It’s the End of Many Things

It’s the last day of the year and of the decade. Just before the clock strikes mid-night, many us will try to take stock, review the decade and ponder the possibilities for the next decade. I’m no different and this process becomes a bit more intense for me as at the age of 45, I’m at sort of cross roads of not being young and sprightly but not old enough to collect a pension.

I guess you could say that this was an interesting decade. I enjoyed two of my working life’s highlights with the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and Management (IIM) events in 2012 and 2013 respectively and then I moved into a regular job in the Insolvency Business where I ended up becoming a man holding down two jobs after spending a decade not being employable.

It was also a special decade in that I adopted a small girl. Thuy, or Jenny first came into my life when she was seven and returned when she was 13. While she didn’t cover herself in academic glory, it’s been my privilege to watch her grow into a very focused young lady. She’s started working with me in the Bistrot and then moved onto work at Ce La Vie in the Marina Bay Sands. My focus in life is pretty much trying to see if I can build something for her or at least to see that she can build something for herself.

This year followed on from the last when it came to travel. I went off to Bhutan with Mum and her side of the family. Bhutan is amazing – it is what you call life as it should be – peaceful and close to nature. The country got me to understand that I need to get back to a more spiritual way of life. While the country itself is amazingly beautiful, I found the philosophy of Gross National Happiness (“GNH”) to be an almost spiritual one. Bhutan has understood that development and prosperity involve more than money. Bhutan, for example, puts nature as one of the key components of happiness. I got to appreciate this when I returned to Singapore that was going through a bad dose of the haze.

The other trip was to Macau was the girl. It was first time in a long while where I was in a Cantonese speaking environment. It was also the first time in a long time that I got to eat the most amazing food – my kid who doesn’t go for hawker centre food in Singapore, gobbled up every morsel of beef brisket. Our first experiment in Daddy-Daughter travels was fun and I think it’s worth continuing.

This year was also significant in that I left the insolvency basis on a full-time mode. Although the job paid me fairly and I did get a few bonuses along the way, I realized that I had no passion for being behind a desk and losing the ability to see people beyond the letters of some legal script was not something I wanted in life.

I’m still doing things for my previous employer but working more on contract basis and while I collect less actual cash, I have more peace of mind, with more time to myself. I also got the managerial title that my CV so desperately needed.

I can speak with enough pride at my first stab of part-time employment. I recently took on my latest PR project, helping Tata Sons get publicity for the Tata Crucible, a quiz program designed to sharpen young minds. I enjoyed getting back to press work and getting to know the Tata Group – my last encounter with them being to shake hands with Mr. Russi Modi, the former Chairman of Tata Steel when I was 14.

As well as rekindling old friendships in the Expat Indian Community, I am building relationships with the Emeriti community in Singapore. I had the honor of being invited to the Embassy’s National Day function on 2 December 2019. Incidentally, this was the second National Day Function I attended – my first was the Vietnamese National Day Function on 2 September 2019. Huong, my better and ruthless half got the invite from a friend and saw to it that my family, namely my dad’s older and younger sister went along for a good selection of Vietnamese food (as an aside, the Kid cautioned me not to mention to the Emiratis that I had Vietnamese family, because Vietnam recently beat the UAE in a soccer match).

The final note for this decade is perhaps this very blog itself. I started out blogging without a plan. It was just a hobby and an act of wonton ranting. Today, I’ve managed to gain enough followers for other people to be willing to be published on it and while this is not a commercial operation, my advertising revenue is now counted in dollars rather than cents. Blogging may never feed me but at least I’ve managed to bring this blog to a better place. Of the few things I’m certain about in my next decade, it’s the hope that this blog grows into something that more of you can enjoy.

Its been a fairly stable decade for me. However, in order to fully enjoy the next forty odd years, I need to take a few leaps and do more away from my comfort zones. However, with good friends and the warmth of family, I believe that the future could be very beautiful.

What’s Wrong with Technology?

I’m not a “techy” type of guy and it took a while for me to onto certain social media sites. My 20-year old often despairs about my lack of willingness to spend time on the phone. To a certain extent, I do believe that we can get too dependent on technology and one of the highlights of this year was getting myself to a place where I literally shut down my social media contact and enjoyed peace and nature. If you think about it carefully, humanity has survived and thrived without all sorts of gadgets, so there’s no reason to assume to that certain things are essential to our daily lives.

Having said that, I find it very unusual when people take pride in not using technology when the technology clearly benefits them. This is particularly true when it comes to finding your bearings in a different place and let us not forget that I am the man who came bottom of his Company during my Section Leaders Course in basic navigation.

For someone like me, apps like Google Maps are a God-send. The app finds you and tells you where to go. Only a deaf and blind person (as far as I know, apps don’t work in braille) would not be able to find their way with the app. Yet and yet, there are people who insist on not using the available tools to get them out of their predicament.

My most recent foray overseas was to Macau with the kid. Our tour guide didn’t know where to go and insisted on asking for directions in a language that a good portion of the population chose not to speak (English). It reached a stage where I told the kid to use her GPS as her overseas roaming plan offered her cheap data options despite being overseas. Needless to say, we had to sack the tour guide.

Technology does make life easier. While I do believe that it is necessary to be able to live without it, we shouldn’t ignore it especially when it’s in the palm of our hands and enables us to cut through the chase. In a time-starved world, shouldn’t we value the things that save us time?

I once went out with someone who got lost. We were going around in circles until I turned on Google Maps and proceeded to follow instructions. Didn’t please my travel companion but we got to the intended destination.

We have the tools to make life simpler. We should use them.  

The Place Where the Crusades did Not Happen.

Earlier this month, I bashed out a piece on the “Year of Tolerance” that was being promoted by the Federal Government of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). The piece, which can be found at http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2019/12/in-praise-of-tolerance.html, argued that the UAE, had realized that in order to prosper in the post-hydrocarbon age, it would have to be open to the world and that would require tolerance. Hence, this collection of absolute monarchies took the brave step of promoting tolerance in a region not known for tolerance and just when tolerance was going out of fashion in the Western Democracies.

There were the big showcase events to show that the UAE had gotten “tolerance.” The year started with the UAE becoming the first nation in the Arabian Gulf to host a Papal visit. The main players of the UAE political scene took their chances to ensure that they were photographed with the Pontiff.

While the high and mighty of the UAE had their photo opportunities with the Pope, the question does remain – is there more to the UAE’s promotion of tolerance beyond the photo opportunities. The UAE is located in a part of the world which is not known for tolerance. Neighboring Saudi Arabia (which is one of the UAE’s closer allies in the region) for example, only just allowed women to get behind the wheel of a car and allowing cinemas became a sign of major progress. Across the Gulf, you have Iran, the world’s most famous theocracy, where a priesthood dominates society. How different can the UAE be?  

