In-Laws and Out-Laws

 

I’m a twice divorced man and I’m probably one of the few people who made his family happier at the point of divorce than at the point of marriage on both occasions. For the amateur psychologist amongst those reading this, you could say that my parents are guilty for my inability to stay married as both them are now on their third marriages. Both parents, have on occasion let slip that they have a sense of guilt for my f***ups in life in as both assume that I’m somehow psychologically damaged from the split.

The truth is somewhat different. Yes, I am a little damaged but not in the way people would imagine a child of divorced parents would be. For the most part, I’m actually very blessed that my parents had multiple marriages. Both my sister and I are very proud of our “patchwork” family. The multiple stepsiblings, step nephews and step nieces have given me a wonderfully large family of loving and diverse people. Sure, I’ve only really lived in the UK and Singapore, but extended family have made the USA and Germany home too. The highlight of my sister’s wedding last year, was the fact that the patchwork showed up.

In a way, the central character is my Mum who saw to it that she remained on good terms with her former in laws on both occasions. Two days ago, she dropped into town and made it a point of seeing my eldest paternal aunt. However, credit also goes to the grandmothers on both sides (both grandfathers passed on early). I remember my maternal grandmother telling ex-wife with a certain amount of pride that “Tang Li’s grandma is a nice lady. Just because our children are not together anymore, it doesn’t mean we have to stop being friends.” Old age meant that the two old ladies saw less of each other towards the end but when my maternal grandma died, my paternal eldest aunt came down to pay respects.

 

 The example of my parents was that marriage was not the end but the creation of something new. Whatever issues my parents may have had with their former spouses, they kept away from me and it reached a stage where we had the weirdest and most wonderful family gatherings. Stepdad number one has spent Christmas in Germany with Mum and Stepdad number two. Mum and Stepdad number two have spent Christmas in Singapore with Dad and Stepmum number one.

Where my parents’ divorce did damage was it conditioned me to understand that endings were not endings but the start of something else. This was what I grew up with. Marriage is not the be all and end all and divorce was never the end of the world.

Then I got married. I’ve made no secret of the fact that the marriage was not the happiest moment of my life. If you minus the sex, there was nothing really keeping us together. The Old Rogue used to say “She wants a fire place and you want to be out there.”

OK, part of the reason was legal. Under Singapore law, you need to be married for three years before divorce proceedings can be initiated (roughly how long you need to be in an HDB flat before you sell it). The other part was the fact that her family treated me very well. Father-in-law gave me one of my most generous Ang-Pao’s ever and mother-in-law always saw to it that I ate well whenever I was over there.

The in-laws were great and I didn’t want to lose them as family. However, when it became clear that I would need to take an extraordinary legal measure, they proceeded to cut all ties and suddenly I was not only no longer part of the family, I simply ceased to exist in their eyes.

In hindsight, it was a good thing. Both of us have soon moved on and my experiences of being with her actually made the front page of the Today Newspaper (though I wrote under the pseudonym) to protect the identity of my in-laws.

It was at that point that I understood that whilst relationships can evolve (friends to lovers or lovers to friends etc), there are certain relationships that need to vanish from your life. If both parties are to move forward. My first marriage was a clear example of this. We were simply bad news for each other.

Sure, things may have been different if we had something to hold us together like a kid. However, while we may have lasted longer, I’m not sure we could have been “healthy” for any kids to be raised by us. The total ending of the relationship was the only way either of us could have moved on.

I credit my parents for being the living example of showing me how relationships could evolve and how all parties could grow stronger. However, I also need to credit my first wife for showing me that there are some relationships that simply need to vanish.

Safely Being You

 On Wednesday (13 November), I had the good fortune of being invited to a talk on managing “neurodiversity.” The talk was oragnised by The Fund Finance Association and was given by Ms. Kavita Chandradhas of Undivided Consulting.

 

 This was a timely talk in as much as the concept of “diversity” has come under challenge. Thanks to the first election of Donald Trump in 2016 and his subsequent return, people in all sorts of places have become very open and very vocal about only wanting to be in places with people who look, talk and pray like them. Hence, people are now happily asking “what’s wrong with being a racist, sexist, religious chauvinist etc?”

