A Successful Number Two Beats being a Mediocre Number One.

 

Zhu Rongji, China’s former Prime Minister has died at the age of 97. The great and the good from around the world are pouring in their tributes and I’ve made a point that as a kid growing up in the West, Mr. Zhu was something of an icon for me. He was the one leader from “my” part of the world who was doing things to make an impact for the better. When I was at school and in national service, he was rising up and sorting out the kinks in the Chinese economy. When I went back to the UK for university, a time when Asian economies were collapsing, Mr. Zhu stood out as a stable force in China. A list of Mr. Zhu’s tributes can be seen in this obituary from the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3363824/zhu-rongji-reformer-who-led-chinas-economic-transformation-through-minefield-or-abyss

 

 As a Singaporean of Chinese ancestry, it’s always interesting to observe the relationship between the nation of my birth and the nation of my forefathers. To us, China is now being sold as the land of opportunity. To the Chinese, specifically those in power, Singapore is the text book on how to generate enough wealth to the extent that your citizens don’t ask for political freedoms. In a way, Singapore has made “authoritarianism” cool and the Chinese have actually proven to be very good students of this form of “Cool.” I used to attend School of South Asian Studies (SAS) talks where you’d have plenty of Indian academics complaining about China and then a number of Indian students saying “why are we complaining – look them and look at us.”

If you look at this Sino-Singapore relationship, you could say that Mr. Zhu was like a prominent Singaporean politician – Goh Keng Swee, our former Deputy Prime Minister and the man who actually built the institutions that made Singapore what it is today. Mr. Goh actually built the nation and then, suddenly in 1984, retired and was never of until his death. In world filled with “iconic” leaders stamping their mark in history, Mr. Zhu stands out as someone who faded away until his death. Ironically, history may judge Mr. Zhu by what he didn’t do rather than what he did. Never gave interviews, wrote articles for foreign publications or joined the lecture circuit.

If you look at both Mr. Zhu and Mr. Goh, you’ll realise that what made them so successful is that they were masters of “boss management,” a skill that is not taught in any leadership or business school. If I look back at the leadership training I received, it was the then School Sargeant-Major of what was then called SISPEC telling us “Just be diplomatic with your OC’s.” This being after two months of training to “lead men.”

Mr. Goh never eyed the top job. That belonged to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. Mr. Goh was nowhere to be seen or heard when Mr. Lee was branding the Singapore story as his story. As such, Mr. Lee allowed Mr. Goh to get on with it. He kept the politics off Mr. Goh’s back and when the institutions built by Mr. Goh proved to be successful, Mr. Lee ended up looking pretty darn good.

Likewise, the same happened in China. Mr. Zhu became Prime Minister and understood that he was subordinate to a President in the shape of Mr. Jiang. As long as he didn’t threaten Mr. Jiang’s position, he could get Mr. Jiang to do the things that he needed to get Mr. Jiang to do. When he got things done, it actually reflected well on Mr. Jiang and the virtuous cycle continued.

Think about it. If you look at the USA, you’ll find that successful Vice President’s inevitably were so, because they never had Presidential ambitions, which meant that the president could let them do things. Clearest example being the late Dick Chenny, who as vice president pretty much ran the administration.

Call it a case of understanding that being a successful number two is better than being a mediocre number one. We give the glory to the number one. It’s called the “Bush Administration,” and not the “Chenny Administration,” even if it was Dick Chenny who played a key role in key policies. In the case of Mr. Chenny, he was lucky – the failure of the Iraq War had a scape goat – his boss. In the case of Mr. Zhu and Mr. Goh, they waited to get the credit for their actual work when they died. To many of us get greedy for instant glory. We want to be recognised straight away. In many ways, we’re taught that no point being good if nobody recognises and thus rewards you for it.

For the likes of Mr. Goh and Mr. Zhu, being the front man was potentially dangerous and they left the political battles to their boss’s. Top dogs have a way of being very insecure of their position. Staying in power becomes the most important mission rather than serving the institution they were supposed to serve. Both Mr. Goh and Mr. Zhu never gave any public speeches after their time in office. Their boss’s and successors never needed to pick a fight with them. Both men knew their strength was in doing the work not in doing the fights. Mr. Zhu was infamously straight forward, a bit too straight forward for political fights.

