The Story of a Disease

 

The only real story of the new decade is Covid-19. This little virus, which started in Wuhan China (even if some segments of the Chinese Communist Party might beg to differ) ended up becoming affecting the entire globe. Life as we knew it ended and somehow in between the shut downs, protest and so on, something else emerged that might resemble a new normal.

Countries around the world got shut down because of the virus. Economies got battered and lives were lost. America, the world’s most powerful economic and military power took the worst hit thanks for managerial incompetence. Covid-19 effectively that the aspiring Alpha-Males of the global order were the worst leaders and the countries that did best were those run by women.

Singapore was not spared. The government was quick to implement safe distancing measures and temperature screenings. Our infection rate amongst the local population was low and the government enjoyed basking the glory of positive international headlines. Unfortunately, the virus didn’t care too much for headlines and proceeded to expose one of the most shameful aspects of Singapore’s society – the marginalization of the foreign labourers on whose backs much of the economy depends on. The unsanitary conditions in the dormitories where most of the workers are housed proved to be ideal breeding grounds for the virus.

However, in the process of dealing with the foreign workers, a lot of ugly things were exposed. The government stepped in to assist the dormitory owners “upgrade” their premises, despite the fact that the dormitory owners had made vast sums from housing workers in poor conditions. It was perhaps something of a coincidence that some of the dormitory owners were connected. On a personal note, I did get a forum letter published on why the government was bailing out a business that added no value to society and had profited from what can only be described as exploitation. My letter was quoted by an opposition politician and the CEO of the largest dormitory operator wrote a reply.

My take is that the virus has exposed an ugly underbelly of Singapore. However, more needs to happen for Singapore and Singaporeans to understand that prosperity and things like care for the environment and not locking people from developing nations are not exclusive to each other. It was good that people were forced to understand that poor conditions that the workers faced could put them at risk and therefore the welfare of the less fortunate was no longer a charity issue but a personal interest one. Unfortunately, as the threat of the disease has worn down, the lesson seems to be forgotten or has lost less urgency.

On the personal front, it was a surprisingly decent year. Being forced to stay at home was actually good for me. I dropped quite a few kilos and based on my last visit to a medical establishment, my blood pressure is normal as opposed to high or hypertense. My belt is now a necessity rather than a fashion accessory. I like that and I make it a point of walking more and walking up stairs. I’m not a natural gym goer but I am enjoying being healthier than I have been in sometime.

For yet another year, I was sustained by work in liquidations. Despite my distaste and aversion to files and paperwork, I actually did have a good time. The main part of this is due to working with a group that I had, until now, never dealt with on a business level – the Chinese Ah Peks in Shorts. This is the group that makes Singapore tick. These are the guys who know how to look for opportunities. They had perfected what one call the perfect collaborative business model where individuals came together for a project, contributing their individual talents and then sharing the profits accordingly.

My other big triumph was managing a PR project as part of a consortium of other PR practitioners and consultants. While my bread and butter were in the corporate morgue of corporate insolvency, the cream I earned was helping promote start-ups in the birthing pod of venture capitalism. It was good to play a role in helping boost entrepreneurship and I am grateful to my new friend, Mr. Ha Vu Huang, who lead the consortium of consultants as well as to my team mates, Mr. PN Balji and Ms. Kavita Balakrishnan.

The main project is, of course this blog. Isolation allowed me to produce more and I am pleased that Mr. Mark Goh of VanillaLaw LLC became the first person to purchase the rights of one of my postings. I believe this blog is something I can grow and get a few more eyeballs. There was, of course the start of the relationship with TRemeritus, which now picks up my pieces and spreads them to a wider audience. I’m sure having my name spread to a wider audience can only be a good thing, though I have as yet figured out how to monetize things.

On the family front, my little girl turned 21 and is officially no longer a little girl. She remains the main blessing in my life. She’s been a big help to me and I believe that with her around, the future, come what may should be optimistic.

Ask What Your Country Can Do For You

Copyright - Nomad Capitalist  

Back when I was at school, I had to read a poem called “That Old Lie – Dulce et Decorum Est pro Patria Mori.” This is a War Poem written by Wilfred Owed, who had fought in the trenches of World War I and understood that war was and still is a horrible business that is fought by and paid by the blood of innocent young men who are told by old men sitting in offices that sacrificing their life is a glorious business.

I think about this poem because it sums up one of the great debates of our time – namely the increased migration of people around the world. While I personally believe that greater movement of people has been on the whole a good thing, there has been a greater polarization between “native born” people and “new arrivals” in just about every country on the planet. This is true even in Singapore, which sells itself as the “great melting pot of Asia.” I remember being at a function when a prominent doctor I knew was asked “Are you Singaporean?” To which the reply was “Are you asking if I’ve completed National Service.”

While the Singaporean government has taken pains to remind the population that we do need our new migrants, the truth is that all governments, particularly those that need democratic legitimacy love these types of “us-versus-them” mentalities in the voting population.

The most prominent example of this was Donald Trump, who was by no means the first politician who exploited the “us-versus-them” mentality. He was merely the most visible and, in a way, the most successful. The message was not necessarily based on fact but it was effective. There’s nothing like someone else to blame for all your failings in life. If you’re a white boy who can’t get laid, well that’s because the Mexicans are raping your women. If you’re a Singaporean, who didn’t get a job as a desk jockey, it’s because someone from India took it from you. The list goes on.

Politicians love this because when it comes to election time, all they need to do is to hit the migrants. In Singapore, the number of work passes being issued somehow decreases during election time – “see we’re looking after you the natives.”

The flip side is that the politicians love to drum up the message that its your patriotic duty to hang around to be on the receiving end of their goodness. Under our previous Prime Minister, Mr. Goh Chok Tong, it was summed up as “Stayer or Quitter.” Patriotic Singaporeans were supposed to stay because they were not horrible “quitters,” who didn’t love their country. While we grudgingly accepted that we’d have to work for companies run by expats, we could console ourselves with the thought that these guys were the ones who couldn’t make it in their native lands so they came here.

Now, when I think of the “stayer-quitter” debate, I’m reminded of that Wilfred Owen poem all those years ago. Mr. Owen had a valuable point in that the guys who were talking about the glory of dying for the country, where not the guys at risk of dying for anything in particular. The concept of kings and other sovereigns leading troops into battle died in the Middle Ages and the guys who inevitably make the decision about fighting wars are inevitably those who are furthest removed from the front line. In America, there was the obvious point of how General Tommy Franks conducted the Afghan Campaign from Florida and communicated with the guys on the ground via satellite. In tinny Singapore we do one better, we retire anyone with anything resembling combat experience as soon as they are done and push into obscurity and promote anyone else to the decision-making process.

The same is true on the economic front. The people who inevitably talk the most about foreign labour (cause it’s cheaper) or foreign talent, are never the ones who have to compete. It’s the multimillionaires who talk about how having a minimum wage is bad for the economy and the landlords are always the ones making the most noise about how we need to get back to the office.

So, what can we, the rest of the population do? Like Mr. Owen, we should probably look at the source of the issue. Foreigners are not the source of our problems. The people who have moved here are only doing what should be natural. If you’re a Filipino engineer who can only make many times more as a waiter in Singapore than you can as an engineer at home, why shouldn’t you try your luck to be a waiter? If you’re an ordinary Australian in the mailroom in Sydney and there’s an opportunity to be in a corner office in Singapore, you’d be a fool not to take it.

