ST: The art of disagreeing – it can yield some good

Most people can recall times when individuals maintain the same position despite being given new information that seems to contradict it. Sometimes, people may even claim that the contrary information presented supports their position and so strengthens their belief.

The more important the topic, the more it affects interpersonal relationships negatively when there is strong disagreement. It gets worse when the issues seem clear and the individuals concerned are intelligent. In such cases, a lack of understanding cannot be the problem. This resistance to change is part of human psychology. It applies to everyone regardless of educational background, socio-economic status, political belief and moral position.

But if the underlying psychology is understood, this knowledge can facilitate personal and workplace relationships. It can also help address disagreements between policymakers and citizens or advocacy groups.

Confirmatory bias

Everyone tends to seek out, interpret and remember information that confirms existing beliefs, positions or actions. Pyschologists call it confirmatory bias, a term coined by Peter Wason. In the 1970s, Professor Wason published a series of seminal studies which showed that when asked to test a simple rule, people consistently sought information that would confirm the rule and ignored information that would disprove it.

In 1979, a research team from Stanford University published a study involving participants who were either for or against capital punishment. All participants were asked to read and evaluate two studies, one supporting capital punishment and the other undermining it. The results showed that participants rated the study that was pre-existing position as superior to the one that contradicted it. In reality, however, both studies employed the same methodology and were fictitious.

Subsequent research has shown that people express more interest and spend more time on information that is consistent with their pre-existing positions or actions. They also give more weight to and recall better such consistent information.

Confirmation bias also occurs in real life. People go about their respective routines paying more attention to news outlets and commentary articles, in mainstream of social media, which reflect their own political views. They also spend more time discussing and analyzing issues with those who share their views than with those who don't.

Does confirmatory bias occur when there is strong disagreement over an issue between policy makers and citizens or advocacy groups?

There are several clues to look for.

Look at the type of information that each side seeks out as relevant evidence for the debate. Look at which aspects of the  issue they attend to. Look at how they differ when interpreting and making sense of what the same data means. And look at what each side recalls when citing previous cases they consider similar or relevant to the current issue.

Policymakers tend to believe that policy successes are largely due to their acumen, and that policy failures are largely due to changes in external conditions beyond their control.

Citizens tend to believe that policy successes are largely due to luck, public cooperation or resources available to policymakers. They see policy failures as being largely due to incompetence or an inability to plan ahead.

An example is the way in which strains on Singapore's infrastructure and overcrowding in public transport in recent years yield different reactions.

Citizens tend to attribute such overcrowding to the lack of planning on the part of policymakers and this overemphasis on population growth. Policymakers, however, attribute the problem to unexpected changes in economic conditions. They also cite the growth in the number of foreigners, and the many years needed for building infrastructure projects.

Reacting constructively

Is there a way to react constructively to information that is contrary to firmly held opinions? There are no magic bullets, but here are some possible approaches to prevent negative effects and promote positive ones.

•In all major decisions, make a serious effort to question or at least revisit one's assumptions.

•Seek information that undermines and not just confirms pre-existing beliefs and positions.

•In group discussions, do not express a position before hearing from the other members. This allows alternative, and possibly better, ideas to surface more easily. This is especially important when leading a group, or if group members have a similar profile.

•Spend less time getting the views and listening to the justifications provided by like-minded individuals. Create more opportunities to listen to the views of those who may not agree. Allow them to elaborate and prove their point.

•Try to understand the position and frame of reference of those holding contrary views. Consider how they feel, their concerns and aspirations. Never trivialize their emotions.

•Focus on the substance of the contrary information and the situations leading to the disagreement. Avoid focusing on the motivations of those involved.

•Consider in what ways a strongly held belief might be wrong. Consider the consequences that might occur if it is and if the contrary view is right.

•When there is disagreement, consider whether it is a trade-off situation, a balancing act or a case of different but complementary approaches that can be integrated to achieve common goals.

How views get polarized

Confirmation bias becomes troubling when policymakers and citizens acummulate facts selectively, making them highly resistant to alternative views.

This often happens to like-minded and close-knit members in a group. The group may be an online community commenting on social and political issues or advocacy group pursuing a common cause. 