We’re always taught to look up or to climb the ladder. What we’re taught is that sometimes staying away from the top job and being a successful number two can be better for your overall legacy.  

We The Citizens

 

It was Singapore’s 61^st birthday on Sunday, and like the good patriotic Singaporean that everyone turns into at this time of the year, I thought I’d try and bash out my thoughts and feelings about being a Singaporean.

OK, I’m from what they call “Gen-X,” and as a newly made middle-aged person, I get the perspective of having seen some interesting transactions. Unlike my parents, I was born in a Singapore that was never a crown colony or one of the Malaysian states. As such, I don’t have any particular emotional attachment to being “Singaporean.” My mum, in particular gets very passionate about being “Singaporeans of Chinese descent,” whereas I am more willing to claim being “Chinese born in Singapore.” A part of it could be because I grew up in the UK and telling people “Chinese” was easier than Singaporeans (Can’t miss China on the map, but you can miss Singapore.”)

However, being a Singapore citizen of Chinese descent had certain perks. As at the time of writing, Singapore has the most powerful passport in the world. We can travel to more countries anywhere visa-free than anyone else. A case of Western countries assume you’ll go home because you have a decent job and Asian countries still treating you as Asian enough not to want to shake you down by making you get a visa on arrival:

 https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7492785486696972289/ 

 At school, my passport was particularly significant in as much as I wasn’t like the Chinese that most people imagined. My Dad was living in what they would have considered the “third-world,” but paying for me to be in the UK rather than flying me to the UK as refugee. Plus, my family income came from elsewhere – dad did not run a laundromat or a take away, which was the standard business that everyone expected the Chinese to be in.

More importantly, I came from a country that speaks English and so fitting into the UK wasn’t exactly a challenge.

So, in a way, being a Singaporean growing up in the UK wasn’t exactly a challenge. Sure, I looked a little different but other than the obvious, I was actually part and parcel of the scenery. As such, my relationship with the Western world isn’t the same as a guy whose dad ran the local take away or if I had come from the mainland where English came as something imposed by the school and the demands of international business rather than as something natural.

The other part about being a Singaporean growing up in the UK was the fact that my vision of Asia wasn’t what was taught in schools. Your text books tell you that certain parts of the world are “poor” by design but when you go home, you find that you have certain technologies that don’t exist in the Western world – the clearest example being everyone had moved to laser disk in Singapore when most of the West was still on VHS.

Even from the perspective of someone worried about the day when I can’t work anymore, Singapore is strangely comfortable in so many ways. I eat out quite often, which simply wouldn’t be the case in the west. I have access to a gym that only costs me S$2.50 per entry. I walk along the beach most nights and as a dad to a teenage girl, not worrying about her hanging out late was priceless.

I think Singapore’s food scene expresses Singapore at its best. I used to work in a French-Italian restaurant eating great pasta and then going out with my chef to have oyster omelette or roti prata or satay.

 https://www.tiktok.com/@tang.li0/video/7671850791782698247

 Singapore measures up pretty darn well compared to many places. We haven’t had anything as divisive as a Trump or Brexit and I am grateful that I live in a place where toxic politics hasn’t affected the basic social scene.

Yet, having said that, Singapore is by no means perfect. Its tough being a freelance entrepreneur here. Whenever you think you’ve made a move ahead, the powers that be inevitably will chose a foreign multinational over you. As such, I have greatest pride in my freelance days because it wasn’t just being a guppy against a shark but a situation where the ocean literally conspired with the sharks.

Yet, for all that, my two biggest worries remain the fate of old people and dark-skinned migrant workers. Go to any coffee shop and you’ll notice that its these two demographics doing the back breaking work that actually makes Singapore the clean and green paradise that it is.

