2009 May « Cheng’s Corner

	Malaysia	Singapore
Prime Minister	Bachelor’s degree in industrial economics, University of Nottingham [1]	Master of Public Administration, Harvard University
		Diploma in Computer Science, University of Cambridge (equivalent to a Master’s degree)
		BA (First Class Honors), University of Cambridge [2]

Deputy Prime Minister	Bachelor’s degree in Economics and Malay Studies, University of Malaya [3]	(1) MBA, London Business School
		BA (Hons), University of Singapore
		Diploma in Business Administration, University of Singapore [4]

		(2) Master of Science (Computing Science), Imperial College of London
		Bachelor of Science (First Class Honors), UMIST [5]

Minister for Finance	Bachelor’s degree in industrial economics, University of Nottingham [1]	Master of Public Administration, Harvard University
		MPhil (Economics), University of Cambridge
		BSc (Economics), London School of Economics [6]

Minister for Education	Bachelor’s degree in Economics and Malay Studies, University of Malaya [3]	Master in Medicine (Surgery), National University of Singapore
		M.B., B.S., National University of Singapore [7]

Minister for Defence	PhD in Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia	Master of Science (Computing Science), Imperial College of London
	BA, University of Malaya [8]	Bachelor of Science (First Class Honors), UMIST [5]

Minister for Foreign Affairs	Bachelor’s degree in “philosophy, economics and law”, University of Buckingham [9]	MBA, Harvard Business School
		MEng and BA, University of Cambridge [10]

Source:

Do you believe in fate and destiny? Some believe fate is pre-determined, hence logical determinism will run its course, and we just have to live along. Some believe spontaneity plays a part in the course of determination, that one’s decision over time will pre-dominantly determine eventual outcome.

It is very tempting for one to delve into such philosophical a topic and find the answer. More often than not, however, one gets lost along the way, leaving oneself worse off than before one began. Moreover, it might be that one need not understand such a topic to live a good life.

Some thoughts have led me to the latter conclusion. Many people figured correctly that I like to get philosophical. However the truth is that I am not good at philosophy. My reasoning ability, contrary to public opinion, is basic at best. Conviction, rather than strict reasoning, drives me more often than not. Whether by course of nature or deliberate action, my efficiency in learning has been slowly declining.

However, I have no fear to reading. I do know that I can always better myself, albeit slowly over time.

Now, compare the down factors and the up factors. It is immediately obvious that, if length counts, odds are against my favor. I have no luck.

But reading can do many good things. First of all, by reading others’ works, I can let others think for me. I do not have to go through the same painful process of expending much energy to get the same conclusion and corollary. Secondly, reading begets reading. Reading a material, one inevitably comes across pointers that say “there is such and such a work worth exploring further.” Going after that work, one will find pointers again. And so forth.

Of course going after the pointers requires effort. Sprints won’t do. Marathon is the key. It is easy to exhibit interest in reading, but hard to maintain. Being slow is not an impediment in reading. Knowledge compounds. One maintains his pace, and invariably he will understand more and more over time. The process is geometrical, not linear. And that is a big plus.

And so is accumulating capital. Knowledge is but one form of capital. In a monetized economy, one needs a commodity known as money to purchase material needs, so money is important. However money is not everything. Many people had basic understanding concerning this tenet, but not profound understanding.

The best way to achieve such profound understanding is reading and thought. There is no substitute I can think of.

But are reading and thinking substitutes? To some extent I think so. Reading reduces one’s need to think intensely. However, “annealing” is always up to oneself.

On another note, I can’t help but be skeptical about my ability to predict the future. How I would thought such and such things happened within the span of a year? In this respect, I must demonstrate no symphathy for extensive forecasting.

However, comparing present situations of different parties is useful. One needs only existing information, not conjectures. Discrepancy between the situations signals the need for action or inaction, depending on the case.

One very good application of this technique is Ben Graham’s “margin of safety” principle. One needs to ascertain not future performance but present states. Note though, that the current situation incorporates conjecture. Again applying the principle, the key is conservatism. Conservatism is the “discrepancy” concerned. Generally, the greater the discrepancy the better.

Which brings us back to the question whether to delve into “philosophy”. Though not exceptionally good at reasoning, basic logic applied well goes a long way. Reading helps, so does compounding. These are excellent leverage, and one can use those to his advantage.

You might wonder why I painted such a gloomy picture. The truth is (now I’m speaking about the truth, hmm) it is always a good policy to know one’s limit and stay within the boundary. Pushing one’s limit is good, but going over it is not. Confusion of the two brings disaster most of the time. I can’t help but be wary of preachers that declare there is no limit to what one can do.

Cheng’s Corner – 钟氏角落

Archive for May, 2009

Two Cabinets Side by Side

Some Thoughts

Sister Blog

Archives

a

Meta

Spam Blocked