We Have A Uniform Policy in the Public Service Which Cannot be Tilted Towards any Religious Belief – Unless We Need to Show Certain Groups, We Don’t Discriminate Against Them.

 

There’s been a public debate about fashion this month. This fashion dispute involves allowing Muslim Nurses the right to wear a “Tudong” (headscarf worn by Malay-Muslim Women) as part of their uniform. The issue was first raised in Parliament by Mr. Faisal Manap of the Worker’s Party (The Opposition) and was met with a swift and vigorous reply by the Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs, Mr. Masagos Zulkifi. The Minister stated that the government had a clear-cut policy of keeping common spaces secular and Muslim women were not allowed to wear the tudong because it would mark them out as Muslims, thus giving patients the ability to choose if they wanted to be treated by a Muslim or not. More on Masagos’s response to the “tudong” issue can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/wearing-tudungs-with-uniforms-nurses-secular-approach-masagos-14362266

After Mr. Masagos came out to say that such sensitive issues would be discussed behind closed doors and that the government was quite clear in its stance, Singapore’s “Least” conflicted Minister (the Minister of Law and Home Affairs), Mr. K. Shanmugam came out to say that it was likely that the government would be likely to let Muslim nurses wear a “tudong” and that the government had made the decision some six-months ago. The full story can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/nurses-likely-be-allowed-wear-tudung-religious-leaders-informed-govts-position-over-six

This incident highlights two serious flaws with the current system. The most obvious point is that our “famously competent” government is looking anything but, especially when two ministers have come out to say two very different things about the same issue. Unfortunately for Mr. Masagos, this is the second time that he’s been involved in an incident where the government has been made to look less than competent (April 2020 - https://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-plights-of-small-business-from-big.html )

The second point is that this incident underlines the fact that official claims to fight for equal rights is, well, only when its convenient.

The argument goes that Singapore is officially a secular state and our national pledge says very clearly, “Regardless of Race, Language or Religion.” One can freely practice religion in the private space but common spaces like schools are secular. If you take the government’s official stance, you’re led to believe that all forms of discrimination are bad and against national values. Singapore is officially a “meritocracy” that hires solely on ability “regardless of race, language or religion.”

Mr. Masagos’s argument is that allowing Muslim nurses to wear the tudong is part of their uniform would go against everything Singapore officially stands for. It would mark out each “tudong-Wearing” nurse as a Muslim and it would encourage pro and anti-Muslim sentiment amongst their patients, which is officially against everything that Singapore stands for.

All this is very well when you look at it through “official” lenses. However, there is one slight problem with this “anti-tudong” stance. The ultimate human symbol of the nation, or the president wears a tudong.

What’s particularly interesting is not that our president got her job because she happened to be the best and most popular candidate who happened to be a Muslim woman who wears a tudong. Our president was chosen for the job specifically because she is a Muslim woman who wears a tudong.

 

Singapore’s Values Expressed in Human Form Chosen Because She Wears a Tudong

Here lies the inherent contradiction in what the government is saying. The presidency, which is supposed to be the human embodiment of our national values is chosen because she happens to wear a tudong and the government feels that the Malay community need to be represented at the highest office in the land.

However, at the same time we are saying that you cannot allow Muslim nurses to wear a tudong because it would mark them out as Muslims and therefore cause all sorts of strong feelings that would be bad for racial harmony.

It could be me but it seems that there is a contradiction in the official stance on certain things. Shouldn’t the government look at trying to get its basics, right?

Back to Freak Central

 The Return to Normal Office Life Symbolises the Return to an Economic Model that was Losing Value

Went to the office this morning to find that the train system was on the blink again. People were having to leave the MRT stations to get onto buses to send them back to their favourite place – the office. The breakdown in the train system coincides with the announcement that Singapore will be taking yet another step to returning to “normal” and that “work-from-home” systems that had been in place, would no longer be the “default” mode.

