What Defines Success?

I’ve recently been in a position where I’ve had to contemplate what I define as success. At the age of 45, I’ve walked away from the “corporate-existence” that had fed me for the better part of five-years because it boiled down to a choice of being on the job or spending time on creating memories that money can’t buy. I tried to convince myself that I had responsibilities to my employer but in the end my sister came up with the most important argument of all – “You’re 45 – do you want to spend the rest of your life behind a desk,” and with that, I walked away from my corporate existence.

I know that a few people would argue that I took a dangerous path. I’m a late starter in the corporate rat race. While I had a few corporate gigs, most of my time was spent freelancing or waiting tables. Then, at the age of 39, I got myself employed in an accounting firm that specializes in liquidations. Though lacking in the necessary paper qualifications, I survived in the job, learnt a great deal, earned a few rounds of an annual wage supplement and had a few bonus payments and the boss deemed me worthy enough to discuss promotion. You could say that on paper, I had found security, stability and success and all I needed to do was to carry on the same path.

Yet, while I knew I was secure, I didn’t feel successful. While grateful that I had a salary and regular contributions to my pension fund for five-years, I didn’t feel that I had a particularly good life. It took going away for a week and cutting off ties with the rest of the world for me to realise that I was on the wrong path in life and although I’m back in a position where I don’t really know what will happen with my life, I have a strange sense of clarity of what life has to offer. While technically in a more precarious position, I feel more successful than I did a few weeks ago.

I talk about my personal situation here because it brings into the question of what defines success. What makes one person successful and another not. Most people would argue that success involves the material. A man with a particular car and house is defined as successful while a man without is often defined as not. We look at signs of success in terms of status and situations.

What is true of individuals is also true of nation states. I’ve lived in Singapore, which is the definition of a “successful” nation. As a child, I thought Singapore had it all and when I moved to the West, I found it very hard to accept that Singapore was part of the “developing” world for the simple fact that all the physical stuff (buildings etc) that I saw in the West, were not better in any shape or way than what I saw in Singapore.

When I returned to set up my life in Singapore and got into the national sport of complaining about the place, I often found myself being ticked off by people from the Western World for not appreciating the good things around me. Singapore is safe (no worries when my teenage girl takes a late bus home), rich (a Singapore dollar exchanged at one point something against global currencies like the Greenback, Euro and Pound and many times more in third world currencies) and clean (there is no reason to buy bottled water in Singapore – it’s the only drinkable water in some Western cities). So, what’s there not to like?

We are the very definition of success and yet, we, the people seem downright miserable. I feel it whenever I travel to a third-world backwater. Returning from places like Vietnam, Thailand and Bhutan makes me feel that I’m returning to a place that lacks something important. Why do people who have so much less than what I have, seem to much more ease with the world. In their eyes, I must have everything. Yet, I’m envious of them.

I’m well aware that life in rural Asia is tough. Outside of Singapore and Hong Kong, the facilities are awful. I remember my favorite Bhutanese tour guide telling his tour groups to “use bottled water to brush your teeth.” I am aware that farming by hand is brutal work. At the age of 22, I understood why the Thai girls in Geylang (Singapore’s red-light district) were selling their bodies – Kanchanaburi Province in Thailand was dirt poor. Yet, and yet I couldn’t help but feel that had something very important that I didn’t have.

I guess you could call it hope. People there face hunger and so they work hard to get over it. Yet they remain human and I can’t help but feel that this is the factor that makes them more at ease with the world. For us, it’s a case of joining a machine and being part of the machine. The system apparently looks after you and gives you “success” but after you achieve it – what do you have? 

Hanoi - The City of Dreams

By - Ms.  Vee



Hanoi ”, the sound sounded clear and touched the heart of Vietnamese people. Through many ups and downs of history, Hanoi still stands there, magnificent.

Talking about Hanoi, people can't help but think of a bustling city, skyscrapers, entertainment centers, and large trade centers.

But you know, besides modern beauty, Hanoi still retains a very unique and very Hanoi-like feature that is nowhere to be found.

I have been to Hanoi with my sister, having to see and see in Hanoi to see how beautiful it is, the food is very delicious and rich .. until now I still cannot forget the time The time is in Hanoi.