The fate of old people in particular is interestingly worrying. You see the old and frail doing back breaking work in the hawker centre while the young and fit stand over them. I mentioned that in a Linkedin post recently and funnily enough, you get allot of comments about – “oh, they’re doing it because they’re bored,” or the government’s favourite – “exercise.”

Yet, at the same time as you see more of the frail doing back breaking work, corporate ageism becomes a normal thing. Anyone in their late forties with an office job, hangs onto it for dear life because, quite frankly, that’s probably the last job they’re ever going to get.

Sure, we measure up very well against most places. However, we do need to ask ourselves if these foundations are solid. How long can we use imported labour to mask things when a segment of our workforce is discarded easily? How long can we rely on poor neighbours to do heavy lifting as these countries become “must have” markets for the international investment community? We’ve done well but we need to go back and check the system and correct things whilst we still have the chance.  

The Red Card

 You have to hand it to Donald Trump for making being shameless into an art form. Mr. Trump has built a very successful career by claiming certain things and the moment he gets called out, he complains that the world is against him. The man made himself everyone’s ideal of a tycoon by playing a tycoon on TV. The world got so worked up with him being a “rich” and “self-made” man but didn’t notice that his career in business ended up sending businesses through bankruptcy courts the way most people ended up going through the revolving doors of hotels.

Mr. Trump used this playbook when he moved into politics, with a twist. His message was simple – every problem you have is someone else’s fault and I’ll keep them out. A certain demographic ate it up. His next great move was even better; he announced that he was going to win and any defeat was “rigged.”

To Mr. Trump’s credit, this has been very successful. He won his first election and if you look at things through the eyes of COVID and Mr. Trump’s mismanagement of COVID, he still managed to get 74 million votes too many and he came back and won in 2024. Whatever one might think, Mr. Trump has been successful despite not selling any form of facts.

The latest scam came from a red card, when Donald Trump called up FIFA President, Gianni Infanto to “look at” a red card that was issued to the US’s star striker, Florian Balogun. Mr. Trump says he never actually made a call to tell Mr. Infanto what to do. However, one might point out that when the US President calls you to “look into” something, its pretty much an order.

Much has been said about this. My main point is that, its “sad” and very “pathetic” that a head of state and government should be calling the head of a sports governing body to get them to “look into” a decision made by a referee in a game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZBJj9IPVvE

 

To put it crudely, this is an embarrassment for both FIFA and the US President. So, how did this play out. Well, it happened on the field. The US got four to one drubbing.

Mr. Trump has been notably silent now. Not said anything about a “rigged” game. There is one problem for Mr. Trump – everything happened on the field. Every moment of the game was seen by the 60 plus thousand spectators and that’s before you take into account the numbers who watched the game on TV. You can’t claim things were “hidden” or “rigged.”

Mr Trump may be able to convince people that he’s a victimised blob in his political career. Thankfully he can’t pull that off in the sporting world.

Holy Book Messaging

 Whatever one may think of Donald Trump, you have to credit him for doing the impossible. Ever since he started the war against Iran on 28 February of 20226, he’s somehow managed to transform the image of the regime in Iran in ways that the world’s top PR specialist could never dream on.

Let’s start with the obvious point. Nobody has ever accused the clerical regime in Iran of having any measure of humour. I’m old enough to remember when Salman Rushdie wrote the “Satanic Verses.” The book had the effect of “P***ing off” Muslim communities around the world and cities like Bradford and Birmingham were up in arms. Then came Iran’s then “Supreme Leader,” the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who proceeded to offer a million pounds for the death of Mr. Rushdie.

The late Ayatollah scared people. As far as many of us living in the Western influenced world were concerned, he was the very reason why very old men with major religious influence should be kept far away from the levers of power. His regime was so scary that when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in the early 80s, the entire Western world rushed to support Saddam.

Iran’s “Mullahs” had such a bad reputation in anywhere influenced by the West that any opponent looked good by comparison. All of us were trained to think of Iran as a miserable place run by Old Men with no humour.

