The Problem with Being Nice

 The big news in Singapore is the fact that Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and now Chairman of the Gates Foundation, paid Singapore a visit and announced that he would be making Singapore the Asian Headquarters of his foundation. Given that the Gates Foundation has an endowment of around US$75.2 billion, making it one of the largest charitable foundations in the world, the Singapore Government drooled at the prospect of adding “philanthropy” to the things that Singapore could be a “hub” of. Mr. Gates met everyone from the President down. We even went out of our way to make a song and dance of how Mr.Gates enjoyed a good old fashioned “hawker meal.”

https://mothership.sg/2025/05/bill-gates-mothership-newton-food-centre/

 

 Whilst the powers that be were delighted with Mr. Gates’s visit, there were those who were less happy. Some people thought that since Singapore had voted to return the PAP to government, it was no coincidence that Mr. Gates chose to visit and make the announcement after the election. Apparently, Mr. Gates chose this move to Singapore because his “nefarious” plans to rule the USA were coming to an end because the Trump Administration’s health department under the ever-competent Robert F Kenedy Jr. (“RFK Jr”) was blowing through his scheme and Singapore’s compliant population by contrast offered a more fertile ground for Mr. Gates and his “devious” plots.

 

OK, let’s state the obvious – Mr. Gates is not and never has been a candidate for sainthood. Mr. Gates has been by all accounts an exceedingly ruthless businessman and for the longest of times, Microsoft was known for being “predatory” in its practices. We all use Microsoft, not because its software is the best and cheapest but because we don’t have a choice. As the Old Rogue used to say, “He forced us to use an inferior product.”

Having said that, Mr. Gates did do good things. For one, he made entering the ranks of the super wealthy accessible. Seattle is filled with millionaires who simply went to work for Microsoft and ended up very rich, thanks to their stock options. If you define a successful business as one that makes lots of people rich, then Mr. Gates would be amongst one of the best.

The second area in which Mr. Gates deserves credit is in the way in which he’s tried to use his wealth for the greater good of humanity. Look at the webpage of his foundation and it starts of with a slogan about how every life has value:

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/

 

 Mr. Gates has talked about developing better toilets (which may seem obvious if you live in a developed nation but in the majority of the world its different story), research a cure for HIV/AIDS and providing vaccines against ailments that kill millions every year.

Sure, there are criticisms to be made against Mr. Gates and his foundation, but that should not distract from the fact that he’s putting vast resources to fund things aimed at solving major risk. How do you argue that funding research into medication that could save lives be a bad thing?

Apparently, it is. Mr. Gates’s philanthropy is a favourite topic among people who don’t like other people. You could say that he’s the bigger and almost “eviler” version of this group’s previous bogyman – George Soros, who is apparently also trying to disrupt the world and rule it from the shadows.

Unlike Mr. Gates, whom you might call the “nerd made good,” Mr. Soros is a less sympathetic character. He didn’t invent things. He made his money using other people’s money to take on financial markets. His most famous moment came when he announced that he made a killing going short on the British Pound in 1992’s infamous “Black Wednesday.” Mr. Soros, who is Jewish, ended up becoming cast as everyone’s favourite “evil Jewish money manager,” and was attacked for being so by Malaysia’s Never Ending Prime Minister, Dr. Mohamad Mahathir back in the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997.

Whilst Mr. Soros may have made lots of money attacking financial systems, he put his money to good use, trying to fund “Open Societies,” promoting things like free speech and safety for journalist etc. Again, how exactly does someone promoting the struggle for more freedom end up being villainized by people living in countries where things like freedom of speech are taken as a “given.”

 https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/

 

 Say what you like about Mr. Gates and Mr. Soros, but they are at least giving the façade of trying put their vast resources to make things better for people. Unfortunately, this makes a lot of people upset.