The answer is – very much so. Dubai is famous of the emirates is famous for being very open about many things. While the other Emirates are more conservative, they are also opening up. What was most interesting for me was to click onto the website for Gulf News (Duabi’s National Daily), which had a section dedicated to the photos of Christians celebrating Christmas at Churches in Dubai and Sharjah. Dubai is known for openness – Sharjah is not. The fact that the article mentioned that there are “Christian Communities throughout the UAE,” indicates that the UAE is more open to “other” religions that their geographical location might suggests. The Christmas pictures from Gulf News can be found at:

https://gulfnews.com/photos/news/in-photos-christmas-eve-mass-in-dubai-and-sharjah-1.1577206392077?slide=1

While the systems both Saudi Arabia and Iran might suggest that Islam is somehow the antithesis to having a tolerant society, the truth is less so. Mohammed, Islam’s prophet did not see himself as being the ONLY prophet of God. In fact, Islam recognizes the prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus is regarded as one of the main prophets. Mohammed did accord Jews and Christians privileges and protections in lands that he ran.

When the Crusaders marched towards what we call the Middle East, they found that it was the Islamic world that had tolerance for others and it had innovation and economic prosperity. Its only in modern times that the roles have reversed.

Nobody doubts that there will stumbles along the way but if history is any guide, the UAE’s efforts to promote tolerance and openness are correct. Islamic Societies lead the world in modernity back in the 14^th Century when they were beacons of tolerance. It’s worth celebrating the fact that the Arab World is looking back to its history and trying to learn the right lessons and if the Arabs can look back and understand that they were most prosperous when they had tolerance, the Western Democracies would do well to understand that they prospered because they have tolerance.

Stille Nacht

Christmas has come early – especially to people with more than one brain cell and a molecule in their hearts. Donald Trump, America’s favourite news-hog became the third president in history to be impeached.

While the odds of him being removed in office are unlikely (no Republican has indicated they’ll abandon ship) and his election victory looks likely, it’s good to see America’s system of checks and balances finally doing what they’re supposed to be doing – keeping a check on each other.

I’ll never get tired of saying it but my loathing for Donald Trump has nothing to do with being left wing or right wing, nor does his personal life really trouble me (a man who is on his second marriage should not cast judgment on a man on his third). I loath the fact that Donald Trump came into power by invoking the worst in people and has governed accordingly. I grew up believing that there were limits to certain things and the Nazi’s and the Ku Klux Klan were as bad as it got. I grew up in a world where the Americans saved the world from the Nazis. So, to have an American President fail so miserably to even condemn either the Nazis or the KKK goes against everything that I was brought up to believe.

While the man has been wonderful fodder for late night comedians (if comedy was the sole criterion in judging a presidency, I’d do everything possible to see that he gets elected in perpetuity), he’s tried to run an otherwise decent superpower like a thug. If Bill Clinton could get impeached (four charges) for “misleading” people about a blow job from a young girl – surely Donald Trump should be impeached for trying to strong arm a leader of a vulnerable US ally into investigating a political rival (two charges). The fact that he’s not denied it (remember, after the Ukraine, he asked the Chinese to investigate Bidden) should make this an open and shut case to any sensible human being. After all, the US constitution is pretty clear – the President should be removed for “Treason, high crimes and Misdemeanors.” If you can argue that “Misleading” people under oath about a blow job is breaking the law but can’t see that asking a foreign power to investigate your fellow countrymen (even if you don’t particularly like them) is treason, I’d suggest that rationality has escaped you.

The sweetness of his impeachment was further strengthened by the fact that “The Christian Post,” an evangelical publication actually called for his removal from office. The evangelical community, which has been a strong supporter of Trump for his appointment of “conservative” jurist and “anti-abortion” legislation looked like it was suddenly discovering what was like to be Christian. One of the articles from the Christian Post can be seen at:

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/convict-trump-the-constitution-is-more-important-than-abortion.html

Another article from the “The Gospel Herald” can be found at:

https://www.gospelherald.com/articles/62611/20160301/the-christian-post-editorial-donald-trump-is-scam-evangelical-voters-should-back-away.htm?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlJCAxv7K5gIVmQVyCh2-zg_KEAAYASAAEgLaUfD_BwE

Reading these articles in these publications gives me hope that Christ, whom I argued was “God from the Gutter”, and stood by the poor andoppressed were finally discovering Christ and what he stood for.

Donald Trump, who is as elite as it gets and who has governed to enrichen the elite (tax cuts) and crushed the poor and downtrodden (who gives a shit about Brown kids at the border) has successfully conned the Evangelical Community (or the Evangelical Community has not actually been Christian) into believing he promotes Christian values. It was refreshing to see some Evangelicals starting to recognize that their so-called champion was as unchristian as it gets.

I have written on many occasions of the “Silent Night” incident during the First World War, when British and German soldiers stopped shooting each other across the trenches, crossed the lines and celebrated Christmas, before resuming the killing the next day.

If Christmas had the power to unite people in the most horrible of circumstances all those years ago, surely its time for us to ignore our differences and focus on our unity. Let us cast out the demagogues and at least pretend we care about goodwill to all mankind for a better world

God from the Gutter

In a few days, we will be celebrating, Christmas, the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth, who is the historic founder of Christianity. Of all the festivals in the world, Christmas has long since outgrown its religious origins and is perhaps the most universal of all festivals, celebrated throughout the world. One of my greatest Facebook postings is that of Buddhist monks wearing Santa hats in celebration of the festival.
I don’t really celebrate Christmas, unless I’m in Germany with my mother. However, that does not mean that I don’t appreciate its significance – which is the fact that we’re celebrating the birth of God from the Gutter.

Jesus was perhaps the first “God” in human history, who came from the gutter. Although we’ve attributed glory to him for the last two thousand years, his entire life story, was about suffering and misery. We are, as they say, talking about a man who was born with the animals in the stable.

Anyone who has ever read the Gospels, will see very see very clearly that Jesus stood with the poor and the downtrodden. He’s interest was never in one’s material possessions he made it clear that the only way to follow him was pick up the cross (crucifixion being an exceedingly painful way of death). Unlike Buddha, who was a prince and Mohammad who was a businessman, there is no record of Jesus enjoying any luxury nor did he engage in anything that might give him any form of profit. God, as Jesus taught us, lived in the gutter with the downtrodden.

It’s worth remembering that Jesus was God from the gutter, especially in this day and age where the poor and downtrodden have shown themselves willing to throw “political Molotov cocktails” at the system. Donald Trump, who brags about how rich he is, was brought to power by a group that felt disenfranchised and downtrodden.

The downtrodden have always been with us. In many cases, there are people amongst the poor and needy who actually deserve to be where they are. I think of my so called “poor” friends who have begged me for a few dollars to take the bus to work because they’ve spent what they had on smokes and drink. There are people who would bitch and moan about how unfair life is and get drunk over it but they are not willing to take a simply job because it’s beneath them.

Yet, having said that, Jesus did have a point. Those of us who have “made it,” were blessed in more ways that we realise. I, for example, am not rich or even well to do by any means, but I’ve been really blessed. I’ve never gone hungry or have I been truly homeless. While I’ve never had a big salary, I’ve had the good fortune of having done interesting things. I live in a place where there’s basic law and order and safety. These things may seem small but they actually make a lot of difference to one’s life and you are, as they say, lucky you were born where you were born.