I hope that I will be able to return to this place soon because it gives me many unforgettable memories

Onward Singapore

It’s National Day tomorrow and I thought I would try and find a “patriotic” spirit to discuss what being a Singaporean means to me. Although I didn’t “grow-up” in Singapore (my formative years being spent in the UK), Singapore has been home for nearly two-decades. It remains the only country that I have a legal obligation to die for (OK, they did send me a letter discharging me from reservist duty a few years back, which came with a yearly $1,500 tax break for life) and it’s the only the country where I’ve started my family (Huong is determined that we’ll stay implanted in PAP lead Singapore forever).

I will never get tired of repeating the mantra that in so many ways, I’m lucky to call Singapore home. It’s become even more true in the age of the global populist, where you get the likes of Trump and Johnson stirring up “us – versus-them” sentiments in their respective countries. While there are people who are unhappy with the influx of foreigners, Singapore’s government keeps the place open to doing trade with the rest of the world. Although I’ve taken issue with the inherent racism in many aspects of life in Singapore, we are, for the most part a decent enough place where people can mix together regardless of race or religion.

As a father of a teenage girl, I am grateful that the place is pretty free of violent crime. Every area of Singapore is accessible to me. I can walk into Little India and feel right at home. I wouldn’t be able to do that in Harlem (I think of the movie “Live and Let Die,” when Bond’s entry into Harlem is described as “like following a cue ball.”) When Kiddo sends me, a late-night text saying she just left work, I don’t panic and worry she makes it home.

Then, there’s the topic of government. While the Singapore government has taken a beating in the online space, one’s daily interactions are pretty civil. Cops don’t take it a point to shake you down for bribes and most government agencies (including the tax department) make a show of being “customer-centric.”

Let’s not kid ourselves but material comforts matter and when you’re comfortable, you tend to forgive many things. I’ll never stop saying it but Singapore has excellent infrastructure and that makes it a great place to live. I’m not so much “proud” of being a Singaporean but I’m grateful for the things that the place provides me and the people that I’ve brought into my life.

Where Singapore falls grossly short is in its moral compass. I am aware that one should use the word “moral” sparingly when discussing a “geopolitical” situation in as much as things work on a “greater-good” principle – ie, if you have to kill one to save thousands, you got to do it. However, there are things about Singapore that enrage me because they go against what I believe a normal person would consider immoral.

My biggest bugbear about Singapore is the treatment of dark-skinned workers from poorer parts of the world. OK, I admit that people from what the Trump calls “Shit Hole” countries get a raw deal. However, in Singapore it seems like treating people from “Shithole” countries is an acceptable practice.

I think of an Englishman I once knew who asked me about what I missed about the UK. When I said, “The intrinsic decency of people,” my reply was “That’s because you’re white, try being a dark-skinned laborer.” True enough, we met up six -years later and he couldn’t stop talking about how Singapore was living off “slave labor” and told me about how a Bangladeshi worker in the shipyard he works at was only paid $2,000 a month (I didn’t have the heart to tell him that the man was lucky to be earning $2,000 a month).

Talk to enough of “my-people” about the plight of the “dark-skinned” from poorer parts of Asia and the answer is inevitably “they’re earning a lot of money compared to where they come from.” OK, a few Singapore dollars is equivalent to a handful of Rupees or Pesos but we have to remember the guy is not living in his home country, he’s here.

Actually, it’s OK, when there’s work. The unspoken contract being that these guys are earning more than what they could back home and the local economy gets people willing to do the dirty but necessary jobs that need to get done. So, even if the guy is paid less than a local to do more, its not a great moral issue.

What I do have an issue is when things go wrong such as in incidents where employers don’t pay or when the Company goes belly up. The hoops that these poor guys must go through to get what is due to them is ridiculous. The system seems to treat their request for what is rightfully theirs as an irritant. This being the same system that rushes to see high flying politicians, bankers and lawyers get more than their fair share, I think the phrase is “talent retention.”