What makes these actions of Mr. Gates and Mr. Soros so upsetting? I’m not really smart but it seems the people who don’t like Mr. Gates and Mr. Soros don’t like the things they’re promoting. Take one of Mr. Soros’s fiercest critics as an example – Victor Orban, the current and probably never-ending Prime Minister of Hungry. Mr. Orban hasn’t exactly been cheerleader for anyone else’s rights except his own.

Then, there’s the issue of vaccines. There’s a group that believes that vaccines are evil. Whilst I do agree that not everyone reacts well to vaccines, the record of vaccines is ultimately beneficial. A century ago, small pox was a sure killer. Today, it probably only exists somewhere out there in a secret lab of conspiracy theorist. Four years ago, there was Covid, which killed more Americans than all the wars America has fought. Today, vaccination has made it such that Covid is like a flue.

So, what do the people who don’t like causes like open societies and vaccines think billionaires should be funding? Apparently, whilst funding lifesaving vaccines and open societies, which are more likely to make life better for people living in them are bad things, its perfectly acceptable for billionaires to salute a regime that promoted a genocide and political parties that celebrate what that regime did:

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy48v1x4dv4o

 

 Furthermore, whatever “nefarious” schemes Mr. Gates and Soros are supposed to have, according to their haters, neither of them has ever gotten close to the levers of power. Nobody offered Mr. Gates or Mr. Soros positions in government. Yet, the people who hate them for funding vaccines and open societies have no problem when a billionaire like Elon Musk who funds parties that are trying to echo the Nazi regime.

Sure, billionaires can be a problem. The amount of wealth they control can be an issue in that it may cause resentment. However, they can also be inspiring. Their vast wealth makes them influential in their mere public pronouncements. You cannot
“ban” them in as much you want people to be inspired to create wealth. However, you can and should encourage them to use their power for the greater good and discourage them from supporting the awful.

 

 

 

Study What We Want You to Study

When I was still at school and ended up in discussions on civilisations, I always felt that I needed to make the point to my English friends that the Chinese were living in cities when Europeans were still living in caves.

I think of this era of my life, because I’ve come to appreciate that Chinese history is very instructive to the current geopolitical situation. Whilst the Chinese were living in cities when the Europeans were living in caves, the Chinese also pioneered two of the worst sins of modern geopolitics – namely protectionism and intellectual arrogance. Sure, we started living in cities but 1500AD, protectionism and intellectual arrogance made China so stagnant that the people who were dwelling in caves when the Chinese lived cities, ended up pointing guns at them and the Chinese could only offer spears and wooden shields.

I blame two people for this. One is Confucius, the original bureaucrat who was obsessed with going back to a “golden age” that never existed. Thanks to him, the entire Chinese system was based on going back to a mythical golden age and nobody thought of shaping the future. The other person who is responsible is the first emperor, Qin Shi Huang who built the “Great Wall,” which cost dearly in lives and treasure. The Great Wall is a tourist attraction and we love to go on and on about how its only thing you can see from the moon. The truth is the “Great Wall” was a failure. The “Barbarians” inevitably found a way in.

The Qin emperor didn’t just build a physical wall. He built walls in generations of Chinese. As far as he was concerned, people would only know what he wanted them to know and he proceeded to burn books that he didn’t approve of on a regular basis. So, whilst China and Chinese history is filled with intellectual treasures, its also filled with so much more that could have been.

I start with this monologue, because if you look at what’s going on in the world, you’ll notice that these things from Chinese history are taking place in front of us. Ironically, its not so much the Chinese exhibiting these traits but the nation that was the anti-thesis of these values – America.

Many people have described the current president as trying to be like a “King” of 18^th century Europe. However, he seems more like a Chinese Emperor. Look at what he was bragging about in his first term – building a wall. As an ethnic Chinese, this sounds strangely familiar.

Now, in his second term, he’s on a mission to continue being like a Chinese Emperor. He wants to build walls of the mind. America, which has spent centuries being a free market of ideas, now has school boards talking about banning certain books.

