The spectacular success of the Singapore table tennis team has rankled many, including Singaporeans. They take issue with the entire team having been recruited from China and specially naturalised to contribute towards Singapore?s sporting achievements. Is there good reason to oppose Singapore?s approach, which is increasingly common internationally? Would that opposition imply an indefensible form of self-reliance, whereby a country should reject all external assistance? This paper presents a reason to object to Singapore?s approach without promoting repugnant self-reliance. It builds (...) on existing critiques, which are largely based on how foreigners are naturalised, to argue against the underlying motivation for doing so. Three possible rebuttals are considered and rejected because they trade on conceptual confusions. Although the essay focuses on the national pursuit of sporting excellence, the fundamental issue extends beyond: similar concerns apply to other meaningful fields of endeavour that members of a community can engage in. (shrink)

An important issue within the field of global ethics is the extent or scope of moral obligation or duties. Cosmopolitanism argues that we have duties to all human beings by virtue of some common property. Communitarian ethics argue that one’s scope of obligation is circumscribed by one’s community or some other defining property. Public virtues, understood to be either a property that communities possess to function well or a moral excellence constitutive of that community, offer an interesting challenge to this (...) binary by positing moral goods or excellences that are constitutive of a community yet global in application. Virtues such as tolerance, charity, moderation, or benevolence might be examples of such goods or excellences endorsed by a community but applied to individuals who are not members of the community, or, as in the case of environmental ethics, even to entities that are not moral agents. Unlike cosmopolitan ethics, the scope of the obligation does not depend on identifying universal properties, such as rationality, human dignity, or utility, but could be defined entirely by and within a community. (shrink)

This paper explores two types of investment in the current People’s Republic of China, both of which promote fantasies about the past and future, presumably as a way to forestall uncomfortable conversations about the present. But the author is less interested in state decisions than in what makes an unofficial person “buy into” such fantasies. Her answer is, “misperceptions about tradition”, longstanding cultural preoccupations, and genuine desires to secure honor and glory in an insecure world. Her largely diagnostic paper briefly (...) considers possible responses to the question, “What, in such a dire situation, can be done to introduce more complex notions of sedimented identities?”. (shrink)