Fast forward many four decades later and the Mullah’s are now proving themselves to be exceptionally good and messaging. When Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu decided to bomb Iran during Ramadan, they set of a chain of events that has basically upended everything. Sure, Iran has taken the heavier beating. The US and Israel are the superior military force and as Clausewitz says “God is on the side of big battalions.” However, despite being the weaker military force, the Iranians have hit back in a significant enough way for the GCC, which has traditionally looked to America as a protector to rethink things.

More importantly, the Iranians have shown themselves to be much better at basic communications than the US and Israel, two states that have practically invented modern Public Relations. The communications out of Iran has been so good that even people who were brought up to think of Iran as a miserable place are actually applauding them.

The spokespeople on the Iranian side have been measured and rational. Unlike, say Donald Trump, who has been going on TV and talking about how Iran’s capabilities have been totally destroyed as Iran launches strikes against US bases. One can’t help but be reminded of the same lack of communication strategy during Covid, when America’s death toll resembled what of a Hollywood depiction of a third world country than a highly advanced state just as the White House was claiming everything was under control.

Iranian spokespeople by contrast have been rational and dare I say factual, presenting themselves as rational people placed in an unrationed situation.

Contrary of the early days of the Iranian revolution, the regime has been exceptionally good at using humour. One only has to think of the Lego videos mocking Trump and Company:

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=ee96f3d42c6f5c08&sxsrf=APpeQntqcnj5GYJMjRKe3tguaPqgFYtRJQ:1783323904741&udm=2&fbs=ABfTbFVyMZGZf1hfvX9uKjN_-G8cxpBkeIeqYwoCbfNVc4vKE7plZzta63Pe5DpJ3XFR9Xy5hkFmhg6pfO_X-sED2CqEDfLQbWLcDMRztF_yUReEECN6eR27h7XUG7HTKs0ZMau9pzZ8PWvEAZ1RZhElPC707SSNa5IZK4CsuDh2AcdDUBquFGfuiQR6r-b9uQUixL11913Zv_QBThcIwA8L5r_r7jI5Jw&q=iranian+lego+video&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi18vGex72VAxXxU2wGHTZlBjMQtKgLegQIERAB&biw=1280&bih=585&dpr=1.5#sv=CAMSURoyKhBlLTZFdHVJZ2VvTW15eXJNMg42RXR1SWdlb01teXlyTToOV0pHb2tiT3pZQkVpb00gBCoXCgFzEhBlLTZFdHVJZ2VvTW15eXJNGAEwARgHIKX7udYOSggQARgBIAEoAQ

 

 

That’s too the Western Audience and as someone said on Tik Tok, it’s no coincidence that they chose to hold the late Ayatollah Ali Khameni’s funeral on the 4^th of July and America’s 250^th Birthday.

The second bit of propaganda mastery that they’ve displayed was the use of Qur’anic verses that were played for the various delegations that attended. Every delegation, it seems got a verse on the views that the regime must have held towards their guest. Observers could not help but notice that the verses for the delegations from Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthies were noticeably more upbeat that the verses the Saudis and Lebanese government got:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/irans-funeral-diplomacy-quran-verses-ranked-allies-rivals-and-message-saudi-arabia

Everyone across the Muslim world is paying attention. The conflict has now become about religion or at least the interpretation of it. You cannot say that you were “snubbed” in the traditional sense of the word but they’ve managed to frame their side of the story in religious terms. They can say “we never said anything, it was just a recital from the Holy Book, which we both find sacred.” How the rest of the Islamic World reorganises its relations with Iran is left to be seen.

Iran’s rulers are not nice people in any sense of the word. They are, contrary to their propaganda, not Saintly. However, thanks to this war and the mishandling of communications on the side of the West led by the USA, shown themselves to be very good at the communications aspect. The funeral of the late Ayatollah has been a master stroke of propaganda and not the message of a nation that’s taken a hammering.

Winning?

 

I was never much of a sports guy until 1986, when my best friend would invite me to watch the 1986 Brazilian team in action. Victories were celebrated but the defeat to France in a penalty shoot out in the quarters brought tears. It was this experience that made me understand that victory was a thrill and defeat was tragic.