This on its own wouldn’t be so bad if he wasn’t on a mission to make it worse by going on a war against America’s Universities, insisting that they teach an approved “non-woke” agenda. At the time of writing, Mr. Trump has frozen all federal funding to Harvard University, one of America’s most prominent universities, for refusing to comply with his orders:

 https://www.ft.com/content/5c8bca38-8e6d-4df1-bbb1-d84e0b2a5962

 

Given that Harvard has an exceedingly large endowment fund, one might argue that there’s no reason for them to receive federal funding. However, the issue is not so much the funding but the “interference” from the government and the government’s insistence that it has control over what universities teach. Mr. Trump is essentially arguing that the government needs to step in to stop the universities from teaching a “woke” agenda but whose to say what exactly is “woke” and who is to say that this won’t be used to interfere with the teaching of what the government doesn’t want to be taught, which is, given Mr. Trump’s reaction to medical advice dispensed during Covid, a real possibility.

If you look at what makes America such a dominant player in so many fields, you’ll find that America has inevitably done it through an ability to nurture the best brains into innovative and entrepreneurial ones. America has done this primarily through its universities. It is no coincidence that Silicon Valley, the place that has minted billionaires is centred around Stanford University.

If you look at the top ten universities in the world, you’ll find that only Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College London are not American. What does this mean? It simply means that America has the best places to nurture the best minds. America doesn’t just nurture its own. It encourages people from the rest of the world to attend American Universities and then work and even become entrepreneurs, creating jobs and other forms of wealth in America:

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/latest/world-ranking

 

 Mr. Trump campaigned on the premise of “Making America Great Again.” He talks about bringing back the manufacturing jobs and undoing years of environmental protections.

Yet, while he’s talking about making America Great Again, he’s going after the very things that make America great. Like it or not, hot beds of innovation and creativity don’t toe the line of dictation from the government.

Sure, China is a communist dictatorship and a highly effective police state. However, it’s a place that has understood that “Greatness” comes from an ability to innovate and create. It’s also learnt the lesson from history that it needs the global community to stay reasonably prosperous. So, when Mr. Trump was rounding up people he didn’t like, the Chinese were opening up to people with the ability to do work.

How it is possible for America to win with Mr. Trump at the helm. He’s trying to compete in the low-end stuff, where China has a clear advantage. Yet at the same time, he’s going out of his way to harm the pillars that make America a world leader in high tech and high value stuff. Instead of making friends, he’s alienating the ones he has. By contrast, the Chinese are keeping their edge in the low value stuff, investing in the high edge stuff and going out of their way to befriend the people Mr. Trump is screwing over.

China got lucky in that it was an ancient civilization and it didn’t feel the negative effects of its arrogance and isolationism for centuries. The world was simply not connected back then. So, the receipts of arrogance took a while to come in.

This is not the case for modern America under Trump. Our technologies have reduced the time it took to do things in the past by many folds. Any loss suffered will be a result of allowing the same arrogance and isolationism that brought down and ancient civilisation.

 

 

More of the Same

 

When will the day come?

I’ve generally stayed out of commenting on this year’s election in Singapore. Although Singapore is my home and as often said, the only country on the planet I actually have a legal and moral obligation to die for, I just didn’t feel fired up enough to talk about the election.

Let’s start with the obvious, you know the results before the vote is even counted. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has won every election since independence and they’re known to use every trick in the book to ensure that they go into the election with every possible advantage. This was clearly seen in the drawing of electoral boundaries prior to the election. So, it should be no surprise that the ruling party cruised home with a comfortable victory, taking 87 out a possible 97 seats.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/singapore-votes-test-ruling-partys-monopoly-2025-05-03/

 

 The continued dominance of the ruling party “p****es” off plenty of opposition politicians for the simple reason that despite the complaints about life in Singapore, the ruling party keeps coming back in. One of the most famous grouses about Singapore’s elections came in 2015 when the Secretary General of the Reform Party, Mr. Kenneth Jeyaratnam who told the electorate to stop complaining:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETnYp0CIDxI

 