Suddenly “diversity” and encouraging diversity is seen as “woke” and therefore not something not to be encouraged. As America and many Western societies face incidents of social unrest between very different groups, the parts of East Asia that have experienced high economic growth, have been celebrating their “conformity” as the reason for their prosperity and social unity.

However, whilst people might be finding joy in wanting to conform, the reality is that the world, specifically work places are becoming more diverse. Businesses simply cannot afford to turn away customers because they’re “not like” the business owners nor, despite what they might like to think, turn away staff who are “not like” the owners.

Much has been said about managing racial, cultural and sexual diversity. However, very little is often said about “neurodiversity.” So, what exactly is “neurodiversity.” Well, based on the talk, neurodiversity is about one’s brain chemistry – which is often the thing that dictates our way of thinking and personality.

 

 

 

If you look at the slide that was presented, you will notice that neurodiversity does include things like AHD, which many do consider a “mental” condition, something that many HR professionals tend to shy away from.

What makes it particularly poignant is that the topic of managing “neurodiversity” doesn’t seem to have a defined set of rules – more “art than science.” The importance of “empathy was emphasized but there were no “right or wrong” answers.

For corporations this seems like a pointless task. Efficiency particularly in the age of “mass production” has been about “standardization.” Everything until recently has been about “processing” and getting people to do the work has been about getting people who can fit into the system. People who don’t “fit into” a system get thrown out.

Whilst that might have been true in the industrial age, it’s becoming less true in the post-industrial age, where an individual’s innate genius for something can be the difference between success and failure.

So, organisations need to move away from mass model HR practices and to figure out how make the most of everyone’s strengths.

Let’s start with the obvious. Forcing people to fit into an environment where they have to be something else is counterproductive. People will eventually tire of wearing the “mask” and “burn-out.” Just look at the “LGBTQ” example. This is a community that is considered “fringe” and even with the growing acceptance of LGBTQ within the main stream, many have been forced to “mask” their “real” nature to fit into the mainstream. The results are often psychologically damaging on the members of the LGBTQ community and by extension their loved ones.

Then, there’s the fact that certain people who may not “fit it” can have “genius” in many aspects that are needed to make a task successful. One only needs to watch Amadeus to understand that many of the great artist, musicians, writers, scientist and innovators were “misfits” and “odd balls.” Their genius went unnoticed and they were discarded by the mainstream. Allowing genius to be recognized was perfectly OK when economies were driven by mass production. In the post-industrial age where innovation and creativity are vital for survival, organisations and societies cannot afford to waste genius. They need to manage it.

I take the example of a former colleague, whose people skills were so bad that I once publicly told her I would do her physical damage if she spoke to me. Her dealings with colleagues, subordinates and clients were cringeworthy.

Yet, despite that, she could plough through the paper work. She was like an investigation machine. Leave her in a room with a load of files and she’d make sense of them within hours.

If I had to do it again, I would still see to it that she got hired and well compensated for her talents. Wouldn’t allow her near people but I’d happily put her on a diet of documents and get another person who had people skills to do the people aspect of the job.

Does it require effort and “cost” to tailor work environments? The answer is undoubtedly so but the outputs that would come from every individual would be more than worth it.   

The Price of Rewarding Lunacy

 

The Difference Between Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine is not about historical baggage or culture but rewarding and incentivizing lunatics on all sides.

Around a week ago, I had the privilege of being invited to a Fintech event hosted by the Irish Chamber of Commerce Singapore, Invest Northern Ireland and Enterprise Ireland. The event was all about the possible Fintech investments one could make in Ireland and Northern Ireland (yes, there is a difference).

The entire event had a surreal affect on me. Everyone sounded optimistic. The Minister for the Department of the Economy, Northern Ireland, Mr. Conor Murphy, even said that “Northern Ireland is the world’s Number One destination for FinTech investment.” Everyone was talk about what a great place Northern Ireland is.

https://www.tiktok.com/@tang.li0/video/7434364448061525265?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7274292816955999746

 

 This wasn’t the image of Northern Ireland that I had. I grew up in the UK in the 1990s. Some of my best friends were sons of British Military Officers and for them, the threat of “Daddy being a target” was very real. The guys in the Combined Cadet Forces (CCF) could not wear uniforms outside school grounds because there was a real risk of being a victim of terrorism. That was just in the UK itself. In Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, there was a joke that went like this; “Why did the chicken cross the road? – Because it was stupid.” It was this simple. If you lived on the Catholic side of the street, you never crossed over to the Protestant side and visa versa. Crossing the street was a death sentence.