After Hamburg, my stepdad got transferred to England and I entered Churcher’s College. Prior to joining Churcher’s, it was stressed to me that it was important to be seen on the “playing fields,” if I was to fit in. So, whilst I was not anyone’s idea of an “athlete,” I took part in house level rugby and hockey (the field variety to Americans). I now joke that one of the best things about being in an English Public School was that I could talk rugby with guys from the Southern Hemisphere and cricket with people from South Asia, two groups that I would end up working with closely in my working life.

Sports are fun and it’s easy to know who has won and who has lost. The score board is visible. In a race, it’s pretty obvious who crosses the finishing line first.

However, this isn’t exactly the case in war, which is often said to be the thing that we substitute with sports. The point is often made when you talk about America’s post World War II military adventures. Think of Vietnam, where the world’s strongest military dropped a ton of bombs on the country and all we remember is the Americans running away on the rooftop of the American Embassy in Saigon. Many years later, we saw something similar with the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Why do we have such memories of the what is undoubtedly the world’s strongest military machine ever? The answer is this simple – unlike sports, there’s no obvious score board. It’s not a case of I kill more of yours than you kill more of mine or I won more battles so I win the war. In the case of Vietnam, the Americans won all the battles. In Iraq, American forces steamrollered what was left Saddam’s army. In both cases, America ended up having to pull out with loss of treasure and blood.

The current administration puts it down to “stupid” rules of engagement and “woke” ideology. If you believe the current Managing Director of the Pentagon, you’d think that all America needs is to be allowed to hit harder.

Given that the MD of the Pentagon is an alcoholic who reports to a draft dodger who can only fight toddlers when their hands and legs are tied up, it’s clear that the decades military knowledge in the vaults of the Pentagon have been wasted. America has lost wars because of a “woke” military but because of politicians who failed to understand what war actually is. The situation is worse in the age of mass media. Politicians cannot resist looking good with the troops but when flag draped coffins come home, they start panicking. Now, you have a president who is a former reality TV star whose entire world view is fixated on “appearance” rather than actual work.

In Venezuela he looked cool. Delta Force did a masterful job of entering the country, capturing Maduro and getting out. Venezuela’s new leader agreed to work with him and everything is cool.

Then, he just decided to bomb Iran, which was negotiating and giving the pretense of being a good neighbor in a volatile neighborhood. It even looked good for him in as much as the 86-year-old Iranian leader, Ali Khamenei was killed on day one of strikes. The ever ready, TV star has gone around talking about how the war is a “12 or 15 on a scale of 10” and even mentioning that the war has already been “won,” and accused British Prime Minister, Keir Stramer of joining too late:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dn3j04lydo

 

 Yes, the USA and Israel have been pounding Iran. They are way ahead in almost every military measure. However, every boxer will tell – you haven’t actually knocked your opponent out until you’ve actually knocked him out. Despite having the weaker military, Iran is still sending missiles to Israel and American bases around the region. In short, the Iran has become what every nation in the Gulf has feared.

Trump is talking “fury” if the Iranians don’t open up the Straits of Hormuz. Hegseth has talked about unleashing fury. Why do you need to say all these things if you have already won?

The Iranian foreign minister has said “we’re ready.” Israeli newspaper, Haaretz calls whatever the American administration is thinking a “fantasy.”

 

 

Here’s the thing, if you want to get into a fight, you got to understand that people are going to hit back. I go back to the point of the fact that the person in charge can only fight toddlers but only in the toddler’s arms are tied behind his or her back. In trade, he started slapping tariffs of countries. Most of the world didn’t want to pick a fight with the world’s most prominent economy. The one country that hit back was the one he wanted to “reign in.” Put tariffs on China and China put them right back on him. China knows its economy is smaller and more fragile but the Chinese had leverage and used it. The Toddler Fighter told China not to hit back and he’s at the negotiating table.