 

Buses to Fix the Broken Trains

I guess people are happy to return to normal. After all, working home and going into endless Zoom meetings did give people stress. In China, the birthplace of the virus and the concept of lockdowns, there was surge in divorce cases as couples couldn’t take the stress of being with each other 24/7. I guess, to many, returning to the office had a feel of returning to that safe and familiar life.

However, for me, the broken train system coinciding with the return to “normal” of going back to the office, made me realise one thing – our “normal” pre-covid economic model was pretty much like the train system – still functioning but increasingly faulty and instead of trying to fix the fundamental problem, the powers running the economic model were behaving like the train operators arranging for emergency buses – slapping on a band aid instead of fixing the fundamental problem.

Like our train system, the economy looks good on the outside and still hums along nicely when compared to quite a few other places. However, like the MRT system, a large part of the economy was built for a different era and there have been notable breakdowns in the economy in the same manner that there have been notable breakdowns on the MRT. Our economic managers have behaved in the same way as the MRT managers rushing emergency buses to the stations – slapping on band aids instead of looking for fundamental problems and fixing them. As a small nation, Singapore cannot afford to rest on “The system is still better than elsewhere.” This thinking is a recipe for future problems.

The problem with the MRT is simple. The original system was built back in 1987 when our population was a shade under three million (2,775,000) and it grew to around 3,047,000 in 1990, which is an increase of 272,000 people in three years. This is roughly 90,000 a year or less than a percent a year. In 2004, when a new Prime Minister came into power, our population was 4,167,000 and in 2007, our population reached 4,589,000 or 422,000 in three years. Our population grown between 2004 and 2007 was steeper than Hong Kong (which has an influx of migrants from China, which is a stone’s throw away) and Kuala Lumpur.  

https://www.google.com/search?q=Singapore+population+2004&source=hp&ei=8XdhYIDGO5im9QOdp7kQ&iflsig=AINFCbYAAAAAYGGGAmIOhPoHeI711ORg0GfLExXM32pj&oq=Singapore+population+2004&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEM0CMgUIABDNAjIFCAAQzQIyBQgAEM0COggIABCxAxCDAToICC4QsQMQgwE6CAguEMcBEK8BOg4ILhCxAxCDARDHARCvAToLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6DgguELEDEMcBEKMCEJMCOgUIABCxAzoOCC4QsQMQgwEQxwEQowI6AggAOgsIABCxAxCDARDJAzoLCC4QsQMQgwEQkwI6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOhEILhCxAxCDARDHARCjAhCTAjoFCAAQyQM6BQguELEDOgUIABCSAzoGCAAQFhAeUJIEWN8kYKomaABwAHgAgAFXiAHFCJIBAjI1mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjAguCD9NTvAhUYU30KHZ1TDgIQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

 

The majority of the population growth came from migration. The logic behind opening the doors to migration was simple – economic growth. Logic was simple, with more people, there would be more money. More people would give local businesses more customers and a larger labour force and so on and so on. While the logic works on paper, the MRT system was built to withstand the influx of people and instead of choosing engineers to fix the basic rail system, successive SMRT CEO’s were given a mandate to make more from the retail operations, which benefited the shareholders (the largest shareholder at the time being Temasek Holdings, which has since bought SMRT).

Call it a coincidence but how is it such that there were no breakdowns when Covid restrictions were in place and less people used the system, then it breaks down when the restrictions are lifted and people rush back to use the system.

Something similar could be said about the economy. Our economy was built on being the centre of everything. First it was manufacturing, where the key was to attract multinationals to build big factories. Then it was finance, where multinationals were encouraged to set up huge, gleaming offices to be regional headquarters. This model did provide lots of jobs for a while. It gave Singapore plenty of shiny buildings and made vast fortunes for Singapore’s landlords (the largest being the government, Far East Organisation and Hong Leong Group).

However, just as our MRT system was not prepared for an influx of customers, the economy never factored the rise of cheaper manufacturing centres in the region like China and increasingly Vietnam as well as rival financial centres. The economic solution has consistently been the same – tax breaks and credits for investors willing to set up shop to build big factories and/or to rent expensive properties.

