Podcasts about action party

#各國大選 首先，5/3新加坡舉行大選，不意外由人民行動黨（People's Action Party, PAP）出線，這是總理黃循財自去年5/15就職以來首次帶領選戰，在97個席次中贏得87席，得票率65.57%，相較於2020年大選高了4.33%，更重要的是，前兩任總理披掛上陣都沒有這次選的好，也顯見老百姓與政府間的相互信任，這是其他許多國家望塵莫及的…其次，看澳洲大選，5/3選前可以感受中間偏左的執政黨工黨（Labors）氣勢相對低落，卻在美國總統川普上任後風雲變色，擊敗由達頓（Peter Dutton）領導由自由黨（Liberal-National），一般認為川普是影響澳洲大選的關鍵因素…再者，將在6/3舉行的韓國選舉政局最近千變萬化，5/2韓國代總統韓德洙宣布辭職，將以無黨籍身分投入總統大選，就在他宣布參選總統的前一晚，副總理兼企劃財政部長官崔相穆也提出辭呈，反觀反對黨在此次總統大選聲望相當高的共同民主黨黨魁李在明在5/1被最高法院判決違反選罷法的案子就二審改判無罪上訴案發回重審… #美國內政 5/1美國總統川普解除國家安全顧問華爾茲（Mike Waltz）的職務，連帶華裔的副顧問黃之瀚（Alex Wong）一同解職，據報導，導火線為先前他錯誤的將《大西洋月刊》總編拉進美國對胡塞武裝作戰計畫的Signal群組，等同將作戰計畫曝光在媒體面前，然而更大的原因認為華爾茲不夠忠誠，以及他與以色列總理納坦雅胡走得太過親近的傳聞… #美烏關係 4/30美國與烏克蘭的能源協定正式簽字，並稱之為經濟夥伴協定，內容當中除主要的稀土外，還包括石油、天然氣、金與銅，和以往相較最大的不同在於，川普先前聲稱美國為援助烏克蘭花了大筆鈔票而向烏克蘭要求以稀土之獲利還債，然而，此次協定中卻未提及過去美國的援助金額，提及的反而是未來的共同開採…

#各國大選 首先，5/3新加坡舉行大選，不意外由人民行動黨（People's Action Party, PAP）出線，這是總理黃循財自去年5/15就職以來首次帶領選戰，在97個席次中贏得87席，得票率65.57%，相較於2020年大選高了4.33%，更重要的是，前兩任總理披掛上陣都沒有這次選的好，也顯見老百姓與政府間的相互信任，這是其他許多國家望塵莫及的…其次，看澳洲大選，5/3選前可以感受中間偏左的執政黨工黨（Labors）氣勢相對低落，卻在美國總統川普上任後風雲變色，擊敗由達頓（Peter Dutton）領導由自由黨（Liberal-National），一般認為川普是影響澳洲大選的關鍵因素…再者，將在6/3舉行的韓國選舉政局最近千變萬化，5/2韓國代總統韓德洙宣布辭職，將以無黨籍身分投入總統大選，就在他宣布參選總統的前一晚，副總理兼企劃財政部長官崔相穆也提出辭呈，反觀反對黨在此次總統大選聲望相當高的共同民主黨黨魁李在明在5/1被最高法院判決違反選罷法的案子就二審改判無罪上訴案發回重審… #美國內政 5/1美國總統川普解除國家安全顧問華爾茲（Mike Waltz）的職務，連帶華裔的副顧問黃之瀚（Alex Wong）一同解職，據報導，導火線為先前他錯誤的將《大西洋月刊》總編拉進美國對胡塞武裝作戰計畫的Signal群組，等同將作戰計畫曝光在媒體面前，然而更大的原因認為華爾茲不夠忠誠，以及他與以色列總理納坦雅胡走得太過親近的傳聞… #美烏關係 4/30美國與烏克蘭的能源協定正式簽字，並稱之為經濟夥伴協定，內容當中除主要的稀土外，還包括石油、天然氣、金與銅，和以往相較最大的不同在於，川普先前聲稱美國為援助烏克蘭花了大筆鈔票而向烏克蘭要求以稀土之獲利還債，然而，此次協定中卻未提及過去美國的援助金額，提及的反而是未來的共同開採…

Voters gave the People's Action Party and Prime Minister Lawrence Wong a clear mandate in GE2025. What accounted for the result and why couldn't the opposition parties make good on gains from the last election? Steven Chia and Otelli Edwards speak to Associate Professor Eugene Tan from the Singapore Management University and Dr Reuben Ng from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Singapore's 2025 general election was held on May 3, and the ruling People's Action Party won 65.57 per cent of the national vote, a commanding swing up from its 61.24 per cent share in 2020. The ruling party won 87 seats out of the contested 97, securing a majority in Parliament. The opposition Workers' Party retained two GRCs in Aljunied and Sengkang, and one SMC in Hougang. This election gave Prime Minister Lawrence Wong the clear mandate that he had sought, in his first electoral contest as head of government and leader of the PAP. Narrated by: Ernest Luis (ernest@sph.com.sg) Produced & edited by: Hadyu Rahim, Teo Tong Kai & Amirul Karim Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 ST Podcasts website: http://str.sg/stpodcasts ST Podcasts YouTube: https://str.sg/4Vwsa --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX #asianinsider #tuptrsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Singapore's 2025 general election was held on May 3, and the ruling People's Action Party won 65.57 per cent of the national vote, a commanding swing up from its 61.24 per cent share in 2020. The ruling party won 87 seats out of the contested 97, securing a majority in Parliament. The opposition Workers' Party retained two GRCs in Aljunied and Sengkang, and one SMC in Hougang. This election gave Prime Minister Lawrence Wong the clear mandate that he had sought, in his first electoral contest as head of government and leader of the PAP. Narrated by: Ernest Luis (ernest@sph.com.sg) Produced & edited by: Hadyu Rahim, Teo Tong Kai & Amirul Karim Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 ST Podcasts website: http://str.sg/stpodcasts ST Podcasts YouTube: https://str.sg/4Vwsa --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX #asianinsider #tuptrsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Three seasoned political observers analyse and offer talking points. Synopsis: The Usual Place now moves to a half-hour daily livestream at noon from April 24 till May 1 - a day before Cooling-off Day - with Singapore's general election on May 3. Host and ST correspondent Natasha Ann Zachariah invites candidates, analysts and hunts for new perspectives on issues that matter to young people. The People’s Action Party held the first lunchtime election rally of GE2025 at noon on April 28 at the promenade area beside UOB Plaza. The PAP’s secretary-general and Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, along with other party members, addressed Singaporeans. The Fullerton rally, named for its venue being close to Fullerton Square, has in the past attracted thousands of office workers. The area has been a venue for political rallies since 1959, when the earliest Singapore political parties took to the podium there. Chatting with Natasha at The Usual Place are Dr Gillian Koh, senior research fellow from the Institute of Policy Studies, Dr Rebecca Grace Tan, a political science lecturer from the National University of Singapore, and Dr Felix Tan, an independent political observer. Highlights (click/tap above): 1:35 How the new PAP candidates fared in their speeches at the Fullerton rally 6:17 Was there a lack of specifics from new PAP candidates on their motivation to join politics? 15:57 Thoughts on PAP’s opposition to the opposition parties 22:50 Is DPM Gan Kim Yong in danger of losing Punggol GRC? 25:47 Did GST turbocharge inflation in Singapore? 40:35 Will the PAP get a clear mandate from the ballot box on Polling Day? Host: Natasha Zachariah (natashaz@sph.com.sg) Read Natasha’s articles: https://str.sg/iSXm Follow Natasha on her IG account and DM her your thoughts on this episode: https://str.sg/8Wav Follow Natasha on LinkedIn: https://str.sg/v6DN Filmed by: Studio+65 ST Podcast producers: Teo Tong Kai & Eden Soh Shorts edited by: ST Video Executive producers: Ernest Luis, Danson Cheong and Lynda Hong Follow The Usual Place Podcast and get notified for new episode drops: Channel: https://str.sg/5nfm Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/9ijX Spotify: https://str.sg/cd2P YouTube: https://str.sg/wEr7u Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 ST Podcasts website: http://str.sg/stpodcasts ST Podcasts YouTube: https://str.sg/4Vwsa --- Get The Straits Times app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX #tup #tuptrSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Punggol is new, vibrant, and also poised to be the battleground of a fierce political contest in this year’s General Election. For years, Punggol has held the title of the nation’s youngest town, with more than half of its over 120,000 voters estimated to be between the ages of 21 and 45. As a result, the newly formed Punggol GRC was formed by dividing the previous Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, pulling in estates from Punggol, combining with Punggol West SMC. With neighboring Sengkang GRC falling to the Workers' Party in the last election and the WP maintaining an active presence in parts of Punggol over the past year, a face-off with the ruling People’s Action Party seems almost certain. How will this contest unfold? Will there be a fierce rivalry between PAP-WP in Singapore’s youngest GRC in GE2025? On The Big Story, Hongbin Jeong speaks with Dr Mustafa Izzuddin,Senior International Affairs Analyst with Solaris Strategies Singapore to find out more. Presented by: Hongbin Jeong Produced and Edited by: Nadiah Koh (nadkoh@sph.com.sg) and Hongbin Jeong Want to get featured on our show? Drop me an email today!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The MP for Punggol West SMC first joined the People's Action Party as a member 25 years ago after becoming a volunteer to help with Meet-The-People sessions. Synopsis: On Thursdays, The Usual Place host Natasha Ann Zachariah hunts for new perspectives on issues that matter to young people. Also, in the lead-up to the expected general election that must be held by November 2025, Natasha looks at how MPs, and others involved, are preparing themselves. In this episode, Ms Sun Xueling, Minister of State for Home Affairs, and Social and Family Development, chats with Natasha about her experiences from 25 years of Meet-The-People sessions since she first got involved on the ground at the age of 20.They talk about Ms Sun’s latest efforts to combat family violence and scams and why we should work together as a community to halt any family violence and child abuse in Singapore. She also highlights the challenges of tackling scams, which exploit human emotions like trust and greed, making it harder for authorities to do their jobs. Besides juggling her roles in two ministries and as the MP for Punggol West SMC, Ms Sun is also an author who has written books for children. The mother of two girls shares her thoughts on balancing work and passion, along with advice for anyone looking to pursue a side hustle. Highlights (click/tap above): 5:41 The need to raise the alarm with the authorities 12:06 Why do Singaporeans keep getting scammed? 22:08 Why Ms Sun started volunteering at Meet-The-People sessions 25 years ago 27:49 “I just feel like I'm just an ordinary person...” 34:15 Her advice for those who want to pursue a passion on the side Host: Natasha Zachariah (natashaz@sph.com.sg) Follow Natasha on her IG account and DM her your thoughts on this topic: https://str.sg/8Wav Follow Natasha on LinkedIn: https://str.sg/v6DNRead Natasha's articles: https://str.sg/iSXmFilmed by: Studio+65 Edited by ST Podcast producers: Teo Tong Kai & Eden Soh Executive producers: Ernest Luis & Lynda Hong Follow The Usual Place Podcast on Thursdays and get notified for new episode drops: Channel: https://str.sg/5nfm Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/9ijX Spotify: https://str.sg/cd2P YouTube: https://str.sg/wEr7u Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 ST Podcast website: http://str.sg/stpodcasts ST Podcasts YouTube: https://str.sg/4Vwsa --- Get The Straits Times' app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX #tup #tuptrSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Now that we’re in 2025, one thing’s for sure – a General Election is on the horizon. Synopsis: The Usual Place host Natasha Ann Zachariah hunts for new perspectives on issues that matter to young people. When exactly? That’s anyone’s guess. But political parties are already up and about, ramping up efforts to touch base with voters. And, judging by the recent episode between some volunteers of Progress Singapore Party and People’s Action Party in Bukit Gombak in Chua Chu Kang GRC, the political temperature is rising. In the lead-up to the polls, The Usual Place host Natasha Ann Zachariah looks at how MPs, and others involved in the GE, are preparing themselves. In this week’s episode, Senior Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office Desmond Tan stops by to talk about his experience so far as a first-term MP. Mr Tan, who has been an MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC since 2020, said he “won’t call it a job because... it’s an elected role that has no fixed job description and no fixed terms of reference”. The 54-year-old, who spent almost three decades in the Singapore Armed Forces before joining the People’s Association, said that he had to “level up very quickly” when he joined politics and took on positions in the government. When he ran for office in the last GE as a rookie, he lost 3.5kg during the hustings. In anticipation of this year’s campaign, he’s gaining some weight, and is also more emotionally ready for the work. For one thing, he has built relationships with the residents in his ward, and has put in the work since the last election to serve them. And how does Mr Tan, NTUC’s deputy secretary-general, deal with criticism over a hot potato issue like, say, the failed Allianz-Income Insurance deal? “Sometimes there may be disagreement (in) opinions, but we have to continue our path,” he said. “As long as I speak the truth and I’m clear about my conscience, I have nothing to worry about.” On a lighter note, Natasha asked him what he thinks of the nickname some voters bestowed on him in 2020 – “Down-To-Earth Desmond” – and what nickname he would pick for himself, if he had to. Watch or tune in to the episode to find out what he said. Highlights (click/tap above): 6:24 Politicians must accept that they won’t always be right 10:18 “I have no strategy for social media.”14:35 “You can’t just give an order, like in the army.”21:34 Being labelled “Down-To-Earth Desmond” 29:25 He lost 3.5kg during the 2020 GEHost: Natasha Zachariah (natashaz@sph.com.sg) Follow Natasha on her IG account and DM her your thoughts on this topic: https://str.sg/8Wav Follow Natasha on LinkedIn: https://str.sg/v6DNRead Natasha's articles: https://str.sg/iSXmFilmed by: Studio+65 Edited by ST Podcast producers: Eden Soh & Teo Tong Kai Executive producers: Ernest Luis & Lynda Hong Follow The Usual Place Podcast here and get notified for new episode drops: Channel: https://str.sg/5nfm Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/9ijX Spotify: https://str.sg/cd2P YouTube: https://str.sg/wEr7u Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Follow more ST podcast channels: All-in-one ST Podcasts channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 ST Podcast website: http://str.sg/stpodcasts ST Podcasts YouTube: https://str.sg/4Vwsa --- Get The Straits Times' app, which has a dedicated podcast player section: The App Store: https://str.sg/icyB Google Play: https://str.sg/icyX #tup #tuptrSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Post-WWII Singapore was a time that was loaded with historical events that shaped how matters would unfold throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. The matter of how to handle the future of Malaya and Singapore begins to be seriously discussed and hotly debated. To showcase what the British and political leaders in Malaya and Singapore were up against, we'll first review the events of the 1950 Maria Hertogh case and the disturbances that followed. In this episode we'll begin to explore the early life of the most consequential leader in Singapore's history and in the greater Southeast Asian scene, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. His early life, including his marriage to Mrs. Kwa Geok Choo, will be introduced. In the early 1950s, Mr. and Mrs. Lee returned from the UK and began their law careers. This led directly to Lee Kuan Yew's involvement in local Singaporean politics and the later founding, in 1954, of the PAP (People's Action Party). The elections of 1948, 1955, and 1959 will also be presented and how the results shaped the future of Singapore politics. Events will unfold that will contribute to Lee Kuan Yew's rise as the leading voice in Singapore's politics and independence. Other major figures from this time will also be introduced such as David Marshall, Lim Yew Hock, Lim Chin Siong, Fong, Swee Suan, and Ong Eng Guan. We'll close with Tunku Abdul Rahman's May 1961 "Grand Design" speech and how this became a game changer as far as how to handle the potential merger of Malaya and Singapore. This will all be introduced next time in Part 8. Thanks to all of you who have kindly supported me by signing up for my Patreon. All ten episodes are already available there. You have my deepest appreciation. https://www.patreon.com/c/TheChinaHistoryPodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Post-WWII Singapore was a time that was loaded with historical events that shaped how matters would unfold throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. The matter of how to handle the future of Malaya and Singapore begins to be seriously discussed and hotly debated. To showcase what the British and political leaders in Malaya and Singapore were up against, we'll first review the events of the 1950 Maria Hertogh case and the disturbances that followed. In this episode we'll begin to explore the early life of the most consequential leader in Singapore's history and in the greater Southeast Asian scene, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. His early life, including his marriage to Mrs. Kwa Geok Choo, will be introduced. In the early 1950s, Mr. and Mrs. Lee returned from the UK and began their law careers. This led directly to Lee Kuan Yew's involvement in local Singaporean politics and the later founding, in 1954, of the PAP (People's Action Party). The elections of 1948, 1955, and 1959 will also be presented and how the results shaped the future of Singapore politics. Events will unfold that will contribute to Lee Kuan Yew's rise as the leading voice in Singapore's politics and independence. Other major figures from this time will also be introduced such as David Marshall, Lim Yew Hock, Lim Chin Siong, Fong, Swee Suan, and Ong Eng Guan. We'll close with Tunku Abdul Rahman's May 1961 "Grand Design" speech and how this became a game changer as far as how to handle the potential merger of Malaya and Singapore. This will all be introduced next time in Part 8. Thanks to all of you who have kindly supported me by signing up for my Patreon. All ten episodes are already available there. You have my deepest appreciation. https://www.patreon.com/c/TheChinaHistoryPodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Post-WWII Singapore was a time that was loaded with historical events that shaped how matters would unfold throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. The matter of how to handle the future of Malaya and Singapore begins to be seriously discussed and hotly debated. To showcase what the British and political leaders in Malaya and Singapore were up against, we'll first review the events of the 1950 Maria Hertogh case and the disturbances that followed. In this episode we'll begin to explore the early life of the most consequential leader in Singapore's history and in the greater Southeast Asian scene, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. His early life, including his marriage to Mrs. Kwa Geok Choo, will be introduced. In the early 1950s, Mr. and Mrs. Lee returned from the UK and began their law careers. This led directly to Lee Kuan Yew's involvement in local Singaporean politics and the later founding, in 1954, of the PAP (People's Action Party). The elections of 1948, 1955, and 1959 will also be presented and how the results shaped the future of Singapore politics. Events will unfold that will contribute to Lee Kuan Yew's rise as the leading voice in Singapore's politics and independence. Other major figures from this time will also be introduced such as David Marshall, Lim Yew Hock, Lim Chin Siong, Fong, Swee Suan, and Ong Eng Guan. We'll close with Tunku Abdul Rahman's May 1961 "Grand Design" speech and how this became a game changer as far as how to handle the potential merger of Malaya and Singapore. This will all be introduced next time in Part 8. Thanks to all of you who have kindly supported me by signing up for my Patreon. All ten episodes are already available there. You have my deepest appreciation. https://www.patreon.com/c/TheChinaHistoryPodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Post-WWII Singapore was a time that was loaded with historical events that shaped how matters would unfold throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s. The matter of how to handle the future of Malaya and Singapore begins to be seriously discussed and hotly debated. To showcase what the British and political leaders in Malaya and Singapore were up against, we'll first review the events of the 1950 Maria Hertogh case and the disturbances that followed. In this episode we'll begin to explore the early life of the most consequential leader in Singapore's history and in the greater Southeast Asian scene, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. His early life, including his marriage to Mrs. Kwa Geok Choo, will be introduced. In the early 1950s, Mr. and Mrs. Lee returned from the UK and began their law careers. This led directly to Lee Kuan Yew's involvement in local Singaporean politics and the later founding, in 1954, of the PAP (People's Action Party). The elections of 1948, 1955, and 1959 will also be presented and how the results shaped the future of Singapore politics. Events will unfold that will contribute to Lee Kuan Yew's rise as the leading voice in Singapore's politics and independence. Other major figures from this time will also be introduced such as David Marshall, Lim Yew Hock, Lim Chin Siong, Fong, Swee Suan, and Ong Eng Guan. We'll close with Tunku Abdul Rahman's May 1961 "Grand Design" speech and how this became a game changer as far as how to handle the potential merger of Malaya and Singapore. This will all be introduced next time in Part 8. Thanks to all of you who have kindly supported me by signing up for my Patreon. All ten episodes are already available there. You have my deepest appreciation. https://www.patreon.com/c/TheChinaHistoryPodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Highlights include France's political turmoil, rising oil prices ahead of an OPEC+ meeting, South Korea's impeachment motion, and leadership changes in Singapore's People's Action Party.  Synopsis: A round up of global headlines to start your day by The Business Times.  Written by: Howie Lim / Claressa Monteiro (claremb@sph.com.sg)  Recording engineer: Joann Chai Pei Chieh Produced and edited by: Claressa Monteiro Produced by: BT Podcasts, The Business Times, SPH Media --- Follow Lens On Daily and rate us on: Channel: bt.sg/btlenson Amazon: bt.sg/lensam Apple Podcasts: bt.sg/lensap Spotify: bt.sg/lenssp YouTube Music: bt.sg/lensyt Website: bt.sg/lenson Feedback to: btpodcasts@sph.com.sg Do note: This podcast is meant to provide general information only. SPH Media accepts no liability for loss arising from any reliance on the podcast or use of third party's products and services. Please consult professional advisors for independent advice.  Discover more BT podcast series: BT Mark To Market at: bt.sg/btmark2mkt  WealthBT at: bt.sg/btpropertybt PropertyBT at: bt.sg/btmktfocus BT Money Hacks at: bt.sg/btmoneyhacks BT Market Focus at: bt.sg/btmktfocus BT Podcasts at: bt.sg/podcasts BT Branded Podcasts at: bt.sg/brpod BT Lens On: bt.sg/btlenson  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The US and France are expected to announce a ceasefire in Lebanon; a U.S. judge dismisses the federal criminal case against president-elect Donald Trump; one police officer was killed and dozens of people injured in Pakistan and the People's Action Party elects its new central executive committee. Synopsis: A round up of global headlines to start your day by The Business Times.  Written by: Howie Lim / Claressa Monteiro (claremb@sph.com.sg)  Recording engineer: Joann Chai Pei Chieh Produced and edited by: Claressa Monteiro Produced by: BT Podcasts, The Business Times, SPH Media --- Follow Lens On Daily and rate us on: Channel: bt.sg/btlenson Amazon: bt.sg/lensam Apple Podcasts: bt.sg/lensap Spotify: bt.sg/lenssp YouTube Music: bt.sg/lensyt Website: bt.sg/lenson Feedback to: btpodcasts@sph.com.sg Do note: This podcast is meant to provide general information only. SPH Media accepts no liability for loss arising from any reliance on the podcast or use of third party's products and services. Please consult professional advisors for independent advice.  Discover more BT podcast series: BT Mark To Market at: bt.sg/btmark2mkt  WealthBT at: bt.sg/btpropertybt PropertyBT at: bt.sg/btmktfocus BT Money Hacks at: bt.sg/btmoneyhacks BT Market Focus at: bt.sg/btmktfocus BT Podcasts at: bt.sg/podcasts BT Branded Podcasts at: bt.sg/brpod BT Lens On: bt.sg/btlensonSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The upcoming general election in 2025 will be a high-stakes one. That's according to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.  Speaking at the People's Action Party conference at the Singapore Expo on Nov 24, he told party members: “Please don't think it is guaranteed that the PAP will win and form a stable government.” He added that even a modest swing in popular votes against the PAP can lead to very different electoral outcomes.  What does he mean by this? What's exactly at stake for the next general election? On The Big Story, Hongbin Jeong speaks to Dr. Elvin Ong, Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, to find out more.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With high stakes in the upcoming general election in 2025, Singapore risks ending up with a much weaker government if there is a modest swing in popular votes against the ruling party. Speaking at the party conference over the weekend, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong says that the People's Action Party can no longer 'afford to stay in the background'. To that end, he stressed that the party has to come out to explain policies and mobilise citizens for the causes that PAP believes in, and to engage Singaporeans on the issues they care about, and importantly, to show them why they can trust and depend on the PAP to provide the leadership for Singapore. On Part Two of this episode of Morning Shot, Eugene Tan, Associate Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University, and Dr Mustafa Izzudin, Senior International Affairs Analyst, Solaris Strategies Singapore share their insights. Presented by: Audrey SiekProduced & Edited by: Yeo Kai Ting (ykaiting@sph.com.sg)Photo credits: Lim Yaohui / STSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