I recently discovered a site called “Nomad Capitalist,” which deals with helping people get second passports and off shore accounts. The site is started by an American who threw away his US passport for one of Caribbean ones. His tag line is “Go where you’re treated best.”

If you’ve been brought up to think of “patriotism” as the only option in life, you’ll get pissed off looking through his site. You’ll get angry that the rich aren’t limited by geography and citizenships can be sold.

However, if you look at things objectively, what’s wrong with being able to move to a country that gives you better opportunities. Sure, it’s easier to do it when you’re in the multibillion-dollar level, but even then, you got to ask yourself, why should you be limited by the borders of any particular nation. Technology has made it possible to do many things across borders and it shouldn’t be wrong for the ordinary person to take advantage of it.

One of the smartest guys I knew was a Malay taxi driver who explained that he had “cashed-out.” The price of his HDB in Singapore allowed him to buy a beautiful landed property in Johor and was building a place in Batam. He only came back to Singapore to drive as and when he needed the money.  To me, this guy has understood the way the world should be going.

Let’s remember the people who tell you that the world belongs to patriots are the least patriotic people you’ll find. Those who drum it into you that you need to be a “stayer” have their motives for wanting you to stay. It should no longer be a bad thing to ask what your country can do for you.

Better to Realise the Shit is there and Use Toilet Paper than Pretend there’s No Shit because You Can’t See It

 When I first started blogging, many people I knew in my immediate circle did tell me that they found my views to be “Anti-Western,” and my sister felt a little sad that I might have had “unhappy” times growing up in the West.

The truth is, I actually had a happy enough childhood in the Western world. Some of my best friends are Caucasian and I adore my White American family that came from the second marriage of both parents. However, I do take the view that that period of my life was “paid for” by family (Dad had money and Mum gave her time) and I don’t have anything that I am particularly proud of achieving from that particular period. What little I achieved, was here in Asia, dealing with Indians and the Islamic World. I take a certain pride in never being “guided” by some advanced brain in New York or London but from having dealt with emerging Asia, specifically the Indian Expat community on a personal level. Call me strange but I don’t particularly see being a “Western” copycat as something to be desired.

Having said all of that, it doesn’t mean that I don’t see the value in things coming out of the West. I appreciate things like “rule of law” and “one-man-one-vote” (say what you like about democracy but it has thus far been the best way of removing bad government), which were concepts that came out of the West and yes, I do admire Westerners who found the spirit of adventurism that seems to suppressed in many Asian cultures (say what you like about expats being the lot that didn’t make it at home – at least they moved to somewhere where they could make it.)

Hence, while I may be the surprising person who grew up in the West but did not become an “Anglophile,” I don’t dismiss the views that certain Westerners have of our society, particularly when it comes to the issue of race. For the record, my formative years were spent as an “ethnic minority.” For the record, I was never “bullied” because of race. However, I can count the number of incidents of being on the wrong end of racist behaviour on one hand, I did encounter them and they were not nice. In fairness to my Caucasian friends and family – they were always there for me when I needed someone and for the most part I was always “Li Tang,” who happened to be born elsewhere rather than “Li Tang that Chinese boy,” (OK, the only time I knew someone refereed to be as “that Chinese bloke,” was in a positive light – the bus driver for my final year sixth form ball told the teachers that “That Chinese bloke was decent,” because I had helped clean up after a mate of mine had too much to drink and puked over me).

So, having spent a good portion of my life as an ethnic minority, I remain aware of what it was like to be an ethnic minority even though I’ve spent the last 20 odd years as part of the ethnic majority and I do believe there are issues that need to be discussed in the public sphere. While I do agree that ethnic minorities should not demand that the system bend to them (As an ethnic Chinese, I had to recognize that I could celebrate Chinese New Year in my private space but still had to go to school because it wasn’t a national holiday in the UK and I had no right to demand otherwise), I do believe that the ethnic majority does not have the right to treat ethnic minorities as they please (Neo Nazis, Proud Boys and other groups that actively promote violence against ethnic minorities have no place in civilization).

As such, I like to think that I take the side foreign construction workers who not only bear the brunt of being at the lowest end of the pay scale but also get the wrong end of the stick for being ….well a shade darker than the rest of us (as I’ve always pointed out, you merely need to see how active the police are in Geylang and Serangoon Road but mysteriously absent at Orchard Towers, even though the same things go on in those places). I am not sure how one can defend this on any moral grounds and so, it was rather interesting when someone on TRemeritus called me a “racist shit stirrer” on TRemeritus when I pointed out that saying that “There is no racism in Singapore” is blatantly false.

 

While digging the arsehole of society by talking about race and the feelings of people who had the misfortune of being dark does put me at risk of getting buried in the smelly stuff of society, I do believe that its necessary to do so. Racism is shit and it exists in every society. The only way to deal with it and perhaps reduce it is to acknowledge its there and have an ongoing discourse about it. I may be shit stirring but at least I acknowledge that the shit is on the arse and I need to take toilet paper to it. I would rather do that than to pretend that the shit is not there and refuse to do anything about it.

I have also been accused of being a Western lap dog who was trying to please an English friend. Well, unfortunately, certain observations are not less true because they’re made by people from elsewhere. Like it or not, gathering a group of labourers in unsanitary conditions, then making them work 12 hours a day for 27 days a month for half of what everyone else makes is “slave labour,” even if the person making the said observation is from the West.

Funnily enough, I was also accused of being a racist bigot because I didn’t acknowledge that people get beaten up for being a different colour in the West but not in Singapore.

 

Well, yes, it’s true that you are pretty safe in Singapore, whoever you are. In fairness to the Singapore government, there is no tolerance for extremist groups like the Neo Nazis, KKK or Proud Boys (seriously, if you have to do physical damage to people, these are the people you should damage physically).

However, does that make the racism that does exist in Singapore right? The answer should be no and however mild our racism may seem; we should still call it out. Sure, nobody gets beaten up for being a different colour here. However, advertising for jobs that require “Mandarin Speakers,” when the job does not involve dealing with China or Taiwan, cannot be right either and should be called out as such.

Singapore has done well in many ways but we also need to call out certain things and make the effort to correct our mistakes to ensure all Singaporeans have a better life.

 

There is No Racism in Singapore

So, if You’re Dark Skinned You Better be Grateful for Your Lot

Around eight-years ago, I befriend and Englishman who had moved to Singapore. Half way through our conversation he asked me what I missed most about England. My reply was “The intrinsic decency of people.” His reply was “There’s a lot more of that in Singapore.” My reply was “That’s because you’re white – try being a dark skinned labourer from the Indian Subcontinent.”

I’m reminded of this incident because I had the strange fortune of stumbling into an article in the Independent Singapore, which was about a post from the Singapore Government’s favourite white-skinned boot polisher, “The Fawning Follower,” who goes by the name of “Critical Spectator,” who proved the point I made to my English friend so many years ago:

https://theindependent.sg/critical-spectator-says-he-doesnt-think-racism-exists-in-singapore/

 

If you read the argument of the Fawning Follower, it runs along a pretty simple line – Singapore is a wonderfully multiethnic place and although a few derogatory terms are used in between the races, everyone gets along and there isn’t the equivalent of a Holocaust against anyone so, what racism is there?  To make matters more interesting, the fawning follower then goes onto argue that there is no racism in Singapore and therefore anyone who gets offended by a “blackface” portrayal is just a namby-pamby left wing cry baby who can’t take being called a name.