Now he’s bombing the living day lights of Iran. Many people are saying that its part of clever strategy to get leverage over China:

 

Perhaps it would be leverage but only if you actually win. He’s saying he’s won and everything will be over soon. Yet, the Iranians are still firing missiles and they’ve made a point to the GCC (Oil Rich American allies who buy American hardware) that American protection isn’t what it is cracked up to be. It took 20-years for the Taliban to be replaced with the Taliban. It taken two weeks for Khamenei to be replaced by Khamenei. The only Iranians dancing in the streets and thanking him are the exiles. The ones in Iran proper have now rallied around what was an unpopular government. How is that winning?

America is winning on the battlefield. However, just about every credible analyst is making the point that it isn’t winning the war. Sure, China pays more for oil – but so does America. The Iranian regime is still there. Trump wants investment but who wants to invest in a place where the leader is willing to tear everything down? He’s asking Iran to not retaliate. Why would they do that when you’re bombing them?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/10/iran-war-live-trump-says-conflict-will-be-over-soon-40-killed-in-tehran

 

 

In the first Gulf War, there was a president who knew what he was doing. Bush the Elder came to defend Saudi Arabia. He went out of the way to not make it a “holy war” against Muslims by keeping Israel out when Saddam sent Scuds. He saw to it that he got an invitation from the Saudi’s after Saddam had marched into Kuwait and he made damn sure that he got things done before Ramadan was even mentioned. Today, you have an American President who does what an Israeli Prime Minister convicted of genocide wants, hitting first in the middle of Islam’s most sacred month. How is that a win for America on the global stage?

“It’s No You at the Gun Site” – A Loveable Bear

 Call it a coincidence but we’re now in the 10^th day of the war in Iran and it happens to be the 29^th anniversary of Exercise Swift Lion, when my SISPEC (now called SCS) bunk mate and one of his men were killed when the 155mm Gun Howitzer he was commanding, exploded.

Although the initial fear and sadness of the incident have long since passed, that incident is what you could call a watershed moment. It is something I can quite explain. It was like, we could be next, all for just doing your job.

I wasn’t there when it happened, I was in home base hopping not to go out and leading the specialist rebellion against going. Whilst I was lucky to have a battery commander who took the role of leadership seriously, I couldn’t help but feel that a system run by old men was more interested in protecting the system than taking care of us – the guys who were going out to fire the round that just killed our friend.

Sure, this wasn’t a war (a point which we made to the powers that be) but it was tragic and traumatic enough. It’s like this – weapons look cool when you’re a kid – then suddenly when you see your friend come back in a body bag, you realise the games have consequences.

I can intellectually tell you that sometimes war is a necessary evil. There are times when nations need to fight and lives need to be sacrificed. As a solider, you cannot say that you’ve discovered that you’re a pacifist once you’re called upon to face action.

However, if you ask me how I feel about military conflicts, I look at it through that incident I lived through so many years ago. I think of my late buddy Bryan Ng during the incident who made the point of saying to our battery commander, “Sir, you need to remember, I’m in the one at the gun site, not you.”

I was always the more articulate one but now that I look back, he said it best. Just look at any given society and you’ll find that it’s always the people (who are usually old), getting high on conflict are the ones sitting furthest away from the danger zone. In supposedly democratic societies, there’s this thing about keeping the military under civilian rule. Generals are portrayed as wanting war. The truth is this – it’s inevitably the civilian politicians who pick fights because, well, it’s not them in the war zone. Just remember, the only person who wasn’t not keen to invade Iraq in the Bush II Administration was the only career military man.

 

 I view people who think conflict is a joke with a certain degree of contempt. It’s easy to talk tough when you’re behind the front lines sitting in your airconditioned office.

Let’s just take a look at the current conflict in Iran. The Late Ayatollah Khamenei was 86 when he died. Donald Trump is 80. Bibi, is 76. To Trump, this is game, where you compare how many people have died and then treat it like the Super Bowl:

 

 To be fair, to Trump, he bought his way out of any form of military service. Daddy has money so it’s easy to get out of being anything in particular. Bibi is a different story. He actually served in a military that faces combat. His brother led the Entebbe rescue and practically wrote the text book on hostage rescue. He paid with his life but saved people. The younger brother wants to bomb the world and has no issues with ordinary Israelis dealing with missiles raining on them whilst he hides in the USA.