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Ulster Defense Force (UDF) saw to it that this was the image of Northern Ireland. Then, when I went back to the UK for University, the parties involved in Northern Ireland signed the Good Friday Agreement. The process of ending centuries of sectarian hatred began and now, as a middle-aged man, I’m attending events that talk about Northern Ireland that are optimistic and cheerful.

I’m also old enough to remember another conflict that seemed to have an optimistic end to it but has somehow turned into an utter “s***show,” that is the perpetual Israel-Palestine conflict. In my last year of school, Yaser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords. Months later, Mr. Rabin would visit Washington to sign another peace deal with King Hussain of Jordan. It looked like one of the world’s longest conflicts would finally come to an end.

Then, disaster struck. Mr. Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist and Mr. Netanyahu, who had built a career opposing the Oslo accords came into power. Everything started to go down the proverbial toilet. It looked like there would be a reprieve when Mr. Netanyahu was briefly voted out and replaced with Mr. Barak. Whatever optimism the world might have expected was short lived when Mr. Sharon decided to provoke an uprising and replaced Mr. Barak.

So, how is it that Northern Ireland went from “s***hole” into a booming place whereas the Israel-Palestine conflict has only gotten worse? Some might argue that it’s a question of culture. The less informed would be prone to saying that the Irish are European and therefore rational opposed to the Middle Easterners who are less so. I’ve heard the constant argument in Westernised circles that it has to do with the Islamic faith which encourages violence.

As easy as it is to find comfort in such arguments. However, as comforting as these arguments may sound, they are simply not true.

Let’s start with the fact that the “real estate” game in both conflicts were different. In Northern Ireland it’s always been a question of whether they’re part of Ireland or the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the dispute in Israel-Palestine is about ownership of a particular plot of land.

If you look at the following map of Northern Ireland in relation to the rest of Ireland, you’ll notice that it’s always been the same, even if the people have had centuries of fighting each other:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Ireland#/media/File:Map_of_Ireland's_capitals.png

 

So, in a sense this was relatively easy to solve. I remember a school debate where the solution was considered condoms or a lack of them. The argument being Northern Ireland would remain British as long as the Protestants where in the majority but would eventually go to Ireland as the Catholics reproduced in greater numbers. To get round the impasse, the solution was to give Northern Ireland a lot of autonomy with the government in London handling the bigger issues. It also helps that the government in Dublin is not rushing to absorb Northern Ireland and to provoke the UK in the way Pakistan does with India over Jamu and Kashmir.

Israel-vs-Palestine is a different story. It’s a dispute over who gets to live on a single piece of land. Oslo got off to a start because one side was willing to give up some land in return for peace. However, every conflict that has erupted since then comes from the fact that the side with more land has consistently encroached on the little land given over to the other side with impunity, giving them less and less.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/srael-Palestine-Map-over-time-32-The-Nakba-The-Catastrophe-The-Nakba-which-means_fig1_384801875  

 

 Its now such that the side with less land inevitably believes that its never going to get a reasonable deal at negotiating anything and inevitably resorts to violence because it believes it has nothing to lose.

Then, there’s the issue of the outside powers, specifically the USA. In the case of Northern Ireland, the Americans played the role of an “honest” broker. Former Senator George Mitchel worked tirelessly to get both sides to the negotiating table and although he got flack for it, Bill Clinton’s description of “helping two drunk men” get home wasn’t far off the mark.

Although the Brits got upset with the Americans allowing Gerry Adams, the then leader of Sinn Fein, into America, it turned out to be a good move. Sinn Fein had the confidence that America would not allow the British to screw them. The British had the confidence that once the American government stepped in, the IRA’s ability to get gun money from the USA would be curtailed.

It helped that the Blair Government at the time had a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the late Mo Mowlam, who was willing to push the Ulster Unionist to the negotiating table and Bertie Ahern, the Irish Taoiseach of the day made it clear he had no dreams of unifying Ireland according to the fantasies of Sinn Fein’s fringe element.