With high stakes in the upcoming general election in 2025, Singapore risks ending up with a much weaker government if there is a modest swing in popular votes against the ruling party. Speaking at the party conference over the weekend, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong says that the People's Action Party can no longer 'afford to stay in the background'. To that end, he stressed that the party has to come out to explain policies and mobilise citizens for the causes that PAP believes in, and to engage Singaporeans on the issues they care about, and importantly, to show them why they can trust and depend on the PAP to provide the leadership for Singapore. On Part One of this episode of Morning Shot, Eugene Tan, Associate Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University, and Dr Mustafa Izzudin, Senior International Affairs Analyst, Solaris Strategies Singapore share their insights. Presented by: Audrey SiekProduced & Edited by: Yeo Kai Ting (ykaiting@sph.com.sg)Photo credits: Lim Yao Hui / ST See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner of  Hustle Fund, and ​​Jeremy Au discussed: 1. Singapore Vetoes Allianz $4.4B Insurer Acquisition: They discussed the Singapore government's veto of the NTUC Income and Allianz merger, primarily over concerns of an undisclosed plan for $2B capital withdrawal post-merger. This case illustrated the delicate balance required between pursuing financial strategies and adhering to a social mission, especially in a cooperative structure transitioning to a corporatized entity. 2. NTUC 1961 History & Income Cooperative Mandate: They expanded on the broader historical role of National Trade Unions Congress with the People's Action Party since 1961, vs. the now-defunct leftist Singapore Association of Trade Unions (SATU). The central workers' union is the parent organization of NTUC Enterprise, which is a holding entity of multiple cooperatives and mission-based corporations like NTUC Fairprice (supermarkets), First Campus (childcare) and Income (insurance). They referenced analysis on other successful single-country insurer cooperatives benchmarks from former NTUC Enterprise & NTUC Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh. 3. Trump vs. Kamala Impact on Southeast Asia: Jeremy and Shiyan debated how the US election's potential outcomes could lead to dramatically different White House policies on free trade, capital gains and China relations - leading to significant ripple effects on Singapore & Southeast Asia. This highlights the deep interconnectivity of American political decisions with regional economic outcomes. Jeremy and Shiyan also touched on the impact of US interest rate cuts on global markets, the acceleration of Chinese companies entering Southeast Asia, and Singapore's higher number of work hours vs. America and the EU. Watch, listen or read the full insight at https://www.bravesea.com/blog/singapore-vetoes-allianz-acquisition Nonton, dengar atau baca wawasan lengkapnya di https://www.bravesea.com/blog/singapore-vetoes-allianz-acquisition-id 观看、收听或阅读全文，请访问 https://www.bravesea.com/blog/singapore-vetoes-allianz-acquisition-cn Xem, nghe hoặc đọc toàn bộ thông tin chi tiết tại https://www.bravesea.com/blog/singapore-vetoes-allianz-acquisition-vn Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea English: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Bahasa Indonesia: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Chinese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Vietnamese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Learn more about Nika.eco! Reach out to info@nika.eco if you are a geospatial data scientist or climate researcher who is interested to partner on a pilot or research opportunities

The achievement of Singapore's national public housing program is impressive by any standard. Within a year of its first election victory in 1959, the People's Action Party began to deliver on its promises in dramatic fashion. By the 1980s, 85 percent of the population had been rehoused in modern flats, and today, decades later, the provision of public housing shapes Singapore's environment. The standard accounts of this remarkable transformation leave many questions unanswered, from the historical to urgent matters of current policy: Why, of all the pressing demands of Singapore's newly enfranchised citizens, was housing such a priority back in the 1960s? How did the provision of social welfare via public housing shape Singapore's industrialisation and development over the last 50 years? Looking ahead, can the HDB continue to be a source of affordable housing for young families, while long-standing appreciation in flat prices provides for the retirement of their parents? How can this be managed as 99-year leases on flats run down? When young people from wealthy families purchase subsidised flats and then resell them for a profit as soon as they can, what does that do for the already pressing issues of inequality in Singapore? Public Subsidy, Private Accumulation: The Political Economy of Singapore's Public Housing (NUS Press, 2024) is a culmination of Dr. Chua Beng Huat's study of Singapore's public housing system, its dynamics, and the ways it functions in Singapore's politics. Does every great success hold within it the seeds of failure? The book will be of interest to citizens, and scholars of the political economy of Asian development, of social welfare provision, and of Singapore. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The achievement of Singapore's national public housing program is impressive by any standard. Within a year of its first election victory in 1959, the People's Action Party began to deliver on its promises in dramatic fashion. By the 1980s, 85 percent of the population had been rehoused in modern flats, and today, decades later, the provision of public housing shapes Singapore's environment. The standard accounts of this remarkable transformation leave many questions unanswered, from the historical to urgent matters of current policy: Why, of all the pressing demands of Singapore's newly enfranchised citizens, was housing such a priority back in the 1960s? How did the provision of social welfare via public housing shape Singapore's industrialisation and development over the last 50 years? Looking ahead, can the HDB continue to be a source of affordable housing for young families, while long-standing appreciation in flat prices provides for the retirement of their parents? How can this be managed as 99-year leases on flats run down? When young people from wealthy families purchase subsidised flats and then resell them for a profit as soon as they can, what does that do for the already pressing issues of inequality in Singapore? Public Subsidy, Private Accumulation: The Political Economy of Singapore's Public Housing (NUS Press, 2024) is a culmination of Dr. Chua Beng Huat's study of Singapore's public housing system, its dynamics, and the ways it functions in Singapore's politics. Does every great success hold within it the seeds of failure? The book will be of interest to citizens, and scholars of the political economy of Asian development, of social welfare provision, and of Singapore. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

The achievement of Singapore's national public housing program is impressive by any standard. Within a year of its first election victory in 1959, the People's Action Party began to deliver on its promises in dramatic fashion. By the 1980s, 85 percent of the population had been rehoused in modern flats, and today, decades later, the provision of public housing shapes Singapore's environment. The standard accounts of this remarkable transformation leave many questions unanswered, from the historical to urgent matters of current policy: Why, of all the pressing demands of Singapore's newly enfranchised citizens, was housing such a priority back in the 1960s? How did the provision of social welfare via public housing shape Singapore's industrialisation and development over the last 50 years? Looking ahead, can the HDB continue to be a source of affordable housing for young families, while long-standing appreciation in flat prices provides for the retirement of their parents? How can this be managed as 99-year leases on flats run down? When young people from wealthy families purchase subsidised flats and then resell them for a profit as soon as they can, what does that do for the already pressing issues of inequality in Singapore? Public Subsidy, Private Accumulation: The Political Economy of Singapore's Public Housing (NUS Press, 2024) is a culmination of Dr. Chua Beng Huat's study of Singapore's public housing system, its dynamics, and the ways it functions in Singapore's politics. Does every great success hold within it the seeds of failure? The book will be of interest to citizens, and scholars of the political economy of Asian development, of social welfare provision, and of Singapore. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

The achievement of Singapore's national public housing program is impressive by any standard. Within a year of its first election victory in 1959, the People's Action Party began to deliver on its promises in dramatic fashion. By the 1980s, 85 percent of the population had been rehoused in modern flats, and today, decades later, the provision of public housing shapes Singapore's environment. The standard accounts of this remarkable transformation leave many questions unanswered, from the historical to urgent matters of current policy: Why, of all the pressing demands of Singapore's newly enfranchised citizens, was housing such a priority back in the 1960s? How did the provision of social welfare via public housing shape Singapore's industrialisation and development over the last 50 years? Looking ahead, can the HDB continue to be a source of affordable housing for young families, while long-standing appreciation in flat prices provides for the retirement of their parents? How can this be managed as 99-year leases on flats run down? When young people from wealthy families purchase subsidised flats and then resell them for a profit as soon as they can, what does that do for the already pressing issues of inequality in Singapore? Public Subsidy, Private Accumulation: The Political Economy of Singapore's Public Housing (NUS Press, 2024) is a culmination of Dr. Chua Beng Huat's study of Singapore's public housing system, its dynamics, and the ways it functions in Singapore's politics. Does every great success hold within it the seeds of failure? The book will be of interest to citizens, and scholars of the political economy of Asian development, of social welfare provision, and of Singapore. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

The achievement of Singapore's national public housing program is impressive by any standard. Within a year of its first election victory in 1959, the People's Action Party began to deliver on its promises in dramatic fashion. By the 1980s, 85 percent of the population had been rehoused in modern flats, and today, decades later, the provision of public housing shapes Singapore's environment. The standard accounts of this remarkable transformation leave many questions unanswered, from the historical to urgent matters of current policy: Why, of all the pressing demands of Singapore's newly enfranchised citizens, was housing such a priority back in the 1960s? How did the provision of social welfare via public housing shape Singapore's industrialisation and development over the last 50 years? Looking ahead, can the HDB continue to be a source of affordable housing for young families, while long-standing appreciation in flat prices provides for the retirement of their parents? How can this be managed as 99-year leases on flats run down? When young people from wealthy families purchase subsidised flats and then resell them for a profit as soon as they can, what does that do for the already pressing issues of inequality in Singapore? Public Subsidy, Private Accumulation: The Political Economy of Singapore's Public Housing (NUS Press, 2024) is a culmination of Dr. Chua Beng Huat's study of Singapore's public housing system, its dynamics, and the ways it functions in Singapore's politics. Does every great success hold within it the seeds of failure? The book will be of interest to citizens, and scholars of the political economy of Asian development, of social welfare provision, and of Singapore. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

The achievement of Singapore's national public housing program is impressive by any standard. Within a year of its first election victory in 1959, the People's Action Party began to deliver on its promises in dramatic fashion. By the 1980s, 85 percent of the population had been rehoused in modern flats, and today, decades later, the provision of public housing shapes Singapore's environment. The standard accounts of this remarkable transformation leave many questions unanswered, from the historical to urgent matters of current policy: Why, of all the pressing demands of Singapore's newly enfranchised citizens, was housing such a priority back in the 1960s? How did the provision of social welfare via public housing shape Singapore's industrialisation and development over the last 50 years? Looking ahead, can the HDB continue to be a source of affordable housing for young families, while long-standing appreciation in flat prices provides for the retirement of their parents? How can this be managed as 99-year leases on flats run down? When young people from wealthy families purchase subsidised flats and then resell them for a profit as soon as they can, what does that do for the already pressing issues of inequality in Singapore? Public Subsidy, Private Accumulation: The Political Economy of Singapore's Public Housing (NUS Press, 2024) is a culmination of Dr. Chua Beng Huat's study of Singapore's public housing system, its dynamics, and the ways it functions in Singapore's politics. Does every great success hold within it the seeds of failure? The book will be of interest to citizens, and scholars of the political economy of Asian development, of social welfare provision, and of Singapore. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The achievement of Singapore's national public housing program is impressive by any standard. Within a year of its first election victory in 1959, the People's Action Party began to deliver on its promises in dramatic fashion. By the 1980s, 85 percent of the population had been rehoused in modern flats, and today, decades later, the provision of public housing shapes Singapore's environment. The standard accounts of this remarkable transformation leave many questions unanswered, from the historical to urgent matters of current policy: Why, of all the pressing demands of Singapore's newly enfranchised citizens, was housing such a priority back in the 1960s? How did the provision of social welfare via public housing shape Singapore's industrialisation and development over the last 50 years? Looking ahead, can the HDB continue to be a source of affordable housing for young families, while long-standing appreciation in flat prices provides for the retirement of their parents? How can this be managed as 99-year leases on flats run down? When young people from wealthy families purchase subsidised flats and then resell them for a profit as soon as they can, what does that do for the already pressing issues of inequality in Singapore? Public Subsidy, Private Accumulation: The Political Economy of Singapore's Public Housing (NUS Press, 2024) is a culmination of Dr. Chua Beng Huat's study of Singapore's public housing system, its dynamics, and the ways it functions in Singapore's politics. Does every great success hold within it the seeds of failure? The book will be of interest to citizens, and scholars of the political economy of Asian development, of social welfare provision, and of Singapore. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rafaela "Paeng" David is the current President of Akbayan Citizens' Action Party — the political party of Senator Risa Hontiveros,

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has issued a statement on former transport minister S. Iswaran - who is facing 27 charges including corruption. Speaking to reporters, DPM Wong said he is ‘disappointed and saddened' - but reiterated that the People's Action Party's stance on corruption is non-negotiable. READ MORE:https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/pap-s-stance-on-corruption-is-non-negotiable-part-of-its-dna-dpm-lawrence-wong-on-iswaran-s-case  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

And now a rambling and too brief review of "Justice League Action - Party Animal", which first aired on Dec. 2nd, 2017, in which Green Arrow tries to throw a Christmas party for the Justice League, only for highjinks to insue.  

As the Radical Thoughts Podcast is no longer active, I am making these old bonus episodes from Patreon publicly available so that listeners don't have to pay for an inactive podcast. - Patrick In this bonus episode, Patrick sits down with David Broder, a historian of French and Italian political history and European Editor for Jacobin Magazine, to talk about the politics of post-war Italy. Hear us discuss the relationship between the Action Party and the Communist Party, interpretations of Antonio Gramsci, and the effect of the Historic Compromise.

Singapore's third political leadership transition is set to take place, between now and the People's Action Party's 70th birthday - Nov 21st next year. With a clearer timeline of what's set to go down in Singapore's history books, on this episode of Breakfast Special - former Nominated Member of Parliament Eugene Tan, Associate Professor of Law at Singapore Management University discusses the legacy that PM Lee Hsien Loong has left for his successor DPM Lawrence Wong, and the key challenges facing the 4G team as they take over the reins. Presented by: Ryan Huang & Emaad Akhtar Produced and edited by: Yeo Kai Ting (ykaiting@sph.com.sg)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Voters looked past the issues plaguing the ruling People's Action Party in recent months. Synopsis: The Straits Times looks at Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam's landslide victory in the 2023 Presidential Election on Sept 1 despite his political background and affiliation to the ruling People's Action Party till recently. Mr Tharman secured 70.4 per cent of the ballot. Former GIC investment chief Ng Kok Song received 15.72 per cent of the vote, while Mr Tan Kin Lian, the former chief executive of NTUC Income, received 13.88 per cent. It showed voters focused on Mr Tharman's credentials and who they thought would best represent Singapore on the world stage, as raised in this discussion between ST's multimedia correspondent Hairianto Diman and deputy news editor Grace Ho. With President Halimah Yacob's six-year term ending on Sept 13, Mr Tharman will be sworn in as president at the Istana on Sept 14. Read Grace Ho's commentary: https://str.sg/iS97  Produced by: ST Video Edited by: Paxton Pang Follow ST Podcasts: Channel: https://str.sg/wvz7 Apple Podcasts: https://str.sg/wukK Spotify: https://str.sg/wukH Google Podcasts: https://str.sg/wukr SPH Awedio app: https://www.awedio.sg/ Website: http://str.sg/stpodcasts Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg --- Discover more ST podcast channels: In Your Opinion: https://str.sg/w7Qt Asian Insider: https://str.sg/JWa7 Health Check: https://str.sg/JWaN Green Pulse: https://str.sg/JWaf Your Money & Career: https://str.sg/wB2m ST Sports Talk: https://str.sg/JWRE #PopVultures: https://str.sg/JWad Music Lab: https://str.sg/w9TX Discover ST Podcasts: http://str.sg/stpodcasts --- Special edition series: True Crimes Of Asia (new): https://str.sg/i44T The Unsolved Mysteries of South-east Asia (5 eps): https://str.sg/wuZ2 Invisible Asia (9 eps): https://str.sg/wuZn Stop Scams (10 eps): https://str.sg/wuZB Singapore's War On Covid (5 eps): https://str.sg/wuJa --- Follow our shows then, if you like short, practical podcasts!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A series of revelations has rocked Singapore's political scene in the past few weeks. They include the resignation of several MPs, both across the ruling People's Action Party and opposition Workers' Party. Dr Gillian Koh, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies shares a deeper analysis of the recent spate of controversies involving Singapore's political parties, as well as what the ruling party will have to do to rebuild trust of the public.  Presented by: Lynlee Foo This podcast was produced and edited by Yeo Kai Ting (ykaiting@sph.com.sg)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Singapore's 5th ranking in Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2022 is being tested after its Transport Minister S Iswaran was arrested by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. This probe also involved hotel tycoon Ong Beng Seng. Additionally, two MPs have resigned resulting in a total of 5 constituencies without a people's representative. James Gomez, Regional Director, Asia Centre dissects these developments for us and how this impacts the performance of the People's Action Party that has been in power for 6 decades.Image by: ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI

Garett Jones is an economist at George Mason University and the author of The Cultural Transplant, Hive Mind, and 10% Less Democracy.This episode was fun and interesting throughout!He explains:* Why national IQ matters* How migrants bring their values to their new countries* Why we should have less democracy* How the Chinese are an unstoppable global force for free marketsWatch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Timestamps(00:00:00) - Intro(00:01:08) - Migrants Change Countries with Culture or Votes?(00:09:15) - Impact of Immigrants on Markets & Corruption(00:12:02) - 50% Open Borders?(00:16:54) - Chinese are Unstoppable Capitalists (00:21:39) - Innovation & Immigrants (00:24:53) - Open Borders for Migrants Equivalent to Americans?(00:28:54) - Let's Ignore Side Effects?(00:30:25) - Are Poor Countries Stuck?(00:32:26) - How Can Effective Altruists Increase National IQ(00:39:13) - Clone a million John von Neumann?(00:44:39) - Genetic Selection for IQ(00:47:02) - Democracy, Fed, FDA, & Presidential Power(00:49:42) - EU is a force for good?(00:55:12) - Why is America More Libertarian Than Median Voter?(00:56:19) - Is Ethnic Conflict a Short Run Problem?(00:59:38) - Bond Holder Democracy(01:04:57) - Mormonism(01:08:52) - Garett Jones's Immigration System(01:10:12) - Interviewing SBFTranscriptThis transcript was autogenerated and thus may contain errors.[00:00:41] Dwarkesh Patel: Okay. Today I have the pleasure of speaking with Garrett Jones, who is an economist at George Mason University. . He's most recently the author of the Cultural Trans. How migrants make the economies. They move to a lot like the ones they left, but he's also the author of 10% Less Democracy and Hive Mind. We'll get into all three of those books. Garrett, welcome to the podcast. [00:01:06] Garett Jones: Glad to be here.Thanks for having me.[00:01:08] Migrants Change Countries with Culture or Votes?[00:01:08] Garett Jones: Um, [00:01:09] Dwarkesh Patel: first question is, isn't the cultural transplant still a continuation of your argument against democracy? Because the isn't one of the reasons we care about the values of migrants, the fact that we eliminate democracy. So should review this book as part of your critique against democracy rather than against migration specifically.[00:01:27] Garett Jones: Um, well, I do think that, uh, governments and productivity are shaped by the citizens in a nation in, in almost any event. Um, I think that even as we've seen recently in China, even in a very strong authoritarian dictatorship, which some would call totalitarian, even there, the government has to listen to the masses.So the government can only get so far away from the masses on average, even in, uh, an autocracy. If you had [00:01:57] Dwarkesh Patel: to split apart the contribution though, um, the, the impact of migrants on, let's say the culture versus the impact that migrants have on a country by voting in their political system, um, uh, how, how would you split that apart?Is, is the, is mainly the impact we, the cultural impact we see for migration due to the ability of migrants to vote or because they're just influencing the culture just by being [00:02:19] Garett Jones: there? I'll cheat a little bit because we don't get to run experiments on this, so I just have to kind of guess, uh, make an informed guess.I, I'm gonna call it 50 50. Um, so the way people, uh, the way citizens influence a country through formal democracy is important. Uh, but citizens end up placing some kind of limits on the government anyway. And the people in the country are the, they're the folks who are gonna work in the firms and be able to either establish or not establish.Those complicated networks of exchange that are crucial to high productivity. . ,[00:02:52] Mean vs Elite IQ[00:02:52] Dwarkesh Patel: I wanna linger on hive mind a little bit before we talk about the cultural transplant. Um, if you had to guess, does, do the benefits of National IQ come from having a right tail of elites that is smarter or is it from not having that strong of a left tail of people who are, you know, lower productivity, more like markedly to commit crimes and things like that?In other words? Uh, yeah, go ahead. [00:03:14] Garett Jones: Yeah. Yeah. I, I think, uh, the upper tail is gonna matter more than the lower tail, um, in, in the normal range of variation. Uh, and I think part of that is because, uh, nations, at least moderately prosperous nations have found tools for basically reducing the influence of the least informed voters.And for. Uh, basically being able to keep productivity up even when there are folks who are sort of disrupting the whole process. Um, you know, the, the, the risks of crime from the lower end is basically like a probabilistic risk. It's not like it's, it's not like some, uh, zero to one switch or anything. So we're talking about something probabilistic.And I think that, uh, it's the, the median versus the elite is the, is the contrast that I find more interesting. Um, uh, median voter theorem, you know, normal, the way we often think about democracy says that the median should be matter more for determining productivity and for shaping institutions. Um, and I tend to think that that's more important in democracies for sure.So when we look at countries, if you just look at a scatter plot, just look at the raw data of a scatter plot. If you look at the few countries that are exceptions to the rule, where the mean is the mean, IQ is the best predictor of productivity compared to elite iq. Um, . The exceptions are non democracies and South Africa.So you see a few, uh, places in the Gulf where there are large migrant communities who are exceptionally well educated, exceptionally cognitively talented. Um, and that's associated with high productivity. Those are a couple of Gulf states. It's probably cutter, the UAE might be Bahrain in there, I'm not sure.Um, and then you've got South Africa. Those are the, those are the countries where the average test score, it doesn't have to be iq, it could be just Pisa, Tim's type stuff. Um, those are the exceptions to the rule that the average iq, the mean IQ is the best predictor of national productivity. [00:05:14] Dwarkesh Patel: Hmm. Uh, interesting.Um, does that imply the fact that the, um, at least in certain contexts, the elite IQ matters more than the left tail. Does that imply that we should want a greater deviation of IQ in a country? That you could just push a button and increase that deviation? Would that be good? [00:05:33] Garett Jones: No. No, I don't think so. Uh oh.If you could just increase the deviation, um, holding the mean constant. Yeah. Yeah. I think so. In the normal range of variation. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, mm-hmm. , um, is it, and I think that it has more effects. It, no, it's people at the top who are, um, tend to be coming up with, uh, the big breakthroughs, the big scientific breakthroughs, the big intellectual breakthroughs that end up spilling over to the whole world.Basically the, the positive externalities of innovation. This is a very, almost Pollyanna-ish, uh, Paul Roamer new endogenous, new, uh, new growth theory thing, right? Which is the innovations of the elite, a swamp, uh, the negatives of the low skilled among. , [00:06:14] Dwarkesh Patel: can we just apply this line of reasoning to low skilled immigration as well?Then that maybe the average goes down, the average IQ of your country goes down if the, if you just let in, you know, millions of low skilled immigration immigrants, and maybe there's some cultural effects to that too. But, you know, you're also going to the, that the elite IQ will still be preserved and more elites will come in through the borders, along with the low scale migrants.So then, you know, since we're caring about the devi deviation anyways, uh, more immigration might increase the deviation. Uh, and then, you know, the, we just, uh, that's a good [00:06:46] Garett Jones: thing. So notice what you did there is you, you did something that didn't just, uh, increase the variance. You simultaneously increase the variance and lowered the mean Yeah.Yeah. And median, right? And so I think that, uh, hurting the mean and median is actually a big cost, especially in democracies. And so that is very likely to swamp, uh, the benefits of, um, the small, the small probability of getting. Hire elite folks in as part of a low-skilled immigration policy. Mm-hmm. , so pulling down the mean or the median is that that's a, that's that swamps that swamps the benefits of increasing variants there.Yeah. Yes. [00:07:26] Dwarkesh Patel: But if you get rid of their migrant's ability to vote, and I guess you can't do that, but let assume you could do that. Yeah. What exactly is, like, what is the exec mechanism by which the, the, the cultural values or the lower median is impacting the elite's ability to produce these valuable externalities?You know, like there's a standard compared to advantage story that, you know, they'll, they'll do the housework and the cooking for the elites and they can do the more productive [00:07:52] Garett Jones: Yeah. Taking all the institutions as given, which is what a lot of open borders optimists do. They take institutions as given they take cultural norms as given.Um, all that micro stuff works out just fine. I'm totally, I'm totally on board with all that sort of Adam Smith division of labor. Blah, blah, blah. Um, but, institutions are downstream of culture and, uh, cultural norms will be changing partly because of what I call spaghetti theory, right?We meet in the middle when new folks come to a country. There's some kind of convergence, some part where people meet in the middle, um, between the, the values, uh, that were previously existing and the values that have shown up, uh, that migrants have brought with them. So, you know, like I I call it spaghetti theory because, um, when Italians moved to America, that got Americans eating more spaghetti, right?And if you just did a simple assimilation analysis, you'd say, wow, everybody in America eats the same now, like the burgers and spaghetti. So look, the Italians assimilated, but migrants assimilate us. Um, uh, native Americans certainly changed in response to the movement of Europeans. Um, English Americans certainly changed in response to the migration of German and Irish Americans.So this meeting in the middle is something that happens all the time, and not just through Democratic channels, just through the sort of soft contact of cultural norms that sociologists and social psychologists would understand. [00:09:15] Impact of Immigrants on Markets & Corruption[00:09:15] Garett Jones: Um, no, I'm sure you saw the book that was released, I think in 2020 titled, uh, retro Refuse, uh, where they showed, uh, slight positive relationship between, uh, immigration and, you know, pro-market, uh, laws.[00:09:27] Dwarkesh Patel: And I guess the idea behind that is there's selection effects in terms of who would come to a country like America in [00:09:32] Garett Jones: the first place. Well, they never ran the statistical analysis that would be most useful. I think they said that. Uh, so this is Powell and Na Roth Day. Yeah. They ran a statistical analysis that said, and they said, in all of the statistical analysis we've ever run, we've never found negative relationship between low-skilled migration, any measure of it, and changes in economic freedom.And, um, I actually borrowed another one of Powell's data sets, and I thought, well, how would I check this theory out? The idea that changes in migration have an effect on economic freedom? And I just used the normal economist tool. I thought about how do economists check to see if changes in money, changes in the money supply, change the price level.That's what we call the quantity theory, right? Mm-hmm. , the way you do that is on the x-axis. You, you show the change in the money supply On the y axis, you show the change in prices, right? This Milton Friedman's idea. Money's always everywhere. Yeah. Inflation's always neverwhere Montessori phenomenon. So that's what I did.Uh, I did this with a, with a, um, a student. Uh, we co-authored a paper doing this. And the very first statistical analysis we ran, we looked at migrants who came from countries that were substantially more, uh, corrupt than the country's average. And we looked at the, the different, the relationship between cha, an increase in migrants from corrupt countries, and subsequent changes in economic freedom.Every single statistical analysis we found had a negative relationship. , we ran the simplest estimate you could run. Right? Change on change. Change in one thing, predicts change in another. They somehow never got around to running that very simple statistical analysis. CH one change predicts another change.Hmm. We found negative relationships every time. Sometimes statistically significant, sometimes not always negative. Somehow they never found that. I just don't know how . But [00:11:21] Dwarkesh Patel: what about the anecdotal evidence that in the US for example, the, in the periods of the greatest expansion of the welfare state or of governed power during the New Deal or great society, the levels of foreign-born people were at like historical lows.Uh, is that just a coincidence or what, what do you think of? I'm [00:11:38] Garett Jones: not really interested in, uh, migration per se. Right. My story is never that, like migration per se, does this bad thing. Migrants are bad. That's never my story, right? Mm-hmm. , as you know, right? Yeah. Yeah. So my story is that migrants bring, uh, cultural values from their old country to their new country.And sometimes those cultural norms are better than what you've got, and sometimes they're worse than what you've got. And sometimes it's just up for debate. [00:12:02] 50% Open Borders?[00:12:02] Dwarkesh Patel: So if you had to guess what percentage of the world has cultural values that are equivalent to or better than the average of Americas? [00:12:11] Garett Jones: Uh oh.Equivalent to or better then? Yeah. Uh, I mean, just off the top of my head, maybe 20%. I dunno, 30%. I'll just throw something out there like that. Yeah. So I mean, like for country averages, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, [00:12:25] Dwarkesh Patel: currently we probably don't have, uh, it would probably be hard for like 20% of the rest of the world to get into the us.Um, w w would you support some, uh, PO policy that would make it easy for people from those countries specifically to get to the us? Just, uh, have radical immigration liberalization from those places? [00:12:44] Garett Jones: Um, that's really not my comparative advantage to have opinions about that, but like, substantial increases of people who pass multiple tests, like, let's take the low hanging fruit and then move down from there.Right? So people from, uh, countries, uh, that ha um, on average have say higher savings rates, um, higher, uh, education levels. Higher s what I call s a t, deep root scores and, um, countries that are, say half a standard deviation above the US level on all three, [00:13:18] Dwarkesh Patel: right? Why do they have to be higher? Why not just equivalent, like, uh, you get all the gains from trade and plus it can't be, you know, equivalent.So it's, there's no [00:13:27] Garett Jones: trade. Part of the reason is because the entire world depends on US innovation. So we should make America as good as possible, not just slightly better than it is. So very few firms would find that their optimal hiring policy would be hire anyone who's better than your current stock of employees.Would you agree with that? [00:13:42] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah. But you, uh, have to pay them a salary. If you're just, uh, if it's just somebody just comes to the us, you don't have to like pay them a salary, right? So if somebody is better, that, if somebody's producing more value for a firm than the salary would pay them, I think [00:13:52] Garett Jones: like is is a firm's job to maximize its profits or to just make a little bit more than it's making right?Maximize profits. But yeah, there you go. So you pack, you find the best people you can, you know, sports teams that are hiring don't just say, we wanna hire people who are better than what we got. They say, let's get the best people we can get. Why not get the best? That was Jim Jimmy Carter's, that was Jimmy Carter's, uh, biography.Why not the best. But you, [00:14:16] Dwarkesh Patel: you can do that along with getting people who are, you know, unexpected, uh, terms as good as the existing Americans. Why gives [00:14:24] Garett Jones: y'all like, I don't care what you, why you want this? This seems like crazy, right? What are you talking about? But [00:14:29] Dwarkesh Patel: I, I'm not sure why not the best what the trade out there, huh?No, I'm not saying you don't get the best, but I, I'm saying once you've gotten the best, what is the harm in getting the people who have equivalent s a t scores and, and the rest of the things you [00:14:41] Garett Jones: mentioned. I think part of the reason would be you'd wanna find out, I mean, if you really wanna do something super hardcore, you'd have to find out what's best for the planet as a whole.What's the trade off between, um, Having the very best, uh, most innovative, talented, frugal people in America doing innovating that has benefits for the whole world, versus having an America that's like 40% better, but we're the median's a little bit, the median of skills a little bit lower. Right. Uh, because the median's shaping the productivity of the whole team.Right? Yeah. This is what you, you know what it means when you believe in externalities, right? [00:15:14] Dwarkesh Patel: But if you have somebody who's equivalent by definition, they're not moving the median down. [00:15:19] Garett Jones: That's, you're, you're totally right about that. Yeah. But like, why wouldn't I want the best thing possible? Right. Okay.I'm still trying to figure out why you wouldn't want the best thing possible. You're trying to go, why? I don't want the best thing possible. I'm like, why not? [00:15:31] Dwarkesh Patel: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just, I'm a little bit confused about why that that precludes you from also getting the second best thing possible.At the same time you're, because you're not limited to just the best. [00:15:42] Garett Jones: Right. Well, uh, because the second best is going to have a negative externality on the first best. Everything's externalities. This is my worldview, right? Everything's externalities. You bring in the second best, you're like, you're not, that person's gonna make things on average a little worse for the first best person.[00:16:00] Dwarkesh Patel: But it seems like you were explaining earlier that the negative externalities are coming from people from countries with, uh, low s a t scores. And by the way, s a t you can explain what that means just for the audience who's not familiar with how you're using that term. [00:16:11] Garett Jones: Oh yeah. So, um, there, there are three prominent, uh, measures in what's known as the deep roots literature and, uh, that are widely used.Uh, two are s n a, that state history and agricultural history. That's how many thousands of years your ancestors have had experience living under organized states or living unsettled agriculture. And then the T-score is the tech history score. I used the measure from 1500. It's basically what fraction of the world's technology were your ancestors using in 1500 before, uh, Columbus and his expansive conquest ended up upending the entire world.Uh, the world map. So s a and T are all predictors of modern prosperity, but especially when you adjust for migration. [00:16:54] Chinese are Unstoppable Capitalists [00:16:54] Garett Jones: Gotcha. [00:16:55] Dwarkesh Patel: We can come back to this later, but one of the interesting things I think from the book was you have this chapter on China and the Chinese people as a sort of unstoppable force for free market capitalism.Mm-hmm. . Um, and it's interesting, as you mentioned in the book, that China is a poorest majority Chinese country. Um, what do you think explains why China is a poorest, uh, majority Chinese country? Maybe are there like non-linear dynamics here where, uh, if you go from 90 40 to 90% Chinese, there's positive effects, but if you go from 90 to 95% Chinese, there's too much?[00:17:26] Garett Jones: No, I think it's just, I think just communism is dumb and it has terrible, like sometimes decades long effects on institutional quality. I don't really quite understand. So I'd say North Korea, if we had good data on North Korea, North Korea would be even a bigger sort of deep roots outlier than China is.Right? It's like, don't, don't have a communist dictatorship in your country. Seems to be pretty, a robust lesson for a national prosperity. China's still stuck with a sort of crummy version of that mistakes still. North Korea, of course, is stuck with an even worse version. So I think that's, I, my hunch is that that's, you know, the overwhelming issue there.Um, it's, it's something that, it's, it's sort of a China's stuck in an ins. Currently China's stuck in an institutional cul-de-sac and they just don't quite know how to get out of it. And it's, uh, bad for a lot of, for the people who live there. On average, if the other side had won the Chinese Civil War, things would probably be a lot, lot better off in China today.Yeah. [00:18:22] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, but what, what is that suggestion about the deep roots literature? If the three biggest countries in the world, China, India, and America, Um, it, it, it under predicts their performance, or sorry, in the case of China and India, it, uh, it, it over predicts their performance. And in the case of America, it under predicts maybe the, how, how reliable is this if like the three biggest countries in the world are not, uh, adequately accounted for?[00:18:45] Garett Jones: Uh, well, you know, communism's a really big mistake. I, I think that's totally accounted for right there. Um, I think India's underperformance isn't that huge. Um, the US is a miracle along many ways. Um, it's, we should draw our lessons from the typical country, and I think, uh, population weighted estimates, I don't think that basically one third of the knowledge about the wealth of nations comes from the current GDP per capita of China, India, and the us, right?I think much less than one third of the story of the wealth of nations comes from those three. And, uh, again, in, in all three cases though, if you look at the economic trajectories of all three of those people, oh, all three of those countries, uh, they're all, uh, China and India growing faster than you'd expect.And also, I wanna point out. This is the most important point actually. Um, when we look at, uh, when Kaplan made this claim, right? Brian Kaplan has made this claim, right? Yeah. That the SATs, that the ancestry scores, the deep root scores don't predict, um, the prosperity of, uh, the, the low performance of Indian China.He only checked the S and the A and the s a T scores. Okay. Which letter did he not predict? Which letter did he never test out? He never tested the T. What do you think happens when he tests the T? Does it predict, uh, China [00:20:02] Dwarkesh Patel: and India and America, [00:20:03] Garett Jones: Hey, start, they t goes back to being statistically significant again, UhhuhSo with T, which we've always known is the best of the deep root scores, somehow Kaplan never managed to measure that one. Just as Powell Naste never managed to run the simplest test change in, uh, migrant corruption versus change in economic institutions somehow, like the simplest test just never get run.[00:20:26] Dwarkesh Patel: Okay. And then what is the impact if you include t. If you, [00:20:29] Garett Jones: if you, if you look at tea, then, um, then, uh, contrary to what Kaplan says, uh, the deep roots, that deep roots measure is sig statistically significant. [00:20:38] Dwarkesh Patel: Okay. Um, yeah, I, [00:20:40] Garett Jones: interesting. The puzzle goes away, [00:20:42] Dwarkesh Patel: interesting. [00:20:43] Garett Jones: Um, yeah. So somehow these guys just never seem to run like the simple things, the transparent things.I don't know [00:20:49] Dwarkesh Patel: why the, um, the weird, huh? The, the, the one you mentioned from, what was it Nassa, the name of the guy who wrote the Richard at re refuse [00:20:57] Garett Jones: the Yeah, yeah. Powell Naste. [00:20:59] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah. Yeah. That you said you did the regression on institutional corruption, uh, and from the countries to come from. Is that, was that right?I, [00:21:06] Garett Jones: and so yeah. The, the measure they use, I just took, I took Powell's dataset from another study, and it was the percent. Of it was basically, um, the percentage of your nation's population, the percentage increase in your nation's population from relatively poor or corrupt countries. They had multiple measures, UhhuhSo, and what is on the y axis there? Y axis is change in economic freedom. That's my preferred one. Gotcha. There's also a change in corruption one, which is a noisier indicator. Um, you get much clearer results with change in economic freedom, so. Gotcha, [00:21:38] Dwarkesh Patel: gotcha. [00:21:39] Innovation & Immigrants [00:21:39] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, now does the ideas getting harder to find stuff and great stagnation, does that imply we should be less worried about impinging on the innovation engine in these, uh, countries that people might wanna migrate to?Because worse comes to worst. It's not like there are a whole bunch of great new theories that were gonna come out anyways. [00:21:58] Garett Jones: Uh, no. I think that, I think that it's always good to have great things, um, and new ideas. Yes, new ideas are getting harder to find, but, um, that, but that the awesome ideas that we're still getting are still worth so much.Right. If we're still increasing lifespan a month, a year, uh, for every year of research we're doing, like, that just seems great. Right? A decade that adds a year to life, so, mm-hmm. , just to use a rough, uh, ballpark measure there. But, so we [00:22:25] Dwarkesh Patel: have a lot of these countries where a lot of innovation is happening.So let's say we kept, uh, one or two of them as, you know, immigrate, uh, havens from any potential, uh, downsides, from radical changes. You know, we already had this in the case of Japan or South Korea, there's not that much of migration there. Mm-hmm. . What is, what is a harm in then using the other ones to decrease global poverty by immigration or something like [00:22:48] Garett Jones: that?Well, um, it's obviously better to create a couple of innovation powerhouses, um, rather than none. Right? So obviously that's, that's nice. But instead, I would prefer to have, um, open borders for Iceland if the Open borders advocates are right and open borders. , we'll have no noticeable effect on institutional quality, then it's great to move, , to have our open borders experiment run in a country that's lightly populated, has a lot of open land, and, um, has good institutional quality.And Iceland fits the bill perfectly for that. So we could preserve the institutional innovation skill, uh, the institutional quality of the, the what I call the I seven. Uh, that's, you know, China, Japan, South Korea, the us, Germany, uk, France, and choose any country out of the a hundred, out of the couple of dozen countries that have good institutional quality.Just pick one of the others that aren't one of those seven, pick one that's not an innovation powerhouse and turn that into your open borders, uh, country. Um, you could, uh, if you wanted to get basically Singapore levels of population density in Iceland, that'd be about 300 million people, I think. I think I, that's about what the numbers end up looking like.Something like that. But [00:24:00] Dwarkesh Patel: the, so you can put entire, but, but the value of open borders comes from the fact that you're coming to a country with high conglomerations of talent and capital and other things, which is, uh, not true of Iceland. Right. So isn't the entire [00:24:13] Garett Jones: No, no. I thought the whole point of open borders, that there's institutional quality and there's some exogenous institutions that make that place more productive than other places.Mm-hmm. . And so by move, I, I, that's my version of what I've been exposed to as open borders, the, is that institutions exogenously exist. There's some places have, uh, moderately laissez, fairer institutions in their country and moving a lot more people there will not reduce the productivity of the people who are currently there, and they'll become much more productive.And so, like the institu, you know, the institutional quality's crucial. So, I mean, if you're a real geography guy, you'd be excited about the fact that Iceland is so far, so close to the north. because latitude is a predictor of prosperity. [00:24:53] Open Borders for Migrants Equivalent to Americans?[00:24:53] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, I want to go back to the thing about, well, should we have open border for that 20% of the Popula global world's population that comes from Yeah.Um, equivalent, s a t and other sort of cultural traits as America. Mm-hmm. , because I feel like this is important enough to dwell on it. You know, it seems similar to saying that once picked up a hundred dollars bill on the floor, you wouldn't pick up a $20 bill on the floor cuz you only won the best bill.Uh, the $20 bills is right there. Why not pick it up? Um, [00:25:18] Garett Jones: so what if you have, yeah. What if the $20 bill makes your, turns, your, uh, a hundred dollars bill into like an $80 bill and turns all of your 80 a hundred dollars bills and $80 bills. [00:25:27] Dwarkesh Patel: But is it, aren't your controlling for that by saying that they have equivalent scores along all those cultural tests that you're.[00:25:34] Garett Jones: No, because, um, the median, so, so take the simple version of my story, which is the median of the population ends up shaping the productivity of everybody in the country. Right? Or the mean, right? The mean skill level ends up shaping the productivity of the entire population. Right? So that means we end up, I mean, I, I try not to math this up.I don't wanna math this up for the, you know, in a popular book, but it means we face a trade off between being small, a small country with super awesome, uh, positive externalities for all the workers by just selecting the best people. And every time we lower the average skill level in the country, we're lowering the average productivity of everyone else we're creating.We didn't, [00:26:11] Dwarkesh Patel: what? We didn't lower it. So you have to have skills that are lower compared to, than the median of a median American. You, [00:26:18] Garett Jones: so this is, this is a c Paraba story, right? Like if you could suppose the US is at 80 now on a zero to a hundred scale, right? Just, just saying it's 80. Yeah. Yeah. And you have a choice between being hundred and being 99.if you're at 99, the 99 is making, all compared to the world of average of a hundred, the world of an average 99 is making, reducing the productivity of all those hundreds. Okay. So if we chose 90, we're reducing the productivity of all those hundreds. [00:26:48] Dwarkesh Patel: Yes. Okay. So let's say we admit all the smartest people in the world, and that gets us from 80 to 85.That's a new, that's a new media in America. Yeah. At that point. And, but this is because we've admitted a whole bunch of like 90 nines that have just increased our average. Yeah, yeah. Um, at that point, open borders for everybody who's ever been 85, [00:27:08] Garett Jones: like I, this is, this is, ends up being a math problem. It's a little hard to solve on a podcast, right?Because it's the, it's the question of do I want a smaller country with super high average productivity? Or a bigger country with lower average productivity. And by average productivity, I don't just mean, uh, uh, a compositional effect. I mean negative external, I mean relatively fewer positive externalities.So I'll use the term relatively fewer positive externalities rather than negative externalities, right? So like, I don't exactly know where this is. Trade off's gonna pan out, but, um, there is a case for a sort of Manhattan when people talk about a Manhattan project, right? They're talking about putting all like a small number of the smartest people in a room.And part of the reason you don't want like the 20th, smartest person in the room. Cause, cuz that person's gonna ruin the ruin stuff for our, for the other smart people. I, it's amazing how your worldview changes when you see everybody as an external. I, [00:28:02] Dwarkesh Patel: I'm kind of confused about this because just having, at some point you're gonna run outta the smartest people, the remainder of the smartest people in the world.If you've admitted all the brilliant people. Yeah. And given how big the US population is to begin with, you're not gonna change the median that much by doing that. Right. So it's, it's almost a global end to just having more births from the average American. Like if, if the average American just had more kids, the population would still grow.Mm-hmm. and the relative effect of the brightest people might dilute a little bit. Um, but I I, [00:28:33] Garett Jones: and that maybe that's a huge tragedy. We don't know without a bunch of extra math and a bunch of weird assumptions. We don't know. So like I'm, there's a point at which I have to say like, I don't know. Right. Okay.Yeah. Uh, yeah. Is diluting the power of the smartest person in America, like keeping us from having wondrous miracles all around us all the time? I mean, probably not, but. I don't know, [00:28:53] Dwarkesh Patel: but, [00:28:54] Let's Ignore Side Effects?[00:28:54] Dwarkesh Patel: but I guess the sort of the meta question you can ask about this entire debate is, listen, there's so much literature here and it's hard to tell what exactly will happen.You know, it's possible that culture will become worse. It's possible, it'll become better. It's possible to stay the same, given the fact that there's this ambiguity. Why not just do the thing that on the first order of effect seems good? And, you know, just like moving somebody who's like in a poor country to a rich country, first order effect seems good.I don't know how the third and fourth order effect shapes out. Let's just, you know, let's just do the simple obvious thing. [00:29:22] Garett Jones: I, I thought that the, one of the great ideas of economics is that we have to worry about secondary and tertiary consequences. Right? [00:29:28] Dwarkesh Patel: But if, if we, if we can't even figure out what they are exactly, why not just do the thing that at the first order seems, uh, good.[00:29:35] Garett Jones: Um, because if you have a compelling reason to think that the, uh, direction of strength of the second and third and fourth order things are negative and the variances are really wide, then you're just adding a lot more uncertainty to your outcomes. So, And adding uncertainty or outcomes that has sizable negative tail, especially for the whole planet.Isn't that great? Go ahead and run your experiments in Iceland. Let's run that for 50 years and see what happens. It's weird how everybody's obsessed with it running the experiment in America, right? Why not running in Iceland first? Because America's [00:30:05] Dwarkesh Patel: got a great, a lot of great institutions right there.We can check and see what [00:30:08] Garett Jones: Iceland Iceland's a great place too. Um, and I use Iceland as a metaphor, right? Like it's, people are obsessed with running it in America. Like there's some kind of need. I don't know why. So let's try in France. Um, let's try, let's try Northern Ireland. , [00:30:24] Dwarkesh Patel: uh, are,[00:30:25] Are Poor Countries Stuck?[00:30:25] Dwarkesh Patel: are places with low s a t scores and again, s a t we're not talking about the, uh, in case you're skipping to the timestamp, we're not talking about the college test.Um, the deep roots. [00:30:35] Garett Jones: S a t Exactly. Uh, state history, agricultural history, tech history. [00:30:38] Dwarkesh Patel: Right. Exactly. Are, are those places with, uh, low scores on, um, on that test? Are they stuck there forever? Or, uh, is there something that can be done if you are a country that has had a short or not significant history of, um, technology or agriculture?[00:30:56] Garett Jones: Well, the, I start off the book with this, which I really think that, uh, one thing they could do is, uh, create a welcoming environment for large numbers of Chinese migrants to move there persistently. I don't think that's of course the only thing that could ever work, but I think it's something that's within the range of policy for at least some poor countries.I don't know which ones, but, uh, some poor countries could follow the. Approach that many countries in Southeast Asia followed, which has created an environment that's welcoming, welcoming enough to Chinese migrants. Um, it's the one country in the world with large numbers of high s a t score, uh, with alar, with a high s a T score culture, large population.It's enough of an economic failure, so for at least a little longer that, uh, folks can, might be able to be interested in moving to a poor country with lower s a t scores. In a better world, you can do this with North Korea too, but the population of North Korea isn't big enough to make a big dent in the world, right?Mm-hmm. , uh, China's population is big enough. Yeah. [00:31:54] Dwarkesh Patel: Another thing you're worried have to worry about in those cases though though, is the risk that if you do become successful in that country, there's just gonna be a huge backlash and your resources will. AppD, like what happened famously. [00:32:05] Garett Jones: So in, in Indonesia, right?Yeah. There have been many Oh, yeah, yeah. Times across Southeast Asia where anti-Chinese pogroms have been, um, uh, unfortunately a fact of life. So, yeah. Yeah. [00:32:15] Dwarkesh Patel: Or Indians in Uganda under, uh, IDI. I, I mean, yeah. Yep. Um, yeah. Yeah. Uh, okay. So actually I, I'm curious how you would think about this given the impact of National iq.[00:32:26] How Can Effective Altruists Increase National IQ[00:32:26] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, if you're an effective altruist, what, uh, are you just, uh, handing out iodine tablets, uh, across, across the world? What, what are you doing to increase national [00:32:34] Garett Jones: iq? Yeah. This is places, this is something that I, yes. Uh, finding ways I, this is what I call a, a Flynn cycle. Like I wish, I'm hoping for a world where there are enough public health interventions and probably K through six education interventions.to boost test scores in the world's poorest countries. And I think that ha ends up having, um, uh, a virtuous cycle to it, right? As people get more productive, then they can afford more public health, which makes them more productive, which means they can afford more public health. I think brain health is an important and neglected part of child development.Um, fortunately we've done a fair amount to reduce the amount of environmental lead, um, in a lot of poor countries. That's probably having a good effect right now as we speak in a lot of the world's poorest countries. You're right. Um, iodine, basic childhood nutrition, uh, reliable healthcare, uh, to, you know, prevent the worst kinds of just mild childhood infections that are probably, uh, creating what the, what they, what economists sometimes call health.Things that end up just hurting you in a way that causes, uh, an ill-defined long-term cost. A lot of that's gonna have to show up in the, in the brain. Um, I'm a big fan of the, of the view that part of the Flynn Effect is, uh, basically nutrition and health. Mm-hmm. , uh, Flynn wasn't a huge believer in that, but I think that's, um, certainly important in the poorest countries.Yeah. [00:33:57] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, I, I think Brian showed an open voters that if you look at , the, um, IQ of adoptees from poor countries, um, who go, uh, Sweden is the only country that collects data, but if you get adopted by a parent in, um, uh, Sweden, uh, the, the half the gap between the averages of two countries, half gap, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.Goes away. So, I mean, is one of the ways we can increase global IQ just by moving kids to, uh, countries with good health outcomes that, uh, will nourish their [00:34:27] Garett Jones: intelligence. Well, that's a classic short run versus long run effect, right? So, uh, libertarians and open borders advocates tend to be focused on the short run, static effects.So, um, and so you're right, moving kids from poor countries to richer countries is probably gonna raise their test scores quite a lot. And, uh, then the question is, in over the longer run, are those, uh, lower skilled folks, the folks with lower test scores, uh, going to degrade the institutional quality? of the places they move to, right?So if you close half the gap between the poor country and the rich country, half the gap is still there. Right? And if I'm right, , that IQ has big externalities then, , moving people from a, uh, lower scoring country to a richer scoring country and closing half the IQ gap still means on net you're creating a negative externality in the country the kids are moving to.[00:35:17] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, yeah, yeah. Uh, we can come back to that, but yeah. Yeah. So [00:35:23] Garett Jones: it, it's, it's basically, you just look at the question, is this lowering the mean test scores in your country? And if it's lowering the mean test scores in the long run, it's on average gonna lower institutional quality productivity savings rates, those.Um, it's hard to avoid that. It's hard to avoid that outcome. So, uh, I don't [00:35:38] Dwarkesh Patel: remember the exact figures, but didn't Brian address this in the book, um, in the Open Borders book as well, that you can, even if there's a, the, a national iq, uh, lowers on average, if you're just, uh, if you're still raising the global iq, that, that it's still nets out positive, or am I [00:35:54] Garett Jones: remembering that wrong?Well, that, notice what he's, he, what he does is he attributes, uh, he says there's some productivity that's just in the land, that's just geographic factors. Yeah. So basically being close for, and so that, so basically moving people away from the equator boost productivity substantially. And again, that's, uh, a static result.Um, the reason I, uh, I mentioned that ignores all the I seven stuff that I'm talking about where anything that lowers. Um, level of innovation in the world's most innovative countries has negative costs for the entire planet in the long run, but that's something you'd only see over the course of 20, 30, 50 years.And libertarians and open border advocates are very rarely interested in that kind of [00:36:33] Dwarkesh Patel: timeframe. Is there any evidence about, uh, the impact of migration on innovation specifically? So not on the average institutional quality or on, you know, uh, the, the corruption or whatever, but like, just directly the amount of innovation that happens or maybe the Noble Prizes won or things [00:36:48] Garett Jones: like that?Um, no. I mean, I would presume, I think a lot of us would presume that, uh, the European invasion of North America ended up having, uh, positive effects for global innovation. It's not an invasion that I'm in favor of, but if you wanna talk crudely about Yeah, yeah. Whether migrations had an effect on innovation, uh, you'd probably have to include that as any kind of analysis.[00:37:07] Dwarkesh Patel: Yep. Yep. , do you think that the people who are currently Americans, but , their ancestry, traces back to countries with low s a t scores? I i, is it possible that US GDP per capita would be higher, without that contribution?Or how do you think about that? [00:37:21] Garett Jones: I mean, that it follows from thinking through the fact that we are all externalities positive or negative, right? I don't know what in, in any particular, any one particular country could turn out to be some exciting exception to the rules, some interesting anomaly. Um, but on average, we should presume that the average skill level of voters, the average, uh, traits that we're bringing from, uh, the nations, that the nations of our, of our ancestors are as having an effect on our current productivity for gut ori.So just following through the reasoning, I'd have to say on average, that's most likely. Uh, but it, there could always be exceptions to the rule. [00:37:56] Dwarkesh Patel: I guess we see large disparities in income between different ethnic groups across the world, not just in the United States. Yeah. Doesn't that suggest that some of the gains can be privatized from whatever the cultural or other traits there are? Cuz if these, if over decades and centuries these sorts of, uh, these sorts of gaps continue, [00:38:18] Garett Jones: I don't see why that would follow.Right. Um, [00:38:21] Dwarkesh Patel: uh, if everything is being, if all the externalities are just being averaged out over time, what did you expect that these GA gaps would [00:38:29] Garett Jones: narrow? Well, I mean, I'm being a little rhetorical when I'm saying everything's literally an externality, right. I don't literally believe that's true. Um, for instance, people with higher education levels do actually earn more than people with lower education levels.So that's literally not an externality. Right. So some of these other cultural traits that people are bringing with them from their, um, ancestors, nations of origin, um, could be one or one likely one source of these income differences. I mean, if you think about differences in frugality, uh, differences in personal responsibility, which show up in the surveys, uh, that are persistent across generations, those are likely to have an effect on long run productivity for you, yourself and your family.So, mm-hmm. , let alone the hive mind stuff, where you find that there's a positive relationship between test scores and, and product. [00:39:13] Clone a million John von Neumann?[00:39:13] Garett Jones: There was a [00:39:14] Dwarkesh Patel: blogger who took a look at your 2004 paper about the, um, impact of National IQ on, um, on G uh, G D P. Um, and they calculated, so they were just speculating. Let's say you cloned a million John Mond Nomans, and as assume that John Mond Noman had an IQ of 180, then you could, uh, let me just pull up the exact numbers.You could, um, you could raise the average IQ of the United States by 0.21 points, um, and if it's true that one IQ point contributes 6% to, uh, G increasing G, then this proposal would increase U US GDP by, uh, 1.2, uh, six two 6%. Do you buy these kinds of extrapolations or 1.26%? Yeah. Yeah, because you're only cloning a million, [00:39:58] Garett Jones: Jon.Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So this is about 1 million Jon. Yeah. Yeah, that sounds. I mean, that's the kind of thing where I wouldn't expect it to happen overnight. Right. I tend to think of that, uh, the IQ externalities as being two, three generations. I, I lump it in with what economists call organizational capital.That sounds about right. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I, I can't remember where I saw this. I think I, I stumbled across it myself at some point too, so. [00:40:19] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah. Yeah. Uh, by the way, his name is Avaro Dam Bernard, if you wanna [00:40:22] Garett Jones: find it. Oh, okay. Yes, yes. Okay. Yeah, it's, I mean, in, in, it's in that ballpark, right? It's just this idea that, and, and more importantly, um, a million John Bon Nomans would be a gift to the entire planet, right?Yep. Yep, yep. So, yeah, if you had a, if you had a choice of which country to have the John Vno, the million John Von Nomans, uh, it's probably gonna be one of the I seven maybe there's, maybe there's a, maybe Switzerland would be a good alternative. [00:40:46] Dwarkesh Patel: What is the optimal allocation of intelligence across the country?Because one answer, and I guess this is the default answer in our society, is you just send them where they can get paid the most, because that's a good enough proxy for how much they're contributing. Yeah. And so you have these high glomeration of talent and intelligence in places like Silicon Valley or New York.Um, and, you know, because their contributions there can scale to the rest of the world. This is actually where they're producing the most value. Another is, you know, you actually, you should disperse them throughout the country so that they're helping out communities. They're, you know, teachers in their local community.Um, I think there was, uh, A result. There was an interesting anecdotal evidence that during the Great Depression, the crime in New York went down a ton, and that was because the cops in New York were able to hire the, you know, they had like a hundred applications for every cop they hired. And so they were able to hire the best and the brightest, and there were just a whole bunch of new police tactics and every that were pioneered at the time anyways.So, is the market allocation of intelligence correct? Or do you think there should be more distribution of intelligence across the country? How do you think about that? [00:41:50] Garett Jones: Yeah, I mean, the mar the, the market signals aren't terrible. Uh, but, uh, this is my, my Interpol Roamer kicks in and says, uh, innovation is all about externalities.And there's market failures everywhere when it comes to, in the fields of innovation. Mm-hmm. . And so, you know, I, I personally, I mean, I, I like the idea of finding ways to allocate them to, to stem style, stem style technical fields, and. , we do a fair amount of that, and maybe we do the, maybe the US does a pretty good job of that.I don't have any huge complaints at that, at the, at the crudes 50,000 foot level, um, for the, you know, the fact that people know that there's, uh, status games they can play within academia that are perhaps more satisfying or at least as satisfying as the sort of corporate hierarchy stuff. So, yeah. Yeah. I I You don't want 'em all just, I wouldn't encourage them to solely follow market signals.Right. I'd, I'd encourage them to be more HandsOn and, uh, play a variety of status games because the academic, um, and intellectual status game is worth a lot, both personally and than it leads to positive spillovers for. [00:42:58] Dwarkesh Patel: But how about the geographic distribution? Do you think that it's fine that there's people leave, uh, smart people leave Kentucky and go to San Francisco or, yeah, [00:43:08] Garett Jones: I'm a big glomeration guy.Yeah. I'm, I'm, yeah, I'm a big glomeration guy. Yeah. I mean, the internet makes it easier, but then like, still being close to people's, being in the room's important. Um, there, there's, there's something, uh, both HandsOn and Gerard in here about, like, we need to find role models to imitate, and that's probably important for productivity.[00:43:30] Dwarkesh Patel: Um, are there increasing or decreasing returns to National iq?No, [00:43:38] Garett Jones: I think, um, you know, my findings were that it was all basically log linear. And so log linear looks crudely, like increasing returns. . So yeah, it looks exponential, right? So yeah, there's increasing returns to National iq. Yeah. Are are you? But, but this is, this is a commonplace finding in a sense because so many, uh, like human, all the human capital relationships I'm familiar with end up having something like a log linear form, which is exponential.So why is that? Um, yeah, there's something multiplicative that that's how, what I have, that's all I have to say is like it's something. Somehow this all taps into Adam Smith's pin factory, and we have multiplicative not additive effects when we are increasing brain power.Um, I have, I suspect it does have something to do with, uh, a, a better organization of the division of labor between people, which ends up happening something close to e to, uh, exponential effects on productivity. [00:44:39] Genetic Selection for IQ[00:44:39] Garett Jones: A are, uh, are you a fan of genetic selection for intelligence, uh, as a means of increasing national iq or do you think that's too much playing at the margins if it's voluntary?I mean, people should be able to do what they want and, um, after a couple day decades of experimentation, I think people would end up finding a path to, uh, government subsidies or tax credits or something like that. I think people voluntarily deciding what kind of kids they want to have. is a, a, a good thing.And so by genetic selection, I assume you're meaning at the most elementary level people testing their embryos the way they do now, right? Yeah. So I mean, we, we already do a lot of genetic selection for intelligence. Um, anybody, you know, who's, uh, in their mid thirties or beyond who's had amniocentesis, they've been doing a form of genetic selection for intelligence.So it's a widespread practice already in our culture. Um, and, uh, welcoming that in a voluntary way is probably going to have good effects for our future. What [00:45:40] Dwarkesh Patel: do you make of the fact that G B T three, or I think it was Chad g p t, had, uh, measured IQ of 85? Yeah, [00:45:47] Garett Jones: I've seen a few different measures of this, right?You might have seen multiple measures. Um, yeah, I think it's, I think it's a sign that basically, and, and when you see people using non IQ tests to sort of assess the outputs of G P T on, um, long essays, it does does seem to fit into that sort of, not quite a hundred, but not, not off by a lot. Yeah. I mean, I think it's, I think it's a sign that a lot of, uh, uh, mundane, even fairly complex, moderately complex human interactions can be simulated by a large, uh, language learning model.Mm-hmm. . And I think that's, that's, uh, gonna be rough news for a lot of, uh, people whose life was in the realm of words and dispensing simple advice and solving simple problems. That's pretty bad news for their careers. I'm, I'm disappointed hearing that, so [00:46:36] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah. Yeah. [00:46:37] Garett Jones: Um, at least for the transition. I dunno what the, I dunno what's gonna happen after the transition, but [00:46:41] Dwarkesh Patel: Yeah.I'm hoping that's not true of programmers or economists. I like you. I mean, [00:46:46] Garett Jones: it might be right. I mean, it's, if that's the way it is, I mean, I, the, I mean, the car put a lot of, uh, people who took care of horses right out of outta work too, so. [00:46:55] Dwarkesh Patel: Yep. Um, even, okay, so let's talk about democracy that I thought this was also one of your really interesting books.No, thanks. Yeah. [00:47:02] Democracy, Fed, FDA, & Presidential Power[00:47:02] Dwarkesh Patel: even controlling for how much democratic oversight there is of institutions in the government. There seems to be a wide discrepancy of how well they work. Like the Fed seems to work reasonably well. I, I, I don't know enough about macroeconomics to know how the object level decisions they make, but mm-hmm.you know, it seems to be a non-corrupt, like, uh, technocratic organization. Um, enough, but yeah. Yeah. Uh, if you look at something like the fda, it's also somewhat insulated from democratic processes. It seems to not work as well. Mm-hmm. , what determines controlling food democracy? What controls, what, what determines how well an institution in the government works?[00:47:38] Garett Jones: Well, I, I think, um, in the case, the Fed, it really does matter that they, uh, the people who run it have guaranteed long terms and they print their own money to spend mm-hmm. . So that means that they're basically, Congress has to really. Make an effort to change anything of the Fed. So they really have the kind of independence that matters.Right. You know, they have a room of their own. And, uh, the FDA has to come to Congress for money more or less every year. And the fda, uh, heads do not have any kind of security of appointment. Their appoint, they serve at the pleasure of the president. Mm-hmm. . So I do think that they don't have real independence.Uh, I do think that they're basically, um, they're living in this slack, this area of slack to use this sort of mcno gas PolySci jargon. They're living in this realm of slack between the fact that the president doesn't wanna me, uh, muddle with them, uh, metal with them, excuse me. And the fact that Congress doesn't really wanna medal with them.But on the other hand, , I really think that that the f d A and the C d C are doing what Congress more or less wanted them to do. They reflect, they reflect the muddled disarray that Congress was in over the period of say, COVID. Hmm. Uh, that I think that's a first order importance. I mean, I do think the fact, it's the fact that, uh, f d A and c d C don't ha, uh, seem to have that culture of, um, raw technocracy the way the Fed does that, I think that has to be important on its own.But I think behind that, some of that is just like F D A C D C creatures of Congress much more than the Fed is. Should the [00:49:17] Dwarkesh Patel: power of the president be increased? [00:49:20] Garett Jones: Uh, no. No. Like the power of independent committees should be increased. Like more Congress should be like the Fed. If, uh, my plan for a Fed re for an FDA or CDC reorganization would be.Making them more like the Fed, where they have appointed experts who have long terms and they have enough of a long term that they can basically feel like they can blow off Congress and build their own culture. [00:49:42] EU is a force for good?[00:49:42] Dwarkesh Patel: Mm-hmm. , , so the European Union is an interesting example here because they also have these appointed technocrats, but they seem more interested in creating anno annoying popups on your websites than with dealing with econo, the, you know, the end of economic growth on the continent.Is this a story where more democracy would've helped, or how do you think about the European Union in this context? [00:50:04] Garett Jones: No. And the eu, like, uh, the European, European voters just aren't that excited about democracy. I, excuse me, aren't that excited about markets overall. The EU is gonna reflect that, right? Um, what little evidence we have suggests that, uh, countries that are getting ready to join the eu, they improve their economic freedom scores, their sort of laissez fairness.Hmm. Uh, on the path to getting ready for. , uh, join an eu. So, and then they may increase it a little bit afterwards once they join. But basically it's like, it's like, uh, when you're deciding to join the eu, it's like you decided you have your rocky training montage and get more laissez-faire. And so EU on net is a mess at polls in the direction of markets compared to where, uh, Europe would be otherwise.I mean, just look at the nations that are in the EU now, right? A lot of them are, um, east of Germany, right? And so those are countries that don't have this great, you know, uh, history of being market friendly. And a lot of parties aren't that market friendly, and yet the EU sort of nags them into their version, like as much markets as they can handle.So [00:51:05] Dwarkesh Patel: what do you think explains the fact that the Europe, uh, Europe as a whole and the voters in there are less market friendly than Americans? I mean, if you look at the sort of deep roots analysis of Europe, you would think that they should be the most. Uh, most in favor of, I don't know if the deep roots, uh, actually maybe they apply that, but Yeah, [00:51:23] Garett Jones: compared to the planet as a whole, they're pretty good.Right? So, um, I, I'm, I never get that excited about like, the small little distinctions between the US and Europe, like these 30% GDP differences, which are very exciting to pundits and bloggers and whatever. I'm like 30% doesn't matter very much. That's not really my bailiwick. What I'm really interested in is the 3000% between the poorest countries and the richest countries.So, like I can speculate about Europe, I, I don't really have a great answer. I mean, I, I think there's something to the, the naive view that, um, the Europeans with the most, uh, what my dad would call gumption are those who left and came to America. Some openness, some adventurousness. Uh, and maybe that's part of what trans, uh, made we, so basically there's a lot of selection working, uh, on the migration side to, uh, make America more open to laissez fair than Europe would be.[00:52:14] Dwarkesh Patel: Does that overall make you more optimistic about migration to the US from anywhere? Like, you know, the same story [00:52:20] Garett Jones: of Yeah. Center is perab us like America, America gets people who are really great, right? I went with you there. Yeah. [00:52:26] Dwarkesh Patel: Does, um, elite technocratic control work best in only in high IQ countries?Because otherwise you don't have these high IQ elites who can make good policies for you, but you also don't get the democratic protections against famine and war and things like that. [00:52:43] Garett Jones: Oh, I mean, I don't know. I think, I think the case for, for, uh, handing things over to elites is pretty strong in anything that's moderately democratic, right?Um, I don't have to be. Anything that's substantially more democratic than the official measure of Singapore, for instance. I mean, that's why my book 10% Less Democracy, really is targeted at the rich, rich democracies. Once we get too far below, uh, the rich democracies, I figure once you put elites in charge, they really are just gonna be old-fashioned Gordon to rent seekers and steer everything Jordan themselves and not give a darn about the masses at all.So that's, you know, uh, elite control in a democracy, a a lot of elite control in any kind of democracy, I think is gonna have good effect. If it's re you're really looking at something that is, uh, that meets a Mar Sen's definition of a democracy competitive market. Competitive party's free press. [00:53:38] Dwarkesh Patel: Mm-hmm.does Singapore meet that criteria? [00:53:41] Garett Jones: No. Because their parties aren't really allowed to compete. I mean, that's pretty obvious. Yeah. The, the pa the People's Action Party really controls, uh, party competition there. [00:53:52] Dwarkesh Patel: So, but it, I guess Singapore is one of the great examples of technocratic, um, technocratic control, and [00:53:59] Garett Jones: they're just an exception of the rule.Most countries that try to pull off that lower level democracy wind up much [00:54:03] Dwarkesh Patel: worse. So what is your, uh, what is your opinion of Neoreactionaries? I guess they're not in favor of 10% less democracy. They're more in favor of a hundred percent less democracy. [00:54:12] Garett Jones: But yeah, I think they're like kind of too much LARPing, too much romanticizing about the roheim, I guess.I don't know. What is rheum? Yeah. The, these guys in the Lord of the Rings, you know? . , romanticizing Monarch is a mistake. Um, it's worth noting that, uh, as my colleague Gordon Tok pointed out, as along as many others, uh, in Equilibrium Kings are almost always king and council, right.and so it's worth thinking through why King and Council is the equilibrium. Something more like a corporate board and less like, um, either the libertarian ideal of the entrepreneur who, who owns the firm, or the monarch who has the long-term interest in being a stationary bandit in real life. There's this sort of muddled thing in between that works out as the equilibrium, even in the successful so-called monarchies.So it's worth thinking through why it is that the successful so-called monarchies aren't really monarchies, right? They're really oligarchies. [00:55:12] Dwarkesh Patel: Yep. Yep. Um, if you look at the median voter in terms of their preferences on academic policies, it seems like they're probably more, um, in favor of government involvement than the actual policies of the United States, for example.Yeah. What explains this? Shouldn't the media voter theorem that we should be much less libertarian as a country than? Yeah, that's a great [00:55:35] Garett Jones: point from, um, Brian Kaplan's excellent. Bill Smith of the rational voter. Right? Yeah. I think part of it, I mean, I think his stories are right, which is that, uh, politicians facing reelection have this tradeoff between giving voters what the voters say they want and giving the voters the economic growth that will help the politicians get reelected, right?Mm-hmm. Um, so it's, uh, it's a version of saying like, you know, I don't want you to p