These blessings had to come from somewhere and I’ve found that you get back when you look after the downtrodden. I remember giving five bucks to an old man who was hungry and helpless. Turned out, it was a very good investment. That very evening, I got a night gig and previous clients started to entertain me again. If there is a God out there, he finds a way of paying back those who show mercy and compassion to the less fortunate

Jesus was a God from the Gutter. He taught us that divine glory was often found in the worst of places. This man, who wasn’t even able to be born with humans, ended up giving glory to millions. He was right – God is with those from the Gutter.

Good friends

By Miss Vee

Everyone, the center, always has lots of relationships around. There are people, fleeting relationships, but there are also people or relationships attached to us that follow us throughout our lives. Friendship is such a relationship.

In my life, everyone has at least a few friends. Friendship does not come from one person, it is sharing, understanding, understanding about each other. A beautiful friendship must stem from sincerity, innocence, carefree and trust. These may seem simple, but they are the deciding condition to start a beautiful friendship.

People are always afraid of loneliness, always want reliable people to be able to share and talk but also have to be alert and alert to those who want to touch their emotions. Well, it's bad if a friend sees you, listens to what they have to share, and then turns your joke into a joke. Friendship cannot be maintained without being pure, purposeful, or advantageous to one another. We can't call someone friend, we have to be alert to them.

Having two different people becoming friends with each other requires a lot of understanding. Because each person will have a different personality, although there may be similarities, the difference will still be huge. Understanding each other is not easy, it takes time to cultivate, there are difficulties to challenge and mature. Need to share, sympathize and help each other between two friends to make them understand each other better.

It is peaceful to have difficulties and there is always someone willing to help or when there is a silent person to listen and listen. It's also fun having the confidence to share simple things with us. And it's warm when someone always remembers our little habits so that when we go, they will care and be reminded again. If you find such a friend, you will feel happy and contented because you will not have to worry or face loneliness or fear before a boring life.

Friendship is a sacred and noble gift that we need to cherish. It has friendship to make our lives really meaningful. friendships, a spiritual pill that helps us stay strong in life or when we are having difficulties, please respect what you have and have.

The Words We Use

PN Balji, my former boss at BANG PR and the founding editor of Singapore’s Today Newspaper, used to advise me to “look at the choice of words.” His advice was based on the simple premise that you could tell a lot about a person’s intention and mentality by the words they used in their communication. He argued that any semi-educated person with a normal vocabulary would be able to express themselves in a reasonable manner unless they chose not to.

This topic always came up when it came to dealing with a client of ours that used to be owned by a monopoly. Their quarterly media and analyst briefings were inevitably about “educating” the media and the analyst community. Balji would consistently tell us – “Educate” means “Me, teacher – you student.” My mother, would add the cynical line of “Me, right – you, wrong.

”

I have unfortunately come across more examples of the “choice of words.” Most recently, I tried and failed to explain to a colleague that the use of “Your Country,” was not the best way to talk to her junior, who happened to come from the Sub-continent. Perhaps it’s a sign that I’ve been out for the PR game for a while, but it was virtually impossible for me to get the message across that “Your Country,” was in fact offensive.

English isn’t the only language where people make unfortunate choices in the words they used. About a decade ago, the North African community in Paris blew up and rioted. When asked why, they’re reply was they were tiered of being addressed as “tu” or the informal French for you, a form which you use when addressing your junior.

The best part about observing the “choice of words,” is the fact that many people don’t realise the implications of the words they use. I remember my colleague who used the phrase “Your Country.” Her argument was simple – there is the country you are from and the country I am from. I suppose this is a reasonable argument made by someone who is from the ethnic majority.

However, it’s a different story when your part of the ethnic minority. I remember helping out an old lady when I was living in Petersfield. When she thanked me, she said, “I had lovely holidays in your country.” She meant well and I didn’t notice it but a friend of mine, who is half Nepalese said, “Gosh – that’s racist – how does she know what “Your Country is?”

I didn’t take offense. I may have lived in England for many years but I’m not an Englishman and I can accept that people assume that I am from another country. However, to my friend who is born and bread in England but looks different (he’s part Nepalese), being told about “your country” is offensive. His country is England and why should anyone else think so.

The words we use reveal a lot about us and the way we view our context. When you talk about “educating” people, you automatically assume yourself to be in the position of the teacher. When you talk about “Your Country,” you put yourself in an us versus them. One should always be mindful of the words that one chooses.

In Praise of Tolerance

About a month ago, I had the honour of meeting the ambassador to the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) at function held at a law firm. The ambassador was on a mission to “sell” the UAE as an investment destination and as part of his presentation, he reminded the audience that this is the “Year of Tolerance” for the UAE.

I highlight this because “tolerance,” particularly when it comes those who are different from us, has been going out of fashion around the world. This is particularly true in parts of the world that used to pride themselves for having an abundance of tolerance. The Americans voted for Trump, the British voted for Brexit and here in Singapore, we’ve seen a growing intolerance against people from elsewhere, specifically proverbial darky professionals from other parts of Asia.

So, in this spirit, it’s very refreshing to have a country, based in a part of the world that is not known for having tolerance to be celebrating tolerance. The “Year of Tolerance” started off in February 2019 when the UAE became the first country in the Arabian Gulf to hosts a Papal Visit. Interestingly enough, in the preceding year, the UAE celebrated the “Year of Zayed,” which was the centenary of the founding President, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan, who was known among his people as an exceedingly generous spirit.

While one might inevitably question whether the “Year of Tolerance” is anything more than a PR exercise, I find it refurnishing that a country based in a region that is not known for its tolerance, is actually going out of its way to celebrate tolerance, particularly in an era where the countries famous for tolerance are rebelling against being tolerant.

Why is the UAE going against the trend against tolerance? If you take the position that all governments act in their self-interest, you could argue that the UAE’s government has understood that its self-interest lies in being tolerant and open to the world. The key players in the UAE’s political structure, namely the Sheikh’s of Abu Dhabi and Duabi (the two key Emirates) have understood that they need to prepare their nations for the post-hydrocarbon world and the only way to do so is to be open to the world and in turn, the world will only deal with tolerant societies.

The UAE has some advantages in this respect. Within the Federal Structure of the UAE, there is Dubai, the second largest and second most prosperous of the Emirates. In a region where the economy is dominated by hydrocarbons, Dubai has prospered without much by way of hydrocarbon resources. Dubai is in trade terms “wide-open for business,” and is able to be an example of what happens when you are open to the outside world and have tolerance.

The second advantage that the UAE’s Federal Structure provides, is a certain amount of experimentation for policies and Emirati citizens have the right to live in the places that suite their nature. If you want plenty of hustle and bustle, there is Dubai. If you prefer somewhere less “brash,” there is Abu Dhabi. If you want to live in a place with mountains, there is Ras Al Khaimah. There is a variety of cultures within the borders of the UAE and people have the choice of living in a place that allows them that suites their nature.

How does this help “tolerance?” If you work on the principle that our values are personal and what we will or will not tolerate is different. If you want tolerance and you want people to have tolerance, you cannot force it upon people. You have to allow people some sort of comfort. In this respect, larger countries have a certain advantage in that they have space to accommodate different preference. People can develop at the pace that’s comfortable for them.