For me, a man who never fought or will (thank God) fight in a war, one incident of a friend coming home in a body bag was one incident too many. Too many old men talking about “big picture” forgetting that it’s the young guys who got pay for it. It was clear to me that the worst type of old man to be is the one that thinks its acceptable to act tough whilst getting the kids to face the consequences.  

 

The Benefits of Fratricide and the Problem with Tribal Loyalties

 

One of the funniest institutions in the British Commonwealth is the monarchy. The British monarchy has been around for the longest of times and its somehow survived revolutions, greatness and the loss of greatness. Whilst monarchies in Europe fell, the British kept theirs. The former Egyptian King Farouk is reported to have said, “The whole world is in revolt. Soon there will be only five Kings left—the King of England, the King of Spades, the King of Clubs, the King of Hearts, and the King of Diamonds".

The survival of the British Monarchy is amazing. How does an institution based on superiority by birth and ancient tradition survive in a world where technology is changing the way we do things in a matter of decades and meritocracy is becoming something that we understand as the natural order of things?

Part of the answer was best said in the Crown. The role of the monarchy is not to govern and to stay away from political squabbles. Prime Ministers could come and go but the monarch would endure. The line Crown attributes to the late Queen is to “Shut up and do nothing.” At her death countless Prime Ministers recounted how their meetings with the Queen would be the one meeting they knew would never get leaked.

The other is that the royal family understands that their survival depends on public good will and they act to ensure they keep it. The late Queen for example, made it down to Grenfell Tower to sympathise with the victims whilst her Prime Minister hid in Downing Street. King Charles, back when he was a Prince, said that he felt he needed to justify his existence. The most recent example of how the royals rushed to save themselves was when they ditched Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor over his role in the Epstein Scandal. Despite his pleas, the former Prince has been arrested and is now out on bail. A man who grew up in the very definition of privilege was seen slinking away, hopping and failing to avoid a very public humiliation:

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

 

 

 The ability to turn on one of its own, isn’t limited to the Royal Family. British political parties have shown a remarkable ability to turn on successful leaders the moment they become toxic. Both Thatcher and Blair were brought down by their own party rather than the electorate. In the case of the Epstein scandal, its former Ambassador to the USA and former European Commissioner, Lord Peter Mandelson, who not only had to leave his posts but has also been arrested and now out on bail:

https://www.reutersconnect.com/item/former-british-ambassador-to-the-us-peter-mandelson-leaves-his-residence-in-london/dGFnOnJldXRlcnMuY29tLDIwMjY6bmV3c21sX1JDMlBUSkFLVEpGTQ

 

 Let’s me clear, neither the former Prince or former Ambassador have been charged with anything sexual. The grounds for arrest in both cases is suspicions of “misconduct in public office.” Whilst neither has been formally charged, the facts are clear. Instead of serving the public, they served the interest of a very rich person who was, it turns out a master of creating corruption.

Yet, the point is two powerful men have been publicly called to account. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor will never enjoy the life he once had a Prince Andrew. Peter Mandelson will never get the chance to play shadow manipulator the way he did under Blair.

While the situation in the UK is not great, it compares very well with what’s going on in the USA, which is where most of the saga has taken place. Here, you see a case of tribal loyalties running everything. You have the current president being close to Epstein and being mentioned many times over in the files. You also have the former president pictured with him and mentioned a number of times.

Both men don’t have a history of marital fidelity. Their elections and presidencies have been plagued with scandals off inappropriate behavior. Yet its virtually impossible to say anything about them without their supporters jumping all over you and social media is filled with commentators on both sides trying to out do each other in the dirt swinging contest.

Whilst everyone makes noise over Epstein, the ground facts remain – crimes were committed. Nobody has been held to account. If anything, there have been public declarations that doing something would make the system collapse.