ST: So many varsities, so few students

Many of Taiwan's 120 universities are struggling to survive as enrollment numbers fall in tandem with declining birth rates. Experts worry that scores of tertiary institutions, most of them private, may be forced to close and leave hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers jobless.
"It will become a very big social problem if such highly educated, mostly middle-aged teachers lose their jobs," said Professor Chou Chu-ing, an education expert at National Chengchi University.
Earlier this month, two dozen teachers and students from the Yung-Ta Institute of Technology and Commerce in southern Pingtung county protested outside the Education Ministry in Taipei. The teachers said they had not been paid for eight months, while the students complained that class schedules were still up in the air just one week before the start of the new school year. They all wanted the ministry to take over the running of the private school.
At least eight universities have been shortlisted for closure since last year, ministry officials told lawmakers this week. They were found to have poor enrollment of under 100 students and not to have paid teaching staff.
The problem, officials and analysts agree, lies in Taiwan's declining birth rate. The number of newborns fell below 300,000 for the first time in 1998 and has since slipped to 234,000 by last year. The Education Ministry expects only 170,000 new undergraduates in 2024 compared with 270,000 in 2015.
Some critics blame the glut of universities for exacerbating the problem and the government for not resolving it much earlier.
The oversupply has its roots in an education reform in the 1990s that grew out of a civic movement calling for university education to be made accessible to all Taiwanese. This led the government to relax regulations so that the private sector can set up colleges and to allow polytechnics to be upgraded to university status. Meanwhile, the number of vocational training schools fell from 72 to 14.
The result is that more than 90% of high school graduates qualify to go to university now compared to 30% twenty years ago. The starting salary of graduates is about NT$25,000 (S$1,060), just NT$2,000 more than that of vocational school graduates, who are now in short supply.
Said Prof Chou: "As an ideal, the aspiration for everyone to have a degree is good. But it becomes a problem when we factor in the realities of the job market."
Associate Professor Chen Cheng-liang, a sociologist at the private Shih Hsin University and secretary-general of a union with 700 tertiary members, reckons that up to 40 universities are in serious trouble.
To make it easy for struggling institutions to drop out, Education Minister Chiang Wei-ling and Interior Minister Lee Hong-yuan suggested this week that the government allow university boards to sell school land to commercial developers and to keep 60 to 80% of the proceeds. Institutions in trouble would also be required to set aside funds to pay all their teaching staff should they be forced to close.
The government has few options, according to Mr Lee. "The problems created by low birth rates and a proliferation of universities have become a political problem with no legal recourse," he said.

ST: Tuition too prevalent to ignore

There was widespread incredulity last week when Senior Minister of State for Education Indranee Rajah declared that tuition is unnecessary.

Responding to a question in Parliament on the "shadow education system" and its impact, she said: "Our education system is run on the basis that tuition is not necessary. Some parents believe they can give their children an added advantage by sending them to tuition classes, even though their children are doing reasonably well. We cannot stop them from doing so."

The parents who spend US$680 million (S$848 million) each year (according to a 2012 Asian Development Bank report on tuition) on private tuition for their children here clearly think that tuition isn't unnecessary.

Various polls suggest tuition prevalence here as anything from nearly half of households (a MasterCard survey on spending in April) to over 90 per cent of students (the Asian Development Bank report).

But in a way, Ms Indranee's view is internally consistent: the Ministry of Education (MOE) does not consider tuition necessary, so it designs its curriculum accordingly, and its teachers are expected to teach like there is no such thing as private tuition.

Thinking within the box that says tuition is unnecessary leads to this rather ostrich-like way of tackling the issue: not needed, not an issue, go away.

How different it would be if the ministry could get out of its self-imposed box to contemplate: What is it about the education system that is making so many parents send their children for private tuition?

In fact, this was precisely what Nominated MP Janice Koh asked in Parliament: Whether more should be done to make tuition "less necessary and desirable" in Singapore, and if the ministry had data on tuition.

If the ministry took the issue of tuition seriously, its thinking might go this way: "We think it's unnecessary, but many parents and students clearly think otherwise. Is there something we're missing? In fact, how prevalent is tuition? Maybe we should study this, and see what students have tuition in, how much is spent, and if tutors are qualified.

"Better still, let's study if tuition is effective, for different groups of students: the weak, the average and the academically strong.

"Do some of MOE's existing policies create conditions that fuel demand for tuition? Could large class sizes result in weaker students needing personalised attention from tutors? Could our move to grade exams on raw scores rather than in broad bands compel students to get extra coaching to chase up every extra mark to get ahead of others?