The UAE’s economy remains dominated by the hydrocarbon sector. However, it has also become the most successful economy in the region to diversify its economy without traumatizing its more conservative citizens. While the international media primarily focuses of Abu Dhabi and Dubai, the other Emirates have also managed to grow in this environment. In short, the rulers of the UAE have understood that tolerance is beneficial for society.

The UAE is right to celebrate tolerance and to grow it. While the UAE is by no means a perfect society, it has hit the nail on the head in its celebration of “The Year of Tolerance.” This is something that America under Trump would do well to remember. The parts of America that leads the world, namely on the West and East coast, have been able to be world leaders because they have tolerance and are open to the world.

A Singapore Terrorist or a Singapore Patriot?

One of my favourite internet friends, Mr. Gilbert Goh was called into questioning by the police recently. The reason was simple, Mr. Goh made the unfortunate mistake of allowing a “foreigner” (defined as not a citizen or permanent resident) to speak at a protest against “CECA,” a treaty which many Singaporeans feel puts them at a disadvantage when competing for jobs with professionals from India. Details of the story can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/police-gilbert-goh-ceca-rally-hong-lim-ramesh-foreigner-12161404

I first met Gilbert back in 2012 at the launch of Publichouse.sg, a website that I worked for. While we’ve not met in person since then, we’ve followed each other’s posts. What I find particularly interesting is the fact that Gilbert had a fairly high-flying career in sales and when his career took a nosedive, he then switched and started helping those who had “lost” jobs and careers.

I don’t agree with all of all of his positions. I avoid viewing foreigners as a problem or blaming “too many” foreigners as a cause of social ills. I spent the better part of my life as a “foreigner” in someone else’s land and many of the opportunities I’ve had have inevitably come from someone from somewhere else. So, I don’t support things like the “Anti-CECA” movement that Gilbert champions. 

The problem for me is not the number of Indians or other people coming here – it’s the fact that our system has not trained people to find opportunities even in the bleakest of situations.

Having said what I’ve just said, I think Gilbert Goh is a good man, who is devoting his life to making life a little bit better for the less fortunate. He doesn’t limit his activities to Singapore. The man actually travels to Syrian refugee camps and does his part to make life better for the displaced. While I talk about things through my writing, Gilbert is actually on the ground trying to make things better.

Needless to say, this annoys the powers that be. My favourite Young Pork Guzzling Muslim Politician once said, “What is he trying to prove? The government is there to take care of the people and he’s just being a nuisance.” If you want to spoil the day of anyone overtly pro-establishment in Singapore, just mention Gilbert’s name and talk about the good things that he’s doing.

Personally, I don’t understand why this man frightens the powers that be. He is essentially a “social-entrepreneur,” whom instead of creating a profitable business, he’s creating alternative venues for social help. Take his most recent cause of raising funds for students whose parents could not pay school fees and thus their kids were not issued the original copy of their exam certificates. Sure, it didn’t make the Ministry of Education look good (a case of whatever they say, they’ll look heartless) but he did help put money into the system and helped the less fortunate get to the next stage of life.

Gilbert Goh is, as they say, a good man trying his best to make the world around him a better place. Some of his tactics may not be refined but his heart is in the right place and he is trying to help make life a little miserable for the downtrodden. Rather than trying to suppress him, the powers that be might well do to find ways of working with him and people like him.

It’s Not My Fault You’re Funny

You have to hand it to Donald Trump for having the innate ability to be funny. He is without doubt the best President ever for anyone in the media, particularly those in the business of satire. Comedians have been given enough material to last a lifetime. He is like one of those magic pens that writes the script as he goes along. One event from the Trump White House produces fresh material for every comedian in America and beyond.

You have to remember; this is the man who won an election on the premise that he was going to stop the world from laughing at the USA. He told the ordinary American that he was going to ‘drain the swamp’ and that he would stop the world from trying to take advantage of America. The world that was laughing at America would stop laughing once he came to power.

The American voters loved it. Unfortunately, they forgot that there are certain things in life which should not be said out loud, unless you need to cover for something. I think of men who talk about their size as an example. Do you really need to tell anyone how well you’re built down there? Or, I think of restaurants that call themselves “delicious.” Why do you have to use such descriptions – unless ………

Somehow, the American voter in 2016 failed to understand that concept of not having to say something unless you were compensating. Here was a man who had to call himself a “stable genius” (with no record to show he was) and “very rich” (while at the same time refusing to release his tax returns). So, what made the voters think that he would stop the world laughing when he announced that he would?

Trump is funny and he doesn’t realise it, which is a shame. The most prominent instance could be found at the latest NATO Summit in the United Kingdom when a group of world leaders (The British and Canadian Prime Ministers, the French President and what appears to be the Princes Royal) were huddled in a group making fun of the Donald. The Canadian Prime Minister was particularly audible in his comments of Donald Trump holding a “40-minute” press conference. The clip can be seen at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hne29xkUPbg

As predicted, a being with the fabulous ability to come up with nicknames for other people (think of “Crooked Hillary” and “Shifty Shiff” as prominent examples) couldn’t handle it when he was on the receiving end, and fled back to Washington DC, but not before taking the time out to call Canada’s Prime Minister, “Two-Faced,:” at a press meeting.

One would expect the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, or “the most powerful man in the world,” to be above most things. It’s like this – who cares what people say about you when entire countries come knocking at your door.

Unfortunately, Americans don’t quite understand that they are the strongest nation on the planet. While other countries, particularly China, India and Russia have grown in power and stature, America remains by far and away the leading economic and military power (US military spending is greater than the next 26 nations, of which 25 are allies).

So, how did America get so blind to this and voted for a man who talks so much about projecting strength that they couldn’t see the obvious weakness in the man. When the world’s most powerful military runs out of Syria, which has people armed with pea-shooters to send their troops to the Mexican border to fight an invasion of poor and unarmed people, you know something is wrong.

America is a great nation, and in many ways, the greatest in history. It’s achieved this strength by basing its national foundation on individual liberty and happiness. America succeeds because it allows people from all over the world to come into America to succeed. A strong Germany and Japan did not subtract from America but added to it and the same will be true of a strong China and India.

It’s such a shame that America chose to be elected by a man so weak that he’s doing everything to trash the things that make America so great. This is actually quite sad but at least the comedians have helped us laugh out what should be an obvious tragedy.  

Why do we need to Protect the Powerful?

I’ve just read a letter in the Straits Times forum that argued against the concept of tagging fines against a person’s salary. The main thrust of the writer’s argument was the fact that the rule of law should be the same regardless of the offender’s social economic background.

The article can be read at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/no-double-standards-mentality-have-same-penalty-for-same-offence

While I can sympathize with the writer in as much as I do believe that the “rule of law,” should be applied no matter the offender’s background, I do find it rather perplexing that calls to ensure the “rule of law” is fairly distributed inevitably comes whenever it involves giving the well to do less or making the well to do pay more. This particular letter wasn’t the only instance of this. I remember when there was a discussion on “means testing” government benefits. There was an almighty hue and cry over how means testing was unfair to the middle class.

