Reflections on Three International Exchanges
In my undergraduate programme with the National University of Singapore (NUS)’s University Scholars Programme (USP), I had the fortune of participating in three international exchanges with amazing students from three different countries and universities.
I rediscovered some of my reflections about these experiences:
CKC-USP Summer Seminar on Strategic Leadership, Innovation and Society (with Zhejiang University)
I would like to sincerely express my gratitude and appreciate to all the professors and staff from CKC and USP who have put in much effort and time to organise and execute this seminar, which has been highly educational and insightful.
1. On leadership and leading people
As a Business student, I learnt many theories of leadership in my Organisational Behaviour module. However, it’s one thing to learn various theories on how to be a leader, and another to appreciate and fulfil the duties that come with leadership, (why should one be a leader in the first place).
This was what I learnt from Prof Bao Aimin’s first seminar. From the premise that “we are our brains”[1], Prof Bao showed how our individual fortunes, and the diversity and hierarchy of society, can be attributed to random endowments of different brain states, which is unfair. Therefore, as leaders, our duty is to “take care of those who had bad luck during brain development”[2]. Leaders thus hold their higher position only by virtue of being able to support those who are less well off. As the adage goes, “those with the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action”.
One potential solution discussed was to alter a person’s brain state, perhaps using genetic technology, thus allowing the individual to live his/her life in a way that is not societally harmful. Then again, Prof Bao raised a good point: “nature does not make ‘mistakes’, it is producing variety”. Indeed, such a top-down approach may further reinforce the manipulator(s)’s limited worldview or prejudiced beliefs, and sacrifice the beneficial variation that is the driving force of evolution, both biological and societal. We would never know if they were simply eliminated.
This ‘we are our brains’ argument also reminded me of another ‘solution’ I encountered in my WCT class on happiness — Robert Nozick’s experience machine[3]. The experience machine (perhaps advanced virtual reality and sensory technology) could help correct this natural lottery and allow all individuals to apply their brain states “to live the way he/she feels the best”[4] whilst not actually harming society.
Still, are such ‘solutions’ the answer to different brain states? Personally, I think we should uphold other virtues — that of solidarity, of compassion, of collaboration — that call for people of different brain states to be able to live together in a community, and work together to build a society that is fair and just[5].
This brought me to the larger point of whether we should, or even could, reduce ourselves to just brain states. The seminar’s professors, such as Prof Bao and Prof Wang Liming, have shared how science has advanced to the point we can explain almost everything using neuroscience, genetics and physics. That is amazing, and of course, we should not abandon such knowledge and the resultant technologies, but further investigate them to bring greater benefits to human society; as Prof Ren Kui explained, it is almost impossible, and counterproductive, to abandon the Internet, notwithstanding cybersecurity threats.
Still, as this seminar revealed, moral considerations are not keeping pace; we are not having the dialogue necessary to understand how new science and technologies fit in with the human experience and human communities. We may end up with a mechanical view of human beings — as objects to be manipulated and perfected — instead of people who have dignity, who should be respected and who should be given the opportunity to thrive, in spite of, and especially if they have, certain limiting vulnerabilities. Taking on this view risks us losing that intangible ‘human’ aspect[6].
Yes, we can be defined as our genetic code, our actions explained using physics, free will may be an illusion, and there may be no such thing as love save neurochemical reactions; but we need these ‘lies’[7]. While nature and the vast universe are not teleological, driving towards some purpose or meaning, humans are.
And this is something leaders should not forget, as cliché as it sounds: While we lead our group in attaining some objective, we must remember the people we lead are people nonetheless, each with dignity, hopes, and aspirations that need be considered. True leaders understand they lead people, not just followers.
2. On innovation by interdisciplinarians
(Courtesy of USP’s very effective marketing,) we know the conventional answer when asked about the benefits of an interdisciplinary education for innovation — integrating various perspectives into a value-added solution. This was further supported by the professors’ sharings, such as Prof Zhu Renmin’s awesome architectural designs that are both environmentally-conscious and artistic[8].
Another regular theme during the seminar is the debate between specialists and generalists. From Prof Hanry Yu’s lecture, it seems, at first glance, that innovation can only come from advanced, specialised knowledge, since everything we know has already been discovered[9]. However, because we all have limited time and energy, and learning greater breadth inevitably sacrifices depth — the depth that is needed for new discoveries — how could interdisciplinarians[10] be innovative?
Prof Ho Teck Hua gave a great answer to my concern — that interdisciplinarians are not so much the producers of new technologies, inventions and discoveries; rather, we are the connectors, the integrators, the coordinators; those who bring together these product innovations and properly direct them in such a way that they provide value; a kind of process innovation[11].