"Could our marking and grading system fuel hyper-competitive behaviour and lead to an arms race in grades and tuition? What can we do to reduce these effects?"

If such thinking goes on in the ministry, the public is none the wiser.

Singapore's policymakers have a tendency to present a closed, united front on an issue and speak within the confines of existing practice, ignoring different realities and views.

There may be reason for such an approach: in this case, it might be to avoid spurring a frenzy for tuition; or to assure parents that schools are doing their job teaching students. But this approach lacks credibility when there is a vast gap between their pronouncements, and the reality on the ground.

As Singapore undergoes significant shifts in policy, and its leaders try to recalibrate a new bond with the people, it is vital that the Government discard the old mode of responding to criticisms - or questioning of its policies - by ignoring them out of existence.

I have interviewed and spoken with many senior civil servants in both formal and informal settings and know most of them for a thoughtful, serious-minded bunch. I would be extremely disappointed if the questions on tuition I can think of, off the top of my head as I write this article, have not occurred to them in the course of their work.

I am sure ministry officials, and educationists, have studied these issues and come to some conclusions. But when the discussion is kept behind closed doors, out of sight and hearing of the public, it might as well not have taken place.

When all the public sees are pronouncements that defend the status quo and ignore the shadow system beneath, it begins to think that either the Government doesn't know what's going on, or doesn't care, or is powerless. It can erode the Government's credibility.

The ministry would be unwise to ignore tuition when it has become part of students' life, and when the excesses of a hyper-competitive tuition culture in countries such as South Korea and Japan are so visible.

I cite the example of tuition not because I believe tuition is a good thing. Indeed, I went through my school days without any. I cite it only as the most recent example of a distressing tendency to gloss over problems in Singapore, rather than look at them candidly and tackle them.

The policy shifts of the last year, on public transport, health care, childcare and housing, among others, should be reminder enough to all policymakers and Singaporeans just how dangerous it is to ignore problems, to close one's eye to troublesome specks of activity and refuse to connect the dots.

If officials who noticed the surge in employment pass, work permit, permanent resident and new citizenship numbers had voiced their concerns, and if the Government had listened to its own MPs' complaints about overcrowding instead of dismissing them, there might have been a faster build-up of housing and transport infrastructure to prepare for the larger population.

In health care, calls to extend the MediShield umbrella to cover people till death, and to include people with pre-existing illnesses, have been made for years. Thinking within the box led policymakers to defend the status quo resolutely and refuse extending coverage.

When you keep within the confines of policy, the refusal is internally consistent: Bringing in the very old and sick will jack premiums up so much, the young and healthy will flee the insurance scheme and scupper it. Ergo, keep the old and sick out.

Then, this year, the Government acquiesced.

What changed? The Government was ready to get out of its self-imposed policy box. Instead of treating MediShield as an opt-in insurance system that healthier people can flee from if the net is broadened to cover the very old and sick, it decided to make it compulsory. With a broader risk pool, the sums will be more manageable.

Singapore faces many choices in the years ahead, on social policy, on education, and certainly in politics. The Government and the intellectual elite in Singapore can choose to debate options within the confines of what is currently agreed on, and within the self-imposed limits of existing policy.

Or it can do the more politically difficult thing and really acknowledge problems, study them and see how the status quo can change to address the problems.

Start with the shadow education system. The best way to remove a shadow is to bring it into the light, not dismiss its utility.

ST: Time to transform Singapore education

RECENTLY, I went to Finland on an education study trip. Much has been said about the Finnish education system, but it is only by being physically present, with all one’s senses and faculties engaged, that the potential lessons strike home.

I visited a full school, with classes from pre-primary to Grade 9, and was struck by many images.

First, the school was an oasis of calm. Teachers spoke in measured tones, while pupils were serenely animated. The joy of learning was evident, unpunctured by frequent graded assessments, which were prohibited for those younger than 12 years old.

A child-centred philosophy permeated the school. In the pre-school class I observed, each child had an individualised six-page development plan, jointly signed by parents and teacher. The first piece of information collected was the child’s comments, with questions like “Do you like to come to pre-school?”, “What things can you decide yourself in pre-school?” and “What would you like to learn?”.

A key emphasis is the parent-teacher partnership. Indeed, the Finnish national curriculum explicitly aims to support families in their parenting tasks, not vice versa.