With the exception of the lunatics on both sides, everyone had an interest in making the deal in Northern Ireland work. Men like the late David Trimble were celebrated for making peace. So, the concept of Northern Ireland is very different from the one of my middle age.

This has clearly not been the case of Israel vs Palestine. The West, especially the USA, has been far from an honest broker. Sure, some European nations like Ireland, Spain, Norway, Italy and now France are now halting arms shipments to Israel, but the major powers like the USA, UK and Germany are not. You can stand in the middle of any Western capital and shout all sorts of insults about that nation and it would be called “freedom of speech.” The moment you whisper that Mr. Netanyahu is not a saint, you will feel the entire weight of the state upon you.

Its as if the lunatics will win by design whereas in the case of Northern Ireland, it was rational people who were designed to win. Look at it this way, taxes in Palestinian territories run by the Palestinian Authority (PA) are collected by Israel. So, whenever something happens in Israel, the Israelis will inevitably withhold money from the PA unless it cracks down on certain groups. However, the PA has no money to pay its forces to crack down on said groups, who don’t play within the rules and therefore have more resources than the PA.

In such a system, the lunatics have every incentive to be lunatics. If you’re in Israeli and you see an extremist government getting rewarded by the West and the moderates getting shoved aside, it goes without saying, you every incentive to be a lunatic. If you are a Palestinian and you see the cooler heads getting shot or ignored but the lunatics hitting at the people you see hurting you, it goes without saying that you support the lunatics.

The system has to be redesigned where rational people are incentivised and the lunatics marginalised and not the other way round.   

The Worst Thing

 

It’s official, I have now been labeled the worst possible thing that anyone can be labeled and anyone who thought I was a decent enough chap, will now do their best to stay away from me. Thanks to my internet troll, I am officially an “Anti-Semite.”

 

The label of “Anti-Smite” isn’t just an ordinary label like being called a “racist” or a “sexist” or even an “ageist.” This label has consequences. I can, probably, kiss goodbye all my aspirations of being “someone” in the financial industry and should I be in any Western European country or America, I better keep my head low lest someone dig up my insignificant blog and use it against me.

For the record, I am not particularly pro or anti any particular party. As a matter of disclosure, I have family that is Jewish and at the same time, my career highlight has been due to the Arabs (working for the Saudi Government in 2006 for the visit of the late Crown Prince Sultan to Singapore and later covering the IMF meeting in Singapore for Arab News, that very same year). If you read what I actually write, you’ll notice that what I have said is not particularly new and pretty obvious.

So, what happened? How did I end up with this dreadful label tied to my name. Well, the answer is simple. I have written a few pieces that have been critical of Israel’s actions in the Gaza strip and also the Western world’s unconditional support. That action, as a former Egyptian ambassador once told me, “Is very dangerous.”

So, why is being labeled an “antisemite” such a bad thing? Well, if you look at the way the term is used, it is taken to mean that one is “Anti-Jewish,” and given that the Jews suffered one of the worst holocausts known to humanity, nobody should want to be known as “hating” the Jews. However, if you look the way that where this term is used most often, its often used to talk about anyone who is critical of Israel and her policies.

However, whilst this term is used to describe anyone who is “Anti-Israel” and “Anti-Jewish,” is it really right to use the term is such a manner? Does it actually help anyone, including Jews and Israel that the term is slammed around whenever the topic of Israel is raised?

Let us start with, what do we understand by the term “Semite.” How can you be an “Antisemite” if you don’t know what a Semite is in the first place. There are several facts that describe a Semite like the fact that the Semites are defined as “decedents of Shem, one of the sons of Noah (He who built the Ark).” Then there’s the simple definition as provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semite

 

 So, if you look at this definition, its clear that Semite refers to an “ethnicity” (race) and not a particular “religion.” Then, there’s the understanding that Arabs and other people from the Middle East are also Semites. So, in the strictest definition of the term, an “Antisemite” doesn’t “hate Jews” specifically. That term is only accurate when describing someone who hates anyone with Hebrew, Arab, Phoenician blood.