To be fair to the Fawning Follower, he has a point. On the surface, things look good. People of different races live harmoniously and unlike our neighbour across the Causeway, there are no laws that discriminate in favour of one ethnic group in things like employment. Singapore also compares well in as much as you’re not going to get beaten up in certain parts of Singapore for being who you are. Our political leaders also make plenty of the right noises about the need to have multiracial harmony.

However, as in his posting on migrant worker conditions, the Fawning Follower misses the point completely. Just because it is worse elsewhere it doesn’t mean that the problem does not exist here nor does it make it right.

The Fawning Follower also misses the point that all humans have their intrinsic nasty prejudices. It’s merely a question of whether they control them and acknowledge their “dark side” and make the effort to create a nice place to live. By saying that “there is no racism” in Singapore, the Fawning Follower is actually saying that Singapore does not exist on earth – it’s the celestial kingdom ruled by God himself.

Unfortunately, that’s not true. While racism is for the most part not overt, it does exist in subtle ways. My English friend discovered this at his workplace, which is a shipyard. He found that there was a clear “colour correlation.” The darker your pigmentation the more you did the “shit” work and the less you got paid. After going through this, his stance of decency in Singapore changed – when we met again after eight years, he described our labour policies as being based on “slave labour.”

My English friend is a decent man who, despite a comfortable existence in Singapore, sees the ugly side and calls it out. Its people like him who drop ideas that will hopefully get people to make the world a more decent place.

The Fawning Follower is different. Instead of enjoying the good side but acknowledging the ugly side, he actually promotes the ugly as beautiful. According to him, Singaporeans should keep migrant workers in shit-shacks that have killed people through unsanitary conditions (this happened before Covid-19) because it is the reason why Singapore succeeds. Now, he says that the unspoken “colour bar” in parts of Singapore don’t really exist.

Interestingly enough, it’s always the expats who have pointed it out to me. One of my favourite English families made the point that when F1 was first brought to Singapore and kids volunteered for holiday jobs, it was somehow a coincidence that White and Yellow skinned people were awarded catering jobs, while anyone black or brown was shoved into cleaning.

I think of how it works in immigration. I think of my friend, an Afrikaans dental technician, a highly skilled man, who was denied a visa. Then, when he went to see them, they were stunned and suddenly approved his visa when he explained that there are “white” people in South Africa.

Racism here isn’t the overt kind. It’s subtle and what makes it more worrying is that it’s become acceptable. Tokenism is used so successfully that ethnic minorities end up being the biggest proponent of things that are discriminatory against them. I always remember a discussion with one of the security guards in my dad’s condominium. He’s an Indian chap who was defending a policy of not hiring Indians. If Hitler need a reason to gas Indians in Singapore, this man would have provided it. I’m also told a local Tamil Minister didn’t quite understand why the local Tamil community was upset over “blackface” portrayals.

Singapore has done well in many ways on the race-relation front. However, we are not perfect and we need to do more to ensure that whatever discriminations our ethnic minorities face are quashed. We prospered because to a large extent worked on “regardless of race.” However, more needs to b done and people like the Fawning Follower who tries to tell us that the ugly side doesn’t exist or that we should be grateful for the ugly have no place in a Singapore that I’d like to be a part of.

How Do You Survive?

 Around 10-years ago, I remember a Vietnamese lady asking me how much I earned. I told her that on average, I made around $3,000 a month (this being the average of my billings from self-employed freelance work). Her reply was “How you survive? You Singapore Age Three-Five – not enough to survive.”

I remember this conversation because it sums up the one topic that winds up Singaporeans from all walks to life – the costs of living in Singapore. There are variations of this “national dialogue,” but generally speaking the conversation runs something like this:

• 1.      We, the people will complain about the rising costs of everything except salaries; and
• 2.      The government will reply by pulling out statistics about how they’re giving away so much in subsidies so that a toilet cleaner can afford to own a property and then there’s also the reminder that if the said toilet cleaner has the audacity to ask for a dollar an hour more, it would raise the costs for foreign investors and therefore kill off jobs for everyone else.

The government in particular gets very defensive whenever you bring up the fact that Singapore stayed on top of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) “most expensive cities for expats,” for several years.

As my Vietnamese friend understood, Singapore is an expensive place and you need a lot of money to survive. Singapore is on paper, a very wealthy little place. Data from the World Bank shows that our GDP per capita stands at US$ 65,233.28, which is one of the highest in the world – way higher than Germany, the anchor economy in the European Union (EU).

However, things might not be so rosy behind the “sexy statistics,” on income. The median income in Singapore last year was around S$4,563 (though the take home is $3,331 after deduction for compulsory Central Provident Fund savings). If you take this at face value, it would seem that the average Singaporean earns a decent enough wage. What the government does not like publicized is the fact that two thirds (2/3) of the population earn below this figure.

That alone would not be a major issue if the “buy” side of things for most people would not be on the rise. An illustration of the costs of living has been aptly summed up by money.smart.com, a local blog that tracks financial affairs. Their article on the cost of living can be found at:

https://blog.moneysmart.sg/budgeting/cost-living-singapore/

The figure that stands out here is S$1,190, which is what one needs to live a very minimal lifestyle, of sharing government subsidized accommodation and not taking anything more than public transport.

Th next question is then, what does the average blue-collar worker need to do in order to earn this existence?

As a guide, I was paid around $10 an hour to work as a waiter at the Bistrot. A glance at the recruitment ads would indicate that this is the market rate for part-time waiters, so one can assume I was earning what the average blue-collar worker takes home. If you use this rate, the average blue-collar worker would need to work around 101 hours a month (1,190 divided by 11.70 made up of $10 an hour plus 1.7 for employers CPF contribution).

To provide one with further perspective, one has to take into account that the average working month is around 160 months based on a working day being eight hours and the working month being 20 days long (assuming Saturday and Sunday are free). Thus, the average blue-collar worker needs to spend about 63 percent of his or her working time just to sustain a minimal existence and extreme frugality would be required for one to save up enough for a home.

Now, you could argue that I was a “poster child” for the government in as much as I was a graduate who went from a corporate PR agency existence to working as a waiter earning a shade above $1,000 a month. So, how did I survive on $1,000 a month (which in practical terms is $800 since 20 percent is taken for CPF employee contributions)

The answer is that I was very lucky. I was living with family, so the biggest expense of accommodation was taken care of. I was also in a position that blue-collar workers are generally not in. I was in control of my hours. I worked the night shift only because this gave me a steady income. I had the day to work on my projects, which provided the cream.

My situation was not like the average blue-collar worker because I had some control of my time. I could work more or less according to my needs as I was on an hourly rate and so it made sense for me to work more hours.

The reality is that most blue-collar workers are tied to a single employer and funnily enough, under exclusive contracts that prohibit them from doing work on the side. The tradeoff is simple – there’s a regular pay cheque but the worker is obliged to work more hours at the employer’s discretion.

 It’s especially tough for foreign workers who are prohibited from earning a side hustle, even if the actual employer does not pay them (apparently, it’s a privilege for foreign workers to get denied what is due to them, particularly in insolvency situations).  