Inclusivity is widely practised. Resources are directed at those in most need of them, with a high level of support for those with special needs. Children with special needs, accounting for some 10 per cent of the school enrolment, were mostly integrated into every class. Roving teachers work with the more physically and intellectually challenged ones separately, where necessary.

Obviously, Singapore cannot copy the Finnish education system wholesale. We do not currently have its egalitarian culture and its long-standing respect of the teaching profession.

But we can surely learn some things. They include the principle of the unharried child, child-centricity and inclusiveness. Ultimately, what is the purpose of education? What are parents’ aspiration for their children and development?

I can speak as a parent to three boys, aged 11, nine and six. I want my children to be developed holistically as whole persons. I wish for them to witness and practise values every moment, so that values become part of their being. I hope they will become lifelong lovers of learning, motivated to acquire new knowledge to serve and transform society. I desire their school to be a genuine community that reflects a society that I want to live in – warm, collaborative, inclusive and oriented towards the common good.

The need for reform

TODAY, Singapore has an education system that focuses on academic excellence. Singapore students rank among the best in the Programme for International Student Assessment rankings, a worldwide study of the academic performance of 15-year-old students.

Yet good examination results do not necessarily translate into desired life outcomes. It is often said that Singapore’s system, along with those of other Confucian-influenced countries, produces outstanding test-takers. But in the process these students have had their passion, creativity and confidence extinguished.

Education, potentially a great leveller, now risks exacerbating the very inequality it was meant to overcome, as well-educated parents pass on their advantages to their children through tuition and enrichment to the detriment of less-educated ones.

Paper qualifications serve as a major sorting mechanism, crudely signalling quality to employers who fail to use more sophisticated and accurate job assessment tools. The practice permeates the entire system, with the high-stakes Primary School Leaving Examination being the determining factor for entry into preferred secondary schools.

The result is a gross misallocation of resources nationally. Instead of being a tool to help to track the progress of a child relative to what he or she can appropriately achieve, testing becomes a cramming ultramarathon. In Singapore, more than $800 million annually is estimated to be spent on tuition alone, by those who can pay for it.

The sad thing is that in schools every day, many children except the academically brightest are being made to feel constantly inferior, with their weaknesses reinforced.

Those who opt into the value system that academic achievement is paramount, take on a survivalist mentality, aiming to learn the tricks to score for exams, which is antithetical to learning and development.

Some opt out but sometimes at tremendous cost, either by entering a foreign schooling system (if they can afford it), or by dropping and abandoning all thought of educational accomplishment.

The way ahead

HOW can we change this reality?

I think we need radical experimentation, with a prototype full school that is built from scratch and that can provide a genuine alternative.

This school should be a true 3P model – people, private and public – with parents and community volunteers and experienced educators working together to establish and manage it. The state should help with funding and hold the school accountable for broad education outcomes.

The philosophy of the school should be child-centric, process-driven and geared towards holistic learning. Assessments should be focused on tracking progress against a child’s individual potential, not on how he or she compares with others. Since the school will include both primary and secondary levels, no PSLE will be necessary.

Singapore has already experimented with lab schools at the pre-school level. Having a lab school at the primary to secondary school level will allow parents to see for themselves the difference a truly child-centric system can make.

The tension that exists today between the seemingly incompatible goals of equity and excellence can be turned on its head. If excellence in creativity, collaboration and compassion are regarded as more desirable qualities in Singaporeans of the future, then diversity and inclusiveness should be embraced instead of eschewed. Mixing children of different abilities is a strength, not a weakness.

This classroom of the future should bear little resemblance to the teacher-dictated, industrial-age classrooms of today. We need more student-initiated and peer learning, with teachers as facilitators.

A bold experiment

RECENTLY, I witnessed a bold experiment at a local secondary school. The aim was to assist Normal (Technical) class students in coping with mathematics. Students were designated as tutors to teach one another. This peer-learning experiment resulted in a remarkable and sustained improvement in test scores among those purely peer-taught. Suddenly, 40 demotivated students became empowered mini-teachers and enthused learners.

Technology needs to be harnessed. Dr Sugata Mitra, an award-winning education technology visionary, has shown this with his “Hole in the Wall” experiment. This involved groups of children, regardless of background, learning on their own with little more than access to computers and the Internet.