Then, there’s the issue of how “Semitic” are the Israeli people? Well, if you were to do a simple Googe search as to where do most Israeli’s get their DNA from, you’ll find that around half of Israeli Jews are decedents of European Settlers.

https://www.google.com/search?q=where+do+israelis+come+from&sca_esv=26ee9b68140196fe&ei=YWwkZ5yLKO6W4-

 

 Then, let’s look at who the Palestinians are. A simple Google search defines the Palestinians as sharing a common Canaanite Ancestry with the Jews of the Bible.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Palestinian+relationship+to+Ancient+Hebrews&sca_esv=26ee9b68140196fe&ei=plckZ-v4Mu2t4-

 

 

So, once again, if you look at the strictest terms of what defines a “samite,” its clear that the Palestinians have a stronger term on the term “Semitic” and the consequential “anti-Semite” than the Israelis do.

Hebrew and Arabic actually share the same roots. The simplest example comes from the common greeting and reply of “Salaam Alaykum” and “Alaykum Salaam” in Arabic, which is “Shalom Aleichem” and “Aleichem Shalom” in Hebrew. Talk to enough Jews and Arabs, and you’ll find that minus the extremist, neither side has a particularly irrational hatred of the other.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/peace-will-only-come-when-the-faiths-of-jews-and-arabs-are-acknowledged-643082

 

 The potential for Israel and her Arab neighbours to be a powerful force in the world is there. Israel has the technology and the know-how. The GCC has plenty of money and there are plenty of people willing to work in the Palestinian territories as well as in the poorer parts of the Arab world, willing to provide cheap labour.

However, what everyone who watches Fauda (An Israeli TV series) and reads Haaretz (An Israeli newspaper) will tell you, one group is literally being screwed over by the other. Temperatures are so high that it would be political suicide for any Arab leader to voice anything friendly to Israel.

You cannot claim to be a supporter of the Jewish People or Israel if you throw inaccurate and meaningless labels like “Anti-Semite” at anyone who points out that the side with all the power needs to bring down the temperatures so that the problem gets solved. Refusing to do so makes you an “anti-Semite.”  

The Importance of Selling Yourself

 I’ve just been watching a Ted Talk on YouTube by Martin Gutmann, a historian in leadership, who talks about why we celebrate “incompetent leadership.” The crux of Mr. Gutmann’s talk centres around what we call the “action fallacy” principle where we all get caught up with the story and appearance of good leadership. The talk given by Mr. Gutmann can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU06c7f9fzc

 

 Running into this gem on YouTube is particularly poignant as we are only weeks away from the conclusion of the most important leadership election in the world, namely the US Presidential election. Donald Trump, who is one of the greatest showmen to step onto the global political stage. Whatever the polls may be saying, there is a good chance that Mr. Trump is likely to be the President again.

You could say that Mr. Trump is the greatest living example the “action fallacy principle” in action. If you look at the Trump Presidency, you’ll notice that the most defining incident of his administration was a total failure. The Trump Administration’s leadership and handling of Covid was such that Covid killed more people that the wars America fought and as the world saw images of American medical professionals having to don ski mask and makeshift bandanas because they simply didn’t have enough surgical mask, the “leader” of the free world was spending his time suggesting that people inject bleach and undermining health care professionals as he bragged about what a good job he was doing. In the meantime, actual third world countries like Vietnam were actually getting their act together ensuring that curfews were enforced and people wore mask.

Yet despite this glaring failure of leadership when it mattered most, Mr. Trump has a very realistic chance of getting back into power. So, its worth asking why someone who failed so miserably during the moment when leadership was most required?

If you talk to enough people, you’ll get answers like “He’s got energy” or “under him, there was prosperity,” and “the world was safer.” Simply put, Mr. Trump has projected an image of something that people seem to like, regardless of what he’s actually done.

Sure, when compared to his successor as President, Mr. Trump does look more energetic even if a lot of it a “interesting” rambling. However, the fact remains that Mr. Trump’s only real achievement is that he’s sold himself better anyone else is. Let’s face it, he is a leader who flunked a national crisis so badly that more people died under your watch that any previous war in history and everyone who has worked for him has come out to say that he’s grossly incompetent, and yet remains a serious contender for office. The fact should place him as a “genius” salesperson.

Whenever I think of Trump being a serious contender for the presidency, I’m reminded of how my ex-boss, Monica Alsagoff who made the point that “It’s not the best person for the job but the person who sells him or herself best.”

One only needs to look at the average working place and wonder what makes the person in charge deserving of their job. More often than not, it’s the ability to sell and promote him or herself over rivals who may be better at the technical skills.