I take the 2013 riots in Little India as an example. This was Singapore’s first riot since the 1960s and the only thing that officialdom could come up with was to ban alcohol (because dark people can’t hold their booze) and some comments from a high ranking official about “Migrant Resentment.” Nobody talked about how a migrant worker (who was admittedly pissed as a newt) got run over and the police was more concerned about protecting the guy who ran over the worker from the angry darkies than in enforcing justice. The bus driver who ran the guy over didn’t even get a slap on the wrist – apparently, he’s a victim. Talk to enough Singaporeans, particularly the Chinese variety, and there’s indignation that the darkies had the gall to riot. I’m with my favourtie Englishman who said, “In that situation, I’d bloody riot too.”

We are a rich nation but we need to remember that we also need to be a “respected” nation. We are respected in as much as for the most part there is “fairness” in the system. I am not sure how one can be proud of situations like this and having people shrug off those incidents as being due to the poor not being grateful for their lot?

We have many beautiful things but we need to remember they were built by the sweet of the labor. We need to remember that labor can only be good for the country if the country shows it respect. Nobody is asking for Bangladeshi, Indian and Pilipino workers to be paid on par with bank executives. What we should ask for is that their gradiences are treated with sincerity and respect.

I also concur with my Dad’s former neighbor, Professor Tommy Koh, who has come out to state that we need to develop a culture that respects different views.

This is unfortunately very true in our local politics, where people who differ from the main stream get jumped on. I take the example of a former Presidential candidate, Dr. Tan Cheng Bock, who set up a new political party recently.

Before you know it, you had the former Prime Minister launching an attack on the man. While Mr. Goh Chok Tong was perhaps not as vicious as it could have been (Mr. Goh’s predecessor was famous for using every trick in the book to crush his opponents) but it still reflected the inability of the powers that be to understand that ideas are not a monopoly but a market place. If only one played the video of the late Senator John McCain describing his former senatorial colleague and rival for the presidency as “A decent man whom I happen to have disagreements with.”

On National Day, I will sing Majullah Singapura in its only acceptable language (Malay) with pride. I will thank the divine for all the good things that this little red dot has brought to me and my family. At the same time, I will look for every way I can to combat the things about this country that I find so abhorrent. I am a Singaporean and I have an obligation to make my country a better place.

What Are We Asking For?

One of the things about being a blogger is that you sometimes attract the most interesting of followers. If you take my last piece on the topic of “racism,” I actually got a comment from an anonymous (the standard name of commentators) asking me to describe “real meritocracy” from my “non-Chinese” perspective.

I have answered the said reader of the comment and I think he or she didn’t quite do his or her research on Singapore’s history. I suspect the commenter had taken offence with the fact that I had taken offence with the fact that an IPS survey had found that half of Singapore’s Malay and Indian population felt they were discriminated against when applying for jobs.

Unfortunately, I understand where the comment is coming from. It comes from a cultural prejudice of our local Chinese community that views the indigenous Bumis, Pinoys, Thais etc as being less hardworking and clever than the Chinese – therefore, in a “meritocracy” where you look at things like qualifications and work experience (who did you work for before me and what did you do) rather than ethnic group, it goes without saying that the Chinese with their superior school results get the job. Hence, the argument goes – if the Malays don’t want to feel discriminated against, they should learn to work as hard as the Chinese if they want to survive in a meritocracy.

Unfortunately, the statistics seem to support this prejudice. If you take a broad-brush sweep of Southeast Asia, you’ll find that the top scholars tend to be Chinese as are the top working professionals. The economies of Southeast Asia are dominated by ethnic Chinese – just trace the shareholders of the top conglomerates in the region and you’ll find that they are inevitably Chinese. The Malaysia’s “Bumiputra” policy, which favors ethnic Malays in business and the awarding of government contracts, was put in place because the Chinese control of the economy was so dominant that it didn’t leave much for the natives.

So, in the Southeast Asian context, it is not wrong to argue that if you want “meritocracy” at its purest, you’re going to have to accept that the “Yellow” faces are going to be the dominant force in business and the jobs will inevitably go to those with the best qualifications, who happen to be Chinese. Singapore’s ethnic Chinese majority allows Singapore to trumpet meritocracy as the way to go. Governments in the rest of the region, where the Chinese are the minority, don’t use the word “meritocracy” and instead, talk about “native rights.”

Having said that, it still remains morally wrong to discriminate against someone based on their skin colour or religion and when you look at things from a social perspective, it is short sighted to allow a situation where one ethnic group dominates everything.

