Neo-Sun-tze’s Crystal Ball

Singapore’s Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan was speaking to CNA during the US Vice President’s visit to Singapore on 23^rd August.

He cautions Chinese not too be too carried away with the belief that the US’s decline is inevitable, and China would soon be the No 1 power of the world. He says because of its ability to attract migrants, the US has had a much bigger talent base than China’s.

That might be the case in the past, but does it hold true in the future?

I reckon as much as 20% of the US talent pool comprises Chinese from China and Chinese from many other parts of the world, particularly Southeast Asia. In the wake of the perceived hostility towards China and Chinese, I suspect this flow will run its course soon. Russia may also account for 5% of this talent pool. I doubt this flow will sustain either. And when support for the great universities and think tanks in the US becomes thinner, will their rejuvenation of great minds be as prolific as now?

And I do not mean to be racist – with the constant influx of economic refugees, the average IQ will certainly be impacted, at least during their first generation’s struggle to find their livelihood bearings. I also argue that there is a kind of Wisdom DNA that is unique to East Asian culture. If there is such a thing as Wisdom Quotient (WQ) score, then America’s in this score will likely also trend down. The latter represents cultural progress and is something that is not easy to reverse. It is a generational effort which, in a society like America’s (huge diversity in race and race, great disparity in income, etc), is close to impossible.

My son is a professor in Neurology; he publishes quite widely, often in world-class journals. Before the pandemic, he travelled several times a year to speak in international and regional conferences. Unfortunately, he does not write or speak Chinese, save for some Hokkien (South Fujianese dialect). I recently sent him some of the articles I have blogged. It carried a subtle message that maybe it is time for him to know China and our Chineseness. This is what he responded to me:

“In our professional circles, there is often unease about our colleagues from Mainland China. They publish tons of papers, often of very poor quality. They tell you that they have 100K neurologists, but struggle to get in <2K participants to a major international neuro conference (after roping in scores of their students). There is often a lack of sincerity, which I can give you examples of in private. (BTW, I do not think this has much to do with my inability to communicate in Mandarin).”

I can fully understand his contempt for his counterparts from China. My son’s scholarship is strictly Western’s, that is, at the highest level of research, ideas must be original, and plagiarism is strictly NO-NO.

Until it was exposed to the West, China had no real concept of Master’s or PhDs. If one was admitted to the Hanlin Academy after he had scored well in the imperial examinations, he would continue to do lifelong “research” and rise in hierarchical grades and enjoy lifelong emoluments and trappings of office. Much of this research was to correct bad learnings and build new knowledge and attitudes. There is therefore a very fundamental philosophical difference between Western research and Chinese scholarship.

Imperial scholarship was still practised during the Qing era. However, when the Chinese republic was born in 1912, there was already a sizeable pool of students returning from Japan, Europe and America who were equipped with modern concepts of higher education. Unfortunately, between the 1912 and 1990, when Deng’s reform started to take roots, scholarship in China was in a very fluid state. The last thirty years marked a period of extreme anxiousness to catch up. Those who understood the importance of “degrees” began to clamour for higher recognition. Hence all the plagiarism in China.

Fundamental research is still not widespread in China. Instead, the mindset is largely a “build-on” one – you have an idea, good, I will use it to bring out a product or service from it. Many do not believe in “wasting” time on fundamental research efforts.

But I believe the Chinese government is already aware of this Chinese innateness. From the Intellectual Property Protection laws to anti-trust measures, you can see its determination to bring China to a different plane.

Changing cultural traits is usually a generational effort. Fortunately, the present line-up of Chinese leadership has the benefit of civilizational wisdom to take early cognizance of this need. This will make the change process shorter. This inculcation is already reflected in the corporate culture of Huawei. And the wrong trend that is being exhibited by the likes of Jack Ma has been nipped in the bud before it becomes a source of cancer. One thing good about Chineseness, Jack Ma and his likes have now “understood” the overall mission of the Chinese leaders and are happy to rein in their “law-unto-themselves” ambitions to help China progress.

Hua Chunying is the modern-day Hua Mulan of China. Her greatness is not in battles but in the press room of the ministry. Her remark about democracy is so commonsensical, yet few of the politicians in the West understand or want to understand. She says, “Yes, Coca-Cola tastes the same everywhere, But democracy is not Coca-Cola; it has to be specific for each country.” This is what I call a perfect score in WQ.

Can’t the West learn some WQ stuff from the East?