I have to admit that I am a “lucky” example. When I worked at the Bistrot, just about every fresh customer assumed that I owned the Bistrot. When I told one customer that I was only working for the French guy, his reply was, “I get it, you’re the typical Chinese businessman who puts the Ang Moh in front.”

Why did people assume that about me? Well, I guess it boils down to the fact that I speak reasonably well and was always fresh whenever I worked there (it was the luxury of being part-time staff, I could go home and rest). I “looked” the part.

However, while I looked the part the “real” leader was a Filipino guy called Raffe who did the real work. He ensured that the drinks were stocked and coffees were made. He cleared the trash and knew the ins and outs of the system in the restaurant.

He did the work and I looked the part. If anyone should have been a leader, it should have been him and not me. Likewise, there’s the classic example of Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee. In Singapore, we continue to worship Lee Kuan Yew as the man who brought us into “advanced” world status and Goh Keng Swee gets a footnote mention that he was the guy who built our institutions.

Sometimes bluster is very attractive and leadership is often a team effort. When the front man recognizes the need for competence and gives credit accordingly, you have effective leadership that gets things done. However, if you promote the guy who looks the part and all he’s interested in is appearance and the guys who do the work get shoved aside, you’re setting yourself up for disaster.

 

You Expect me to be Normal? – “Lamborghini: The Man Behind the Legend”

 

Thanks to TikTok, I’ve managed to stumble on a short video of a 2022 movie called “Lamborghini: The Man Behind the Legend” staring Frank Grillo and Mia Sorvino. As suggested by the title, the film tells the story of Ferrucio Lamborghini, the founder of the iconic car brand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjTICfrC25s

 

 The crux of the story is very simple. Ferrucio Lamborghini made tractors until he was insulted by Enzio Ferrari, the iconic founder of the Ferrari automobile brand. The insult drove Mr. Lamborghini to create a car that would, in many ways surpass the Ferrari.

What makes the TikTok clip so special was the fact that this particular clip had some soundbites, which I believe sum up the spirit of what it is to be a “creator” or in business terms, an “entrepreneur.”

The first segment comes from an argument between Mr. Lamborghini and his wife, who is telling him that his obsession with building a super car is bleeding their core business tractors and that tractors are a safe bet compared to luxury cars. Mr. Lamborghini loses it and ask “Do You Expect me to be Normal” and then says he cannot be like everyone else afraid living on their knees, afraid to make the wrong decision.

 

 

 

This was striking because we are constantly bombarded with the message that we need to be “normal” in order to get by. In middle class families, you are expected to go to school, get to university and get a normal corporate job and climb the ladder. If you’re someone like me who entered the corporate world late in life, you’re expected to do the normal thing and stay in your job until the day you die.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with getting a job and working it. The business climate has reached a stage where, even if you don’t stay an employee for life, you’re doing to need to know what you’re doing. Quite often, the only way people learn life is by going through school and by extension university, and later on spending a portion of their life working for people before they step out of their own. You notice this in “professional services,” where the main partner of a medium sized legal or accounting firm once worked for someone else.

However, “normal” may not fit everyone and there are times when circumstances are not normal. From my personal perspective, I ended up freelancing when I was in PR for over a decade. In polite terms, I couldn’t make it in a “normal” agency and so, rather than worry about it, I went out and got myself hired because I had bills to pay. Although I never kept from what I made, I still look at that period as one of my happiest. It was a time when I did something I was proud of because it was a period where I saw myself as a person of some resilience.

I met someone who had a “opposite” background of mine (Grew up in the dirt and rose up). He grew up on the wrong end up racial taunts and pulled himself up. Was he normal? He’ll probably beg to differ but I think he was extraordinary in his determination to rise up.

Normal is about accepting your circumstances and doing what everyone else does. Sometimes its necessary to bow down and accept that there are things you cannot control. As a prominent banker once said “Learn how to lie low when market forces are against you but prepare to come back.

Whilst there’s a lot of be said for playing it safe because its normal, the guys who inevitably live “special” lives break away from definitions of normalcy.  

The second moment that caught my attention from this TikTok clip was when Mr. Lamborghini talks to his team about building the “greatest car,” and how they cannot fail because if they fail, they fail searching for greatness.