As far as I know, Singapore must be the only country where people are worried about how unfair life is against the well to do. In just about every other country I’ve lived in (mainly well to do European ones), the idea of social welfare or government goodies is understood to be something that the less well-off receive because they are – well, the less-well off (polite term for poor).

Perhaps its just me but I’m with Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world. Mr. Buffet observed that although he paid a greater amount in taxes than his secretary, what she paid in taxes took more out of her salary that what his taxes were out of his. Mr. Buffet went onto argue that the rich and powerful like himself were the last people who needed protection from the government. I think this is something that our well to do need to understand.

I’m not against rich people or against people getting rich. Life is intrinsically unfair and there is in many cases a good reason why some people thrive and some people remain stuck. My “rich” friends are actually pretty hard working and relatively clever with money. My “basket case” friends are the type that seem more interested in self-indulgence than in feeding themselves. They’re the type that would rather spend their last dollar on a pack of smokes than on the bus fare they need to get to the job that could finance their own smokes.

So, I’m not for governments that like talk about “soaking” the rich as if the rich were a disease. Rich people, as the British discovered in the 70s, have a way of being able to move around and when you go after the rich or the people who want to get rich, they end moving elsewhere and the value and energy they bring to the table goes with them. For all of Mrs. Thatcher’s faults, she actually rescued the UK from the failed policies of the Labour Government’s of the 70s who made it their mission to tax the rich out of existence, thus causing anyone with more than a penny or anyone who thought he or she was worth more than a penny to pack their bags and leave.

Nor am I suggesting that society make it obligatory for people to support the less well off. The doll or the concept of “free money” robs people of the will to make something of their lives. I remember mentioning that I found it difficult to “look after myself,” and I was told by one of my best friends, “Why do you need to look after yourself when there are other people dying to take care of you.” Governments exist to provide certain services and to set and enforce certain rules. They should not be about doing for people what the people should do for themselves.

Having said all of that, there are times when a society needs to redistribute the goodies to keep the system healthy. There are people who need a helping hand and leg up to get out of a hole, which may not necessarily be of their own fault. There are also times when sanctions need to be meaningful.

Shouldn’t social well fare payments go to those who really need them rather than to people who don’t need them? Prudent financial stewardship has done Singapore well and having money in the bank allows governments to help those who need help without punishing the rest of us. There is no reason why the government should end up giving money to those who are capable of earning their own crust.

Then there’s the concept of fines. We fine people in society because they have committed certain transgressions. The fine should be a means of teaching the offender not to commit the offence again.

Setting a fine at a certain level in an absolute amount affects people in different ways. Take the example of traffic offences. The objective of say fining people for not obeying traffic lights is to teach them to obey traffic lights. It may sound fair if you charge a construction worker earning the princely sum of say $1,000 a month the same $100 that you would charge a Ferrari driver (Ferrari in Singapore is about S$500,000 and that excludes the costs of maintaining the car). Yes, you’ve charged both the same amount of money but you’ve only ensured that the construction worker learns from it (10 percent of his income). The Ferrari owner won’t feel it (I remember dealing with an Indonesian Chines guy who kept going on about why he’d pay the liquidation fees of a failed venture – “Oh, its just a speeding ticket to me – a small sum that while inconvenient is something that has to be done). The purpose of the fine in this case is no longer about teaching people to make them better but to inconvenience them once in a while to extract a few dollars more.

In a strange way, you need some form of redistribution to ensure healthy competition in society. It makes common sense to ensure that in order to have equality under the rule of law, you may have to look beyond the letter and towards the spirit of the laws and apply unequal solutions to achieve equality of outcome.

Time To Do Away With Time Costs

Boon Gan Ng

Senior Legal Associate at VanillaLaw LLC

I want to qualify this article by stating that I have never rendered a time cost bill in my entire life. My firm works for a fixed fee in exchange for a well defined scope of work, and I have never seen a client ask to switch to time-cost billing. Even though time cost billing is still a prevalent practice in the legal industry, none of my peers seriously defend it, and we have to acknowledge the problems that it creates for everyone involved.

The customer

1. You have no idea how much you're going to spend in the end until you get your bill. This makes planning and budgeting for legal costs difficult, especially if you run a business with a recurring need for legal services.

2. Some law firms offer to reduce your costs by getting junior lawyers or non-lawyers to do part of the work. But you have no way of verifying who actually did the work, even if they presented their timesheets to you.

3. Do you choose someone who has a higher billing rate who might be able to get the job done faster, or a younger lawyer with a lower rate who hopefully will produce a smaller bill at the end? (But what does this have to do with the quality of service you receive?)

The firm

1. Customers will bargain with you and ask for discounts after you present the bill. You come under constant financial pressure even though you thought you gave the customer advance notice of your rates.

2. If you and the customer can't reach a consensus on the appropriate amount to pay, you have to apply for taxation. You have to spend more resources to get what is owed to you, and even then there's no guarantee that you'll get everything you want.

3. Everyone has a slightly different idea of what a reasonable rate is. Even if you inform the customer of your hourly rate beforehand, you still can be accused of over-charging. Unless you are the sort who thinks any publicity is good publicity, your reputation will take a hit.

The associate

1. You are only as good as the hours which you an record as billable hours. Anything else which is not billable might be considered wasted, depending on how your firm weighs other activities such as business development.

2. To add insult to injury, you have to spend time recording the time you spent which is even less billable time spent. Granted, this activity can be alleviated by practice management software, but you rather spend time on more productive pursuits.

3. You feel pressured on both sides - the firm which has an interest in maximising profits, and the client who has an interest in a lower bill or financial certainty.

Time cost billing should go the way of the dinosaur, given how it has no relation to the value which law firms create for customers. Is our value the time we spend with or for customers? Some people take the view that only what can be measured can be valued, but if you have an instinctive or reflexive dislike for financial uncertainty, then deep down you already know that time cost billing is not for you. Lawyers need to take a hard look at ourselves and ask if time cost billing serves everyone's interests.

When Vision Lies with the Old

My aunt once made the point that Singapore is an unusual place. She observed that in other parts of the world, the youth are generally very idealistic and become less so once the reality of making living sets in. By contrast, the youth in Singapore are very materialistic and become less as they get older and realise that there’s more to life than chasing the almighty dollar.

This fact was personalized by recent events from a close family association. I’m talking about Professor Tommy Koh, our former Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who has been positioning himself as a champion of various social issues. It started out when he called Section 377A a “bad” law and urged the “LGBT” Community to keep trying to get the law removed. Professor Koh has recently gone as far as to publish letters in our national newspaper to suggests that we need a “rule book” on how to treat our domestic workers.

By contrast, Professor Koh’s son, Aun Koh, who describes himself as a “journalism-trained entrepreneur,” seems to have gone the other way. Mr. Koh decided that it was time to tell us that while Singapore could do better in some of its social instincts, he can “no longer blindly defend free speech.” Mr. Koh argued that Singapore’s educated population that had gained prosperity and peace in a multicultural society had done it, partially because the government had the good sense to control things. Mr. Koh’s comments can be read at:

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/why-my-attitude-towards-free-speech-has-changed 

This is just one example of a father-son duo where the son appears to be more “pro-status-quo” than the son. The Singapore system has one amazing success – it has turned children of dissidents into its greatest champions. Janadas Devan, the government’s spokesperson was the son of a former President (Devan Nair) and then there’s our Senior Minister of State for Ministry of Communications and Information, Dr. Janil Puthucheary, who is the son of a dissident (Dominic Puthucheary).