Unfortunately, there are limits to this. Covid-19 forced businesses to work differently. Remote working had to become a fact of life and suddenly, there was no need to house people in expensive offices. Entrepreneurs found that they could work without interruption. Small time start-ups, who are the backbone to any economy had a way of doing things without having to take on the crippling cost of criminally high rentals to unproductive organisations.

Instead of encouraging this movement to develop, the government remained focus on the glamorous parts of the economy that centred around big offices. Sure, I can understand that there was a need to help businesses get through the early stages of covid-19. However, instead of trying to encourage the return of normal, more could have been done to create an economic model that worked for Singapore and as many as her residents as possible. Missing that opportunity to create something new is a pity.

Reputation is a Nebulous Thing

 Last Friday (18 March 2021) I attended the Asia Debt & Debt Restructuring Forum 2021 at the Pan Pacific Hotel. This was an event organised by Asian Legal Business, a division of Thomson Reuters and it was a chance to distressed debt investors and restructuring professionals to get together.

The single most memorable panel discussion was on “Fraud Warning Signs and Safeguards for Creditors.” The panel members involved the head of Kroll’s Southeast Asian business intelligence and investigations department as well as two guys from Borelli Walsh (now part of Kroll) and a lawyer from Hogan Lovells. During this topic of reputation came up and the lady from Kroll said “Reputation is a nebulous thing.”

 

Panel Discussion on Fraud Warning Signs and Safe Guards for Creditors at Asia Debt & Debt Restructuring Forum 2021

As someone who had spent the better of his working life building up reputations (what else is Public Relations other than the art of building reputation or face as I used to say to my former in-laws), that comment really struck me.

As a freelance consultant with no “big-brand” agency to my name, I always found that one of the major challenges I had was to get people to pay me. It was a challenge because what I was essentially doing was trying to sell something that was very hard to quantify to people who needed to quantify things. I remember one client asking me how much I could make him if I got him press coverage. While I could not get guarantee a sale from a moment of “free-publicity,” I could ensure him that the press coverage I got would contribute to building a brand. The question was, however, tough to quantify and the bean counters would inevitably struggle with the return-on-investment calculations.

The value of reputation is often hard to quantify in way that the bean counters can understand in normal times. However, it becomes surprisingly easy to calculate in a time of crisis. Anyone who worked at Arthur Anderson or Satyam Computers would be able to tell you exactly how much a damaged reputation can cost a business. I remember being told by one of my friends in the Indian IT space saying, “The guys at Satyam used to be regarded as Gods for working there.”

This is exactly why the clients for PR and other forms of branding work are inevitably big institutions who have secured big brands. Someone like Google, for example does not need a PR agency to get them press coverage. What they hire PR agencies and brand consultancies for is to ensure that the brand stays strong and if and when things do go wrong (which is inevitable when you’re big enough), the brand not only survives but somehow gets enhanced from a crisis.

Building reputations or brands is tough, especially when it comes to smaller companies that might have budget concerns because while necessary, its an investment that is hard to quantify. In Asia, where a lot of the economy is based on old fashioned trading or manufacturing, clients will inevitably see the work of PR and branding consultants are creating drawings (hey my kid can draw too) or just chit-chatting to journalist (I’ve lost count of the number of times people have told me they can call the press themselves). Brand building is a bit more than that. It is ensuring that a business behaves and just as importantly, is seen to behave in a certain way. This inevitably takes time because the various stake holders a business may have, need time to get to cement a relationship with the business (think of the need to date for years before marriage).

Reputations take time to build up. I think of a Prince who spent years building up a reputation as fun and caring guy:

 

Copyright Royal.uk

Suddenly, he got married and fell out with his family and the press which had previously celebrated him suddenly decided he was an ungrateful shit as this headline from the Sun (the UK’s best read daily) shows:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14412415/prince-william-reaching-prince-harry-meghan-markle/?utm_campaign=sunmainfacebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1616398399

 

Interestingly enough, the value of reputation or brand has become clearer to me now that my main source of income is in the insolvency and forensic business. Interestingly enough, the one group that becomes vulnerable to a good reputation is the financial one. Banks are more willing to give credit if you have a reputation of being a good paymaster. The same is true of suppliers. I remember having to deal with a large American multinational that had a standard of 60 days of credit terms. I remember groaning to my partner on the job about this. The reply way “But its ….., they are such a big and strong company, they will pay.”

