The World As I See It

The first thing, I was not saying that corruption is good. Of course efficiency is at the maximum, ceteris paribus, when corruption level is negligible. I was avoiding being too idealistic. It is better to have a corrupted graft-tolerant leader who understands the working of an economy and implement policies in a right direction than a saint-like moralist who actually demolishes the economy when he thinks he is building it. You want an ideal leader - an uncorrupted man with proper development knowledge. You also want a sweet situation where we can raise most of the money internally for tremendous growth with minimal foreign debt when the starting point of the country was so low. In my view (and in Singapore’s experience), we grow the economic pie first, let the people make money, afford their basic needs, and we tackle the equity problems afterwards - one of them being eliminating corruption. But instead, you turned around and said that I only have textbook knowledge with no regard to the real world happenings. I was speechless.

Is there a textbook advocating what I said? Do you ever see in a textbook: under some circumstances we should tolerate some level of corruption? No! But does it render textbooks useless in the real world? A BIG NO!!! My point is that, those who espouse textbook principles are not necessarily impractical, and that I have covered much more accounts of real country experiences than you have and am likely to be much more practical in evaluating policies than you think you are. Textbooks expound ideal cases and widely-accepted wisdoms, you and I know this. The reason for them being labelled as accepted is because they are backed by, firstly, solid theoretical foundation and, secondly, by innumerable undisputable country experiences over time. Isn’t it obvious if we design policies and run a country as close to a textbook situation as possible, we can reap the greatest benefit? Look at how economic principles have guided Singapore through miraculous development. In my view, it is rather close to your ideal - a clean and strong leader, with his remarkable economic advisers comprising Dr Goh Keng Swee, who recruited Goh Chok Tong, Professor Lim Chong Yah and Albert Winsemius from the United Nations, to name a few, as the architects of Singapore’s economy.  I still fail to figure out what makes you see textbooks as irrelevant to the world we live in.

Incidentally, It reminds me of your country’s unripe condition for democracy. If the median voter is one with the understanding at your level, it is likely the election is going to vote out a much needed leader. And voters are bringing the nation to collective suicide. But of course that is a harsh assumption. I should not presuppose the general situation of the people when I have totally no knowledge on it. And you are still young, it is just natural that you still do not possess the field of vision. You may ask, what makes me think I am more superior. Yes, unashamedly among my peers, I am aware of the gap in scope and depth on the issues of development and underdevelopment, and of running a country. But I am also aware that I still have a lot a lot a lot to learn. That’s why you don’t see me discuss these issues with friends. I usually smile away or joke around when someone opines a view. And many do have a disturbing penchant for voicing views vociferously on economic policies to expose their low level of understanding. I have grown wiser not to debate with those who are even perplexed by such basic statements like "The freest markets are the most well-regulated ones", "Fast growth inevitably brings inflation problem", "Productivity growth is the fundamental determinant of living standard" etc. Often they would request for explanation from the first principle, which should happen in a lecture hall, not a debate. One that does not have adequate knowledge and does not have self-awareness to realise this does not know what he talks. They think you move from your own assumption to another when in fact you are stating other researchers’ well-known conclusions - conclusions from mountains of empirical evidence. And you see I treat my discussion with Professor Lim Chong Yah differently, seriously, studiously. I only share my knowledge with you, my peer, because I see you as worthy of an enlightenment effort in the first place.

Finally, one of your remarks "Do you think, because of your Minor in Economics, you are more knowledgeable than I am in this area?" The mere question reveals our different paths towards our education. Crudely, you regard the syllabus as a constraint while I see it as a door to further research - which partly explains my total disregard for grades. So my answer to that question is "No, I don’t think because of my Minor in Economics, I am more knowledgeable than a layman in economics", not because I am not a Major in Economics, nor a Professor in Economics, but because the title to me is only a name, a form. What I care about is the substance. I read the modules for the big picture, for the knowledge that I can gain as a first step to read other researchers’ works, to engage in fruitful discussions, to further understand the real world issues - NOT FOR EXAM. And since you have already known my approach to my education (as opposed to schooling), it puzzled me that you still asked me this question.