What accounts for this difference? You could argue that you got to look at the stages of life. Professor Koh, for example, is a highly established figure. He’s reached the stage where he’s got nothing left to prove and there’s nothing else for him to gain. He can afford to speak his mind and you could say his priorities are now focused on trying to right the kinks in the system.

By contrast, Mr. Koh is at that stage where there are things for him to aspire to – hence, he focuses on the “nice” bits that the system offers and defends it. You could call it the stage of knowing what’s good for you.

To be fair, there is much to commend in the Singapore system. As long as you conform to certain expectations, you will not starve. While I’m not exactly a grand winner in the system, I’m grateful for certain things about Singapore like basic safety. I don’t sit up at night worried that my 20-year old might not make it back home if she’s going out with her mates late at night for a few beers.

However, while Singapore may stack-up pretty well against most places, we got to remember that it is not “perfect.” The nation has social issues to address. Take the example of homeless people. OK, I don’t face the line of homeless people outside my door the way I did in London – but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Furthermore, unlike London, where the louts were inevitably young, ours are inevitably the elderly and frail. Unless you have a criminal amount of money in the bank, Singapore is a dreadful place to be old, sick and frail.

I can understand people wanting to defend what they have but there should also be a need to want to make society better and this often requires energy, which should come from the young. You should not expect the old to drive social change just as you should not expect them to be carrying heavy loads.

Isn’t it time we look to our aspiring young and remind them that speaking out for social change is good an investment for everyone? When you do your part to make the world a better place it rewards you in return.

What Do We Have Against the Obvious?

One of the nicest things about living in Singapore is the fact that it’s an exceedingly practical place. The government’s that have lead Singapore, have generally veered on doing the “practical” thing and governments have always worked on the principle of doing “What’s Right rather than What’s Popular.”

The results have been good. Singapore is probably as close as it gets to having a perfect society. We are rich and our “social” issues tend to centre around life getting expensive for Professional and Middle-Class people rather than riots in the streets and violence against particular communities.

Yet, there is one area in which the Singapore government fails spectacularly, namely the question of 377A, the act in which criminalises anal sex between grown men. For the last decade, whenever the topic of 377A comes up, Singapore’s normally pragmatic and rational government rushes to pander to the illogical and irrational. I think of Professor Thio Li-Ann’s speech in parliament in 2007 and ended up marveling at her ability to deliver a long speech without a single rational thought (“We must reject the argument from consent” -being a line from that speech, which is the last thing you’d expect from a learned law professor when discussing laws governing sexual behavior) and yet she managed to convince a room filled with highly intelligent rational people that she had a point. Our rational and pragmatic government decided to come up with a compromise that mocks the concept of the rule of law – keeping the law but promising not to actively not enforce it.

It’s bad enough when you have the government being held hostage to a peddler of nonsense. Then, it gets worse when a government that is so famously principled and pragmatic being the said peddler of nonsense.

This happened recently when the Attorney-General’s chambers responded to three challenges in the court on the constitutionality of 377A. These challenges were heard in court after a former Chief Justice, two former Attorney Generals our former permanent representative to the UN came out to express points that stated that this particular section of the penal code was not only no longer relevant to a modern society but pointless and bad for the legal system. All of the men in question are regarded as highly intelligent establishment figures that no reasonable human being could dismiss easily. You'd expect the establishment to listen.

Another interesting fact about these hearings was the fact that experts of sexuality were called upon to give evidence on the nature of homosexuality. This wasn't just about the concept of equal rights but about the scientific nature of homosexuality. The experts on both sides pretty much agreed that homosexuality is an inborn condition - you are either gay or not and you cannot be "converted" into not being gay. Once again, with the scientist pretty much in agreement, you'd expect our normally rational government to listen

Yet, despite the obvious arguments from the people who knew the law and the science, the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) decided that it was time to retreat to the irrational arguments used by Professor Thio previously to defend keeping a law that most rational people knew made no sense :

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/attorney-general-377a-challenges-constitutional-rights-do-not-include-sexual-freedom-or?fbclid=IwAR3jAPCw0_RG_l6DqbSVyELO7SyKEsINcfrNiAWSicT65Zd5psAxjx55iXo

If you read through the AGC's argument, it is clear the only  rational argument the  was the fact that the courts were the wrong venue to strike out the law.  Let’s look at some of the things said:

“Unqualified rights inherently contradict a key tenet of our Constitution, which is that the interest of the larger community is placed over the interest of the individual,”

It's always interesting to notice how those who believe this law should be kept inevitably talk about "the greater good of the larger community," trumping individual rights. Nobody has stated how this law serves "the larger community," nor has anyone explained how allowing two consenting adults to engage in an intimate act in the privacy of the bedroom would harm the rest of society. Surely, you'd expect the AGC to make its case with proof rather than to talk about a concept in vague terms.

Then there was the argument at homosexuals could control their attraction therefore the act did not discriminate:

Even” Mr Ong’s experts had acknowledged that a person experiencing homosexual attraction can voluntarily control whether to perform the act or not. “

This argument isn't just legally dubious - it doesn't make common sense. All of us feel attraction to all sorts of people but  we only act upon the attraction only when it's mutual. I, as a heterosexual man, am very attracted to the many attractive women around me. However, I don't pounce on the them and I've only slept with women who want to sleep with me.  I can control my urges and I am not a criminal for sleeping with women who want to sleep with me as much as I want to sleep with them.

What is true of myself, as a heterosexual man is also true of homosexuals. The wider homosexual community is not  asking for permission to pounce on people its attracted to. They merely asking for the same rights as everyone else - namely, if you average homosexual finds someone he's attracted to and is willing to do to bed with - he will not be labeled a criminal for doing what is natural for him to do when he meets someone who reciprocates sexual attraction.

The most ridiculous point made by the AGC was against the former Chief Justice’s point that the law had served no purpose because the government’s policy was not to enforce it.

“Section 377A is fully able to serve its purpose, which is to send a certain moral signal, by its mere existence regardless of whether and how it is enforced.”

When you read this argument, you're bound to wonder if the AGC's lawyers are so hyper intelligent that they can create a purpose for laws outside thin air or they are so dreadful that they have to resort to their personal feelings.

Morality and legality may overlap in many cases but there is a distinction. Morality is personal. We as individuals and society can find many things sinful and abhorrent but whether they should be legal or not is another question. We have laws that we enforce because we want to ensure certain outcomes for the greater good of society.

If you follow the AGC's argument on sending out "moral signals," you then have to ask why the government permits the sale of alcohol, does not criminalise adultery and even allows casinos to be built. Adultery and gambling are considered sins in most religions. The evidence to suggests that adultery, alcohol and gambling hurt innocent parties outweighs the evidence that of allowing two consenting adults to engage in a private act in the privacy of the bedroom.

So, following the AGC's argument, shouldn't we send a "moral signal" against drinkers, gamblers and fornicators? 