The world’s autocrats are loving every moment of the squabbles in America. Every time US politicians lecture about “rule of law” and “open and honest” societies, the autocrats just shrug and say “yeah, pot calling the kettle black,” with each passing moment of the Epstein scandal. That would not happen if the American institutions had some fratricidal instincts and allowed a few of the rich and powerful to be dragged out in public.  

It’s OK to Rape Kids as Long as The Rapist is Rich

 

I discovered I was meant to be Kiddo’s father around 13-years ago, when she moved here. The incident that made our bond came curtesy of one of her cousin’s boyfriends, who was an older dude in his 50s. He had shown himself to be a generous chap and I had a good impression. However, on that day, something changed. He had come to the house and seen Kiddo in her school uniform. He started chatting to her and then said “Give me your number, you can call me when you want to buy things.” I was pretty pissed off and when Kiddo said “It’s OK, he’s not a stranger,” I replied “That’s not the point – he’s over 50 and you’re a 13-year-old girl.” Translation, if he tries anything funny, I will do horrible things to him and yes, I am well aware that the penalty in Singapore is the gallows.

That particular moment has stayed with me, especially now that I am single and “free to mingle” as they say. Yes, I am a 51-year-old man, which is an age where being horny is a sign of good health. Like most heterosexual men, I do get turned on by nice bodies, which inevitably belong to younger women. So, yes, if a sexy thing in a short skirt and tight tank top comes by, I’m going to notice.

However, as much as I have my needs, I’m also a dad and that actually makes me look at things in a different way. Sure, there are lots of 26-year-old girls who I find very attractive. However, I’m brought back to the point that this could be my kid. Would I like my kid being with someone my age? Answer is – ew…..For the record, my current girlfriend is 13-years younger – young but not kiddy young.

I also assess young men through the eyes of being a dad to a young lady. The basic question is, would I like this guy anywhere near my kid? If the answer is yes, I become chill. My Godson actually asked “can I marry your daughter and then I can really call you dad?” I choaked and nearly vomited. He’s nice guy but my kid would run rings around him it wouldn’t be funny.

So, when I look at the Jeffrey Epstein case unfurl, I ask myself the question – how could you do this to someone who could be your kid? Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor comes to mind. You look at the guy and want to say “Ya, I know you have your needs – but really, are you really – how would you like it if someone did that with your girls.” I mean, I get that blue-blood doesn’t make you immune to being horny. I get that the monarchy can be seen as an archaic institution – but as a dad, how is that you never stopped to imagine what it would be like if someone did what you did to your girls?

To be fair to the British system, there’s been some form of accountability. The King has rightfully stripped him of the “Prince” title and has effectively told the cops to do the necessary. The British monarchy for all its faults, is actually doing something.

Britain’s unelected King is doing a way lot better than say, the elected politicians across the pond. Yes, America has had “sleazy” politicians before. I’m old enough to remember when Bad Boy Bill got his dick sucked in the White House and got impeached.

The point being Bad Boy Bill got impeached and whilst Monica got allot of unwanted attention, she was legally a consenting adult. Everyone said Bad Boy Bill was “Immoral” but what he did wasn’t not illegal.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a case of a silly young woman wanting to keep the most powerful man on the planet happy. Epstein is about selling children to the rich and powerful. The current occupant of the White House is enjoying his moment of being the “sleaziest politician alive” and as questionable as he is, the defense that that his attorney general, Pam Bondi gave was a master class in showing of your worth as a crappy human being.

Ms. Bondi, who is the nation’s highest legal officer, proceeded to go on the attacked when questioned by Congress. Her line of attack being “The stock market is up.” You’re being asked about kids being raped and you’re only reply is “the stock market us up,” or “rich people are making money – what are you worried about.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7yv4fpfDbs

 

 I get that the trade of young ladies selling them selves is as old as human history itself. However, the operational word is young ladies with the capacity to consent and exchange not young kids. I get it that men have needs but I also get that men have responsibilities.  

I’m sorry if you think its OK for kids to get rapped as long as the rich rapist are making money, I’m not sure if I can see you as a human being.