Many Singaporeans will probably agree that there are many strengths in our education system, even though we can do significantly better. But I do not think that all we need are mere policy tweaks. Rather, we must welcome bold and disruptive reforms to truly transform the way we educate our children.

ST: Trust is a many-splendoured thing

Trust enables citizens and the Government to work together to build a cohesive and adaptive society - one with good quality of life for all; where Singaporeans can call home.
So when we examine the issue of public trust in the Government, it is ultimately about citizen well-being, not the survival of a political party.
Trust affects how citizens think, feel and behave. It takes time to build, is easy to lose and once lost, is difficult to restore. Given how critical and complex the concept of trust is, research on trust perceptions may shed light on how and why the public trusts, or distrusts, the Government.
Studies have identified three major dimensions of trust: competence, integrity and benevolence.

• TRUST IN COMPETENCE:

This is about people's confidence in the Government's ability to perform and solve problems. It involves the ability to address issues affecting quality of life and also effectiveness in  managing crises. Efficient delivery of public services, low crime rates and a positive record in tackling economic and public-health crises contribute to trust in competence. On the other hand, issues of infrastructure, such as public transport lagging behind population growth, raise doubts relating to trust in competence.

• TRUST IN INTEGRITY:

This is about people's assessment of the Government's character or the extent to which they think it is not corrupt and is impartial. The focus here is on the integrity of public service officers and political leaders but it also involves the perception of how breaches of integrity are handled. The series of high-profile corruption and sexual impropriety scandals involving politicians and public officers erode trust in integrity. Vigorous action against those caught for corruption, regardless of who they are, may mitigate the erosion of trust to some extent and reinforce the Government's position on zero tolerance for such wrongdoings.

• TRUST IN BENEVOLENCE:

This is about people's belief in the Government's intentions and motivations - in what it says and does and in people's perceptions about the underlying reasons for a policy or government action.

Trust in benevolence increases when people believe that the intention of policy and government action is to serve their interests and is motivated by genuine concern for citizen well-being, as opposed to being influenced by vested private or partisan interests.

It gets eroded when people think that policies are formulated by an elite which is disconnected from ground sentiments, is unable to empathize, or does not care enough for the less fortunate or ordinary folk.

There has been increasing emphasis on citizen well-being, social mobility, quality of public engagement efforts and humility and empathy in public service.

There are also significant  policy shifts in housing, health and education. If these emphases and policy shifts are sustainable and translated into intended outcomes that benefit citizens, trust in benevolence will increase.

When such trust is low, people experience diverse emotions, from anger and anxiety to disappointment and frustration. They become skeptical when reacting to policies too.

They are also more likely to advocate counter-proposals. It is unwise to treat these strong disagreements especially those expressed on social media, as arising from irrational emotions, anti-establishment sentiments or a lack of understanding of the policy's substantive content. 

The good news is that some of the counter-proposals put forward are constructive and lead to real improvements in policies. If the Government engages critics and even skeptics, and adopts their counter-proposals when these are in fact better, it demonstrates principled adaptive leadership. This in turn builds trust in benevolence.

Trust-in-transition

How issues or incidents are managed by the people and the Government can exert lasting influence on trust in Government.

The socio-political changes in the past two years are sometimes interpreted as reflecting a decline in public trust in the Government.

But it is important to not confuse a decline in trust with strong responses from a politically active citizenry that simply reflects disagreements and pluralistic perspectives.

In other words, more disagreement and criticism of government policies does not automatically suggest a decline in trust. It is also worth noting that a fall in trust in the Government is neither a given nor inevitable.

The level of trust in the Government will depend on the relationship between the people and the Government, the actual trustworthiness of the Government and the people's likelihood to trust, given the context, and their previous experiences.

That means it is not pre-determined that trust will decrease or increase in future. It also means it is possible to improve trust levels.

A significant segment of the Singaporean population is undergoing what I call a state of "trust-in-transition". This is a transition period in which the 'trustor' has feelings of doubt and ambivalence towards the 'trustee'. It is a critical period because what occurs during this time can be highly impactful and 'tilt' the trustor towards trust or distrust.

During trust-in-transition, the trustor experiences conflicting thoughts and mixed emotions. This occurs because the trustor has a previously positive perception of the trustee based on evidence but is now undergoing negative experiences related to issues of competence, integrity, benevolence or some combination of these dimensions.