With significant assistance from Professor John Ingleson and Dr Ian Black (then both at the University of New South Wales) I published the first edition of A Short History of South East Asia in the late 1990s.   The current 6th edition was published in 2017 by Wiley and, if you are interested, is available for purchase on all the major ebook sites.The catalyst for writing the book was a 1980 speech by the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore to the People's Action Party (the political party he founded) and in which he said "to understand the present and anticipate the future, one must know enough of the past, enough to have a sense of the history of a people".  In my opinion these few words are profound and apply to every country in the world, including Myanmar.I propose to read the Myanmar chapter from the book over a few podcasts and hope by the end we will know enough of Myanmar's history to "understand the present and anticipate the future"?This reading covers the period from the early 2000s to the publication of the 6th edition of the book in 2017.My conclusion as to why Myanmar is where it is today is a combination of a number of factors:The abolition of the monarchy in 1885 (including the physical removal of King Thibaw to Calcutta) leaving the Burmese without a social and religious structure and then being subject to direct rule by the British.  This compared to the ethnic minorities whose social and leadership structures were left in place with them being subject to indirect rule by the British.The entering into of the Panglong Agreement on 12  February 1947 by the Burmese, Shan, Chin and Kachin (but not the Karen) and which provided for a Federal Government following independence which took place on 4 January, 1948. There were provisions for the ethnic groups to be able to withdraw from the Federation after 10 years if they were not satisfied with the situation.  General Aung San was instrumental in persuading the ethnic groups to sign the Panglong Agreement.   He had their trust. Sadly he and some of his key colleagues were assassinated in April 1947 and there was no one of his stature or influence to ensure the terms of the Agreement were followed.General Ne Win was concerned that the ethnic groups were going to withdraw from the Union pursuant to the Panglong Agreement and launched a coup on 2 March 1962.  Not only did he effectively "tear up" the Agreement but he ordered the killing and jailing of many hereditary ethnic leaders.Needless to say, since the 1962 coup, most ethnic groups have not trusted the military and some like the Karen have never trusted them.  The 1 February 2021 coup reinforces their multi decade lack of trust in the military.A key difference between the 1962 and 2021 coups is that the Burmese population by and large went along submissively with the 1962 as they hoped it would bring stability and improve the economy - although General Ne Win failed spectacularly with the economy- whereas most Burmese (and particularly young Burmese) having tasted quasi democracy, have solidly rejected the 2021 coup.Those listening to my podcast may well have other reasons as to why Myanmar is where it is today.  However, looking forward, the most important question to answer is how we get from where the country is today to a bright, prosperous and peaceful future for the country and its diverse ethnicities.