Somehow “productivity” is an issue when it comes to raising the wages of blue-collar work. So, what can be done about it? Thinking about things like a minimum wage cannot be done without some well-heeled member of the ruling class lecturing you on how it scares away foreign investors. How can this be sustainable, especially when you have some of the best paid politicians in the world lecturing you on being poor and slogging to earn a few pennies.

Surely, its time we actually looked at the social contract. What can we do to give blue-collar workers a better negotiating position? How can we make blue-collar work more appreciated? Can we reward blue-collar workers for doing good work thus giving them an incentive to be better at their jobs, which in turn can only be good for society. Back in my military days, we were told that the generals can make beautiful plans but only remain plans if the soldiers don’t execute. Isn’t it time that Singapore’s highly militarized government remember this wisdom and start looking at how blue-collar workers get the respect they deserve and the chance to live a relatively comfortable life from the sweat of their labour?

 

It’s Not What You Have but What You Do with It that Matters

 

It’s pretty much agreed by most martial arts fans that Kung Fu legend, Bruce Lee was a mean son of a bitch that you would not want to piss off. The guy could do serious damage to you before you had time to blink and there were plenty of urban legends of his great physical prowess.

What made Bruce Lee particularly interesting was the fact that he was tinny, in fact he was a puny little man who was short sighted to the point of being blind without visual aids and one of his legs was actually shorter than the other. So, how did such a “weakling” develop a reputation for being a fearsome fighter (although Bruce Lee never fought in a competitive arena, top American fighters like Joe Lewis actually came to learn from him)?

In many ways, Bruce Lee became what he became not because of what he had but what he did with it. He was short sighted, so he studied a combat style designed for very close quarter combat (he would have been helpless at Tae Kwon Do). Since one leg was shorter than the other, he used that to develop a lethal side kick. He was skinny, so he developed himself for sheer speed rather than brute power. More interestingly, behind all the “martial arts,” he was quite open to using every trick available to finish the fight. As shown in one of the more prominent fight scenes against a larger and stronger opponent in the movie “Fist of Furry,” he actually bit the guy to get out of a jam. There is also a video clip of a lesson where he tells his students they should bite the guy if they’re ever trapped in a headlock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5LJeE-b2Sw

 

I bring up Bruce Lee and his willingness to bite and gouge people during a fight because his life example is more relevant than ever. If you look at the world through the lenses of the Covid-19 pandemic, you will notice that some of the great success of Covid-19 are countries that should not be successful and if you look at the countries that have failed miserably, they’re countries that should have been able to swat away the virus.

The top of the class in failing is the USA. At the time of writing, the USA has by far and away the highest infection rates with 16,777,408 infections and 306,706 fatalities. To put that into perspective, the only military conflict that has killed more Americans is World War II, which 405,399 people in the space of three years.

Whatever your political views, these statistics should be shocking, particularly when you consider the fact that this is the USA or the world’s most powerful country in just about every sense of the word. The US has by far and away the most powerful military machine, its economy remains the most dominant and American universities have produced some of the best brains in history. The US is a medical powerhouse. Just about every breakthrough in science comes out of an American laboratory.

So, when you look at it this way, America should not under any circumstances be compared to the likes of India and Brazil, which despite their size, remain what Donald Trump so eloquently called “shitholes.” India may have produced lots of managers and IT professionals but it also remains cast ridden and backwards in so many ways – or at least been in such a state that highly intelligent managers and IT professionals produced in India have chosen to stay outside at the first chance. The same can be pretty much said about Brazil. Just look at Brazil’s abundance of soccer talent which is parked outside Brazil for a good reason.

To be fair to the USA, it’s not the only country to make a mess of its Covid-19 response. The rich European nations like France, Italy and the UK have seen a high rate of infection and death. Even Germany, which had kept its death rate relatively low has been forced into imposing a second lock down.

By contrast, some of the interesting success stories have been found in the world’s backwaters. Vietnam was a notable success story. At the time of writing, Vietnam has seen 1,402 cases and 35 deaths. Vietnam is not a small city state like Singapore. It as a population of 90 plus million and its infrastructure is to be charitably, not great (though it has improved remarkably).

Another success story is Bhutan, which at the time of writing has seen a grand total of 438 cases. Let’s remember that behind Bhutan’s image of the land of smiles and Gross National Happiness, it looks to India for development assistance, which should give you an idea of the healthcare infrastructure in Bhutan.

So, what is happening here. It would seem quite obvious that the countries that are rich and strong are perhaps getting complacent about what they have and somehow not finding the ability to do what needs to be done.

By contrast, the smaller, weaker nations with so much less have been forced to do things with what little that is available to them. I remember very clearly that Vietnam had placed thermal scanner at the airport and insisted in mask wearing in public while Singapore was still bickering about the need to wear mask. Let’s remember Singapore competes for medical tourism, while Vietnam does not. The Vietnamese government understood that prevention was better than the cure and acted to keep people needing the health system rather than waiting for it to be overstrained.

Look at how countries have performed in managing Covid-19 and you can take courage that there is a saying that those who aren’t given much are sometimes quite blessed.  

How Quickly We Forget

One of the best things about Covid-19 was the fact that we discovered a term called “Essential Workers.” I liked this term because it made us question the greater purpose of our existence. It became clear that many blue-collar basic jobs which required people to deal with dangerous and dirty things, were actually essential to our way of life. These were the jobs that enabled us to live in a clean and safe environment. We found that cleaners to ensure that our estates to ensure that our estates were livable, the rubbish collectors to ensure that the rubbish got collected and didn’t make our homes stink and the guys at the supermarket ensured that we had adequate supplies of food. The working professionals got upset that they were not counted as “essential” but life carried on quite nicely even though the bankers, lawyers and accountants were not in the office.

You would have imagined that after two months of this situation and the supposed new found appreciation of blue-collar work, you’d expect that there would be something of an interest in trying to readdress Singapore’s pathetic income disparity between the white- and blue-collar worlds. Singapore, being the place where we pay extra to people from London and New York to come over here to work white collar jobs and thus push wages up for the locals in the “professions,” but at the same time we bring in people from Dhaka and Manilla to work blue collar jobs at wages barely above their home city rates, thus pricing Singaporeans out of the market.

However, while Covid-19 might have shown that this system of high-income disparity was clearly unsustainable, the Powers-that-be in Singapore have worked to try and ensure the preservation of the status quo.

Take the argument about the minimum wage as an example. When Dr. Jamus Lim, Member of Parliament (MP) for Sengkang GRC, talked about not relying on “folksy” wisdom when debating the minimum wage, the union(s – theoretically we have many but they all work under one umbrella) took up arms against the fact that he used the word “folksy” rather than the suggestion that the minimum wage might actually benefit lower wage workers. Yes, ironically, Singapore’s union(s) are against the idea of a minimal wage.

The union(s) is against having a minimum wage because the standard argument in Singapore has been that a minimum wage actually discourages foreign investment and is therefore bad for job creation. While this argument may have had strong merits in the 1960s when unemployment was high and the strategy was to attract cheap manufacturing investment. However, in 2020, our economic strategy has to be different and our price structure has changed. Surely there is no harm in conducting a study on what constitutes a live able wage or and what companies can afford to pay (note, I’m only talking about conducting a study not implementing a policy). Yet, the idea of a minimum wage is such an anathema to a group of people earning millions a year that the mere suggestion that one should look into minimal wages is shot down like a national blasphemy.