For the most part its justified in as much as the big players like remaining big players. As such, they will avoid getting involved in anything that will pull them down a peg or in the case of very big players – many pegs.

However, now that I do work in an industry where running into financial shenanigans is a fact of life, there’s an angle that few think of. The best and biggest crooks understand that a good reputation is a very good tool in pulling off a heist. Its simple human nature. We are always weary when dealing with strangers. Familiarity, however, makes one comfortable and one focuses on making things convenient for the other party and as one health expert said, “one should run away from things that are convenient.”

Let’s go back to the example of Enron, the company that brought down Arthur Anderson. Enron was not a fly by night enterprise. It was, prior to its collapse, a potential rival to the major oil companies. It’s reputation was such that most assumed that the only need for an audit was, well because it was a formality.

Another case that comes to mind is that of a trader who built up a solid reputation with the banks, who kept giving credit, until one fine day he could not pay them. To their horror, the banks only discovered serious lapses in their internal processes once he had left them high and dry.

For businesses, reputation or brand is an all-important asset. It’s the thing that keeps stakeholders wanting to do the business. However, as was said at the conference, it is a nebulous thing. The really smart crooks understand that a good reputation can be weaponized to lull everyone into complacency. This is something that finance professionals need to be aware of at all times. Sure, a man with a good reputation will probably treasure it but you can never assume that he’s using it to lull you into complacency and convenience.

From Lad to T**at

 It’s been said that if you like getting perks that one of the best jobs in the world is to be the Vice-President of the USA. You get the similar perks to being President (the car, the house and the plane) but you don’t get the responsibilities of the office (it’s “The President’s Administration”). Unless the President makes you head of some task force or other, your job is pretty much to sit there to fill the main seat in the event that the president dies in office (as happened to LBJ after JFK got shot).

You could say that being the American Vice-President is like being the second son a monarch. You get the perks of being royalty but sine you’re unlikely to be king, nobody really cares about what you do. Like the Vice-President, the second son has a certain amount of freedom to shape his destiny that the guy in the top spot does not have.

The record of second sons in the British monarchy has been patchy. There was Albert Windsor, who was a happy and shy man with a stutter until his brother chose to marry an “unsuitable” woman, thus making him become George VI (his reign involved World War II and the dissolution of Empire). Then there’s a current Duke of York who for want of a better description forgot that defending your regular attendances at the parties of a convicted sex offender wasn’t the smartest thing to do.

Prince Harry, the second son of Prince Charles, the current heir to the throne seemed to have gotten the right formula of being the second son. Whereas his brother, or the “King-in-Waiting” did all the serious stuff, he took the path of being a royal who was open about his emotions. He served his nation by fighting in Afghanistan and championed good causes, including the ones that his mother once championed (landmines and mental health) and was not afraid of being seen to be having a good time with his Grandmother (who isn’t known for having fun)

 

Having Fun with Grandma – Copyright Vanity Fair

William may have been the “modern” face of royalty but it was Harry that the rest of the common folk could relate to. It was he, rather than his brother who seemed to represent Britain as it actually is rather than what it would like to be.

Harry’s proverbial crowning glory came when he married American Actress Meghan Markle, whose main claim to fame was being the attractive love interest in a legal drama called Suites. Much was made about the fact that Ms. Markle is “bi-racial” (dad is white and mum is black) and this was a wonderful “first-ever” for the royals ruling an increasingly multi-racial Britain.

 

 

Everyone seemed happy until one day, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex decided that they were going to step back from royal duties and then they’d move off to America where they could “earn their own money.”