With significant assistance from Professor John Ingleson and Dr Ian Black (then both at the University of New South Wales) I published the first edition of A Short History of South East Asia in the late 1990s.   The current 6th edition was published in 2017 by Wiley and, if you are interested, is available for purchase on all the major ebook sites.The catalyst for writing the book was a 1980 speech by the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore to the People's Action Party (the political party he founded) and in which he said "to understand the present and anticipate the future, one must know enough of the past, enough to have a sense of the history of a people".  In my opinion these few words are profound and apply to every country in the world, including Myanmar.I propose to read the Myanmar chapter from the book over a few podcasts and hope by the end we will know enough of Myanmar's history to "understand the present and anticipate the future"?This reading covers the period from the 1970s to the early 2000s.

With significant assistance from Professor John Ingleson and Dr Ian Black (then both at the University of New South Wales) I published the first edition of A Short History of South East Asia in the late 1990s.   The current 6th edition was published in 2017 by Wiley and, if you are interested, is available for purchase on all the major ebook sites.The catalyst for writing the book was a 1980 speech by the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore to the People's Action Party (the political party he founded) and in which he said "to understand the present and anticipate the future, one must know enough of the past, enough to have a sense of the history of a people".  In my opinion these few words are profound and apply to every country in the world, including Myanmar.I propose to read the Myanmar chapter from the book over a few podcasts and hope by the end we will know enough of Myanmar's history to "understand the present and anticipate the future"?This reading covers the period of English colonisation up to WW2.

With significant assistance from Professor John Ingleson and Dr Ian Black (then both at the University of New South Wales) I published the first edition of A Short History of South East Asia in the late 1990s.   The current 6th edition was published in 2017 by Wiley and, if you are interested, is available for purchase on all the major ebook sites.The catalyst for writing the book was a 1980 speech by the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore to the People's Action Party (the political party he founded) and in which he said "to understand the present and anticipate the future, one must know enough of the past, enough to have a sense of the history of a people".  In my opinion these few words are profound and apply to every country in the world, including Myanmar.I propose to read the Myanmar chapter from the book over a few podcasts and hope by the end we will know enough of Myanmar's history to "understand the present and anticipate the future"?This reading covers the period of Japanese occupation during WW2 and the early years of independence to the late 1960s.

With significant assistance from Professor John Ingleson and Dr Ian Black (then both at the University of New South Wales) I published the first edition of A Short History of South East Asia in the late 1990s.   The current 6th edition was published in 2017 by Wiley and, if you are interested, is available for purchase on all the major ebook sites.The catalyst for writing the book was a 1980 speech by the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore to the People's Action Party (the political party he founded) and in which he said "to understand the present and anticipate the future, one must know enough of the past, enough to have a sense of the history of a people".  In my opinion these few words are profound and apply to every country in the world, including Myanmar.I propose to read the Myanmar chapter from the book over a few podcasts and hope by the end we will know enough of Myanmar's history to "understand the present and anticipate the future"?This reading covers the period from the area's early history up to English colonisation.

Here's a taste of what to expect at Market Days in Chicago! See you there :) Get your tickets here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/ignite-after-hours-an-action-party-tickets-351069677857