It gets worse. I think of the liquidation of a major construction company that had been awarded government contracts. This particular company had become so cash poor that it had simply left its vehicles lying around the place because they had run out of money to pay for the diesel. They also left 65 Indian workers with unpaid wages and a group of them actually lived on a construction site for over a month with no running water and barely enough diesel in the generator to give them electricity. Not only had the company stopped paying their wages, they also stopped feeding them.

While there was no money to pay the people, who were doing the actual construction of the projects that they had been paid for, the finance manager continued to receive a five-digit salary and one can only assume that he was at the lower end of the pay scale of the people hibernating in the boardroom.

Rather than acknowledging that there was a fault in the status quo, which was proven by Covid-19, there’s been a rush to try and restore things to normal. You have lots of advertisements and articles complaining about the death of the office. Whenever you try and publish something different, it simply ends up being thrown out by the editors. You have people like the Fawning Follower aka Critical Spectator who went to great lengths to lecture Singapore’s cyberspace on how Singapore had benefited from cheap labour.

This is not helpful. It should be clear that we cannot sustain a system where white-collar professionals who spend their days quibbling over the wording of a street sign and then find ways to claim they spent hours on a problem that monkey could solve in 10 minutes so that they can milk their clients for more money to spend on buildings that add less than zero to the environment while we deny the guys who physically make the things that we need a few cents more.

We  need to remember that life without these guys:

 

Copyright Singapore Press Holdings

This is what we'll find in our homes:

 

Copyright Mothership.

Hope from the Battle of Grandpas

 

One of the key issues that was used against US President-Elect, Joe Biden is the fact that he’s old. As at the time of writing, Mr. Biden is 78-years old and when he’s inaugurated on 20 January 2020, Mr. Biden will be a good nine years older than the previous record holder for oldest man to take office, Ronald Regan, who was 69 at the time of his inauguration in 1981. Interestingly enough, Mr. Biden’s opponent, the Donald was not much younger at 73. The two key records from this particular US election was the fact that it involved the greatest number of votes cast and the first time that two septuagenarians went against each other.

This fact shouldn’t escape people, especially in a day and age where people in advanced economies face unprecedented ageism. Singapore is no exception. Despite being healthier and fitter than I was a decade ago, I’ve effectively accepted that at the age of 46, I will never have a “corporate career,” and the fact that people still consider me for some white-collar work (OK, admittedly I am allergic to files and offices) is something of a miracle. I am, as they say, a lucky one. For people who have had good careers and suddenly find themselves thrown out of work, the situation is even worse. It’s a terrible experience to be an established character one day and less than nobody with bills to pay the next.

We have to face an uncomfortable fact – we’re all getting old and while getting old is an inescapable fact, the idea of a comfortable old age of playing golf and sipping pina coladas by the beach is an increasingly unattainable fantasy. Let’s face it – aging folk need to keep going. From a social demographic perspective, Covid-19 is helping us cull old folks but not making it easier to grow old.

Ageism in Singapore is rife enough for government ministers to come out to state that age should not be a barrier to hiring people. Yet, age discrimination continues and the only saving grace for Singapore is the fact it isn’t the only place where ageism happens. Why does it happen? Some of the reasons for not hiring aging workers are as follows:

https://content.wisestep.com/older-workers/

• 1.      May be too set in their way of working
• 2.      Might have problems to take instructions
• 3.      Not be able to use modern technology well
• 4.      Used to do things manually
• 5.      Expect respect from the manager
• 6.      Will be nearer to the age of retirement
• 7.      Will be serving lesser tenure in the company
• 8.      May not be open to any kind of criticism
• 9.      Might be tough to adapt themselves to new setting

It helps that we live in age of constant technological change that has “disrupted” just about every industry around. The argument goes – old people can’t keep up with the constant technological change – they simply don’t have the energy to keep up with the constant and rapid pace of change.

Being old is simply not cool. In business, we always read about “Young Start-up Founders” or kids with a bright idea who avoided the conventional path and made billions. That stuff is cool. Nobody wants to know about aged executives or old boys trying to start a noodle shop to make ends meet. Being aged is the opposite of hip.

Hopefully the battling grandpas will help settle some of the issues on age old discrimination. If you can consider letting two septuagenarians run for the most complex job on the planet, surely you can allow someone over the age of 50 the right to run a convenience shop? The very presence of the grandpas should help put some of the myths of hiring old people to rest.

Take the key issue of energy. The main argument against hiring old people is that they lack energy for today’s fast paced work place. To make matters worse, not only do old people not have the energy to get things done, they’re more likely to get sick and die. There is as they say, a good reason why your insurance premiums get higher as you get older. So, from a business perspective, why hire someone who will have less energy to do the things that you need to get done and will costs more.

Having said all that, people should look at Mr. Bidden as a positive example of why you should not make such examples about old people. At the age of 78, Mr. Bidden is physically active. The man runs without any assistance and goes cycling

Then there was the example of George HW Bush who took up parachuting at the age of 90. As was said at his funeral, he was someone who knew how to die young as late as possible. While much is said about how the young people are shaking up things, the truth is that it’s the baby boomers who are the real driving force of things. Look at it this way, there was a generational change between the “silent generation” and the “baby boomers,” when Bill Clinton defeated the first George Bush in 1992. Clinton was succeeded by Bush II, who was another boomer. There was something of a generational change when Obama came in but this was quickly reversed with the advent of Donald Trump.

Copyright Business Insider

Then there is the issue of whether the old folks get technology. It’s here, where the Donald sets an example of a grandpa who does get new technologies. While Mr. Trump lacks the physical energy of Mr. Bidden (he struggles to walk down a plank – an obvious result of a diet of junk food), Mr. Trump more than makes up for it in his use of technologies like Twitter. While his predecessor was supposed to the “young” and “hip” President, the first “real social media” President is Donald Trump who ran the country from his infamous Twitter account.

Whatever one’s political inclinations, we should be grateful that this most recent US election was fought by two grandpas, who managed to show the world that age is a number. Contrary to conventional wisdom – grandpas do get it and we should never discount someone just because they’re past a certain age that the text books disqualify them from. 

Hey Toto – I don’t Think We’re in Kansas Anymore

 Say what you like about the Singapore government but it is, for certain issues consistent. The famous issue is the issue of drugs. The government makes it very clear that it has zero tolerance for drugs on Singapore’s sovereign territory and the death sentence was until recently mandatory for all “drug dealers.” We make this point very clearly to every tourist entering the country. The warning is printed in thick bold face on the landing card. So, whether you agree with the concept of the death penalty or not, you know where the Singapore government stands and if you get caught with the stuff while in Singapore, you know what to expect.

The results of this policy are not bad. We do not have apartment blocks with Junkies and the “killing” of drug dealers has always been within the scope of the judicial – Singapore does not have the vigilante shoot-out that is Duterte’s “War on Drugs.” Singapore, as one Englishman used to say to me, “Is the freest place on earth because it gives – safety.” One of the strangest things about being Singaporean in the West, whenever we’ve had to cane or hang a Westerner, and having Westerners come up and tell you that your nation is doing the right thing.