 As with our elections in 2020, 2015 and 2011, the excitement was generated by the opposition rather than the ruling party. Managed to eavesdrop on a conversation in the coffee shop near the office, and the point was made very clearly was the fact that the opposition party politicians seemed to have “passion,” whilst the candidates from the ruling party seemed to be reading from a script with as much passion as watching grass grow. There was even the contest of prettiest politicians where Ms. Alexis Dang of the Worker’s Party went up against Ms. Sun Xueling of the ruling party:

 https://theindependent.sg/the-battle-for-punggol-alexis-dang-vs-sun-xueling/

 

 While the opposition parties, specifically the Worker’s Party, have been attracting very talented and capable people, the truth remains that “Elections are not won by opposition but lost by governments.”

At the end of the day, the ruling party had not done enough to lose the election. Leaving aside the fact that the ruling party has the levers of power at its control, the fact remains that complaints about the ruling party like rising prices are pretty much the same complaint that everyone else in the world has. When I talk about how expensive things are becoming, my siblings in the UK and USA mention exactly the same thing and the American family points out that populist politics hasn’t exactly made life better.

So, the fact remains that Singaporeans do want the ruling party there but what we want is for the government to be reminded that they work for us and not the other way round. So, for years, we kept two opposition members there (Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang) despite the obvious “incentives” to kick them out. Then in 2011 and 2020, when we felt the government wasn’t listening hard enough, we gave two Group Representative Constituencies (GRC – a case where you vote for a team of MPs rather than a single MPs) to the opposition Worker’s Party. If you look at the guys in light blue shirts (Colour of the Worker’s Party, which differs from the White of the ruling party), you’ll find that their policies aren’t that far off from what’s already there, a fact that other opposition parties often complain about.

You could say that voting for the opposition is more about reminding the ruling party to be less condescending in their public appearances than actual disagreements.

So, how long can this status quo last? It depends on two things, which will need to coincide. The first is decay in the ruling party. The ruling party has yet to elect a leader as corrupt and incompetent as Mr. Najib Razak in neighboring Malaysia.  However, the infamous “Ownself-Check-Ownself” that the ruling party often uses whenever the question of accountability arises, the possibility of producing a leader that corrupt cannot be ruled out.

The second thing that needs to happen is when the opposition produces a team that shows its capable of running things. Thus far only the Worker’s Party has a record of running things. The frustration among the ruling party’s members it that once a constituency “goes blue” there’s literally no going back. The reason was explained as the fact that the guys in blue manage to keep cost and quality the same whereas cost tend to rise in the constituencies run by the guys in white.

As things stand, the Worker’s Party is aware that it isn’t in the position to take over the government. However, its building with what it has. The Worker’s Party is focused on maintaining seats in parliament and then acquiring seats rather than getting media attention. As such, it remains the only possible party to offer an alternative.

Its probably an eventuality when Singapore’s elections become more “normal.” Dominant parties like the Kuomintang in Taiwan, UMNO in Malaysia and the PRI in Mexico have tasted defeat at the ballot box, so there’s no reason why the PAP in Singapore won’t one of these days. However, that day remains yet to come as long as the PAP uses its mandate to work for the people.

“The MayLays aren’t Going to Help You – They Don’t Have Any Money” – Bill O’Reily

 

So, Why Do We Borrow Money from Peasants?

Back when I was at school in England, there was a common joke that the Americans didn’t get sarcasm or irony. The example that we liked to use was the case of walking into a random bar and complimenting someone on their shirt. In America, the guy would be happy. In England you’d get beaten up because the guy would think you’re “taking the p***.” In America, the guy would assume you genuinely meant it.

This stereotype, like all stereotypes isn’t completely accurate. American media content does have some wonderful bouts of sarcasm. The Simpsons comes to mind. However, thanks to the current “trade war” between the USA and China has shown that there’s a major element in the truth that Americans don’t get sarcasm or irony.