As Prof Yu shared, innovation begins from the bigger picture, from the market and its needs. Someone first needs to identify the obstacles and critical steps that are needed, before integrating the relevant competencies to realise the solution. And that someone would likely be interdisciplinarians with nous. And such nous comes from having been aware of, exposed to, and having learnt sufficient knowledge of the various disciplines that is needed to inform critical thinking and decision-making.
As seen in Prof Yu’s final slides, even scientists need to keep in mind the product commercialisation process, finance and cash flow considerations. Indeed, the number one reason startups fail is not because of the idea, but because of timing — the idea being too early or too late — as Bill Gross shared in a TED talk[12]. Knowing when the optimal time is to enter the market can only come from having a sufficient awareness of various issues — the market situation, technological competencies and social conditions of the time.
Therefore, interdisciplinarians facilitate innovation by bringing a group of people and competencies together, focusing them in the right direction, and unlocking their potential to ensure actual, high-impact innovation.
3. On an interdisciplinary education
Finally, this seminar validated my USP education. It’s a validation that goes beyond conventional utilitarian benefits[13].
The seminar highlighted the poignancy of the approach of interdisciplinary education — exposing students to various disciplines, and reconciling them into a single human being. Interdisciplinary education reminds us, every day, that there are other perspectives to consider, not just yours. By learning about them, we empathise with them. As Prof Lai Choy Heng explained, this is essential for leadership and innovation (or simply being a member of a community), since they are ultimately derived from empathy — for those whom you lead, and for the needs of the market for whom you innovate.
Indeed, failure to empathise is one reason why conflict continues to exist. As Prof Kishore Mahbubani shared in his discussion of US-China relations, misunderstandings have led to the current high-stakes geopolitical contest[14]. This failure to empathise and connect with others is also arguably one reason for continued climate change denial; the failure to properly understand the audience and communicate with them in a way they can appreciate, and reciprocate. As Prof Kang explained, the science behind climate change is highly developed and well understood, but most of the general public don’t know that. Even I didn’t know about Milankovitch orbital cycles and their effect on Earth’s climate. Buoyed by underlying economic motivations, what should be a purely rational and scientific issue has instead become a culture war issue, stalling debate and progress in addressing an existential threat. A lack of empathy is apparent when we simply disparage deniers as ignorant or stupid; but that certainly does not help the conversation. Instead, we need to empathise, and reach out.
Finally, being aware of the sheer breadth and depth of the knowledge available conduces us to be humble. It restricts our hubris in thinking we know best, that we know everything and there is nothing new to learn, and spurs us towards further growth and development. Applying this mindset to society ensures it progresses as well. As Prof Lai said, who we are in the world changes the world; by being more empathetic and humbler, never settling for what we have or know, we can similarly improve the world, and make it a better place.
Closing Thoughts
Finally, we must not forget the foremost motivation of an interdisciplinary education, or even education is general: Learning, and to learn about many things, for its own sake. There is nothing wrong with seeking out some practical benefit (which we can use to justify an interdisciplinary education, and continue motivating interdisciplinary students), but after the fun of learning and the excitement of debate and discussions with other students during this seminar, I think we should not abandon, and always bear in mind, that purest and ultimately most powerful motivation — in USP’s words, being curious, critical, courageous and engaged.
[1] Prof Bao derived this from considering how other body parts (having more or less of them) do not fundamentally change our identity, which is an intuitive, logical argument.
[2] Prof Bao’s words remind me of philosopher John Rawls’ famous “difference principle”, where social distribution should not be based on arbitrary factors (in this case, our endowed brain states), and inequalities are permitted only if they benefit the most disadvantaged members of society.
[3] in which we are plugged and made to experience pleasure
[4] Quoted from Prof Bao’s slides
[5] What that is is another matter.
[6] Even if there is really no such thing scientifically, or perhaps it is something that science may not be able to fully explain.
[7] a more optimistic term would be ‘values’ or ‘stories’
[8] Another notable example of such innovations I shared during the seminar is biomimicry, as in the case of bullet trains, which are made more efficient, faster and quieter by adapting the aerodynamic, streamlined design of a kingfisher beak. Such innovation would not have been possible if designers weren’t aware of biodiversity, if they didn’t learn how evolution has allowed species to develop successful niches that allowed them to survive and propagate. Why should we ignore millions of years of ‘research and development’ done by nature?
[9] This is also due to the human species having passed down acquired knowledge to subsequent generations; it is a unique, defining trait that allowed human beings to advance over the centuries, far beyond other species, with similarly limited lifespans.
[10] As a business student, my major could be similarly considered as generalist. I’ve learnt the basics of accounting, business law, economics, data analytics etc., but none of them sufficiently to become a qualified accountant, lawyer, economist or programmer. It is some kind of multidisciplinary education. But of course, since Business students eventually specialise, we could be considered what Prof Yu terms as ‘specialising generalists’.
