For some reason, the statistics of this blog is relatively filled with a particular search term from Google. The term is “Chua Soi Lek”.
I wonder why…?
Category: Politics & government
I froze for a moment when I saw a short article on Tony Pua today:
KUALA LUMPUR: In February, 35-year-old self-made Internet millionaire Tony Pua made news when he sold his Singapore Stock Exchange listed company for a full-time career in opposition politics.
Pua is a well-known name in the e-commerce industry, where his string of credentials include his being the youngest founder-CEO to have listed a company in Singapore.
But a 2005 Ernst and Young audit report recently revealed that the company, Cyber Village Sdn Bhd, may be running into difficulties, and Pua’s reputation as a corporate whizz kid, which resulted in the DAP appointing him economic adviser to secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, has been called into question. [Doubts over DAP’s economic adviser. New Straits Times. December 22 2007]
There is a little storm going on and I had somewhat contributed to it by making a comment somewhere over the internet of which Jed has taken the liberty to reproduce to support her points. The comment is about how Tony Pua is not an economist. I stand by that statement but I need make myself clear: I wrote it in a matter of fact manner. It does not in whatsoever way indicate my opinion on his management or entrepreneurship skill. Or even his ability to advise on economic matters. Indeed, anybody with a good understanding of economics would be able to advise a layperson. On top of that, a good economist may not be a good businessman, vice versa. A businessman or entrepreneur need not be a economist either, vice versa. Economics after all, is larger than the realm of business.
Regardless, he is not an economist. He qualification does not merit such honor and I have not heard him claiming to be as such either. So, I do not understand why people are insisting that Mr. Pua is an economist, or why the fact that Mr. Pua is not an economist is an issue at all.
Now, who is an economist? What does one need to do to become an economist?
To answer that, I leave you with an entry at the Free Exchange, a blog at The Economist:
WHAT exactly qualifies someone to refer to himself or herself as an economist? Having suffered through many years of graduate school, I, like many others with my training, consider someone an economist only if they too have received a PhD in the subject. I can rationalise this by believing I received special and select training; privy to the secrets of the trade imparted to me by my advisor who, in turn, also learned from the great masters. My take on the economy reeks of the university I attended and the professors with whom I worked. But then, someone, like former colleague Megan McArdle, comes along with no graduate economics work, but a terrific understanding of the field.
To refer to oneself as a medical doctor or be a member of the American Medical Association there exists clear education requirements. This prevents people from taking medical advice from someone unqualified and inflicting harm upon them. No such conditions are required to be called an economist or join the American Economic Association. This results in people who enjoy thinking about the economy, but may lack even undergraduate understanding of the field, representing themselves as experts on issues pertaining to the labour market, trade, and development. Often you have to do some digging to find out they are actually … sociologists.
The years of graduate-school seminars and rigorous mathematical training empowers PhD economists to converse with each other in a language all our own. This allows us to continue to believe that our years of education were worthwhile because we can recognize each other and sneer at the impostors. In the mean time, the rest of the world takes thoughtful advice and opinions from people who sometimes, while not having our illustrious pedigree, also have some very good ideas—and sometimes better ones. [What makes an economist? Free Exchange. October 2 2007]
Personally, unless someone is a practicing economist, I would only recognize someone as an economist if he has at least a Master’s in the field. A mere undergraduate degree does not qualify one as an economist. But to call someone with an unfocused degree such as PPE as an economist, to me, is an insult to those that have actually worked their way through the field.
Yup.
Go Ron Paul! [Ron Paul For The Republican Nomination. The Daily Dish. December 17 2007]
This is just too good to let go.
Earlier friend Howsy highlighted a discovery by Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin .Howsy aptly calls his post “Fake Merdeka Centre ‘Street Protests’ Survey: Results Produced Even Before Survey Conducted!”
Why is that so? Well, see it for yourself and be mindful of the dates (taken from Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin):
Too small? Well, the second paragraph reads:
This was revealed in a survey conducted by the Merdeka Centre between Dec 17 and Dec 21. [‘No’ to street protests. The Star. December 17 2007]
For larger view, click here.