 

 

Again, this points to one of the main traits of “successful” people. It’s called “vision” and the belief in pursuing greatness. People who believe in their vision and are almost “obsessed” by it, tend to actually achieve it.

As a secondary point, they are also willing to learn from failure. In the eyes of a successful entrepreneur, failure is part of the learning process and its not a disaster as long as you continue to search and work towards the greatness of your vision.

The tractor tycoon wasn’t a normal man. He had a vision for what he wanted to achieve and did it. The Lamborghini car that we see today is a testament to that determined vision of a tractor tycoon who believed that he could be so much more.  

They’re Good People

 

Can the Good Guys Prosper?

When Ratan Tata, former Chairman of Tata Sons died at the age of 86 on 9 October 2024, it felt like someone personally important had left the stage. I never met Mr. Tata but I had the privilege of interacting with Tata Brand on several occasions, including doing a very small PR job for them back in 2019, when I helped to get some coverage for Tata Crucible, a quiz event that Tata Sons organized in Singapore.

Given that I’ve had several interactions with the Tata Brand, I thought I’d try and see what it was that made them so special. I mean, Tata is undoubtedly a behemoth by any standards. Back when Mr. Ratan Tata was at the helm, the group was valued at around US$400 billion, which the Indian media took great pleasure in pointing out, larger than the GDP of Pakistan, India’s perpetual rival in just about everything (Or as one Indian executive said “Partner in Destructive Competition.”)

https://www.indiatvnews.com/business/news/tata-group-valuation-bigger-than-pakistan-economy-1-million-employees-2024-10-10-956462

 

 Tata is not just big. Its dominant. Go to India and you’ll find that the Tata name is on just about everything. However, Tata isn’t just an “Indian” brand. It’s an international brand, that owns other world-famous brands like “Jaguar Land Rover.” This dominance and out word presence of Tata has made the Indian brand that outsiders want to deal with and the one that everyone wants to work for.

However, these are things you could probably say about any company. What makes the Tata particularly unique is the fact that, as far as corporate entities are concerned, they known as the “good guys.” No other firm in India has the reputation that Tata has. The entire commercial organization is known for being “good.” Let’s look at the great American philanthropist of the last two decades, who have given away billions to causes. All of them, started out as ruthless businessmen before they became good guys. Bill Gates for example was known as ruthless monopoliser in the IT space before he became the world’s nicest guy.

Despite the economic dominance of the Tata Companies, Ratan Tata was never on anyone’s rich list. In fact, nobody in the Tata family is (this is not to say that they’re living normal middle-class lives). The nearest rival to the Tata Group is the Reliance Industries, which has made its chairman, Mukesh Ambani, one of the richest men in the world with a net worth of some US$107 billion. Mr. Ambani is known for being the owner of the world’s most expensive private house and host of the most expensive weddings.

So, whilst Tata and Reliance are around the same size, how is it that the family behind Reliance has acquired so much wealth whilst the Tata’s avoided the “wealth” of the Ambani’s? Well, if you look at the amount the Tata’s have given away, its around US$102 billion, which is nearly the same as Mukesh Ambani’s net worth:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/meet-the-indian-man-who-outshines-mukesh-ambani-ratan-tata-and-azim-premji-as-the-world-s-biggest-donor-101728634899611.html

 

So, are the Tata’s more inclined to being nice when compared to everyone else? Well, the answer may lie in the fact that even if there was a Tata who wanted to be a greedy little p****, he’d (they usually are), the corporate structure of the Tata Group is ultimately controlled by a charitable trust. Tata Trust controls some 66 percent of the Tata Group.

Tata Trust, works on delivering a number of philanthropic services to India and the wider world:

https://www.tatatrusts.org/about-tatatrusts

 

 Ratan Tata was not the perfect businessman. As his obituary in the Financial Times points out, his sacking of his successor, Cyrus Mistry caused the group to suffer from unwanted publicity and when he stepped down, a lot of the business seemed to lack a certain focus. The majority of revenue of Tata Sons came from Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), the largest of the Indian IT outsourcing companies.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a405ffe-e9ef-4ebf-9203-ce2283f6d203

 

 He did, however, play a role in putting Tata on the map and was known for being a humble man, despite his clout. Nobody begrudged a businessman getting a state funeral and nobody questions whether Tata is creating wealth.