It started from the top. American Vice-President, JD Vance explained the “virtuous economic” cycle, which had China lending America money, which America then spent on goods made in China. Mr. Vance, however, explained in a more “insulting” manner when he talked about “borrowing money” from “Chinese peasants,” and buying goods made by those “Chinese peasants.”

This created a storm in the Chinese part of cyberspace, with China’s keyboard warriors mocking the Trump Administration with a series of memes.

This was, however, very minor to what came next. When President Xi Jin Peng went on a tour of Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia), to shore up trade deals, conservative commentator, Bill O’ Reily, decided to launch a tirade about how these nations were not going to be able to help China in the trade war because they had “no money,” unlike America. His line of “The May Lays aren’t going to help you – they don’t have any money,” earned him a rebuke from Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Datuk, Sri Anwar Ibrahim, who said that his remarks stemmed from an “Outdated Colonialist Mindset.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLQj6TXYXa4

 

 

Mr. O’ Reily has since doubled down and talked about how Malaysia’s GDP per capita is only US$5,000 A YEAR and then made some remarks about how people were “barely eating,” in Malaysia.

Anyone, who has been to Malaysia will realise that food is readily available. Malaysia is a “foodie paradise,” and given that I am Singaporean, that’s saying a lot. So, its clear that Mr. O’ Reily is demonstrating a knowledge of the world equivalent to that of the average White American who has never left his home town or the average Singaporean who never left their Junior College common room.

Mr. O’Reily is being picked apart for his inability to do basic couch surfing in the Malaysian part of cyberspace, so I’ll leave my Malaysian friends to continue doing the necessary.

I will, however, talk about irony and sarcasm, which the “conservative” element of the American media seems to have missed altogether. In their efforts to show how America is brow beating the rest of the world into understanding the greatness of America or to punish the rest of the world for “taking advantage,” of America, they’ve revealed a mindset that is woefully unprepared for the world as it is.

If you look at the comments made by both Mr. Vance and Mr. O’Reily, the question is, why does America need to borrow money from peasants? Mr. O’ Reily in particular is trying to show that the USA has the money to support Chinese exports when compared to places like Malaysia but forgets that his Vice-President has admitted that the USA is borrowing money from peasants in China.

Why would someone or some nation that claims to have so much power and money need to borrow from “peasants?” In the Singapore context, its saying that I have more money than your average HDB dweller but I borrow money from Bangladeshi construction workers.”

This attitude towards knowing the outside world isn’t good in as much it’s a case of underestimating the “enemy.” Who is to say that China can’t and won’t lend money to other places to buy their goods? Sure, hearing Mr. O’Reily’s dazzling knowledge of the world may make one feel good about one’s situation but does it make one ready to take on the rest of the world and prosper?

Talking about the peasants in China or the “May Lays” with no money might work like Viagra on ones failing manhood but will it actually solve the underlying issues that made ones manhood fail in the first place?  

They Don’t Make Men of God like they Used To.

 

I had a very particular spiritual upbringing. When I was around five, mum moved me in with Lee, my first stepfather. The highlight that Lee, who is now 92, remembers, was the fact that I cried when looking at an icon of Jesus that he had in his house and then found peace and slept soundly in his “Budha Room.” Mahayana Buddhism under my American stepfather was what you’d call the “family faith” and I ended up being brought into the faith under the “Tibetan name” of “Karma Kunzang Tashi” (hence, my sister and I used to play adventures of Humphry and Tashi).

Whilst I am officially Buddhist, I tend to frame things in a Christian context. The reason is simple. I went to school in England and the subject I was good at was Christian theology. Whilst the subject is inevitably academic, one cannot escape thinking spiritually. There is no way you can look at the gospels and not be spiritually affected by what is clearly a divine message.

Then, as I went out to earn my own keep, I ended up being blessed by Jains (the company that sustained my freelance career being what was then Polaris Software Labs, now Intellect Design Area, which is owned and run by a Mr. Jain) and Muslims (my biggest achievement being working for the Saudi Embassy back in 2006). In this part of my life, I found that the two wisest comments on humanity’s relationship with the Almighty came from Muslims (a Haji Taxi driver and one of the drivers at the Saudi event).