Mike Isaacson: If your free speech requires an audience, might I suggest a therapist? [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome once again to The Nazi Lies Podcast. I am joined by two historians today. With us is Evan Smith, lecturer at Flinders University in Adelaide, and David Renton, who taught at a number of universities in the UK and South Africa before leaving the academy to practice law, though he still finds time to research and write. Each of them has a book about today's topic: the free speech crisis. Dr. Smith's book, No Platform: A History of Anti-Fascism, Universities and the Limits of Free Speech, chronicles the No Platform policy of the National Union of Students in the UK from its foundation in 1974 to the present day. Dr. Renton's book, No Free Speech for Fascists: Exploring ‘No Platform' in History, Law and Politics, tells a much longer story of the interplay of radical leftist groups, organized fascists, and the state in shaping the UK's speech landscape and their significance in politics and law. Both are out from Routledge. I have absolutely no idea how we've managed to make the time zones work between the three of us, but welcome both of you to the podcast. Evan Smith: Thank you. David Renton: Thanks, Mike. Mike: So David, I want to start with you because your book goes all the way back to the 1640s to tell its history. So what made you start your story in the 1640s, and what did contention over speech look like before Fascism? David: Well, I wanted to start all that time back more than 300 years ago, because this is the moment when you first start to see something like the modern left and right emerge. You have in Britain, a party of order that supports the state and the king, but you also have a party which stands for more democracy and a more equal distribution of wealth. And essentially, from this point onwards in British, European, American politics, you see those same sites recreating themselves. And what happens again, and again, and again from that point onwards for hundreds of years until certainly say 50 years ago, you have essentially the people who are calling for free speech, whether that's the levellers in 1640s, Tom Paine 100 years later, J.S. Mill in the 19th Century. The left is always the people in favor of free speech. In terms of the right, if you want a kind of the first philosopher of conservatism, someone like Edmund Burke, he's not involved in the 1640s. He's a bit later, about a century and a half later. But you know, he supports conservatism. So what's his attitude towards free speech? It's really simple. He says, people who disagree with him should be jailed. There should be laws made to make it harder for them to have defenses. And more and more of them should be put in jail without even having a trial. That's the conservative position on free speech for centuries. And then what we get starting to happen in the late 20th century, something completely different which is a kind of overturning of what's been this huge, long history where it's always the left that's in favor of free speech, and it's always the right that's against it. Mike: Okay. Now, your contention is that before the appearance of Fascism, socialist radicals were solidly in favor of free speech for all. Fascism changed that, and Evan, maybe you can jump in here since this is where your book starts. What was new about Fascism that made socialists rethink their position on speech? Evan: So fascism was essentially anti-democratic and it was believed that nothing could be reasoned with because it was beyond the realms of reasonable, democratic politics. It was a violence, and the subjugation of its opponents was at the very core of fascism. And that the socialist left thought that fascism was a deeply violent movement that moved beyond the traditional realm of political discourse. So, there was no reasoning with fascists, you could only defeat them. Mike: So, let's start with David first, but I want to get both of you on this. What was the response to Fascism like before the end of World War II? David: Well, what you do is you get the left speaking out against fascism, hold demonstrations against fascism, and having to articulate a rationale of why they're against fascism. One of the things I quote in my book is a kind of famous exchange that takes place in 1937 when a poet named Nancy Cunard collected together the writers, intellectuals, and philosophers who she saw as the great inspiration to– the most important writers and so on that day. And she asked them what side they were taking on fascism. What's really interesting if you read their accounts, whether it's people like the poet W.H. Auden, novelist Gerald Bullitt, the philosopher C.E.M Joad, they all say they're against fascism, but they all put their arguments against fascism in terms of increased speech. So C.E.M Joad writes, "Fascism suppresses truth. That's why we're against fascism." Or the novelist Owen Jameson talks about fascism as a doctrine which exalts violence and uses incendiary bombs to fight ideas. So you get this thing within the left where people grasp that in order to fight off this violence and vicious enemy, they have to be opposed to it. And that means, for example, even to some extent making an exception to what's been for centuries this uniform left-wing notion: you have to protect everyone's free speech. Well people start grasping, we can't protect the fascist free speech, they're gonna use it to suppress us. So the Left makes an exception to what's been its absolute defense of free speech, but it makes this exception for the sake of protecting speech for everybody. Mike: Okay. Evan, do you want to add anything to the history of socialists and fascists before the end of World War Two? Evan: Yeah. So just kind of setting up a few things which will become important later on, and particularly because David and I are both historians of antifascism in Britain, is that there's several different ways in which antifascism emerges in the interwar period and several different tactics. One tactic is preventing fascists from marching from having a presence in public. So things like the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 is a very famous incident where the socialists and other protesters stopped the fascists from marching. There's also heckling and disrupting of fascist meetings. So this was big meetings like Olympia in June 1934, but then also smaller ones like individual fascist meetings around the country were disrupted by antifascists. There was also some that are on the left who also called for greater state intervention, usually in the form of labor councils not allowing fascists to congregate in public halls and stuff like that. So these kinds of arguments that fascism needs to be confronted, disrupted, obfuscated, starts to be developed in the 1930s. And it's where those kinds of free speech arguments emerge in the later period. Mike: Now immediately after the Second World War, fascist movements were shells of their former selves. They had almost no street presence and their organizations usually couldn't pull very many members. Still, the response to fascism when it did pop up was equally as vehement as when they organized into paramilitary formations with membership in the thousands. Something had qualitatively changed in the mind of the public regarding fascism. What did the immediate postwar response to public fascist speech look like, and what was the justification? Evan, let's start with you and then David you can add anything he misses. Evan: David probably could tell the story in a lot more detail. In the immediate post-war period in Britain, Oswald Mosley tries to revive the fascist movement under the title The Union Movement, but before that there's several kind of pro-fascist reading groups that emerge. And in response to this is kind of a disgust that fascists who had recently been imprisoned in Britain and their fellow travellers in the Nazis and the Italian Fascists and the continental fascists had been, you know, it ended in the Holocaust. There was this disgust that fascists could be organizing again in public in Britain, and that's where it mobilizes a new kind of generation of antifascists who are inspired by the 1930s to say "Never again, this won't happen on our streets." And the most important group and this is The 43 Group, which was a mixture of Jewish and communist radicals, which probably David can tell you a little bit about. David: I'd be happy to but I think before we get to 43 Group, it's kind of worth just pausing because the point Mike's left is kind of around the end of the Second World War. One thing which happens during the Second World War is of course Britain's at war with Germany. So what you start to get is Evan talked about how in the 1930s, you already have this argument like, “Should stopping fascism be something that's done by mass movements, or should it be done by the state?” In the Second World War the state has to confront that question, too, because it's got in fascism a homegrown enemy, and the British state looks at how all over Europe these states were toppled really quickly following fascist advance, and very often a pro-fascist powerful section of the ruling class had been the means by which an invading fascism then found some local ally that's enabled it to take over the state and hold the state. So the British state in 1940 actually takes a decision to intern Oswald Mosley and 800 or so of Britain's leading fascists who get jailed initially in prisons in London, then ultimately on the Isle of Man. Now, the reason why I'm going into this is because the first test of what the ordinary people in Britain think about the potential re-emergence of fascism comes even before the Second World War's ended. When Oswald Mosley is released from internment, he says he has conditioned phlebitis, he's very incapacitated, and is never going to be politically active again. And the British state buys this. And this creates–and an actual fact–the biggest single protest movement in Britain in the entire Second World War, where you get hundreds of people in certain factories going on strike against Oswald Mosley's release, and high hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions demanding that he's reinterned, and you start to get people having demonstrations saying Mosley ought to go back to jail. That kind of sets the whole context of what's going to happen after the end of the Second World War. Mosley comes out and he's terrified of public opinion; he's terrified about being seen in public. He's convinced that if you hold meetings you're going to see that cycle going on again. So for several years, the fascists barely dare hold public meetings, and they certainly don't dare hold meetings with Mosley speaking. They test the water a bit, and they have some things work for them. Evan's mentioned the 43 Group so I'll just say a couple sentences about them. The 43 Group are important in terms of what becomes later. They're not a vast number of people, but they have an absolute focus on closing down any fascist meeting. We're gonna hear later in this discussion about the phrase "No Platform" and where it comes from, but you know, in the 1940s when fascist wanted to hold meetings, the platform means literally getting together a paste table and standing on it, or standing on a tiny little ladder just to take you a couple of foot above the rest of your audience. The 43 Group specialize in a tactic which is literally knocking over those platforms. And because British fascism remained so isolated and unpopular in the aftermath of the Second World War, you know, there are 43 Group activists and organizers who look at London and say, "All right, if there going to be 12 or 13 public meetings in London this weekend, we know where they're going to be. If we can knock over every single one of those other platforms, then literally there'll be no fascists to have any chance to find an audience or put a public message in Britain." That's kind of before you get the term 'No Platform' but it's almost in essence the purest form of No Platforming. It's people being able to say, "If we get organized as a movement outside the state relying on ordinary people's opposition to fascism, we can close down every single example of fascist expression in the city and in this country." Mike: Okay. So through the 50's and 60's, there were two things happening simultaneously. On the one hand, there was the largely left wing student-led free speech movement. And on the other hand, there was a new generation of fascists who were rebuilding the fascist movement in a variety of ways. So let's start with the free speech movement. David, you deal with this more in your book. What spurred the free speech movement to happen? David: Yeah. Look in the 50s and 60s, the free speech movement is coming from the left. That's going to change, we know it's going to change like 20 or 30 years later, but up to this point we're still essentially in the same dance of forces that I outlined right at the start. That the left's in favor of free speech, the right is against it. And the right's closing down unwanted ideas and opinion. In the 50s and 60s, and I'm just going to focus on Britain and America, very often this took the form of either radicals doing some sort of peace organising–and obviously that cut against the whole basic structure of the Cold War–or it took the form of people who maybe not even necessarily radicals at all, just trying to raise understanding and consciousness about people's bodies and about sex. So for the Right, their counterattack was to label movements like for example in the early 60s on the campus of Berkeley, and then there's originally a kind of anti-war movement that very quickly just in order to have the right to organize, becomes free speech movements. And the Right then counter attacks against it saying, "Essentially, this is just a bunch of beats or kind of proto-hippies. And what they want to do is I want to get everyone interested in drugs, and they want to get everyone interested in sexuality, and they want everyone interested in all these sorts of things." So their counterattack, Reagan terms this, The Filthy Speech Movement. In the late 60s obviously in states, we have the trial of the Chicago 7, and here you have the Oz trial, which is when a group of radicals here, again that their point of view is very similar, kind of hippie-ish, anti-war milieu. But one thing is about their magazines, which again it seems very hard to imagine today but this is true, that part of the way that their their magazine sells is through essentially soft pornographic images. And there's this weird combination of soft porn together with far left politics. They'll get put on trial in the Oz trial and that's very plainly an attempt– our equivalent of the Chicago 7 to kind of close down radical speech and to get into the public mind this idea that the radicals are in favor of free speech, they're in favor of extreme left-wing politics, and they're in favor of obscenity, and all these things are somehow kind of the same thing. Now, the point I just wanted to end on is that all these big set piece trials–another one to use beforehand is the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial, the Oz trial, the Chicago 7 trial, all of these essentially end with the right losing the battle of ideas, not so much the far right but center right. And people just saying, "We pitched ourselves on the side of being against free speech, and this isn't working. If we're going to reinvent right-wing thought, make some center right-wing ideas desirable and acceptable in this new generation of people, whatever they are, then we can't keep on being the ones who are taking away people's funds, closing down ideas. We've got to let these radicals talk themselves out, and we've got to reposition ourselves as being, maybe reluctantly, but the right takes the decision off of this. The right has to be in favor of free speech too. Mike: All right. And also at this time, the far right was rebuilding. In the UK, they shifted their focus from overt antisemitism and fascism to nebulously populist anti-Black racism. The problem for them, of course, was that practically no one was fooled by this shift because it was all the same people. So, what was going on with the far right leading into the 70s? Evan, do you want to start? Evan: Yeah. So after Mosley is defeated in Britain by the 43 Group and the kind of antifascism after the war, he moves shortly to Ireland and then comes back to the UK. Interestingly, he uses universities and particularly debates with the Oxford Union, the Cambridge Union, and other kind of university societies, to find a new audience because they can't organize on the streets. So he uses–throughout the '50s and the '60s–these kind of university platforms to try and build a fascist movement. At the same time, there are people who were kind of also around in the '30s and the '40s who are moving to build a new fascist movement. It doesn't really get going into '67 when the National Front is formed from several different groups that come together, and they're really pushed into the popular consciousness because of Enoch Powell and his Rivers of Blood Speech. Enoch Powell was a Tory politician. He had been the Minister for Health in the Conservative government, and then in '68 he launches this Rivers of Blood Speech which is very much anti-immigration. This legitimizes a lot of anti-immigrationist attitudes, and part of that is that the National Front rides his coattails appealing to people who are conservatives but disaffected with the mainstream conservatism and what they saw as not being hard enough in immigration, and that they try to build off the support of the disaffected right; so, people who were supporting Enoch Powell, supporting the Monday Club which is another hard right faction in the conservatives. And in that period up until about the mid 1970s, that's the National Front's raison d'etre; it's about attracting anti-immigrationists, conservatives to build up the movement as an electoral force rather than a street force which comes later in the '70s. Mike: There was also the Apartheid movement, or the pro-Apartheid movement, that they were building on at this time as well, right? Evan: Yeah. So at this time there's apartheid in South Africa. In 1965, the Ian Smith regime in Rhodesia has a unilateral declaration of independence from Britain to maintain White minority rule. And a lot of these people who are around Powell, the Monday Club, the National Front, against decolonization more broadly, and also then support White minority rule in southern Africa. So a lot of these people end up vocalizing support for South Africa, vocalizing support for Rhodesia, and that kind of thing. And it's a mixture of anti-communism and opposition to multiracial democracy. That's another thing which they try to take on to campus in later years. Mike: So finally we get to No Platform. Now, Evan, you contend that No Platform was less than a new direction in antifascist politics than a formalization of tactics that had developed organically on the left. Can you talk a bit about that? Evan: Yeah, I'll give a quick, very brief, lead up to No Platform and to what's been happening in the late '60s. So Enoch Powell who we mentioned, he comes to try and speak on campus several times throughout the late 60s and early 70s. These are often disrupted by students that there's an argument that, "Why should Enoch Powell be allowed to come onto campus? We don't need people like that to be speaking." This happens in the late 60s. Then in '73, Hans Eysenck, who was a psychologist who was very vocal about the connection between race and IQ, he attempts to speak at the London School of Economics and his speech is disrupted by a small group of Maoists. And then also– Mike: And they physically disrupted that speech, right? That wasn't just– Evan: Yeah, they punched him and pushed him off stage and stuff like that. And a month later, Samuel Huntington who is well known now for being the Clash of Civilizations guy, he went to speak at Sussex University, and students occupied a lecture theater so he couldn't talk because they opposed his previous work with the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. This led to a moral panic beginning about the end of free speech on campus, that it's either kind of through sit-ins or through direct violence, but in the end students are intolerant. And that's happening in that five years before we get to No Platform. Mike: One thing I didn't get a good sense of from your books was what these socialist groups that were No Platforming fascists prior to the NUS policy stood for otherwise. Can we talk about the factionalization of the left in the UK in the 60s and 70s? David, maybe you can help us out on this one. David: Yeah, sure. The point to grasp, which is that the whole center of British discourse in the ‘70s was way to the left of where it is in Britain today, let alone anywhere else in the world. That from, say, ‘64 to ‘70, we had a Labour government, and around the Labour Party. We had really, really strong social movements. You know, we had something like roughly 50% of British workers were members of trade unions. We'll get on later to the Students Union, that again was a movement in which hundreds of thousands of people participated. Two particular groups that are going to be important for our discussion are the International Socialists and International Marxist Group, but maybe if I kind of go through the British left sort of by size starting from largest till we get down to them. So the largest wing we've got on the British left is Labour Party. This is a party with maybe about half a million members, but kind of 20 million affiliated members through trade unions, and it's gonna be in and out of government. Then you've got the Communist Party which is getting quite old as an organization and is obviously tied through Cold War politics to the Soviet Union. And then you get these smaller groups like the IS, the IMG. And they're Trotskyist groups so they're in the far left of labor politics as revolutionaries, but they have quite a significant social heft, much more so than the far left in Britain today because, for example, their members are involved in editing magazines like Oz. There is a moment where there's a relatively easy means for ideas to merge in the far left and then get transmitted to the Labour Party and potentially even to Labour ministers and into government. Mike: Okay, do you want to talk about the International Marxist Group and the International Socialists? Evan: Do you want me to do that or David? Mike: Yes, that'd be great. Evan: Okay. So as David mentioned, there's the Communist Party and then there's the International Socialists and the International Marxist Group. The International Marxist Group are kind of heavily based in the student movement. They're like the traditional student radicals. Tariq Ali is probably the most famous member at this stage. And they have this counter cultural attitude in a way. International Socialists are a different form of Trotskyism, and they're much more about, not so much interested in the student movement, but kind of like a rank and file trade unionism that kind of stuff, opposition to both capitalism and Soviet communism. And the IS, the IMG, and sections of the Communist Party all coalesce in the student movement, which forms the basis for pushing through a No Platform policy in the Nationalist Union of Students in 1974. Mike: Okay. So in 1974, the National Union of Students passes their No Platform policy. Now before we get into that, what is the National Union of Students? Because we don't have an analogue to that in the US. Evan, you want to tackle this one? Evan: Yeah. Basically, every university has a student union or a form of student union–some kind of student body–and the National Union of Students is the national organization, the peak body which organizes the student unions on all the various campuses around the country. Most of the student unions are affiliated to the NUS but some aren't. The NUS is a kind of democratic body and oversees student policy, but individual student unions can opt in or opt out of whether they follow NUS guidelines. And I think what needs to be understood is that the NUS was a massive organization back in those days. You know, hundreds of thousands of people via the student unions become members of the NUS. And as David was saying, the political discourse is much bigger in the '60s and '70s through bodies like this as well as things like the trade union movement. The student movement has engaged hundreds of thousands of students across Britain about these policies much more than we see anything post the 1970s. David: If I could just add a sentence or two there, that's all right. I mean, really to get a good sense of scale of this, if you look at, obviously you have the big set piece annual conventions or conferences of the National Union of Students. Actually, it doesn't even just have one a year, it has two a year. Of these two conferences, if you just think about when the delegates are being elected to them how much discussion is taking place in local universities. If you go back to some local university meetings, it's sometimes very common that you see votes of 300 students going one way, 400 another, 700 going one way in some of the larger universities. So there's an absolute ferment of discussion around these ideas. Which means that when there are set piece motions to pass, they have a democratic credibility. And they've had thousands of people debating and discussing them. It's not just like someone going on to one conference or getting something through narrowly on a show of hands. There's a feeling that these debates are the culmination of what's been a series of debates in each local university. And we've got over 100 of them in Britain. Mike: Okay, how much is the student union's presence felt on campus by the average student? Evan: That'd be massive. David: Should I do this? Because I'm a bit older than Evan and I went to university in the UK. And it's a system which is slowly being dismantled but when I was student, which is like 30 years ago, this was still largely in place. In almost every university, the exceptions are Oxford and Cambridge, but in every other university in Britain, almost all social activity takes place on a single site on campus. And that single site invariably is owned by the student's union. So your students union has a bar, has halls, it's where– They're the plumb venues on campus if you want to have speakers or if you want to have– Again, say when punk happened a couple of years later, loads and loads of the famous punk performances were taking place in the student union hall in different universities. One of the things we're going to get onto quite soon is the whole question of No Platform and what it meant to students. What I want to convey is that for loads of students having this discussion, when they're saying who should be allowed on campus or who shouldn't be allowed on campus, what's the limits? They feel they've got a say because there are a relatively small number of places where people will speak. Those places are controlled by the students' union. They're owned and run by the students' union. It's literally their buildings, their halls, they feel they've got a right to set who is allowed, who's actually chosen, and who also shouldn't be invited. Mike: Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you for that. That's a lot more than I knew about student unions. Okay. Evan, this is the bread and butter of your book. How did No Platform come about in the NUS? Evan: So, what part of the fascist movement is doing, the far-right movement, is that it is starting to stray on campus. I talked about the major focus of the National Front is about appealing to disaffected Tories in this stage, but they are interfering in student affairs; they're disrupting student protests; they're trying to intimidate student politics. And in 1973, the National Front tried to set up students' association on several campuses in Britain And there's a concern about the fascist presence on campus. So those three left-wing groups– the IMG, the IS and the Communist Party–agree at the student union level that student unions should not allow fascists and racists to use student buildings, student services, clubs that are affiliated to the student union. They shouldn't be allowed to access these. And that's where they say about No Platform is that the student union should deny a platform to fascists and racists. And in 1974 when they put this policy to a vote and it's successful, they add, "We're going to fight them by any means necessary," because they've taken that inspiration from the antifascism of the '30s and '40s. Mike: Okay. Now opinion was clearly divided within the NUS. No Platform did not pass unanimously. So Evan, what was opinion like within the NUS regarding No Platform? Evan: Well, it passed, but there was opposition. There was opposition from the Federation of Conservative Students, but there was also opposition from other student unions who felt that No Platform was anti-free speech, so much so that in April 1974 it becomes policy, but in June 1974, they have to have another debate about whether this policy should go ahead. It wins again, but this is the same time as it happens on the same day that the police crackdown on anti-fascist demonstration in Red Lion Square in London. There's an argument that fascism is being propped up by the police and is a very real threat, so that we can't give any quarter to fascism. We need to build this No Platform policy because it is what's standing in between society and the violence of fascism. Mike: Okay. I do want to get into this issue of free speech because the US has a First Amendment which guarantees free speech, but that doesn't exist in Britain. So what basis is there for free speech in the law? I think, David, you could probably answer this best because you're a lawyer. David: [laughs] Thank you. In short, none. The basic difference between the UK and the US– Legally, we're both common law countries. But the thing that really changes in the US is this is then overlaid with the Constitution, which takes priority. So once something has been in the Constitution, that's it. It's part of your fundamental law, and the limits to it are going to be narrow. Obviously, there's a process. It's one of the things I do try and talk about in my book that the Supreme Court has to discover, has to find free speech in the American Constitution. Because again, up until the Second World War, essentially America has this in the Constitution, but it's not particularly seen as something that's important or significant or a key part of the Constitution. The whole awe and  mysticism of the First Amendment as a First Amendment is definitely something that's happened really in the last 40-50 years. Again, I don't want to go into this because it's not quite what you're getting at. But certainly, in the '20s for example, you get many of the big American decisions on free speech which shaped American law today. What everyone forgets is in every single one of them, the Supreme Court goes on to find some reason why free speech doesn't apply. So then it becomes this doctrine which is tremendously important to be ushered out and for lip service be given to, just vast chunks of people, communists, people who are in favor of encouraging abortion, contraception, whatever, they're obviously outside free speech, and you have to come up with some sophisticated justifications for that. In Britain, we don't have a constitution. We don't have laws with that primary significance. We do kind of have a weak free speech tradition, and that's kind of important for some things like there's a European Convention on Human Rights that's largely drafted by British lawyers and that tries to create in Articles 10 and 11 a general support on free speech. So they think there are things in English legal tradition, in our common law tradition, which encourage free speech.  But if we've got it as a core principle of the UK law today, we've got it because of things like that like the European Convention on Human Rights. We haven't got it because at any point in the last 30, or 50, or 70 or 100 years, British judges or politicians thought this was a really essential principle of law. We're getting it these days but largely by importing it from the United States, and that means we're importing the worst ideological version of free speech rather than what free speech ought to be, which is actually protecting the rights of most people to speak. And if you've got some exceptions, some really worked out well thought exceptions for coherent and rational reasons. That's not what we've got now in Britain, and it's not what we've really ever had. Mike: Evan, you do a good job of documenting how No Platform was applied. The experience appears to be far from uniform. Let's talk about that a little bit. Evan: Yeah, so there's like a debate happening about who No Platform should be applied to because it states– The official policy is that No Platform for racists and fascists, and there's a debate of who is a racist enough to be denied a platform. There's agreement so a group like the National Front is definitely to be No Platform. Then there's a gray area about the Monday Club. The Monday Club is a hard right faction within the conservatives. But there's a transmission of people and ideas between National Front and the Monday Club. Then there's government ministers because the British immigration system is a racist system. The Home Office is seen as a racist institution. So there's a debate of whether government politicians should be allowed to have a platform because they uphold institutional racism. We see this at different stages is that a person from the Monday Club tries to speak at Oxford and is chased out of the building. Keith Joseph, who's one of the proto-Thatcherites in the Conservative Party, comes to speak at LSE in the 1977-78 and that there is a push to say that he can't be allowed to speak because of the Conservative Party's immigration policies and so forth like that. So throughout the '70s, there is a debate of the minimalist approach with a group like the International Socialists saying that no, outright fascists are the only ones to be No Platformed. Then IMG and other groups are saying, "Actually, what about the Monday Club? What about the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children? What about Conservative Ministers? Are these people, aren't they also sharing that kind of discriminatory agenda that shouldn't be allowed a platform?" Mike: Okay, and there were some objections within the National Union of Students to some applications of No Platform, right? Evan: Yeah, well, not so much in the '70s. But once you get into the '80s, there's a big push for it. But probably the biggest issue in the '70s is that the application of No Platform to pro-Israel groups and Jewish student groups. In 1975, there's a UN resolution that Zionism is a form of racism, and that several student groups say, "Well, pro-Israel groups are Zionists. If Zionism is a form of racism and No Platform should be applied to racists or fascists, shouldn't they the pro-Israel groups then be denied a platform? Should pro-Israel groups be disaffiliated from student unions, etc.?" Several student unions do this at the local level, but there's a backlash from the NUS at the national level so much so the NUS actually suspends No Platform for about six months. It is reintroduced with an explicit piece of it saying that if No Platform is reinstituted, it can't be applied to Zionists groups, to pro-Israel groups, to Jewish societies. But a reason that they can't, the NUS can't withhold No Platform as a policy in the late 1970s is because they've been playing catch up because by this time, the Anti-Nazi League, Rock Against Racism are major mass movements of people because the National Front is seen as a major problem, and the NUS has to have some kind of anti-Fascist, anti-racist response. They can't sit on their hands because they're going dragged along by the Anti-Nazi League. Mike: One thing that you talked about in your book, David, is that simultaneous to No Platform was this movement for hate speech prohibitions. Talk about how these movements differed. David: Well, I think the best way to convey it is if we go back to the motion that was actually passed at the National Union of Students spring conference in May '74. If you don't mind, I'll just begin by reading it out. Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance, financial or otherwise, to openly racist or fascist organizations or societies (e.g., Monday Club, National Front, Action Party, Union Movement, National Democratic Party) and to deny them a platform. What I want to try and convey is that when you think about how you got this coalition within the National Union of Students in support of that motion, there were like two or three different ideas being signaled in that one motion. And if you then apply them, particularly what's happening as we're talking 50 years later now, if you apply them through the subsequent 50 years of activism, they do point in quite different directions. To just start up, “conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance” dadadada. What's really been good at here, I'm sure some of the people who passed No Platform promotion just had this idea, right? What we are, we're a movement of students' unions. We're a movement of buildings which are run by students and are for students. People have said to themselves, all this motion is really committing us to do is to say that we won't give any assistance to racist or fascist organizations. So what that means in practice is in our buildings, in our halls, we won't invite them in. Now, it may be that, say, the university will invite a conservative minister or the university will allow some far-right person to have a platform in election time. But the key idea, one key idea that's going on with this, just those things won't happen in our students' unions. They're our buildings; they're our halls. To use a term that hasn't really been coined yet, but this is in people's heads, is the idea of a safe space. It's just, student unions are our safe space. We don't need to worry about who exactly these terrible people are. Whoever and whatever they are, we don't want them on our patch. That's idea number one. Idea number two is that this is really about stopping fascists. It's not about any other form of discrimination. I'll come on to idea three in a moment. With idea three, this is about fascist organizations. You can see in a sense the motion is talking to people, people coming on and saying like I might not even be particularly left wing, but I don't like fascists. Evan talked about say for example, Zionist organizations. Could a Zionist organization, which is militantly antifascist, could they vote this motion? Yes. And how they'd sell it to themselves is this is only about fascism. So you can see this in the phrase, this is about refusing systems to “openly racist or fascist organizations,” and then look at the organizations which are listed: the National Front, well yeah, they're fascists; the Union Movement, yeah, they're fascists; the National Democratic Party, they're another little fascist splinter group.And then the only one there that isn't necessarily exactly fascist is the Monday Club who are a bunch of Tories who've been in the press constantly in the last two years when this motion is written for their alliance with National Front holding demonstrations and meetings together. So some people, this is just about protecting their space. Some people, this is about excluding fascists and no one else. But then look again at the motion, you'll see another word in there. “Conference recognizes the need to refuse any assistance to openly racist or fascist organizations.” So right from the start, there's a debate, what does this word racist mean in the motion? Now, one way you could read the motion is like this. From today, we can all see that groups like the National Front are fascists. Their leaders can spend most of the rest of the decade appearing constantly in literature produced by anti-fascist groups, identifying them as fascist, naming them as fascist, then we have to have a mass movement against fascism and nazism. But the point is in 1974, that hadn't happened yet. In most people's heads, groups like the National Front was still, the best way to describe them that no one could disagree to at least say they were openly racist. That was how they described themselves. So you could ban the National Front without needing to have a theological discussion about whether they fitted exactly within your definition of fascism. But the point I really want to convey is that the motion succeeds because it blurs the difference between saying anything can be banned because it's fascist specifically or anything can be banned because it's racist or fascist. This isn't immediately apparent in 1974, but what becomes pretty apparent over time is for example as Evan's documented already, even before 1974, there have been non-fascists, there have been conservatives going around student unions speaking in pretty racist terms. All right, so can they be banned? If the answer is this goes to racists or fascists, then definitely they can be banned. But now wait a second. Is there anyone else in British politics who's racist? Well, at this point, both main political parties are standing for election on platforms of excluding people from Britain effectively on the basis of the color of their skin. All right, so you can ban all the main political parties in Britain. All right, well, how about the newspapers? Well, every single newspaper in Britain, even the pro-Labour ones, is running front page articles supporting the British government. All right, so you could ban all newspapers in Britain. Well, how about the television channel? Well, we've only got three, but the best-selling comedies on all of them are comedies which make fun of people because they're foreigners and because they're Black. You can list them all. There's dozens of these horrible programs, which for most people in Britain now are unwatchable. But they're all of national culture in Britain in the early '70s. Alright, so you say, all right, so students we could ban every television channel in Britain, every newspaper in Britain, and every political party in Britain, except maybe one or two on the far left. It's like, wait a second people, I've only been doing racism. Well, let's take seriously the notion, if we're against all forms of racism, how can we be against racism without also being against sexism? Without being against homophobia? So the thing about No Platform is there's really only two ways you can read it in the end, and certainly once you apply it outside the 1970s today. Number one, you can say this is a relatively tightly drawn motion, which is trying to pin the blame on fascists as something which is growing tremendously fast in early 1970s and trying to keep them out. Maybe it'd be good to keep other people out too, but it's not trying to keep everyone out. Or you've got, what we're confronting today which is essentially this is an attempt to prevent students from suffering the misery, the hatred, the fury of hate speech. This is an attempt to keep all hate speech off campus, but with no definition or limit on hate speech. Acceptance of hate speech 50 years later might be much more widely understood than it is in early '70s. So you've got warring in this one motion two completely different notions of who it's right politically to refuse platforms to. That's going to get tested out in real life, but it's not been resolved by the 1974 motion, which in a sense looks both ways. Either the people want to keep the ban narrow or the people want to keep it broad, either of them can look at that motion and say yeah, this is the motion which gives the basis to what we're trying to do. Mike: Okay. I do want to get back to the notion of the maximalist versus the precisionist view of No Platform. But first before that, I want to talk about the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism to just get more of a broader context than just the students in Britain in terms of antifascism. David, do you want to talk about that? David: Okay. Well, I guess because another of my books is about Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, so I'll try and do this really short. I'll make two points. First is that these movements which currently ended in the 1970s are really very large. They're probably one of the two largest street movements in post-war British history. The only other one that's candidate for that is the anti-war movement, whether that's in the '80s or the early 2000s. But they're on that same scale as amongst the largest mass movements in British history. In terms of Rock Against Racism, the Anti-Nazi League, the total number of people involved in them is massive; it's around half a million to a million people. They're single most famous events, two huge three carnivals in London in 1977, which each have hundreds of thousands of people attending them and bring together the most exciting bands. They are the likes of The Clash, etc, etc. It's a movement which involves people graffitiing against Nazis, painting out far-right graffiti. It's a movement which is expressed in streets in terms of set piece confrontations, clashes with far-right, Lewisham in ‘76, Southall in ‘79. These are just huge movements which involve a whole generation of people very much associated with the emergence of punk music and when for a period in time in Britain are against that kind of visceral street racism, which National Front represents. I should say that they have slightly different attitudes, each of them towards the issue of free speech, but there's a massive interchange of personnel. They're very large. The same organizations involved in each, and they include an older version of the same activist who you've seen in student union politics in '74 as were they you could say they graduate into involvement in the mass movements like Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Now, I want to say specifically about the Anti-Nazi League and free speech. The Anti-Nazi League takes from student politics this idea of No Platform and tries to base a whole mass movement around it. The idea is very simply, the National Front should not be allowed a platform to speak, to organize, to win converts anywhere. Probably with the Anti-Nazi League, the most important expressions of this is two things. Firstly, when the National Front tries to hold election meetings, which they do particularly in the run up to '79 election, and those are picketed, people demonstrated outside of them  A lot of them are the weekend in schools. One at Southall is in a town hall. These just lead to repeated clashes between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front. The other thing which the Anti-Nazi League takes seriously is trying to organize workers into closing off opportunities for the National Front spread their propaganda. For example, their attempts to get postal workers to refuse to deliver election materials to the National Front. Or again, there's something which it's only possible to imagine in the '70s; you couldn't imagine it today. The National Front is entitled to election broadcasts because it's standing parliament. Then the technical workers at the main TV stations go on strike and refuse to let these broadcasts go out. So in all these ways, there's this idea around the Anti-Nazi League of No Platform. But No Platform is No Platform for fascists. It's the National Front should not get a chance to spread its election message. It's not yet that kind of broader notion of, in essence, anything which is hate speech is unacceptable. In a sense, it can't be. Because when you're talking about students' unions and their original No Platform motion and so forth, at the core of it is they're trying to control their own campuses. There's a notion of students' power. The Anti-Nazi League, it may be huge mass movement and may have hundreds of thousands people involved in it, but no one in Anti-Nazi League thinks that this organization represents such a large majority that they could literally control the content of every single TV station, the content of every single newspaper. You can try and drive the National Front out, but if people in that movement had said right, we actually want to literally carve out every expression of racism and every expression of sexism from society, that would have been a yet bigger task by another enormous degrees of scale. Mike: Okay, I do want to talk a little bit more about Rock Against Racism just particularly how it was founded, what led to its founding. I think it gives a good sense of where Britain was at, politically. David: Right. Rock Against Racism was founded in 1976. The two main events which are going on in the heads of the organizers when they launched it, number one, David Bowie's weird fascist turn, his interview with Playboy magazine in which he talks about Hitler being the first rock and roll superstar, the moment where he was photographed returning from tours in America and comes to Victoria Station and appears to give a Nazi salute. The reason why with Bowie it matters is because he's a hero. Bowie seems to represent the emergence of a new kind of masculinity, new kind of attitude with sexuality. If someone like that is so damaged that he's going around saying Hitler is the greatest, that's really terrifying to Bowie fans and for a wider set of people. The other person who leads directly to the launch of Rock Against Racism is Eric Clapton. He interrupts a gig in Birmingham in summer '76 to just start giving this big drunken rant about how some foreigner pinched his missus' bum and how Enoch Powell is the greatest ever. The reason why people find Eric Clapton so contemptible and why this leads to such a mass movement is weirdly it's the opposite of Bowie that no one amongst the young cool kids regards Clapton as a hero. But being this number one star and he's clearly spent his career stealing off Black music and now he's going to support that horror of Enoch Powell as well, it just all seems so absolutely ridiculous and outrageous that people launch an open letter to the press and that gets thousands of people involved. But since you've asked me about Rock Against Racism, I do want to say Rock Against Racism does have a weirdly and certainly different attitude towards free speech to the Anti-Nazi League. And this isn't necessarily something that was apparent at the time. It's only kind of apparent now when you look back at it. But one of the really interesting things about Rock Against Racism is that because it was a movement of young people who were trying to reclaim music and make cultural form that could overturn British politics and change the world, is that they didn't turn around and say, "We just want to cut off all the racists and treat them as bad and shoot them out into space," kind of as what the Anti-Nazi League's trying to do to fascists. Rock Against Racism grasped that if you're going to try and change this cultural milieu which is music, you actually had to have a bit of a discussion and debate and an argument with the racists, but they tried to have it on their own terms. So concretely, what people would do is Rock Against Racism courted one particular band called Sham 69, who were one of the most popular young skinhead bands, but also had a bunch of neo-nazis amongst their roadies and things like that. They actually put on gigs Sham 69, put them on student union halls, surrounded them with Black acts. Knew that these people were going to bring skinheads into the things, had them performing under Rock Against Racism banner, and almost forced the band to get into the state of practical warfare with their own fans to try and say to them, "We don't want you to be nazis anymore. We want you to stop this." That dynamic, it was incredibly brave, was incredibly bold. It was really destructive for some of the individuals involved like Jimmy Pursey, the lead singer of Sham 69. Effectively saying to them, "Right, we want you to put on a gig every week where you're going to get bottled by your own fans, and you're going to end up like punching them, just to get them to stop being racist." But we can't see any other way of shifting this milieu of young people who we see as our potential allies. There were lots of sort of local things like that with Rock Against Racism. It wasn't about creating a safe space in which bad ideas couldn't come in; it was about going onto the enemy's ideological trend and going, "Right, on this trend, we can have an argument. We can win this argument." So it is really quite an interesting cultural attempt to change the politics of the street. Mike: Okay, now you two have very different ideas of what No Platform is in its essence. Evan, you believe that No Platform was shifting in scope from its inception and it is properly directed at any institutional platform afforded to vociferous bigots. While David you believe that No Platform is only properly applied against fascists, and going beyond that is a dangerous form of mission creep. Now, I absolutely hate debates. [laughter] I think the format does more to close off discussion than to draw out information on the topic at hand. So, what I don't want to happen is have you two arguing with each other about your positions on No Platform (and maybe me, because I have yet a third position). David: Okay Mike, honestly, we've known each other for years. We've always been– Mike: Yeah, yeah, yeah. David: –your listeners will pick up, there's loads we agree on, too. So I'm sure we can deal without that rubbish debate. [Evan laughs] Mike: All right. So what I'd like to do is ground this discussion as much as possible in history rather than abstract moral principles. So in that interest, can each of you talk a bit about the individuals and groups that have taken the position on No Platform that you have, and how they've defended their positions? David let's start with you. What groups were there insisting that No Platform was necessary but its necessity was limited to overt fascists? David: Well, I think in practice, that was the approach of Rock Against Racism. They took a very different attitude towards people who were tough ideological fascists, to the people who were around them who were definitely racist, but who were capable of being argued out of that. I mean, I've given the example of the policy of trying to have a debate with Sham 69 or use them as a mechanism to change their audience. What I want to convey is in every Rock Against Racism group around the country, they were often attempts to something very similar. People talk about Birmingham and Leeds, whether it be sort of local Rock Against Racism groups, they might put on– might get a big band from some other city once a month, but three weeks out of four, all they're doing is they're putting on a local some kind of music night, and they might get a hundred people there. But they'd go out of the way to invite people who they saw as wavering supporters of The National Front. But the point is this wasn't like– We all know how bad faith debates work. It's something like it's two big ego speakers who disagree with each other, giving them half an hour each to debate and know their audience is already persuaded that one of them's an asshole, one of them's great. This isn't what they were trying to do. They were trying to win over one by one wavering racists by putting them in an environment where they were surrounded by anti-racists. So it was about trying to create a climate where you could shift some people who had hateful ideas in their head, but were also capable of being pulled away from them. They didn't do set piece debates with fascists because they knew that the set piece debates with fascists, the fascists weren't going to listen to what they were going to say anyway. But what they did do is they did try to shift people in their local area to try and create a different atmosphere in their local area. And they had that attitude towards individual wavering racists, but they never had that attitude towards the fascist leaders. The fascist leaders as far as they're concerned, very, very simple, we got to close up the platform to them. We got to deprive them of a chance. Another example, Rock Against Racism, how it kind of made those sorts of distinctions. I always think with Rock Against Racism you know, they had a go at Clapton. They weren't at all surprised when he refused to apologize. But with Bowie, there was always a sense, "We want to create space for Bowie. We want to get Bowie back because Bowie's winnable." That's one of the things about that movement, is that the absolute uncrossable line was fascism. But if people could be pulled back away from that and away from the ideas associated with that, then they wanted to create the space to make that happen. Mike: Okay, and Evan, what groups took the Maximalist approach to No Platform and what was their reasoning? Evan: Yeah. So I think the discussion happens once the National Front goes away as the kind of the major threat. So the 1979 election, the National Front does dismally, and we can partially attribute that to the Anti-Nazi League and Rock Against Racism, kind of this popular antifascist movement. But there's also that Margaret Thatcher comes to power, and there's an argument that's made by historians is that she has pulled away the racist vote away from the National Front back to the conservatives. It's really kind of a realignment of leftwing politics under Thatcher because it's a much more confrontational conservative government, but there's also kind of these other issues which are kind of the new social movements and what we would now term as identity politics, they're forming in the sixties and seventies and are really big issues in the 1980s. So kind of like feminism, gay rights, andthat,  there's an argument among some of the students that if we have a No Platform for racism and fascism, why don't we have a No Platform for sexism? Why don't we have a No Platform for homophobia? And there are certain student unions who try to do this. So LSE in 1981, they endorse a No Platform for sexist as part of a wider fight against sexism, sexual harassment, sexual violence on campus is that misogynist speakers shouldn't be allowed to have a presence on campus. Several student unions kind of have this also for against homophobia, and as a part of this really divisive issue in the mid 1980s, the conservative government is quite homophobic. Section 28 clause 28 is coming in in the late eighties. It's a whole kind of homophobia of AIDS. There's instances where students object to local Tory politicians who were kind of outwardly, explicitly homophobic, that they should be not allowed to speak on stage. Then also bubbling along in the background is kind of the supporters of apartheid, so South African diplomats or kind of other people who support the South African regime including Conservative politicians, is that several times throughout the 1980s, they are invited to speak on campus, and there's kind of a massive backlash against this. Sometimes the No Platform policy is invoked. Sometimes it's just simple disruption or kind of pickets or vigils against them. But once fascism is kind of not the main issue, and all these different kind of politics is going on in the eighties, is that there's argument that No Platform for fascism and racism was important, but fascism and racism is only one form of hate speech; it's only one form of discrimination; it's only one form of kind of bodily violence; and we should take them all into consideration. Mike: Okay. Now there's been a fair bit of backlash against No Platform in kind of any of its forms from various sectors, so let's talk a bit about that. Let's start with the fascist themselves. So their response kind of changed somewhat over time in response to No Platform. David, you talk about this. David: Yeah. In the early ‘70s in Britain or I suppose in the late ‘70s too, what's extraordinary is how little use fascist make out of saying, "We are being attacked, free speech applies. We've got to have the right to be heard." I made the point earlier that Britain doesn't have a strong legal culture of free speech. We do have some culture of free speech. And again, it's not that the fascists never use these terms at all, they use them, but they use them very half-heartedly. Their dominant approach is to say, "We are being attacked by the left. The left don't understand we have better fighters than them. If they attack us on the streets, we'll fight back. In the end, we'll be the ones who win in a kind of battle of machismo, street fighting power." Now A, that doesn't happen because actually they lose some set piece confrontations, mostly at Lewisham in 1977. But it's interesting that they don't do the kind of thing which you'd expect the far right to do today, which is to say, like the British far right does today, they constantly say, "We're under attack. Free speech demands that we be heard. We're the only people who take free speech seriously." There's a continuous process in the British far right these days of endlessly going on social media every time anyone even disagrees with them a little bit, they immediately have their faces taped up and present themselves as the victim of this terrible conspiracy when in the mid-'70s when there really were people trying to put the far right out of business, that isn't what the far right did. I think, in essence, a whole bunch of things have to change. You have to get kind of a hardening of the free speech discourse in the United States; you have to have things like the attack on political correctness; the move by the American center-right from being kind of equivocal on free speech to being extremely pro-free speech; and you need to get the importation into Britain of essentially the same kind of free speech discourse as you have in States. Once we get all of that, the British far right eventually twigs that it's a far more effective way of presenting themselves and winning supporters by posing as the world's biggest defenders of free speech.  But in the ‘70s, they haven't learned that lesson yet, and their response is much more leaden and ineffective. In essence, they say, "No Platform's terrible because it's bullying us." But what they never have the gumption to say is, "Actually, we are the far right. We are a bunch of people putting bold and dangerous and exciting ideas, and if we are silenced, then all bold and dangerous and difficult ideas will be silenced too." That's something which a different generation of writers will get to and will give them all sorts of successes. But in the ‘70s, they haven't found it yet. Mike: Okay. Now fascists also had some uneasy allies as far as No Platform is concerned among Tories and libertarians. So let's talk about the Tories first, what was their opposition to No Platform about? Evan, you talk about this quite a bit in your book. Evan: Yeah. So the conservative opposition to No Platform is essentially saying that it's a stock standard thing that the left call everyone fascist. So they apply it to broadly and is that in the ‘80s, there's a bunch of conservative politicians to try to go onto campus, try to speak, and there's massive protests. They say that, "Look, this is part of an intolerant left, that they can't see the distinction between fascism and a Conservative MP. They don't want to allow anyone to have free speech beyond that kind of small narrow left wing bubble." In 1986, there is an attempt, after a kind of a wave of protest in '85, '86, there is an attempt by the government to implement some kind of protection for free speech on campus. This becomes part of the Education Act of 1986, that the university has certain obligations to ensure, where practical, free speech applies and no speech is denied. But then it's got all kind of it can't violate the Racial Discrimination Act, the Public Order Act, all those kind of things. Also, quite crucially for today, that 1986 act didn't explicitly apply to student unions. So student unions argued for the last 30 years that they are exempt from any legislation and that they were legally allowed to pursue their No Platform policy.