I’ve argued that Singapore’s initial ethos of “meritocracy” is correct. How can you argue against having the most capable person for the job? As former President Obama argued in the 2016 election – “It is NOT COOL to NOT KNOW what you’re doing – if you’re lying on an operating table, you want your surgeon to be the best.”

However, there is a draw back to this. Yes, you should let the smart people get ahead regardless of race or religion but you need to look after the “losers” of the system too for the very purpose of keeping “meritocracy” pure.

In Singapore, we focused on meritocracy, which was correct. However, human beings don’t always work on pure ideology and sooner or later, the ideals of meritocracy get diluted. In Singapore, we have the scholarship system, which was supposed to allow the less well off to climb up the social ladder and get the smart guys working to make life better. However, parents soon realized that the key to success was ensuring academic success and before you knew it, scholars started coming from the same type of background, going to the same institutions, where they ended up helping their buddies. 

Take SMRT as an example. You had one Chief of Defense Force (CDF) becoming CEO and when things didn’t go well, they hired his successor as CDF. While the new guy did make the right noises, the results have not been impressive. 

The same thing has happened in European Soccer. The Manchester United’s of the continent, win everything, get the most sponsorship and have the most money to buy the best players. The Champion’s League (Man U, Bayern Munich, Paris St Germaine etc) is just that – a league of its own. It makes players rich, keeps the TV cameras rolling but doesn’t go much to help soccer develop. 

As I have often said, life is unfair and people can accept that. Fact remains – there are winners and losers. However, as any fan of athletics will tell you – they all start at the same point. 

To get “real” meritocracy, you need a situation where the people on top are being challenged. You need a situation where the people at the bottom can choose the race, they want to enter without feeling they are screwed. 

I can accept that Chinese and Malay cultures are different. When it comes to economics, they look at things differently. Malaysia’s perpetual Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammad Mahathir observed in his book the “Malay Dilemma” that when the price of rubber doubled, the Chinese worked twice as hard (more money), while the Malays worked half as hard (same money for half the work). These are two different approaches to life. Neither should have a “legal” right of being “THE” way of life for everyone. Furthermore, a lifestyle should not be restricted to a particular ethnic group. My father once told me, “I’ll be happy if you marry a Malay girl. You won’t have much money but you’ll be happy.” 

I’m intellectually against government intervention in how people live their lives. However, it bothers me when a significant portion of the population feels screwed whenever they do something like apply for a job. It should be a telling point that what we’re getting is not meritocracy but an oligopoly. 

So, what do we do? I don’t believe in ethnic discrimination for the sake of it. In neighboring Malaysia, Bumiputra laws were supposed to even the playing field. The reality was, Chinese businessmen tied up with well connected Malay politicians and the only Malays that got rich were the well connected. The result was that a minority ended up taking up so much of the pie that the people at the bottom got fed up. As an ethnic Malay lawyer said, “The beauty of the 2018 election was that race stopped being an issue – people voted as Malaysians to get rid of a corrupt bunch.”

Social planners should take note – we, the people accept that there are rich and poor. I, for example, can accept that there are people with more than me just as I accept that there are people who have less. What I cannot accept is the other guy getting so much of the pie that I have nothing, whatever I do. So, let’s understand this – our Malay and Indian brethren are not asking for more of the pie. They are merely asking to be judged on their abilities and talents. The day any ethnic group believes that its not getting anything is the day we are in trouble.  

The Multi-Coloured Face

You have to hand powers that be for being able to distract you from the issues that matter. The latest row involved the Minister for Law deciding to take on the might of the racist minority by accusing  a YouTuber by the name of Preeti Nair of trying to stir up racial hatred in multiracial Singapore because she had the audacity to do a rap criticizing an ad by “E-Pay” because it centered around a Chinese man dressed as a variety of people in Singapore, including an Indian and Malay woman, to which he had to darken his skin tone (The fact being that ethnic Malays and Tamils tend to be a few shades darker than those of Chinese decent.)

Much is being said at the moment. One of my former juniors from my agency days is on Facebook talking about racism in Singapore. A few of my Chinese friends or at least the ones who like to think of themselves as nice people, are having a moment of angst, and are suddenly realizing the “apu-neh-heh” jokes that they used to crack with their Tamil friends might actually have been offensive.