Being blessed by people of so many faiths has made me realise several things. The most of these comes from the fact that a faith is lived by the people who practice it and the fact that faith is very personal, where one chooses a faith based on certain truths that one gets from that particular faith.

I’ve also realized that when it comes to faith, too many of us are obsessed by the appearance of it. You get people who become obsessed with doing all the rituals and reading up on every letter in the sacred text. They will fight tooth and nail to ensure the rest of us are bound by their following of the text. Yet, when it comes to the practice of the teaching, they fail miserably.

In Singapore, the best example that comes to mind is the family Thio, lead by Mama Professor Thio Su Mien and her daughter Professor Thio Li-ann. Both mother and daughter have devoted their very powerful intellect to fighting every piece of legislation that appears to be “Gay friendly.” Thanks to them, Singapore took far longer to lift colonial era legislation against consensual homosexual sex than far more conservative and Asian societies like India and Taiwan. Yet, when it came to the downtrodden like the Indian and Bangladeshi workers living in what is effectively “slave” wages or the increasingly number of visible old folks pushing around cardboard to earn enough for a cup of coffee whilst sleeping outdoors, the mother and daughter team have been noticeably silent. Let’s face it, Christ had a lot more to say on the downtrodden than he did about homosexuals.

 Humans have a way of interpreting the message even in ways that go against the very essence of faith. Think of how the Christian Zionist lobby in America have ensured that every politician understands that not doing as Israel says is a sure-fire way to lose votes or how Buddhist in Myanmar have backed the slaughter of Rohingya Muslims. These are just some examples of everyday abuses of faith, used to divide humanity in the most ungodlike manner.

So, this is the tragedy of the passing of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, better known as Pope Francis on 21 April 2025. The Pope as with all his predecessors, was a figure of global prominence (Being the only religious leader recognized as a Head of State under international law) and he used that position to speak out for the very people Christ spoke for.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-04/pope-francis-death-peace-legacy-appeals.html

 

 Sure, Pope Francis had his faults. One of the criticisms against him was that he was good at starting things but not good at finishing them. Call it a case of “trusting God,” when things called for man to push them through.

However, if you look at things on the balance, Pope Francis, was undoubtedly what you’d call a necessary force of good. This is especially true when you consider the crop of global leaders in the world compensating by going to war against the very people that Christ spoke for – namely “the least, the last and the lost.”

This was a Pope who was not just a leader of the Catholic Church. He was the model of what global figures should do. Whilst his predecessor, Benedict XVI made his name with some controversial remarks about Islam, Francis made it a point to reach out to other faiths. You could say it was a realization that it wasn’t the name or practice of the faith but how one related to the Almighty that mattered.

Pope Francis was also a gem of a religious leader in that he didn’t preach “mumbo-jumbo.” He actually accepted science as being part of God’s work. During Covid, he did what any sensible octogenarian would do in the middle of a pandemic – he actually listened to the science, wore a mask in public and didn’t push for mass sermons when social distancing was being advised by the medical community. Pope Francis didn’t go on Twitter wars with Greta Thunburg and actually gave support to her message. Here was a man of God who understood that God gave one brains and expected them to be used for the betterment of mankind.

So much more should be said of the Pope’s passing. So much more needs to be done in seeing that we have more spiritual leaders like this Pope. In light of the host of charlatans getting into power around the world, humanity needs to learn to recognize real men of God if we really are to have a future.   

 

“President Trump and the Americans tell the world that if I slap you in in the face, don't slap me back.” – Victor Gao, Vice President of Center for China and Globalization

 

It’s pretty hard to escape the news on the current “trade war” between the USA and China these days. Turning to a news channel inevitably means listening to some little bitch whine about how its wrong to “retaliate” and I end up becoming more and more convinced these days that the problem with life in general is that we’ve brought up our kids to be “anti-violent.”