Having said that, there comes a point when sticking to particular stance is stupid, especially when evidence indicates that your stance may not be as “right” as you think it is. Like or not, knowledge about certain things is growing and innovation can and does change certain truths. What was seen as gospel in the 1960s should not necessarily be so in the year 2020 and beyond. Sticking to what you knew to be absolute in the 1960s and trying to force through in the year 2020 is what you’d call insanity.

The most recent example of this was when the United Nations (“UN”) decided to remove cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention – the global text governing drug controls. The UN vote came in on 3 December 2020 and two days later, our “least conflicted” Minister (somehow being both the maker and enforcer of laws is not a conflict of interest in Singapore’s magical political world), Mr. K Shanmugam expressed great unhappiness with the UN’s decision. Mr. Shanmugam complained that “profit-driven” companies were pushing the idea that cannabis was not harmful. Mr. Shanmugam was very upset that “the power of money” had come into play. The story can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/shanmugam-cannabis-drugs-profit-companies-united-nations-13706110

Mr. Shanmugam’s outrage at this “travesty” is funny. If there is another consistency about the Singapore government it is the fact it has never had an issue with things that are “profit-driven.” If anything, the government regards being profitable as a divine right. Our public housing provider is famously profitable as are our transport operators and the supermarket run by the trade union. When the media companies stopped being profitable, the government rushed to remonopolise things regardless of the harm is caused the media consumer. So, one might want to ask what Mr. Shanmugam has against things being “profit-driven,” when the government that he so actively serves is obsessed with profits.   

Then there is the assumption in Mr. Shanmugam’s argument that being “profit-driven” is somehow incompatible with creating good stuff, particularly in the area of scientific research. Whatever one might think of the capitalist system, history has shown that the “profit-motive,” is exceedingly powerful in getting things done. People invent and create things in the hope of getting profit from them. The record from government funded or non-profit driven things in the area of producing innovations is paler. Non-profit or government funded works best when it limits itself to regulation or cases where neutrality is required.

Then there is the issue of the evidence of Marijuana and what it actually does. Mr. Shanmugam quoted the medical journal, the Lancet as showing that marijuana use was harmful and therefore something that should never be allowed to exist and Singapore was doing sparklingly wonderful job at keeping marijuana and all other drugs out of Singapore.

However, while nobody doubts that there is some harm done by marijuana use, Mr. Shanmugam failed to address the issue of whether marijuana use was any worse than say tobacco, alcohol or even gambling, all of which have been proven to be far more addictive and more likely to cause criminal behavior as a December 2018 study indicates:

https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/how-dangerous-is-marijuana.pdf

This study indicated that while alcohol and tobacco had very little redeeming features, marijuana had some proven therapeutic value.

So, question remains, is Mr. Shanmugam taking a hard stance of something that is actually harmful to society or is he merely taking a tough stance because that’s what he’s been conditioned to do or he only does it because it makes him look tough.

Perhaps marijuana is too extreme an example. Another example of what can only be described as “pig-headedness” can be found with what the tobacco companies would call “alternative” products. I think Philip Morris, which is effectively the world’s richest drug pusher, which is doing its best to push “alternative” products and even as far to claim that it is working to “deliver a smoke free future.”

If there’s anything that the world agrees on, is the fact that the tobacco companies are “evil.” This is an industry that sells a product that kills its customers with nasty diseases. To add insult to injury the majority of customers fall into the lower income brackets, thus making the tobacco industry the only one that makes a fortune from killing the less well to do with diseases they cannot afford to have.

So, it goes without saying that one should be inclined to disregard anything that the tobacco industry claims about its new desire to move away from cigarettes. There have been articles about the science of smokeless products being ….well, less than kosher too. If there’s one tax that nobody complains about, it is the tax on tobacco because no sane person can be against anything that hurts the tobacco industry.

Singapore is famously “anti-smoking.” As well as the usual high taxes of tobacco and limited sales, Singapore was a pioneer in gruesome packaging (which had the adverse effect of turning cigarette packets into collector items). Being famously anti-smoking is actually something to be proud of and one can almost argue that the government’s firm stance in being against vaping and other alternative tobacco products as part of this anti-smoking image.

There’s only one problem. The current stance against alternative products sounds more like an “anti—tobacco companies” than actually being “anti-smoking.” While the science on alternative tobacco products is far from perfect, the one thing that everyone who has been involved in the science behind these products can agree on is that they are far less harmful both to the consumer and to the dangers of second-hand smoke than cigarettes. I stress that even Philip Morris admits that the products are “LESS HARMFUL,” rather than “HARMLESS.”

Having said that, the logical assumption about an “anti-smoking” government, that in a world of imperfect solutions, the government would, rather than wiping out alternative products but keeping cigarette selling healthily, they would ban the harmful product and ease people to a less harmful alternative before trying to get them to the non-harmful option of not smoking at all.

However, they can’t do that because, well that would make the tobacco companies look like responsible people and more importantly, it might make politicians less tough on an obvious villain. Unfortunately, looking tough on tobacco companies instead of looking for plausible ways of getting less people to take up cigarettes, Singapore has actually plateaued in the number of people quitting tobacco.

There’s much to admire in people who stick to their guns, especially in a climate where things don’t seem to go their way. One could argue that it is principled. However, there’s also a point where sticking to a position regardless of the obvious makes you look stupid or to make matters worse, a prisoner to your own beliefs. The later should never be acceptable for a convenience store owner let alone a minister in the “world’s most efficient” government.

When Art Won’t Imitate Life?

 When Neil French resigned as the WPP Group’s Global Creative head back in 2005, the Singapore media made a big deal about how Mr. French had a rather colourful career. Prior to joining advertising, Mr. French had worked in a variety of professions like bullfighter, restaurateur and debt collector. I remember mentioning to one of the creative directors at Crush Advertising, who replied, “Yes, but that they don’t realise was this is what made him so good.”

I relate to this point because I had the type of CV that was so colourful that one of my mentors told me never bother looking for a corporate job because I would never be able to explain why I never stayed anywhere for long. Human Resource (HR) departments, particularly in Singapore tend to stick with a particular mold – namely a graduate who studied for the job and would work in the organization for several years. People like Mr. French or even David Ogilvy, founder of the agency that propelled Mr. French into the top job at the WPP Group would probably never have gotten their foot into the door because that had “weird” experiences would not have made it past the CV reading stage.

While I do get where HR departments are coming from, I don’t believe that this necessarily works when it comes to producing content (for the sake of this posting, content refers to any consumable form of art like painting, music, movies, books and so on). The reason for this is because the people with the colourful work experiences have different perspectives on life from the straight and narrow and they bring it into their work. Both David Ogilvy and Neil French succeeded because they had lived as real people rather than prisoners of their profession and gave them the ability to produce the work that the did. Although things like art and literature are often presented and taught in schools as “high-end” culture for an elite, the truth things like great art and literature should be very relatable. Let us not forget that Shakespeare wrote plays for the masses. The ordinary people saw his work and were drawn in because there was something in which they could relate to.

I’ve been thinking of this a lot in the last week because I’ve been on medical leave and have had the time to indulge in a habit that I picked up during the lockdown – binge watching Korean Dramas and Bollywood movies. I actually watched two series back-to-back and finished four seasons worth of two separate Korean Dramas this week. The two dramas that I watched were “Dr. Stranger,” and “Vagabond,” both of which were exceedingly gripping.