We have thrived by being a society that is rational and reasonable. Isn't it time, we listened to rationality on this subject and not allow the prejudices of people against a community to dominate our proud legal system? 

How can Managers be more successful in cross cultural environments ?

By Mr. KV Rao 

Spoke at the recent Asian Management Conclave, in Singapore where a large no of Directors / Deans of Management Schools attended. It was an interesting interaction. Here are some snippets ... 

Where theory intersects practice, it a place of pure bliss. ! 

I shared the life stories of  6 successful individuals, (none having any formal management education), who have either worked for me or I have known them closely enough, to sketch the common traits. They span from Russia, CIS, Singapore, Australia, Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos.. and each of them have mastered the art of being successful in a cross cultural and non-native environment. Some characteristics they have are :- 

• Risk Takers. Exceptional positive attitude to life.
• Non-judgmental, build trust and strong relationships.
• Learning on the fly, and continuously reinforcing the learning curve.
• Humility and direct communicators. Don’t leave you in doubt.
• Curiosity and live life to the full - show cheerfulness.
• Adaptive and respectful to cultural diversity.

They substituted what they lacked in education with the wisdom of doing the yards in the markets. 

In international business, success is not about knowing a lot, but doing a lot, trying a lot, with the ability to navigate in rough weather, where you have no google maps !. Often the emphasis on analysis, modeling, makes young MBA managers tilt more to a left brain leaning than a whole brain activity. Need for touch and feel, and using ones senses to succeed in a cross cultural and diverse Asia, needs honing personalities with real life experience than academic excellence alone. 

How could management education-train, coach, teach, impart and develop such managers. Well, the world is beset with problems of poverty and deprivation. Academia could work with industry to take up projects that help to improve peoples lives. Entering difficult and less developed markets is challenge. Business schools could lead the way in exploring new markets well before others and become pathfinders, and guides, and expose young students to do research in unfamiliar areas. How about Myanmar, Laos, Bangladesh. Nepal,  or Bhutan for that matter....

Case writing and codifying knowledge is often post dated, and focused on large enterprises. Shift of focus to smaller, nimble and entrepreneurial ventures and writing cases about them, will bring a richness of insights and knowledge while data gathering could be challenging. 

Often businesses lead, and business schools follow, to codify practices into theory. It could well be the other way round. We need a change in mindsets, on both sides, and pursue what might be the future of integrative learning. 

“Assuredly, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own country.” – Jesus of Nazareth

This post is curtesy of my favourite Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC, who shared my last posting “http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2019/11/system-failure.html,”with his friends. He told me that I was “biased” in favour of the Indian expat community in Singapore because I had received money from them.

I was tickled, both by the remark and by the implications. I openly disclosed my relationship with the community and I don’t think my favourable experiences with the community should have detracted too much from what I expressed.

I also work on the principle that it’s only natural for me to have a favourable view on the community that has provided me with the good things that I have enjoyed. I ask myself whether anyone would have thought differently had I defended the British or American communities instead?

Perhaps it’s just me but I am unable to see how “foreigners,” particularly dark-skinned Asians have damaged my chances in life and I am from a demographic that should feel “displaced,” the “open-door” policy that Singapore had in 2004.

Statistically, I should be burning with resentment against the people who have moved to my country and displaced me. I am a graduate (from the apparently highly respected Goldsmith’s College, University of London) and I belong to the ethnic majority. I never got a plush job in a big company that one assumes my qualifications would have gotten me. I don’t understand how my personal situation is anyone else’s issue other than mine.

It was this simple, when I couldn’t find a job in my chosen field after I left my first job after 5-months in the 2001 recession, I decided to employ myself. A friend from the UK advised me that rather than spend money on searching for an agency to work for, I might as well go and get the money from the client directly.  So, with only four months of work experience, I went to get my own job.

Self-employment is tough. Employees tend to forget that that the business process is larger than their particular scope. An employee merely does his or her job and gets a cheque. However, a self-employed person needs to get the job, do the job and get paid. While there are “windfalls,” there are more moments of poverty.

I had ten-years of struggle and I’ve managed to stabalise my income and financial situation by balancing part-time jobs with side hustles. However, I remember the years of struggle with a certain amount of pride. There were jobs where I was compared favourably with multinationals in the USA (classic line being  “You did more for us than …….in the USA).

When I look back to those moments, I remember the people who gave me work. It started with a great Tamil chap called Raymond, who was the regional operations director for Polaris. Raymond and I would have lunch on a monthly basis. He’d ask how I was doing, then think of something and a few days later, Raymond would call with a job. It wasn’t a princely sum but it was a job that money in my pocket.

When Raymond left Polaris, I worked with Supriyo, who recommended me to his alumni associations, which got me the jobs with the Indian Institutes of Technology and Management respectively (IIT and IIM). When I met the IIM group, I was told, “You don’t need to sell yourself, Supriyo has already done that.”

So, it was the Indians who gave me work. They were there for me when I needed it. By contrast, “my people” were nowhere when I needed work and money. I didn’t have the “respectability” of a big agency behind me.

With a few notable exceptions, “my people” wouldn’t give me a chance. This was brought home to me in 2013, when I was invited to pitch for a government related job. I didn’t get the job, but the fact that I was even invited to pitch was an achievement. I later learnt that my chance came from a man who was born in India, who promoted my name passionately. The Singapore born chairman of that organization had thought of me as “That Blogger.” The man born in India had to stress “He Delivers.”

So, while I understand that everyone wants to have a job in order to feed their families, I find it very hard to internalize and understand the resentments that “My People,” have against the “darkies” for stealing “their” jobs. Where were “My People,” when I was struggling in a way that wasn’t a threat to anyone fighting for a spot in the corner office.

I’m not the only person with this experience. I checked with one of my juniors who had started his own agency. His first big break came from someone from somewhere else. This wasn’t limited to the PR industry. I checked with a liquidator (who for the sake of full disclosure, hired me for five-years) and his first big break came from someone from somewhere else.

“My People,” complain that the “foreigners” are “helping their own kind.” They complain that they’re being shut out from the plush jobs in multinational firms and so on. Yet, when they’re in a position to give a shot to someone struggling against multinationals, they preferred to support the multinationals (For the record, I am not against multinationals, including the ones I took jobs from and lost jobs to). There’s always going to be a limited supply of opportunities from the “big players,” of any industry. However, the opportunities increase when you have people willing to do something for themselves – some of those people may grow into people that can hire others.  

The Working Man Syndrome

By Mr. Mark Goh 
Founder and Managing Director of Vanilla Law LLC 

I have a question, and it involves what people refer to as the Gig economy. I have always wondered, what is the difference between being in Gigs and being self employed?

Being in Manchester, gave me an insight about this concept of being a "working man". It seems that Mancunians pride themselves to being working men/women. After all, their emblem here is the Bee; as in "busy as a bee". I have nothing but profound respect and admiration for the working man/women/mum/father. But, I am equally concerned that many a working man are not aware of the "working man" syndrome.

The symptoms of the syndrome are when you are working on your daily job so intently, that you forget to take time to reflect, learn and strategise for a day when muscles and sinew fail you. What then? Physical failure is inevitable; no one escapes the grim reaper.

