a period when their intellectual property rights were terrible, and a patent was mainly used as a form of marketing rather than a way to achieve a monopoly.

So when National Research Foundation or even our A*STAR tries to properly steward taxpayers money by trying to figure out how to spend research funding wisely, they might want to take note that true innovation is the goal of the spending, and not so much the commercialisation value. The need to enforce some kind of ‘commercialisation’ target could very well destroy the very foundation and philosophical underpinnings of research and discovery. The reason government funding is needed is precisely because the market is unable to offer that same kind of funding directed to those activity – so to demand ‘market discipline’ from those activities will bring us back to square one. The underprovision of innovation and hence market failure. Only this time, it is the government who fails.

Capital’s bargaining power

Recently a friend and I was working on some business ideas. We were thinking through scenarios where smart people come up with great business ideas or business models that can generate impressive returns but require capital to do. If the capital markets work perfectly for the specific risk profile of the business (assume that it can be assessed correctly), then all capital should only be able to demand the market rate of return on capital.

We ran some simulations on this. To simplify the whole business and risk, we assume it is a very low-risk infrastructure project that returns constant cashflow across 10 years, one year after the initial cash injection. A project that can bring in >27%, when raising all of its funds from a capital owner, should be split 60-40 if the market hurdle rate is at ~12% for that risk and tenure. This means that though the capital holder is financing 100% of the project, he needs to give up 40% share of the returns to the ones who structured and pulled the project together.

Now, when the project returns rises to 33% over 10 years; and the market hurdle rate remains at 12%, then the capital holder needs to give up 49% share. This means that if the project that the smart guys are able to put together can return more than 33%, then the capital owner needs to give up more than 50% of the returns even though he is contributing 100% of the upfront capital. This is a hard bargain for the ‘entrepreneurs’ organising the resources to strike with capital holders.

This is perhaps how the Thomas Piketty argument about the relative bargaining power of capital gets played out. At the same time, capital can afford to be more patient because the cost of upkeeping capital isn’t as high as trying to upkeep a living person with the wits and capabilities to develop all the ideas and organise the resources. And because capital is more ‘tangible’ and ‘calculative’, it can keep forcing all kinds of cost upon labour side of the equation. In this blog post, labour basically includes the ‘entrepreneurial’ elements as well that is typically somewhat associated with capital.

This is where debt comes in. Instead of getting a co-investor, the project entrepreneur should be able to borrow to finance the project. And the debt tenure can be shorter. A simple solution could be to take out a 4-year debt at 7% interest; this would require the entrepreneur to sacrifice 85% of the project cashflow for the first 4 years, in exchange for the rest of the project’s cashflow. Technically, when structured as a debt, the market interest rate should be lower than the market hurdle rate. Yet because the ‘project’ is new and may not have a sufficient track record, financiers may demand collateral and other risk-management tools to enhance the credit standing. Technically, when structured as a debt, the market interest rate should be lower than the market hurdle rate. Yet because the ‘project’ is new and may not have a sufficient track record, financiers may demand collateral and other risk-management tools to enhance the credit standing. This means that the entrepreneur would have to give out more than he needs to reduce the risks of the capital holder further despite the risk profile of the project.

So, the entrepreneur who does not have any capital to contribute will be seen as having a mouth-watering return since there isn’t any ‘capital at risk’ for the entrepreneur, but the reality is that there is some opportunity cost. Yet if the entrepreneur’s salary is built into the project returns, then he doesn’t have the ‘opportunity cost’. The extra upside would be his ‘supernormal return’.

March to mediocrity

The challenge of industrialising some kind of process, expecting things to move in a “business as usual” fashion is that it tends to decline towards mediocrity. There would be people expecting to just pick up how to do things once and then coast to keep things as status quo.

Yet the issue is less to do with this group than the leadership. Leaders who try to tighten things ad hoc rather than develop a culture of continuous improvement will discourage staff from improving themselves but instead see improvement as being able to guess what the boss wants. Yet if we are unable to see the mission of the organisation, only the boss, then the march stops when the boss is gone.

And the march towards mediocrity starts when leadership becomes weak and is formed from previous generations of followers who never learnt how to drive the mission independently.

When oil saved the environment

In Seth Godin’s new book, This is Strategy for, he had a chapter (the book has over 200 chapters, all of them short and highly readable) on killing whales.

He documented the rise of the whale-hunting industry in the 1800s where sperm whales were hunted down for their blubber. The activity was both dangerous and lucrative because a single sperm whale’s blubber could yield many barrels of lamp oil. The demand for lighting onshore and offshore fueled the whaling activity.

For a time to the mid 1850s, it seemed like they could just go on and hunt sperm whales to their extinction. Yet the earth today still has sperm whales. Thanks to the discover of petroleum and hence the advent of keroscene used in oil lamps. The cost of keroscene was much more competitive than lamp oil made from whale blubber and the petroleum industry was also costing less human lives.

Climate solutions that displace fossil fuels would need to achieve cost reductions to scale. But we could all inprove their chances by removing fossil fuel subsidies and pricing carbon. Of course, that will “hurt” the cost of living for many people. But if we think about it at system level, it is more about a sort of attachment to the current status quo of how we value different things, and refusing to change that.

I don’t think we could derive any sort of moral authority from the market to say we’re producing something that destroys our future because it is cheaper. We may not have a future to spend that surplus savings on. At the system level, we will have to help one another cope with changes.

Zacharias’ faith

It’s Christmas season so reading Luke 1 is both timely and revisiting old stories we thought we already knew sometimes bring about new perspectives.

One of the things that moved me from this season’s series of messages at my church was about Zacharias’ faith. Angel Gabriel visited him during his duties at the temple and became mute because of his unbelief. The lack of faith in what God was about to do in His and Elizabeth’s life was apparent in the sense that he was already witnessing the revelation from an angel himself and yet he was skeptical about the birth of his son happening at all (Luke 1:18).

Yet on the eighth day after John’s birth, Zacharias demonstrated his faith by writing on the tablet to those around him that the baby’s name is John. That seemingly trivia act was really important because it was the combination of everything that happened since the incident at temple. In putting down the baby’s name as John, he submitted himself to God’s plan for John the Baptist and, hence, the rest of his life. In having a son at his old age; and experiencing Elizabeth’s conception of John at an old age, he was witnessing a miracle. More than that, his wife Elizabeth must have conveyed to him the encounter with Mary and the fact that her baby was moved somehow in the presence of Mary and her baby.

Zacharias took all of these in, and gradually worked on his faith to this point when John was about to be circumcised. His name is John – those four words on the writing tablet, meant so much more than just the name of a baby.

The life and ministry of John the Baptist says a lot about God’s work and the earlier prophecies but it also reflected the faith of Zacharias and Elizabeth. They would have had to prepared John for that future ministry though they probably would not have grasp the full extent of how important it was. The life that John the Baptist came to live, was also testifying of his father’s faith.