I then asked myself, what made the Korean dramas and even Bollywood movies so compelling. The answer was in the story. Why would I be gripped by K-Drama or Bollywood, which produce content in languages that I don’t speak but would not for any notable drama series produced by MediaCorp, which produces in English and Mandarin, languages of which I have some command of.

The shallow answer is perhaps hot chicks and fancy sets. Bollywood, for example is wonderful escapism from the mass poverty that infects India. However, while much of Bollywood is fantasy and escapism (India’s tourist industry would boom if every Indian girl looked like Kajol), there are elements of Bollywood stories that are relatable to the ordinary guy especially when it comes to dealing with officialdom.

Likewise, there an element of relatability in K-Dramas. Sure, not all of us can be beautiful doctors and lawyers who fall in love with other relatability, especially when it comes to the struggles that the lone ranger faces when dealing with the bureaucratic machine. Dr. Stanger in particular had a great twist in the life of the main character in that there was a politician who sent his father off to North Korea, got him stuck there and proceeded to make life a living hell for the rest of the story:

 

The Evil Prime Minister – Dr Stranger

Now, if you take the maxim that art is an imitation of life, you can see very clearly that people do have struggles when dealing with government. Sure, in India, the struggles that people face when dealing with government bureaucrats are extreme and you can relate to the wish of every Indian goer to have an honest rookie in the civil service shake up the system or for the people to rise up and kick corrupt officials in the proverbial goolies.

India is an extreme example. The struggle that ordinary citizens face with the government in South Korea is by no means as extreme as in India but it still exists. Entertainers do write stories that tackle issues like the issue of influence in policy making and executive decisions.

By contrast, you will never see a show in Singapore in any language, which shows that a civil servant or politician acting in a self-interested way. Civil Servants and Members of Parliament are, at most, funny. Policemen are always fit, dashing and able to get involved in shoot outs (which judging by incidents on the net, is not true) and you will never have a fictionalized President or Prime Minister.

The official argument is that Singapore’s government is super advanced, modern and most importantly altruistic and honest and so, the depiction of government officials in Singapore dramas is as true as close as one can get to real life.

Now, for all my complaints about the system here, I do think the Singapore system has worked relatively well. What I do disagree with is the notion that the average citizen does not have struggles with the system and that civil servants are perpetually helpful and kind. This does not provide us with an accurate reflection of one of the most crucial topics in any society, namely the discussion between the ruled and the rulers.

Nobody is saying that we have to create “conspiracies,” about the political system for good fictional drama. However, portraying a rosy picture of the relationship through fiction does not exactly benefit anyone and the government misses out on a fabulous opportunity to raise social discussions that it can’t have in the official space.

Take the issue of a “non-Chinese Prime Minister.” Nobody has said that the government needs to chose a non-Chinese for the top job and nobody says that you should force it on the old folks. However, can you imagine if someone had created either a popular TV show, a cartoon strip or a book which showed a non-Chinese Prime Minister? Singapore is missing the opportunity to have discussions through fiction.

Singapore’s social planners need to encourage situations where art can imitate life and visa-versa. When you refuse to do this, you get neither art nor life.  

You’ve Pissed Me Off and That’s OK

 

One of the largest stories last month was the beheading of a teacher, who had shown cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Three teenagers were charged with his murder and the result was something of a diplomatic row between France and the Muslim World. French President, Emanuel Marcon was even declared an “enemy of Muslims,” in Indonesia:

https://www.pmnewsnigeria.com/2020/11/02/macron-an-enemy-of-muslims-indonesian-protesters/

Details of the background story can be found at:

https://www.dw.com/en/france-three-teens-charged-in-beheading-of-history-teacher/a-55526223

The dispute between France and the Islamic World is the second time that a European nation has come into conflict with the Islamic World over the topic of blasphemy. Shortly before heading to Saudi in 2006, I remember living through the Jyllands-Posten incident when the Danish newspaper published “offensive cartoons,” of triggered off mass protest across the Muslim world, which included the burning and the burning of embassies.

The main argument in the Western World was the fact that this was a freedom of speech issue. While most rational heads in the Islamic World had condemned the violence, there were many who were critical of the Western government’s failure to protest religious sensitivities and “respect for religion.” I remember interviewing Saudi Deputy Minister for Islamic Affairs, Dr. Abdullah Ilhidan in 2006, who argued that there was a need to protect everyone’s religious sensitivities.

Let’s start with the obvious point here. The cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo were downright offensive. If you leave aside the Islamic prohibition against depicting live images of anyone, let alone “God’s Last Prophet,” the cartoons were by all accounts provocative and accused the Muslim world of causing every terrorist incident around. For the sake decency, I am publishing a cover from Charlie Hebdo, which can be interpreted as a France’s attempt find common ground with its Muslim population.

 

There is also the question of whether it was necessary to publish the cartoons. In layman terms, it’s your right to say and publish what you want but do you need to go out of your way to piss people off? I remember asking PN Balji, who had just retired from his second stint in Today, whether he would have published the cartoons of the Jyllands-Posten. He said no because it was potentially explosive.

Singapore tried to straddle the middle ground between the Western view of “Freedom of Speech,” and “Respect for religion,” line. Our “least conflicted,” Minister, Mr. K Shanmugam, said that in the Singapore context “Freedom of speech stops at the boundary of giving offense to religion.” fe

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/free-speech-stops-at-the-boundary-of-giving-offence-to-religion-shanmugam

Having said all of that, there is no justification for the violence that was perpetrated against Danish Embassies in 2006 and against Charlie Hebdo cartoonist in France and calls to boycott Danish (in 2006) and French businesses more recently are what you’d call overblown. The French, for example, have since World War I not invaded any Muslim countries for personal gain (the French loud critics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq) and both the French and Danes have been relatively generous in giving asylum to Muslims freeing persecution from Muslim countries.

So, how is it such that Western countries that have a record of relative benevolence against Muslim majority states would be the subject of ire in the Islamic world over a couple of cartoons?

While I don’t have direct answers to the question, one might suggests looking at who is calling to defend the “honour” of the faith. In the 2006 Jyllands-Posten incident, it was found that in Palestinian controlled areas, the charge against all things Danish was instigated by Fatah, the secular party that runs the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the party that both the USA and Israel see as a “partner for peace.” Hamas, the Islamist party that both the USA and Israel, regard as a terrorist organisation, did not instigate violence against things Danish. In Egypt it was the foreign minister of the “secular” Egyptian government that branded the Danish cartoons a scandal and launched a multinational effort to prevent recurrence of such insults to Islam. In Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani condemned the cartoons but also commented about militants who discredit Islam by their acts. Sistani underlined how un-Islamic acts of extremism are used as justification to attack Islam. Khaled Al Maeena, my former editor at Arab News described the violence against all things Danish as “Foolish.”

There was no doubt that an amount of religious fever involved in the violence, one needs to look beyond the headlines. The events of 2006 and the current events might indicate that there are a good number of secular political players exploiting religious passions for good old fashioned secular purposes like power and money.

So, the question would be where does one draw the lines between freedom of speech and religious respect come. Freedom of speech, as they say, will involve a huge amount of offensive speech. As a rational person, I’d say that the best way to deal with offensive speech is to ignore it – a case of I don’t like what you say so I won’t listen. I’m also fortunate where I live in Singapore where people express their frustrations online but don’t take to the streets.