I suffered this syndrome as a dispute resolution lawyer for more than 20 years. As a working man with a young child at the time, I worked more than 12 hours daily. My clients' problems became my personal problem. At the peak, I had in my head more than 30 sets of problems at any point in time; to solve for other people. I slept poorly and I ate equally poorly. Ironically, I was just accelerating the working man syndrome. Around the age of 45 years old, I had a wake up call from my doctor who told me if I did not take time to de-stress; I would die in less than 5 years! Is this familiar?

Ever since, I have taken on less cases and only the ones from close and good clients. I have become more reflective and selective. I decided also to invest in Intellectual Property. This is something which separates the Gig workers from the self employed. Being your own boss and owning your own business, gives you the incentive to accumulate, invest in and protect the wealth of experience stored in one's brains. I did this my capturing my know-how in contract drafting and contract pit-falls into a software called VanillaLaw Docs. Gig workers are like nomads, they do not stay long enough in any job to be able to accumulate any experience. Even if they did, many do not see it worthwhile to invest their time and resources to build, own and eventually market their Intellectual Property.

Intellectual Property; I think is the real key and asset for all mature men in this community. It's  the one thing that we can use to secure our legacy.

System Failure

I thank Mr. Ramesh Erramalli for giving me a topic to blog about. A month ago, Mr. Erramalli became the most famous Indian Expatriate when he was caught on video berating his condominium security guard for having the audacity to charge a guest of his, $10 for the right to park in the condominium compound (which was part of the rules of living in the said compound.) 

Mr. Erramalli made some unfortunate comments about how much he paid for his property and then made the mistake of alluding to the fact that his property was not a “Housing Development Board” (HDB) flat (most Singaporeans, myself included, live in an HDB flat). As predicted, the incident went viral and overnight, Mr. Ramesh Erramalli became the most famous person in Singapore.

This isn’t the first incident involving a foreigner being caught in an unfortunate incident with a local. It isn’t the first time that Singapore’s cyberspace has exploded. But what is interesting is that for the first time, the “netizens” went to find Mr. Erramalli’s linkedin profile and after some research alleged that his qualifications were fake and we then had a protest on how the government needed to review the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement or CECA. The more extreme part of cyberspace went as far as to say that the government needed to scrap CECA for the benefit of all Singaporeans.

The nicest thing you can say about Mr. Ramesh Erramalli is that he’s a self-entitled arsehole and his attitude towards an elderly and poorly paid person was horrible. I’m told that many Singaporeans (particularly the Singaporeans of Indian Decent) find the expatriate Indians to be an arrogant bunch.

I don’t doubt that Mr. Erramalli is an arsehole and I don’t doubt that there are many such arseholes in the Indian Expat community (which is incidentally the same thing that can be said for any other community -expat or local, in Singapore). I don’t see how we’ve made the leap from one arsehole to an entire policy. While Mr. Erramalli is an arsehole, let’s not forget that being an arsehole is not a crime.

Unlike Stuart Boyd Mills, a British citizen, Mr. Erramalli never physically assaulted anyone (Mr. Mills received a slap on the wrist of 6-months and didn’t even come close to getting the cane) and nobody made the leap from one impotent prick to wanting to ban British Expats (who have a far higher record of committing physical crimes against the local population than their Indian Counterparts).
So, how is it such that we’re angrier with the entire Indian expat community because of one particular arsehole than we are with other expats, who have produced people who have physically assaulted our locals?

OK, before I continue, I will need to declare my interest. I’ve always been saved by the Indian expat community. My first major client, the guys who paid me more for me than for being someone else’s subcontractor were Indian and two out of three of the major milestones of my working life (as in national level projects) are curtesy of the Indian Expat community. My fastest paymasters were inevitably Indian expats (defined as collecting the cheque a few hours after invoicing). As such, I do have a soft spot for the community.

I believe that the real issues at stake are not so much the Indians or the Indian expats as a group. The key issue should be the fact that Singapore is increasingly unequal. We had the classic case of someone who was very well to do berating someone who is less fortunate for merely doing his job.

Let’s start with the expat system or the system that involves taking someone and plonking them somewhere else in a very plush job. You throw money at him (they’re usually guys), or at least more than he’s seen back home, and you give him a load of freebies like the house and car he’d normally not be able to afford. You drill it into his head that he’s there because the locals would die without him and you also drill it into the heads of the locals that their livelihoods depend on this person from elsewhere. The guy discovers other juicy things like women throwing themselves at him for the mere fact that he’s him.

Now, I’m not disputing the fact that businesses will need people with skills from elsewhere and I’m not disputing that you will need to pay a bit extra for special skills. However, its very clear that in the system as I’ve described, you’re bound to turn otherwise nice people into arseholes. As a nephew by marriage (who happens to be Indian Expat) said, “We expats think we’re gods.” While the majority of expats (of all colours) I’ve met are nice enough, it takes a strong character to remain a decent person at heart when so much comes to you so easily.

So, the first thing that we need to look at is moving our psychological focus away from multinationals being the source of everything and our education system has to move away from training people who merely follow orders to people who can think and lead in the global system. Our local people need to get used to doing things for themselves rather than waiting for someone from elsewhere to do it for them.

Secondly, we need to move to building up our entrepreneurs. I stress that not everybody is meant to be an entrepreneur and being an entrepreneur is often tougher than being an employee. However, entrepreneurs think differently. Instead of seeing new arrivals as competition for scarce jobs, you see new customers. The mindset of the people must change.

I was asked, if I felt threatened and displaced in my own land. The answer is that I don’t. Each new arrival is a potential new customer to me in one of my various gigs. I didn’t get the corporate job that people assume that I should get. It didn’t occur to me that it was someone else’s fault and it never occurred to me that I should blame other people – I merely tried another path.

I’ve never felt bothered by “fake” qualifications, which is a topic that many of my fellow citizens get irked when it comes to the Indian Nationals. I don’t doubt that India faces such issues but its not unique to the Indians and I work on the principle that if I can gets into a multinational and survives more than three-years, its clear he can do the job, so gives a shit if he went to a real university or not. University was a lot of fun but who really cares what happens beyond that. 

The other issue we need to face is the fact that in Singapore, jobs like security guards are often for the lowly educated and worst of all – the old and feeble. Now, I don’t have anything against old people working (I am probably going to be one), but why is it such that our society consistently makes it such that the old and feeble always do the most physically demanding and poorly paid jobs. And in the case of the security guard, he’s doing something potentially dangerous – he’s looking after the security of the residents like Mr. Erramalli.

Unfortunately, the security guard is in Singapore speak, “Uncle,” thus probably not likely to get a job elsewhere and dependent on the pittance paid. As such, he’s the perfect target for bullies like Mr. Erramalli. 

Isn’t it time we look into “upgrading” jobs like that of the security guard? Surely something can be done to give the industry more professionalism and to give people a greater sense of pride and let’s not forget, better pay.

People like security guards shouldn’t be regarded as just the old man in the corner who needs a job. They should be regarded as professionals offering a valuable service and people like Mr. Erramalli should be made to pay fairly for someone to look after their valued possessions.