There are few more historic political figures than former Senator & Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun - the first Black womzn elected to the US Senate and the first ever Black Democratic Senator. In this conversation, she talks growing up on Chicago's South Side, marching with Martin Luther King at age 16, memories of figures like Richard J. Daley and Harold Washington, the start of her own political career, her history-making underdog Senate win in 1992, memorable moments and lessons learned during her time in the Senate, her tenure as Ambassador to New Zealand, & much more from a truly iconic political life.IN THIS EPISODE…Memories of growing up on Chicago's South Side…Early memories of Chicago politics and the local labor movement…Growing up in the Chicago of Richard J. Daley…A 16-year-old Carol Moseley Braun marches next to Martin Luther King Jr…Memories of her long relationship with the iconic Harold Washington…How Harold Washington “saved” her political career…The college classmate (and now DC uber lobbyist) who jumpstarted her first political race…Recollections of the Illinois legislature of the 1970s and 80s…How being the target of the Chicago Machine actually helped her career…The amazing story of her history-making underdog US Senate race in 1992…Surprises and difficulties in the early days after being elected to the US Senate…The Senators who served as her mentors…The story of facing down Jesse Helms over the Confederate Flag…Her relationship with then-Senator Joe Biden…Her proudest accomplishment in the Senate…Memories of her tenure as Ambassador to New Zealand…The definitive Carol Moseley Braun advice for visitors to Chicago…AND 98-2, the Action Party, Al the Pal, apolitical medical technicians, Bob Bennett, the Black Belt, Barbara Boxer, brickbats, Brown vs Board, George HW Bush, Robert Byrd, Jane Byrne, carveouts, the civil rights imperative, Bill Clinton, Michael Corleone, cumulative voting, the Cutback Amendment, the Daley Machine, demigods, dirty tricks, Alan Dixon, the Dream Team, the DuSable Museum of African American History, Diane Feinstein, Gage Park, Hansberry vs Lee, Howell Heflin, Anita Hill, Independent Democrats, Nancy Kassebaum, Ted Kennedy, Kiwis, Celinda Lake, Landslide Washington, Pat Leahy, Thurgood Marshall, John McCain, Pat Moynihan, Dick Neuhaus, nuclear submarines, Barack Obama, old bulls, Claiborne Pell, Tony Podesta, Michael Shakman, semi-humans, Paul Simon, Clarence Thomas, Transcendentalists, welfare reform, the WWI Memorial, the Willard Hotel, the Year of the Woman… & more!