It’s good that we’re talking about race, which is a rightfully touchy subject and I have to stress people from any ethnic majority tend to forget that people from minorities have feelings too. I don’t disagree with the fact that many “racist” comments are actually made with the kindest of intentions. I remember one of my favourite Englishmen telling me that his dad used the term “Chinky” all his life (it was the term for the Chinese take away) and although the term is often used to be offensive, I believe my friend. People do use terms that are overtly racist, without meaning for there be ill will.

Having lived as an ethnic minority for a good part of my life, I also believe that you’ll end up killing yourself, if you took offense at everything that was said. By all means, call me a “Chink” but don’t expect me not to think of you as “Gwei Lo” (I prefer this Cantonese term meaning “Ghost Person” to the one used in Singapore or “Ang Moh” – which means Red Hair – Gwei Lo, is well…….). It is possible to be insulting and well meaning at the same time.

So, I look at this whole incident as nothing really serious. Yes, the ad was done in bad taste. Yes, “Brownface” was not meant to be “complimentary” but nobody called for violence to be done on any particular ethnic or religious group. So, why on earth is there such an almighty row here and why is the minister taking on two rappers?

I believe that the Ms. Nair and her brother are wonderful distraction from the real discussion about race. A few days before this  incident, a report by the Singapore Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) foundthat half of all Malays and Indians feel discriminated against when applyingfor a job.

Let that sink in. In “meritocratic” Singapore, a country where it’s citizens pledge to be blind to things like one’s pigmentation, a third of the population feels they are screwed for merely being the wrong colour, when it comes to basic things like applying for a job.

Unlike Malaysia, which is open about favouring one ethnic group over others, Singapore makes a song and dance at every opportunity of being “regardless of race.” We bleat to the “foreign  investor” community that they can happily set up business in Singapore without having to favour any particular ethnic group and every year (National Day being the day we do this most) we talk about how every citizen is equal and we judge people by their capabilities rather than their skin tone.

This isn’t just a statistic from a “government” organization. I’m quite open about why I never took up a job in an organization that everybody (including the owner’s family) assumes I run – whenever I’m offered the job, its always significantly less than someone of a fairer complexion and that’s after I’ve over achieved in doing what should be done (bringing in them money).

But who cares about me? I don’t take the job on a full-time basis and everyone seems happy enough. I think of the number of times that I’ve been told “can don’t recommend Malay ah….” or the legal copout being “Must be a Mandarin Speaker,” for jobs that don’t deal with business from PRC China.

I think of the number of times I’m told that a “slave” wage for Indians and Filipinos is “good money” where they come from – hence, they’re damn lucky we let them shovel our shit.

The most prominent example of “work place” racial discrimination comes from the one organization that was built to be a “people’s force,” and force of national unity – the Singapore Armed Forces. It’s no secret that being a “Muslim” is a sure way of ensuring you don’t get promoted (a few years back, Indonesia’s President, JB Habiebie made some remarks about how Singapore lacked “brown” colonels and the very next day our national paper published the picture of every “brown” colonel and above.”) The argument was the fact that we didn’t want our Malay population to feel a conflict of loyalties should we ever go to war against Malaysia and Indonesia. However, with the nature of conflicts changing (going against trans-national extremist) as opposed to nation states, isn’t this form of discrimination actually harmful?

The most interesting part about the “real” debate on racism in Singapore is that you have ethnic minorities promoting it. Back when I lived in Dad’s condo – I remember the one Indian security guard telling me that the management of the building was quite right not to hire Indian people. You got to admit that this is a sign of genius when you get the downtrodden to justify things.  

We need to be a real meritocracy and we need to stop pretending that a “cast” system does not exist. Sure, Singapore looks pretty damn good compared to most places – or at least to the people with money – but this cannot go on. Name calling and tasteless ads are the least of our issues. Who really cares if someone paints their fac brown or calls someone a brown face? Let’s not get distracted that one third of our population feels discriminated against in the things that matter. Let’s ask ourselves some hard questions like – are we stopping ourselves from actually using our “human” resources because our prejudices get in the way. Time to look beyond the noise and get to the real issues.