I also understand the government’s position when it says freedom of speech stops when it causes offense to religion. While our last race-based riot was in the 60s, the government is not wrong to argue that our religious and racial harmony cannot be taken for granted.

Having said that, there is a problem, namely the problem of “definitions.” Hence, when a minister talks about “responsible” speech, the question is one of “responsibility.” When you talk about “not offending,” there is a question of what defines “not offensive.”

The ground level compromise in Singapore is fairly visible. In any given hawker centre you’ll see how trays are divided into halal and non-halal sections. Muslims happily sit alongside non-Muslims, who may guzzle pork dishes. On the ground level, there seems to be a working compromise.

However, when things go a level above the ground, there is a grand flip-flopping on what constitutes offense to religion. This is a government that has barred Muslims from serving beyond a certain level in the military but at the same time, sees no issue in reserving the presidency for a particular race and religion. We say that we must not be “offensive to religion or race,” but at the same time we had a former politician who was in the habit of writing all sorts of “Truths” about how people of a certain faith were not integrating, remarks which did hurt the community.

So, perhaps we need to relook at the rules and their application. Yes, there should be certain limits on freedom of speech but these limitations need to be there for a good reason. As a Buddhist I may get offended if you call Gautama Buddha a mad oversexed hippy. It may be offensive to me as a Buddhist but it’s not provocative or done with the possibility of getting some nut job to do me or my family harm. What should be limited is if you label say, “All Bald Singapore Chinese men as serial rapist,” in the public sphere. Such comments are likely to damage my ability to get a job as a toilet cleaner or worse put me in the cross hairs of some nut case.

Secondly, we need to raise our standards. If we are to say that provocative speech ends where it causes offense to a religion or even a race, we also need to look at who says it. If a coffee shop auntie says something offensive, the answer should be – who cares, the old lady is entitled to an opinion, no matter how offensive. However, if we intend to make causing offense a public issue, surely politicians should be slapped harder when they do so – after all their words have a greater impact on society.

We live in a world that currently needs to find more opportunities for dialogue. There should be freedom of expression and people should listen to opinions that they don’t necessarily like (as anyone who contributes to the internet will testify to). Having said that, we do need to accept that harmful and inciteful speech needs to be watched. It’s how you ensure there’s a social dialogue with rules that everyone can agree on.    

God The Politician

 I’ve often stated that when it comes to religion, I am a Buddhist student of Christian theology who has been blessed by Muslims, Jains and Hindus. Someone on Tremertitus described my situation as messed up and a few people have suggested to me that my I’m destined for hell and that my lack of material success is down to my inability to devote myself exclusively to a single God.

I think of this as a blessing. My experiences with people of different creeds has made me understand that there is yet to be a single faith with a monopoly on virtuous people and no religion has a monopoly of arseholes. I’ve often said that the best and worst paymasters I’ve had were both Tamil and Catholic. I’ve noticed that the Almighty tends to come to us in different forms. For me, while I will bow to Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist statues as much as I cross myself every time, I pass a church, I tend to see the presence of the almighty as a guidance rather than an active player. Prayer is an act to assurance.

It’s not the same for everyone else. For the entrepreneur I married, prayer is the seeking of blessings in business. For others, God is a doctor and a banker. I’ve heard that people experience cures from things that the doctors had described as incurable. The Old Rogue used to say, “We are more than just a collection of atoms,” and you can’t write off everything as mumbo-jumbo.

Having said that, I do believe that there are professions where God should not enter. I’ve stated previously and I’ll never tire of saying it, God should not be in real estate. Just look at the insolvable issue between Israel and Palestine. Two groups of people which share so many similarities have been unable to settle a land dispute for nearly a century because they were under the impression that God was a real estate broker for certain parts of the desert.

The second profession where God should not enter is of course, politics. If you look at human history, you will notice that God does not exactly have the best of records when it comes to politics. OK, I’m saying that I think that politician should be without faith. I do believe that faith can help make a person better and as having good people in politics is imperative.

What I do object do is you have people coming into office on the grounds that they are God’s exclusive agents on earth. The problem with that is that the people who usually come in on the ground of being “God’s Exclusive,” have a way of ensuring that they do everything else except what you’d imagine God would want them to do.

Take the world’s most prominent theocracy as an example. Iran has a dual system of government where there is an elected president and parliament. However, the elected portion of government is subordinate to the guys who are nominally chosen by God. Iran’s presidents are all limited by term limits. The Supreme Leader stays for life and pretty much nothing gets done in Iran without the permission of the Supreme leader. So, despite being filled with highly educated and rational people, Iran remains unable to interact with the wider world because, well God’s agents don’t see the need to.

Once again, arseholes are not limited to a single religion. Buddhist Burma has been involved one of the worst human rights abuses of all times with massacre of the Rohingya population. In Israel, the Sha’s party of extreme Orthodox Jews prevents any form of intelligent settlement with the Palestinians.

One of my favourite examples of why we need to keep God of politics is in America, where the current President has chosen to have a rather interesting spiritual advisor. This is woman is called Paula White..

To be fair to Paula White, she has a nice rag to riches story. She is in her own words “trailer-park trash” and somehow, she found God, wealth and the ear of the most powerful man in the world. The other thing that you can say about Paula White is that she’s pretty in a “trashy” sort of way (eye-candy might be the politically correct term) and looks presentable in a dress:

However, that’s probably as far as it should go. If you listen to this woman with a rational mind and consider the fact that the world’s most powerful man takes spiritual guidance from her, you’d end up rushing to cave and hiding in the hope that the end of the world will happen soon and swiftly.

This woman tells people that the ground she steps on makes things Holy. She, has, apparently been given the authority by God himself to make the grounds she walks on Holy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5hWPfJTz38

When the election results were called against the Donald, Ms. White proceeded to launch a sermon accusing demonic forces of rigging the election and summoned angels from Africa and South America to sort things out (theologically wrong – summoning angels is God’s job not an individuals and angels live in heaven not in Africa or South America – though an African pastor in another video did suggest that she needed African angels because the American ones ate too many hamburgers and were too sluggish to do anything).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4daeEacIVI 

I’m not against people having faith or a relationship with God and politicians can choose who they pray to. However, when you’re talking about someone who has the ear of the most powerful man on the planet, it’s a different story, particularly when the world is in the midst of a pandemic and the country in question has by far and away the world’s worst number of cases. It’s a situation that requires rational and scientific solutions rather than someone’s conversation with angels and demons.

It’s like the Malaysian Bomoh (witch doctor) who went on TV to declare that elves and demonic spirits made MH370 vanish. Sure, what this guy is saying is funny in a dark humour sort of way but it was totally unhelpful and it doesn’t help that there are people who listen and believe this stuff. The only benefit that the world had at the time was that the aviation authorities did not hire him to be a consultant.

I’m all for politicians being believers. However, we need to remember that we live on the material plane where things like facts matter. Ironically enough, it was another so called “theocracy” that understood this. When Covid-19 struck, Saudi Arabia took steps to suspend Umrah and Haj Pilgrimages despite the economic benefits to Saudi Arabia (second largest revenue after oil) and political implications for the ruling family. Can you imagine how much worse the situation would have been if the millions who normally attend the Haj had been allowed to mingle and spread the virus because they thought God would protect them from the virus?

In the middle of a pandemic, you do not need a snake oil version of God trying to convince people that they have magic powers. This is how you undo God’s work of making life on earth better for all mankind.