Synopsis: The Straits Times analyses Singapore's latest news and announcements in this weekly podcast.  The Straits Times' Zakir Hussain, Singapore editor at The Straits Times, speaks with Money FM 89.3's Timothy Goh and Bharati Jagdish. Finance Minister Lawrence Wong will be promoted to Deputy Prime Minister from June 13, in the latest round of Cabinet changes that cements his standing as the successor to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The announcement comes two months after Mr. Wong was endorsed by his peers as the leader of the People's Action Party's fourth-generation team. What can Singaporeans expect from the latest Cabinet reshuffle? Produced by: Zakir Hussain (zakirh@sph.com.sg) & Money FM 89.3 Edited by: Money FM 89.3's Nadiah Koh and ST's Paxton Pang Follow SG Extra Podcast episodes every Tuesday here on our ST Podcasts channel: Channel: https://str.sg/w6mk  SPH Awedio app: https://www.awedio.sg/ Website: http://str.sg/stpodcasts Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg Read Zakir Hussain's articles: https://str.sg/we4e --- Discover ST's special edition podcasts: Singapore's War On Covid: https://str.sg/wsfD The Unsolved Mysteries of South-east Asia Embed: https://str.sg/ws76 Stop Scams: https://str.sg/wnBi --- Discover more ST podcast series: In Your Opinion Podcast: https://str.sg/w7Qt SG Extra Podcast: https://str.sg/w6Wt  Asian Insider Podcast: https://str.sg/JWa7 Green Pulse Podcast: https://str.sg/JWaf Health Check Podcast: https://str.sg/JWaN #PopVultures Podcast: https://str.sg/JWad ST Sports Talk Podcast: https://str.sg/JWRE Bookmark This! Podcast: https://str.sg/JWas Lunch With Sumiko Podcast: https://str.sg/J6hQ Discover BT Podcasts: https://bt.sg/pcPL Follow our shows then, if you like short, practical podcasts! #SGExtra See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Finance Minister Lawrence Wong will be promoted to Deputy Prime Minister from June 13, in a move that cements his standing as the successor to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The announcement comes two months after Mr Wong was endorsed by his peers as the leader of the People's Action Party's  fourth-generation team. Will the upcoming Cabinet reshuffle have significant developments? On SGExtra, Prime Time's Timothy Go and Bharati Jagdish spoke with Zakir Hussain, Singapore Editor, The Straits Times to find out.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Synopsis: This is a special episode of The Straits Times' video series The Big Story, hosted by Hairianto Diman and Olivia Quay. On April 16, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong held a press conference at the Istana to share details on how Finance Minister Lawrence Wong was chosen as leader of the ruling People's Action Party's fourth-generation team. PM Lee was joined by Mr Wong and former minister Khaw Boon Wan, who was tasked with overseeing the political succession process. Mr Khaw shared that of the 19 people interviewed as part of the decision-making process, 15 chose Mr Wong as the preferred leader. ST's political editor Zakir Hussain discusses the details of the selection process, and whether the handover of the PAP leadership to Mr Wong will take place before the next general election. Produced by: ST Video team Edited by: ST Video team and Paxton Pang Discover The Straits Times Videos: https://str.sg/JPrc Discover ST podcasts: Channel: https://str.sg/JWVR Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2PwZCYU Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2Lu4rPP Google podcasts: http://str.sg/googlestbt SPH Awedio app: https://www.awedio.sg/ Websites: http://str.sg/stpodcasts Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg  Follow Hairianto Diman on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/iamhairianto/?hl=en Follow Olivia Quay on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oliviaquayhere/?hl=en --- Follow ST Podcasts channel: Channel: https://str.sg/JWVR Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2Lu4rPP Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2PwZCYU Google podcasts: http://str.sg/googlestbt SPH Awedio app: https://www.awedio.sg/ Websites: http://str.sg/stpodcasts Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg  --- Discover ST's special edition podcasts: Singapore's War On Covid: https://str.sg/wsfD The Unsolved Mysteries of South-east Asia Embed: https://str.sg/ws76 Stop Scams: https://str.sg/wnBi Discover more ST podcast series: In Your Opinion Podcast: https://str.sg/w7Qt SG Extra Podcast: https://str.sg/wX8w  Asian Insider Podcast: https://str.sg/JWa7 Green Pulse Podcast: https://str.sg/JWaf Health Check Podcast: https://str.sg/JWaN #PopVultures Podcast: https://str.sg/JWad ST Sports Talk Podcast: https://str.sg/JWRE Bookmark This! Podcast: https://str.sg/JWas Lunch With Sumiko Podcast: https://str.sg/J6hQ Discover BT Podcasts: https://bt.sg/pcPL Follow our shows then, if you like short, practical podcasts! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Big Story Ep 43: Drop in PAP's perceived credibility seen in all age groups: IPS post-GE2020 survey  Synopsis: This is a special episode of The Straits Times' video series The Big Story. According to a post-election survey by the Institute of Policy Studies, amid the Covid-19 pandemic, jobs and the cost of living weighed heavily on Singaporeans' minds as they headed to the polls in July this year. Political diversity, too, was a key consideration among the country's younger and better-educated voters. Across all age groups, there was a slide in the proportion of people who thought the ruling People's Action Party was credible, while the opposite was true for the opposition Workers' Party. Survey research team members Dr Gillian Koh and Dr Teo Kay Key dissect the findings with The Big Story hosts Hairianto Diman and Olivia Quay. Read Grace Ho's story for more details Produced and edited by: ST Video team and Penelope Lee Discover The Straits Times Videos: https://str.sg/JPrc Discover ST & BT podcasts: Channel: https://str.sg/JWVR Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2PwZCYU Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2Lu4rPP Google podcasts: http://str.sg/googlestbt Websites: http://str.sg/stbtpodcasts https://bt.sg/moneyhacks Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg  --- Discover more niche podcast series by ST and BT below: Follow Money Hacks Podcast on: http://bt.sg/btmoneyhacks Follow Health Check Podcast on: https://str.sg/JWaN Follow Asian Insider Podcast on: https://str.sg/JWa7 Follow Green Pulse Podcast on: https://str.sg/JWaf Follow Life Picks Podcast on: https://str.sg/JWa2 Follow #PopVultures Podcast on: https://str.sg/JWad Follow Bookmark This! Podcast on: https://str.sg/JWas Follow #GameOfTwoHalves Podcast on: https://str.sg/JWRE Follow our shows then, if you like short, practical podcasts! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Big Story Ep 23: PM Lee unveils new Cabinet line-up; 6 ministries to have new ministers 17:33 mins Synopsis: This is a special episode of The Straits Times' video series The Big Story. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announces his new Cabinet line-up on Saturday (July 25), with six ministries headed by new ministers. Seven of the People's Action Party's new MPs have also been appointed as political office-holders. News editor Zakir Hussain weighs in on the significance of the Cabinet reshuffle. Produced and edited by: ST Video team and Penelope Lee Discover The Straits Times Videos: https://str.sg/JPrc Discover ST & BT podcasts: Channel: https://str.sg/JWVR Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2PwZCYU Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2Lu4rPP Google podcasts: http://str.sg/googlestbt Websites: http://str.sg/stbtpodcasts https://bt.sg/moneyhacks Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the aftermath of the polls the ruling People's Action Party and its representatives have been busy countering more critical interpretations of the General Elections. What are the interpretations that differ from the PAP preferred narrative? Melisa Idris and Sharaad Kuttan speak to Bridget Welsh who is with the Asia Research Institute at University of Nottingham Malaysia.

In The Straits Times The Big Story, ST’s multimedia journalist Harianto Dirman and assistant video editor Olivia Quay spoke to news editor Zakir Hussain on whether the GE2020 outcome signals a return to the norm of the mid-1980s and 1990s when the People's Action Party won between 61 and 65 per cent of votes, or is it the start of a new normal. See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information.

This week, Bosnia is marking the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Srebrenica Massacre – Europe’s worst atrocity since the Second World War. Those who ordered the executions were convicted of genocide. Today Bosnia is deeply divided, impoverished, and governed by politicians who stir up the remaining ethnic enmity. Now young Bosnians are leaving in droves, says Guy De Launey. Turkmenistan is a secretive and authoritarian state, and has not registered a single case of Covid-19. But independent media organisations, based outside the country, say their sources are reporting numerous cases of people falling ill with Covid-like symptoms. Now experts from the World Health Organisation have visited. What did they find, asks Rayhan Demytrie? Tanzania announced that it had defeated the coronavirus last month, but it has not released full data on infections or deaths for many weeks. There was no lockdown, as the president declared that God would protect the country. But the US embassy warned that hospitals were overwhelmed. Where does that leave Tanzanians, like Sammy Awami? Singapore pressed ahead with a general election despite the pandemic last week. The People’s Action Party has ruled for decades and won again, but with a reduced majority. The opposition Worker’s party had its best result to date. Could there be change in the air? Sharanjit Leyl visited a woman in a poorer district. Germany already made the wearing of face-coverings in shops compulsory in April and has been seen to handle the pandemic well. Germans have adapted to having to wear masks quite creatively, with designs ranging from leopard skin to bridal lace and denim. So what style did Damien McGuinness go for in Berlin? Presenter: Kate Adie Producers: Arlene Gregorius and Serena Tarling

Singaporeans awoke on Saturday (Jul 11) to find the People’s Action Party firmly in power with 83 seats but with a slide in their vote share and the loss of Sengkang GRC to the Workers’ Party. What do the results reveal about what Singaporeans want of their government? What does it mean for the new PAP government and the role of the opposition going forward? Lin Suling sits down with political scientist Dr Lam Peng Er and Deputy Director at the Institute of Policy Studies Gillian Koh who give their take. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Career360, Howie Lim spoke to Adrian Choo, CEO and Founder of Career Agility International. They discuss what the results from GE2020 mean for our manpower sector here in Singapore.  Last Friday, the People’s Action Party clinched 61.24 per cent of the votes in the General Election, but a swing to the Opposition saw the Workers’ Party make inroads into Parliament by claiming its second Group Representation Constituency in polls. See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information.

Singapore's ruling People's Action Party is back in power, Arunachal Pradesh's Siang river is flowing at dangerous levels, US President Donald Trump appeared in public in a face mask and other news updates in your morning shot.

In today's episode, India's 2018 Tiger Census has made it to the Guinness Book of World Records for being the world's largest camera trapping wildlife survey, Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister C N Ashwath Narayan has clarified that the government has not taken any decision on imposing lockdown on Saturdays and Singapore's People's Action Party secures 83 of 93 parliamentary seats in election. Download the Deccan Herald app for Android devices here: https://bit.ly/2UgttIO Download the Deccan Herald app for iOS devices here: https://apple.co/30eOFD6 For latest news and updates, log on to www.deccanherald.com Check out our e-paper www.deccanheraldepaper.com To read news on the go, sign up to our Telegram channel t.me/deccanheraldnews

The Big Story Podcast: PM Lee to see Singapore through crisis 7:03 mins Synopsis: This is a special episode of The Straits Times' video series The Big Story. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pledges that he will steer Singapore through the current Covid-19 crisis alongside senior Cabinet colleagues and the fourth-generation ministers, even as the People's Action Party ensures there is continuous leadership renewal. Hosts Dylan Ang and Olivia Quay speak with deputy political editor Royston Sim, who shares his insights on the latest developments. Produced and edited by: ST Video team Discover The Straits Times Videos: https://str.sg/JPrc Discover ST & BT podcasts: Channel: https://str.sg/JWVR Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2PwZCYU Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2Lu4rPP Google podcasts: http://str.sg/googlestbt Websites: http://str.sg/stbtpodcasts https://bt.sg/moneyhacks Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Big Story Podcast: PAP and opposition feud over Covid-19 response measures 5:40 mins Synopsis: This is a special episode of The Straits Times' video series The Big Story. Both the People's Action Party and opposition continue to attack each side's handling of the Covid-19 crisis. Hosts Dylan Ang and Olivia Quay speak with news editor Zakir Hussain on the latest developments. Produced and edited by: ST Video team Discover The Straits Times Videos: https://str.sg/JPrc Discover ST & BT podcasts: Channel: https://str.sg/JWVR Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2PwZCYU Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2Lu4rPP Google podcasts: http://str.sg/googlestbt Websites: http://str.sg/stbtpodcasts https://bt.sg/moneyhacks Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Big Story Podcast: Long-term repercussions of Ivan Lim PAP candidacy withdrawal? 5:28 mins Synopsis: The People's Action Party introduces a new candidate, Mr Xie Yao Quan, as part of its Jurong GRC slate for the upcoming general election. Mr Xie, the head of healthcare redesign at Alexandra Hospital, replaces Mr Ivan Lim, who withdrew his candidacy in the face of online allegations that he said had eclipsed the core issues of this election. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says PAP has confidence in its candidate selection process and will stand by its candidates as long as it is satisfied they are fit for the role.  The Straits Times' news editor Zakir Hussain weighs in with The Big Story hosts Hairianto Diman and Olivia Quay, on the long-term repercussions of Mr Lim's withdrawal.  Produced and edited by: ST Video team Discover The Straits Times Videos: https://str.sg/JPrc Discover ST & BT podcasts: Channel: https://str.sg/JWVR Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2PwZCYU Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2Lu4rPP Google podcasts: http://str.sg/googlestbt Websites: http://str.sg/stbtpodcasts https://bt.sg/moneyhacks Feedback to: podcast@sph.com.sg  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Had the biggest privilege of having Mr Zainal on the podcast – if you aren’t sure, he is a Member of the 12th Parliament of Singapore for the Pasir Ris East Constituency which is part of the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. He is a politician from Singapore’s main governing political party, the People’s Action Party and is also currently serving in the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) as the Assistant Secretary-General. Zainal is a graduate of Nanyang Technological University with a Master of Arts in Educational Management, through which he has served for 20 years in the education service before embarking on his political career. In this episode, we primarily talked about how Singaporean youths can better prepare themselves for the working world, red flags that they need to look out for, and lastly his work in representing the people of Pasir Ris Punggol GRC – the challenges he faces being on the ground as well as the immense satisfaction he gets from making real macro impact onto the lives of Singaporeans.

In a speech in early 2019, then-British Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt extolled Singapore as a model for the UK post-Brexit. This idea has persisted throughout the Brexit campaign and the debate over the future direction of post-Brexit UK. Implicit in these models is a vision of Singapore as an economically liberal, “low-tax, low-spend, low-regulation” environment that appeals to many anxious over Brexit. This is underpinned by a myth of Singapore having successfully transformed itself from a small fishing village into a gleaming, modern, cosmopolitan, and prosperous society while uplifting its people from poverty into a country with one of the world’s highest per capita GDP. But how accurate is this vision of Singapore? In this talk, given at Oxford on 21 November 2019, Dr PJ Thum unpacks the common myths and misunderstandings surrounding Singapore, explains the economic, political, and social mechanisms used by the ruling People’s Action Party to achieve its aims, and offers potential lessons for a Britain searching for its role in post-Brexit world.

One year ago on 29 March 2018, PJ Thum went before the Singapore Parliamentary Select Committee for Deliberate Online Falsehoods, or “fake news”, to use the common shorthand. To his surprise, instead of speaking about his submission to the Committee, he was ambushed with a six-hour interrogation about a paper he published in 2013—or, to be more precise, about one paragraph in that paper, about Operation Coldstore, the 1963 arrest and detention without trial of over 112 opposition politicians, trade unionists, and activists. Why did the Minister for Law and Home Affairs torpedo the Select Committee, destroy its credibility, and waste all this public time and money over what he wrote? In this lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, he explains how historians understand Operation Coldstore and the historical evidence surrounding it, how this relates to the mechanisms of and justifications for social control in Singapore, and the hierarchy of priorities that influence decision making for the governing People’s Action Party leaders.

Part 1 of a special preview podcast mixed by DAN DE LEON for THE ACTION! PARTY tour in Chicago at Hydrate Nightclub on Saturday November 24. See @dan-de-leon and @anthonygriego together back 2 back for the first time on tour at ACTION! PARTY in Chicago. For tickets and details visit http://www.hydratechicago.com FREE DOWNLOAD https://hypeddit.com/track/w1th93

Adrian Sim is a volunteer with Singapore's Workers' Party, the only opposition party to have elected members in parliament in a political system led since 1959 by the People's Action Party.   Vanessa and Udhara sat down with Adrian at an ‘HDB' apartment complex in Lorong Ah Soo, a Workers' Party constituency, who shared: His story growing up in a low income household in Singapore Why he chose to join the opposition rather than achieve results through the ruling party Why he believes government needs to become more compassionate Thanks for listening to A Life Less Ordinary. If you loved this episode, check out our other episodes on Apple Podcasts! Subscribe to our show and please leave us a review.

Listen NOW to Dan De Leon's debut ACTION! PARTY WORLD TOUR PODCAST as ACTION! Resident DJ. Recorded LIVE at legendary Club Babel in Guadalajara Mexico, August 19 2017. FREE DOWNLOAD https://hypeddit.com/track/sc/40w0tt

Politics and Governance The first lecture in the series is titled Politics and Governance and ponders the next decades of political administration in Singapore. It discusses the prospects of the People’s Action Party in the age of social media, and broadly sets out the historical trends that other dominant political systems have undergone. How should governance evolve as our democracy matures? Can our current model of governance benefit from any reforms? And what of our political system? Simply put, will there even be a PAP in 50 years time? 00:09 mins - Opening Remarks: Prof Tommy Koh, Special Adviser, Institute of Policy Studies 06:09 mins - Speaker: Mr Ho Kwon Ping, 2014/15 IPS Nathan Fellow 1:06:11 mins - Q&A chaired by Mr Janadas Devan, Director, Institute of Policy Studies Date: 20 October 2014 Time: 6.00 pm - 7.45pm Venue: Theatre, University Cultural Centre

Dr Poh Soo Kai speaks at the Southeast Asia seminar on May 4th, 2016. Living in a Time of Deception is a study of Singapore history from the post-war period to 1965, which the author describes as a historical memoir. Part of Singapore’s agitation against colonial rule, Dr Poh Soo Kai remains one of the most respected former political prisoners in Singapore. While the establishment’s account of Singapore’s history maintains that the battle was one between the communists and non-communists, Dr Poh firmly puts anti-colonialism, nationalism and socialism as the forces that drove the young men and women who were his contemporaries. He also delves into how being imprisoned without trial, potentially indefinitely without any recourse, leaves none of them unscathed. The People’s Action Party, Singapore’s only ruling party to date, continues to justify the mass arrests and imprisonment of the most able left-wing leaders as security measures against communist subversion. In this seminar, Dr Poh will discuss his book, his political career, and the lessons drawn from his long experience. Dr Poh Soo Kai was the president of the University of Malaya Socialist Club in 1954-55 and its secretary general in 1955-56. He was a member of the eight-person editorial board of the Socialist Club newsletter, Fajar, who were charged by the colonial government in 1954 with sedition. He was a founding member of the People’s Action Party in 1954 and was later the Assistant Secretary-General of Barisan Socialis when it was established in 1961. In 1963, he was detained without trial under Operation Coldstore and was held for a total of 17 years. He has recently published his memoir, Living in a Time of Deception, which has just launched in Singapore and Malaysia.

Jordan is officially a master thief so what does he think about the current state of lockpicking mini-games and the stealth genre? Important people like Justin and Aaron want to know and have their own ideas about the shadowy future. The Cursed Checkpoint is a topical video game podcast focused on discussions and interviews about a single video game, genre, news headline, or industry story. This show was recorded live on Twitch.tv/HorribleNight. The final video will be available on YouTube.com/HorribleNightTV. Show Notes Cast: Justin, Jordan, Aaron Runtime: 58:23 Games Thief, Hitman, Metal Gear, Dishonored, Mark of the Ninja, Assassin’s Creed, Deus Ex, Skyrim, Riddick Subscribe to The Horrible Shows – New Episodes Weekly RSS iTunes Stitcher Related posts: The Cursed Checkpoint #301 – Lessons of Loot and Diablo E3 12: Third Party Party – The Cursed Checkpoint #e312d The 2013 Grimmys Games of the Year Preview – The Cursed Checkpoint #207

Remarks by Mr Desmond Lee, People’s Action Party by Institute of Policy Studies

Pastor Scott Hackler on 11/4/07     4 of 4 Reading from Luke Chapter 10      We are the modern day disciples of Jesus. We can be the lucky recipients of heavens vision when we act on the behalf of Jesus.   The power God gives us to carry out His mission is awsome!