[11] This also brings to mind a popular innovation theory — blue ocean strategy’s value innovation, where innovation comes not from a new product, but by creating a new value curve, thus creating a new market. The most famous example is Cirque du Soleil, which did not come up with any new circus performance techniques that weren’t already known. Instead, they “reinvent[ed] the circus” (as their motto goes) to address and appeal to adults and corporate clients, traditionally non-customers of the circus industry.
[12] For example, Z.com, an online entertainment company, was launched when broadband connection in the US was too low, when technology made it too hard to watch video content online, and the company dissolved in 2003; but just two years later, when broadband penetration in the US crossed 50%, YouTube was launched, and the rest is history. Another example is Airbnb; it sounded crazy that people would be willing to rent out their homes to strangers; yet, Airbnb was launched during a recession, when people needed extra income, and so they did what was considered unthinkable.
[13] From Prof Lai Choy Heng’s sharing, these include knowledge from various disciplines, learning the skills of “critical thinking, writing, argumentation […] questioning and reflection” (though such buzzwords can also come across as intangible or impractical)
[14] Such misunderstandings include believing China wishes to export its system of government and communism to the rest of the world, and thus the United States must act aggressively to defend itself and its influence. Indeed, it seems that incomplete and imperfect information have resulted in the current game theory in action (perhaps a chicken game?).
Seoul National University (SNU)-USP Seminar on Covid-19
While this 5-day programme was short, even I was surprised at the wealth of knowledge I gained from this valuable experience, in addition to the meaningful interactions I had with students and speakers from both schools. Here, I will share two less-obvious takeaways when it comes to Covid-19.
On Covid-19 from a social perspective
While we were given many interesting insights into the medical, technological and policy considerations of Covid-19, including advances made by Singapore’s diagnostic industry and South Korea’s policy responses, I found the exploration of Covid-19’s impact on social relations most interesting.
As the cliché goes, humans are social creatures, but the extent to which considerations of social interaction and communication would affect our management of Covid-19 did not capture my imagination. I simply assumed that those who flouted social distancing and travel restrictions were merely being selfish or stupid (or, cleverly put, “Covidiots”), but then we were asked, what would you do if you wished to spend time with a family member with whom you have not seen in a long time, and is already quite old and sick. Would one risk transmitting Covid-19, or miss the chance to interacted with one’s loved ones? This small but difficult and profound decision is based on the inherent contradiction of Covid-19 versus how we engage with our fellow humans.
This is best encapsulated in the oxymoron shared by Prof Son, that “the more friendly, intimate and closer one is to others, he or she is [ironically] more likely to transmit the horrible virus to them, causing serious health and safety crises” to our fellow humans and society. Indeed, Covid-19 is not just a medical disease, but because of its transmission mechanism, via the respiratory system, it is also a social one, where “social contact among human beings is a major mechanism of its spread.” This calls for a change to how we approach being social, because “being social in the traditional sense is disastrous under the Covid-19 global regime”. To be truly social, one needs to be asocial.
This important perspective that Covid-19 should not merely be viewed as a medical problem, but also a social problem, brings to mind my research presentation during the CKC-USP online seminar, and the age-old quote by Hippocrates that is still relevant 2000 years later: “It is quite as important to know what kind of a patient the disease has got as to know what kind of a disease the patient has got.” It’s not just how the virus infects the person, but his or her background, that is equally worthy of consideration by policymakers and every individual as they engage in their activities and make difficult decisions about what to do during a pandemic.
On managing a crisis, and engaging with other people
Following on from the important insight that Covid-19 is a social disease, and the dilemmas inherent on how social creatures like us, grouped into societies, approach such a crisis, we come to the important issue of determining the right way to manage this crisis, and more specifically, since there are different valid opinions among different societies and factions, how to move forward when (not if) there are disagreements.
As Prof Son shared, using the framework of the consolidated model of social capital, there are tacit and explicit agreements that form certain templates of social relations in a society, or collective social capital. However, after Covid-19, this has to change, and to adjust, new explicit agreement has to be made particularly by public health authorities, and those who broke them had to be punished by legal sanctions.
However, the question then arises: what if some societies have a lack of such legal sanctions or a mistrust of their own public health authorities? To be fair, what even are the right measures that should be put in place? Where should the tradeoffs be made?
Of course, as illuminated in our animated debates, there is no absolute answer, whether it is rights versus freedom in public policy, or competition versus cooperation on the international stage. However, when we have to “find the balance” between “sustainable epidemic control and health care” and “sustainable socio-economic activities”, as Prof Cho concludes in his sharing, where that balance is falls under the area of reasonable disagreement. The issue now is how to resolve such disagreements; not the specific content, but the manner in which we do so.