Currently, a segment of the Singapore population is likely undergoing trust-in-transition as they compare the previous positive record of the Government with the ongoing challenges in infrastructure support, management of population issues, procurement lapses and high-profile scandals.

It is important to focus on trust-in-transition. People undergoing trust-in-transition are not indifferent or uninterested fence-sitters. They are people in a committed relationship with the Government but are now experiencing mixed emotions, attempting to sort out conflicting thoughts.

Whether people move out of their transition into trust or distrust will depend on their belief in the Government's competence, integrity and benevolence. They need to feel the Government has the ability to put citizen interests and well-being as the top priority; and have the intention and sincerity to do so.

The future of trust

I suggest people and the Government look at trust from a three-pronged approach.

First, we should discuss trust in the Government by examining competence, integrity and benevolence - both actual and perceived.

Trust in competence increases when the Government solves problems and deliver on its promises.

Trust in integrity increases when the Government is transparent, objective and fair when making decisions, and accountable for its use of resources, its actions and the resulting outcomes.

Trust in benevolence increases when the Government understands and emphasises with Singaporeans' needs and problems and puts Singaporeans' interests and well-being as top priority.

Some approaches will contribute to all three dimensions of trust. For example, public communication can be more strategic and coordinated across agencies. Public engagement can be more inclusive and begin earlier prior to policy formulation.

This means going beyond seeking feedback and explaining policies.

There could be more sharing of relevant information early - to work out collaborative solutions with the public. For Singaporeans to contribute more to the country, they need to be given more information and a greater voice in the decision-making process.

Second, trust could evolve and change over time, either gradually or suddenly. The level of trust in Government is not static. A low level of trust at a point in time must not be taken as a given and a high level must not be taken for granted. This means one needs to adequately assess trust levels and track changes over time.

Finally, there is a need to understand how trust is built and how distrust originates, what factors could predict and influence trust, and what consequences may result from trust and distrust.

One also needs to understand how trust or distrust propagates and spirals into positive or negative effects, and how trust could be repaired, restored and rebuilt.

A good way to start is to revisit assumptions about these issues and check them against research findings and different perspectives.

Trust is critical and complex.

There must be an understanding of the trust process in order to repair trust violations, restore trust erosion and rebuild trust development.

YAHOO: Chat apps, social media threat to telco industry in Asia

A growing number of Asians are going online through their mobile phones, and this is becoming a problem for telcos.

It’s now happening strongly in Asia and the pressing fact has caused the Philippine telco PLDT to sit up and think. PLDT president and CEO Napoleon L. Nazareno underscored the point in the recent inauguration of the Asian Carriers Conference. Napoleon states that the telco industry “is going through a profound and painful transformation because of the disruptive impact of digital technologies.” He adds:

The internet and social media are radically altering the way people communicate and are undermining traditional telco services such as voice and SMS.

Chat apps mean less revenue

True enough, we have seen Asian chat apps like WeChat and Line grow their userbases to a cumulative half-billion or more in the past couple of years. It’s because people can easily access wi-fi or pay for 2G/3G/4G data charges so as to do a multitude of stuff – talk to peers online, share photos, send voice clips, access social media and the web. Those replace SMS and voice calls.

Partnership with messaging apps

With all these options available to consumers, where do telcos stand? Napoleon says his telco needs “partnership skills” such as “the ability to manage relationships with many partners, or the flexibility to meet the needs of partners with different business models.” He adds:

Partnership skills are vital because you need to put together many different players to make connected-life services work.

Indeed, in the Philippines we have seen these come to life. In the past few months, Smart partnered with Bubbly. Likewise Globe Telecom buddied up with Viber then created a bundle service for prepaid subscribers to access all the chat apps.

Globe earlier mentioned that chat apps are not rivals. But it looks like a trend that’s hard to defeat – people’s inclination to access the internet to do lots of stuff on their smartphones and tablets.

An Asian issue

It’s safe to say that this is not only a problem faced by Philippine telcos, but across Asia as a whole. Napoleon addresses the members of the Asian telco industry, saying they “must act now, as quickly as they can […] to avoid learning the hard way.”

Asians access the internet through their mobile phones more than people in the US and Europe do. This is driven by younger generations. With that being said, we have yet to see what the future holds for telcos: will it continue to be a hurting industry, or will we see it get healthier and form more partnerships in the future?

Supporting Video Games