It's not that I am a proponent of violence and its important to teach our kids the importance of solving things through other means. However, I do believe its important to let our kids, especially our little boys get into a fist fight or two and being able to throw a punch should be on the curriculum for every little boy on the planet.

My reason for saying all of that is simple. As anyone who has been a fight knows, everyone gets hurt. Violence may sometimes be necessary. However, as anyone who has been in a fist fight will testify, everyone gets hurt. This is true, even when you’re physically more imposing (says someone who wants had to contend with a violent ex who was significantly smaller). If you throw a punch, you got to expect the other guy to throw one back. If he or she doesn’t, you’ll need to watch your back because the other fellow will undoubtedly have people willing to deliver payback.

So, every time you listen to a Trump Administration whine about how this and that country is retaliating, you can’t help but get the idea that this is an administration run by whiney b***** who never threw a real punch before and are totally stunned when other people hit back. This point was brought home by Victor Gao, Vice President of the Centre for China and Globalization, when he said that it was not logical to slap people and then expect them not to slap back:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DId5uZ-OUsz/

 

While the USA is the proverbial African Bull Elephant in the proverbial jungle and most likely to win (based on size being a decider in fights), its very clear that vast segments of the American population will get hurt and the American economy will not go unscathed. China, the other elephant, may be smaller but it has certain strengths and it has not been afraid to use them.

One can only pray that this trade war doesn’t blow into another kind of war. One also has to lament the fact that “trade war” was and continues to be a celebration of stupidity and incompetence of the highest order. America has, ever since the end of the Second World War, been the global leader because it’s been a creator of greater prosperity and fairness in the world. That’s now gone. Thanks to the talk about forcefully taking over Canada and Greenland (part of Denmark, which is an EU State), traditional allies like Canada and the EU have found a very reasonable alternative in the shape of China, which in most circumstances, doesn’t have a reputation of playing fair in trade. Its now no longer a case of the USA against China, but the USA against every major economy.

Then, there’s the fact that tariffs are a tool that was once used in the 1930s. As that great voice of Lefty Ideals, Ronald Regan, pointed out – tariffs are one of the best ways to screw yourself:

https://bsky.app/profile/brettolmsted.bsky.social/post/3llwdt2xwm224

 

 

Mr. Regan, who, after his death became a “icon” of the “Liberal Left” through his free-market policies and shrinking of government, explained that the problem with keeping foreign competition out of the market was that is enabled local monopolies to screw consumers with overpriced and inferior goods:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEtSN-dV6q0

 

 So, even if the USA emerges “victorious” in the current trade war, it will end up screwing itself royally as local monopolies rise up and screw over the American consumer.

All of this could have been avoided if Mr. Trump really understood what makes America great, namely its openness to the world and its amazing capability to develop brain power. Think about it this way, seven out of ten of the world’s top universities are American. Whatever America doesn’t make, it makes up for in what it educates, designs and innovates. Sure, China sells more goods to America but can American universities are filled with students from China, dying for prestige of having an American degree. American students are not rushing to spend their student days in China, unless you’re talking about those of exchange courses to learn Mandarin.

American power and prosperity has grown in conjunction with the growth of “rivals.” The America of today is richer than in the 1940s, an era where Germany and Japan barely made a dent in anything.

This is something Mr. Trump and his gang of whiney b****** don’t understand. They have managed to toss out years of goodwill and ironically, they have handed it over to China. Whatever they win out of this trade war will be cheap compared to what they could have had if only they focused on what made America so great – creating the future, something which China seems to have understood.

Was Decency Enough?

 

Yesterday, Malaysia lost its first Prime Minister in the post-Mahathir era, Mr. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who was affectionately known as “Pak Lah.” Mr. Badawai was 85 and been suffering from ill health when he passed. The tributes are now pouring in, and just about everyone is remembering Mr. Badawai is a decent man, something which Malaysia’s recent crop of politicians are not known for.