As mentioned by Howsy, today is December 17 and if the statement in the article were true, the result would be out before it could come in! Nothing less than magic!
Go get the dead tree edition quick and parade the copy to the whole wide world. In fact, parade it to the Information Minister’s residence!
Later, perhaps realizing that the mistakes or just maybe, realizing that bloggers are feasting on The Star, they deleted the dates from the online version. The second paragraph then read:
This was revealed in a survey conducted recently by the Merdeka Centre. [‘No’ to street protests. The Star. December 17 2007]
After awhile, the paragraph was yet amended to put in new dates. Currently as of 17:00 local time, it reads:
This was revealed in a survey conducted by the Merdeka Centre from Dec 7 to 12. [‘No’ to street protests. The Star. December 17 2007]
So, is this a case of misplaced 1’s, too much spinning until the editors dazed himself up or the invention of time machine?
Just in case The Star decides to amend its article again, this is the screenshot of the article at about 17:00.
p/s — Desi followed up on the matter. The Star has yet to, however.
The US changed its mind after this was uttered (via):
We ask for your leadership. We seek your leadership. But if for some reason you’re not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way.
— Kevin Conrad, Papua New Guinea.
For background:
After two weeks of intense discussions and bitter wrangling, delegates from over 180 nations at the Bali climate summit reached agreement on a two-year “roadmap” for finding a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
The last-minute deal came on Saturday after the US delegation made a U-turn in a final negotiating session. The US had opposed a proposal by the G77 bloc, which represents developing countries, for rich nations to do more to help the developing world combat increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Paula Dobriansky, leader of the US delegation, and her colleague James Connaughton found themselves the targets of naked animosity. When Dobriansky announced that the US would not sign up for the Bali roadmap, boos echoed through the room. The Americans were sharply attacked by several delegations. “If you’re not willing to lead, please get out of the way,” said a US environmental activist representing Papua New Guinea.
Other opponents of binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as Japan or Russia, failed to come to the US delegation’s defense. Left isolated, the American delegation gave in and agreed to the roadmap. “We will go forward and join consensus,” said Dobriansky. This time the delegation was rewarded with a standing ovation from some participants. [Climate Change Deal Reached after US U-Turn. Spiegel. December 15 2007]
There still a long way to go but we are marching on to 2012. But what exactly were achieved?
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
It recognizes that “deep cuts” in global emissions will be required to prevent dangerous human interference in the climate. It references scientific reports that suggest a range of cuts between 25 and 40 percent by 2020, but prescribes no such targets itself.
DEADLINE:
Negotiations for the next climate accord should last for two years and conclude in 2009 in order to allow enough time to implement it at the end of 2012. Four major climate meetings will take place next year.
RICH AND POOR:
Negotiators should consider binding reductions of gas emissions by industrialized countries, while developing countries should consider moves to control the growth of their emissions. Richer countries should work to transfer climate-friendly technology to poorer nations.
ADJUSTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE:
Negotiators should look at supporting urgent steps to help poorer countries adapt to inevitable effects of global warming, such as building seawalls to guard against rising oceans.
DEFORESTATION:
Negotiators should consider “positive incentives” for reducing deforestation in developing countries, many of which are seeking international compensation for preserving their forest “sinks” absorbing carbon dioxide. [A Look at the Bali Climate Change Plan. Associated Press via NYT. December 15 2007]
The last point, which essentially the internalization of positive (i.e. living trees) and negative externalities (i.e. loss of carbon sink) though on theory is fantastic, in practice, pricing might be tough or even expensive if done properly. The reason is, the forest should be priced as high as the most productive activities that cause deforestation. This means that those that enjoy positive externality and suffer negative externality from forest and deforestation need not only to match returns from the timber industry but also from industries such as agriculture. This would mean the full compensation could amount to billions.
p/s — I have just realized this:
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
— Thomas Paine (January 29, 1737 — June 8, 1809)
pp/s — Or more explicitly…
[youtube]r0O7RmIsvEQ[/youtube]