In a way, the closest comparison is Bertelsmann in Germany, which dominates the German and European media market. The majority of shares are owned by private foundations and charitable trust. Bertelsman has revenues of around 20 billion Euros a year.

In a way, the most interesting thing for the world, will be for companies like Tata and Bertelsman to become case studies of how companies can be “good” and “prosperous.” They’ve made the relationship between non-profit foundations and businesses work. Ultimately, the world becomes a better place when companies prosper by doing good.

“I’ll Never Sell My Home” – Pn Balji, former Editor-in-Chief of the Today Newspaper.

 On 9 October 2024, Dr Lee Wei Ling, daughter of Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew and sister of our third, Lee Hsien Loong, died. The tributes to Dr. Lee have been pouring in and many are remembering her as what my former boss, Mr. PN Balji called her in an article for Yahoo News – “A dissident in the making.”

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-lee-wei-ling-a-dissident-in-the-065731420.html

 

 Dr Lee was happy to call out government departments and their bosses. Her conflicts with then A *Star Chairman, Mr. Philip Yeo and the head of Government Communications, Mr. Janadas Devan made headlines.

However, the most prominent person that she took on, was none other than her brother, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong. Dr Lee and her younger brother, Mr. Lee Hsien Yang accused their brother, the Prime Minister at the time of “abusing power” and Dr Lee went as far as to call the Prime Minister a “Dishonourable Son.”

I’ll leave the larger political commentary to the wiser people. All, I’ll do is to mention that this family dispute was centred around 38 Oxley Road, which was Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s house. Both Dr Lee and Mr. Lee Hsien Yang had argued that the elder Mr. Lee wanted his house demolished after his passing, which was contrary to the government’s plans of turning the house into a monument. This dispute, has been best summed up by the following t-shirt slogan:

 

 I think of this t-shirt because the concept of house and home have become confused. Too many people think the two are the one and the same and the result is that people end up very unhappy.

This is especially true in small, dense and rich places like Singapore and Hong Kong, where every square centimetre of space cost a small fortune. The way to “build wealth,” particularly in small places, is inevitably to buy a few centimetres of land and sit on it until prices reach a certain level.

Houses, are inevitably the centre of a family’s wealth. Now, the term “house” is replaced by the term “property,” and the standard advise that is dolled out to any young person starting out is for them to get onto the “property” ladder, where they will buy a house, stay there for a few years, sell it and buy a bigger one, and continuing this cycle, until they can sell it for a fortune and “retire.” Owning a “property” is not just about economics. It’s about romance too. When a Singaporean man wants to propose, he does not say “Will You Marry Me?” He says “Let’s get a flat together.” *

I can’t help it. I work for a liquidator and I’ve grown accustomed to seeing the problems in every rosy scenario. In this case its pretty easy to spot. Everyone is focused on having a “house” or a “property,” and the dollar signs that come with property. Family wealth centres around the house. It’s more often than not, the main investment.

However, the sad reality is that blood is not thicker than water when large sums are involved and a good portion of disputes centre around money, particularly the stuff that’s stored in the collection of bricks we call a “house.” When a couple splits, the disputes centre around the house. More worryingly in our “aging” society, it’s becoming increasingly common to hear stories of how elderly parents are booted out of the houses they so hard for by the kids they raised.

In Singapore its perfectly normal to walk into someone’s house and ask “How much did you pay,” or “How much can you get for selling?” After all, what is a house except a collection of bricks that you spend a few hours in daily?

I think of my ex-boss, Pn Balji, who said “I will NEVER sell my home,” when someone pointed out that his home would worth considerably more than what he paid for it many moons ago. I remember this conversation because it makes a clear distinction between a house and a home.

So, what is a home? I guess you could call it a place where you want to be. It’s a place where you grow memories and build a life of sorts. If you think about it, you can stay in just about any house as long as you either own it or the owners invite you in. After all, a house is a collection of bricks designed as a place to stay.

A home is different. It’s a place that is part of your being. You develop certain memories and relationships with the place. Home is the place where you want to come to every night. It’s the place that gives you a certain sense of safety. It’s a place where you get to play a part in creating a sense of belonging.

Yes, a house is a collection of bricks designed for you to stay in. A home is a place where you want to go home to. That’s the key difference.