Mr. Badwai was what you’d call, as different as you could get from his predecessor, Dr. Mohammad Mahathir. Like his contemporary in Singapore, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Dr. Mahathir was a strong personality, who seemed to make every achievement of the nation about him and his efforts. While Dr. Mahathir did preside over an era of prosperity, he did get a little too fond of being in the hot seat. This was visibly seen by his abrupt jailing of this then mentee, Mr. Anwar Ibrahim (now Malaysia’s Prime Minister), which started what was probably the most interesting political drama in the region.

Mr. Badawi was very different. He made it clear that he was going to run things on a more consensual basis:

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/04/14/work-with-me-not-for-me-how-pak-lahs-humble-approach-shaped-malaysias-economic-and-human-capital-landscape/173079

 

 He was as good as his word. He restored parliament’s ability to hold the executive to account and became known as the “Human Capital Development” Prime Minister. The aim was simple, growing Malaysia’s human capital to be a source of wealth.

He became, for the time that he was in office, a man respected for his decency. As the English, Malaysia-based fraud examiner, Mr. Nigel Morris-Cotterill describes the Badawi era as “What Malaysia could and should become.”

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7317733313794707456/

 

 Datuk Vinod Shekar, the CEO of Malaysia’s Petra Group states that Mr. Badawi put “country above himself” and explained that Mr. Badawi made decisions that could have shortened him political career but made them anyway:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7317744981450854401/

 

 Even when he left power, Mr. Badawai remained accessible. As former Bernama correspondent, Tengku Noor Shamsiah TengkuAbdullah recalls, he remained dedicated to national development:

https://www.weekly-echo.com/he-listened-he-led-he-inspired-tun-abdullahs-enduring-legacy/

 

 So, everyone seems to agree that Mr. Badawai was a very decent and dignified leader. He was the perfect foil to his predecessor and his decency and honesty stood out when compared to his successor, who took raiding the coffers to a new level.

While everyone is remembering Mr. Badawi’s legacy, there’s one uncomfortable truth. Mr. Badwai’s time in office was remarkably short. He was in office for a mere six-years, which pales in comparison to the 22-years plus of Dr. Mahathir’s first stint and the nine years of his successor, Najib Razak.

Why would a nation give such a decent man less time in office when it gave his predecessor and successor more?

The sad truth is that decency and power usually don’t mix well. People in positions of power must resort to “compromise” and at times do things that are the opposite of “decent.” In Mr. Badawi’s case, his decency as a person worked against him.

Let’s start with the obvious, “doing the right thing,” upsets the status quo, which inevitably means hurting the interest of people who are inevitably supposed to be on your side. Then, there’s the fact that in parliamentary democracies, political parties have a way of removing leaders that might look like they’ll cost them an election. Think of how the UK’s Conservative party dumped Margaret Thatcher in the 1990s, even though she led them to three election victories.

Given that Malaysia at the time had no credible opposition to speak of, most of Badawi’s issues were internal. Trying to lead Malaysia away from its corruption issues meant that he upset forces in his own party. So, when he lost seats, those forces led a coup against him and he was replaced by his deputy, who promptly led an administration so corrupt that a once disorganized opposition united and kicked the ruling Barisan Nasional (National Front) coalition out of power for the first time since independence.

In a way, Mr. Badawi was like another character – Manmohan Singh, India’s last non-BJP Prime Minister, who was a decent man who didn’t know how to deal with unscrupulous people on “his side.” Like Mr. Singh in India, Mr. Badawi took responsibility for the failures of his administration, though unlike Mr. Singh, Mr. Badawi had the good fortune of being succeeded by someone corrupt, which made him look saintly by comparison.

If you read Nicolo Machiavelli, you’ll notice that the main thread is that power is a “dirty game.” One must be prepared to use it ruthlessly. However, one also needs leaders of good character. As the Dalai Lama argued, it’s more important to have a national leader of good character than a hermit. Finding that balance in a national leader is something no political system has perfected but its something all nations need to keep working at.