In the current age of polarization and division, this is the key issue of many democracies around the world. Discourse and rationality have given way to ideological extremism, a disdain for compromise and cooperation, and even the failure to recognize the legitimacy of opposition. This ‘my way or the highway’ approach can only spell greater disunity and ultimately, harm to society and its citizens. We may view the world differently, and have different priorities, but a healthy society requires us to come together and work with each other.
Still, what if there are historical animosities that hinder reconciliation and cooperation? As shared by the Ambassador, that is the whole point of diplomacy; to find common ground and progress forward. While we should continue to remember what has happened, we must also reconcile, for the alternative is gridlock and continued animosity. For example, as Prof Koo shared, South Korea had a normalization treaty with Japan, which was similar to the Singaporean government’s approach regarding Japan after World War II, notwithstanding the many open wounds that were still present.
Nevertheless, after our debates, I remain pessimistically optimistic. Despite the strong convictions of many participants, there was also a willingness to recognize and respect the views of the other side, and to move towards some kind of reconciliation, especially in the first debate between freedom and public health, when towards the end, our arguments essentially converged; only the words used to describe them and the focus were different. The norms of courtesy and civility were ever-present underneath the passionate speeches. This has given me renewed hope that it is possible for us to work together, as long as we strive to reach a solution, and not, as per Prof Kang’s observation, merely try to ‘win’ the argument.
Ultimately, the fact remains we have to engage with each other, because the decisions we make together are far more influential than individual ones. Covid-19 is the most poignant, and devastating, example.
Tufts University EPIIC Symposium
On 13 March 2021, I had the honour, as part of the delegation from NUS USP, to present at the Tufts Initiative for International Leadership and Perspective (TILIP), organsied by Tufts University’s Institute for Global Leadership, in the lead up to the EPIIC (Education for Public Inquiry and International Citizenship) Symposium 2021.
The topic of this year’s Symposium was “China and the World”, and aims to address perhaps “one of the most significant developments in world affairs”, the rise of China. China’s rise has elicited both feelings of awe and inspiration, as well as worrying concerns, especially from those whose outlook does not align with China’s and whose positions could very well be displaced. Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree with the motivation behind this initiative, to begin to at least understand this complex and interdisciplinary issue from a diversity of perspectives — from 10 delegations from 9 different countries.
At the same time, I believe that the motivation is as worthy of emulation as the resultant issues and responses raised. Too often, we see politicians and pundits rushing to proclaim supposedly universal judgements, which are nothing more than a limited, self-indulgent version of truth or what is right or wrong. The very fact that TILIP attempts to reach out to various peoples and, without enforcing any particular paradigm, elicit unbiased perspectives, is a good mindset to have when approaching any issue — especially one that involves multiple parties and subject areas. The fact that the Covid-19 pandemic did not hinder this event, and may inspire many more of such events, is testament to the determination to learn and connect with peoples around the world.
Besides the joy of meeting new friends from around the world, and the enlightenment gained from learning diverse and nuanced perspectives about the rise of China, what struck me most was the civility and mutual respect among the delegates, especially given the strong and contrasting views present. This was best reflected in simple but powerful (and necessary!) norms — giving an (unrequired) virtual thumbs up and applause, especially if a point was made with which they did not agree; tempering and mitigating their choice of words, especially when objecting. At the same time, the spirit of learning from others was evident — raising questions; not rejecting others’ contradictory views without good reason and with respect; and courageously subjecting one’s views to criticism. Given this topic is one which could lead to divergent, patriotic, and passionate views, I am very impressed and heartened by this microcosm of respectful inter-country discourse and inquiry, which can only bode well for the future, given our increasingly isolated and polarised world.
Such interaction is important not only because of the knowledge and insights gained, but the fact that we place a face and person to those abstract concepts of nations and ideologies helps improve our empathy and conduces us to some kind of humility; it forces us to engage with an alternate view, and get out of one’s own bubble. The humanity engendered is perhaps the key to resolving the rising tensions in the world today.
Of course, the virtual setting meant there were unique challenges — but perhaps some benefits as well. Perhaps the barrier enabled passionate points to transmitted with restraint, and provided some kind of ‘equality’, where each person had the same ‘space’ — virtually and literally — in the conversation.
At the same time, the Symposium allowed me to work with fellow NUS USP students from different faculties. I enjoyed working with my fellow Singaporean delegates Rachel and Faith, whose field of study and unique experiences further contributed to my own understanding and analysis of the issues.
Finally, I am grateful to the NUS University Scholars Programme for arranging and coordinating this opportunity, and to the amazing people at Tufts for successfully organising this insightful experience.