Well, the infamous “Megxit” as that event was known has become even more infamous with an interview that the couple gave to American talk show host, Oprah Winfrey. This was an interview that showed the genius of someone’s PR spin. In that interview, it was insinuated that the Royals were a group of racist because someone in the family had “expressed concerns” about baby Archie’s skin colour and that Ms. Markle like her late mother-in-law, Princes Diana, felt suicidal about locked up in a castle. To add to the insinuation of being cruel racist, it was also insinuated that they were cheap – too cheap to pay for their security.

The interview has created a predictable amount of news ink. It was, perhaps what you’d call the transformation of Prince Harry from proverbial lad to actual Twat. How did it happen and why did they do it? What’s interesting is that the Prince and Ms. Markle seemed to have pretty much what they wanted.  They had signed lucrative TV deals with the likes of Netflix and once “Megxit” was announced, the British Press only really covered them when it came to “Megxit” news, which was something both had cited as reasons for wanting to step back. So, what was the point of doing the interview and dropping so many bombshells?

One can only assume that either Ms. Markle felt aggrieved by the treatment the royal family gave her or this was the perfect opportunity to enhance the “Sussex” (Prince Harry is the Duke of Sussex and part of the sticking points of Megxit was the branding of the couple as “Sussex Royals”) brand. What better way to get people talking about you than by picking a fight with the very reason why you’re famous in the first place.

Let’s note that no specifics were given as to the “racist” incident where a senior royal expressed the concern about the little Archie’s skin tone. All we know is that the Prince went out of his way to call Oprah Winfrey to say that it wasn’t the Queen or Prince Philip. We are left with the question of which member of the family “expressed concern,” over the baby’s skin tone and we should also ask ourselves what exactly was said. There is a difference between “Oh, this is the first baby with bi-racial blood, I wonder if he’ll be slightly tan,” and “Oh God, hope it doesn’t turn out looking like it’s N***grandmother, it would be embarrassing if he came out looking tan.”

Then there’s the reaction of the Duchess to the former host of Good Morning Britain, Mr. Piers Morgan, who said he did not believe her and called her Princess Pinocchio.  For disagreeing with the Duchess’s take on things, Mr. Morgan lost his job because Ms. Markle made a personal complaint to Offcom, the official regulator. It’s clear that Ms. Markle has her pulse on what the media is saying about her and her husband:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/meghan-markles-oprah-interview-discrepancy-23742234

To make matters even worse, private conversations between the Prince and his brother and father was leaked to the media and described as being “unproductive.” One might suggest that the “Sussexes” don’t really intend to patch things up with the rest of the family unless it suites them.

As a former Royal Photographer said, Prince Harry was a happy and friendly fellow, who suddenly became withdrawn. What was the main factor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCRy5aaNkus

Nobody doubts that being a “royal” can be brutal and members of the House of Windsor are not known for being emotionally available. However, these are facts that are well known and given the amount of “dirt” that her late mother-in-law dished onto the family, there is no way that Ms. Markle can claim she didn’t know what she was getting into

As for Prince Harry, he has the option of walking away from it all. Unlike his older brother, he does not have a destiny and nobody would have begrudged him if he had walked away from “royal life.” However, leaving the problems brought about by being royal would also mean giving up the perks of being royal.

The House of Windsor is by no means perfect but they didn’t deserve to be hurt by cheap tricks from a couple they had given so much to.

What Race Am I? Which Ever One Works Best.

 Thanks to an actress masquerading as a Duchess, the topic of racism has made global headlines once again. Her timing was good. The world needs to discuss the issues of race, especially as an increasing number of nations become increasingly multiethnic and as the last four years have shown, the nations that have taken pride in being multiethnic have seen a greater number of tensions between the various communities. Far Right Anti-Migrant views which were once regarded as the preserve of the mentally deranged a decade ago, have now become mainstream. It’s very clear that even if race is only skin deep, the feelings that people have towards people of a different skin tone go down to the bone.

If you understand this, one will also understand one of the basic rules of being an ethnic minority – namely, downplaying your ethnicity and trying to identify with the ethnic majority. In the USA, this was most clearly seen in last year’s Black Lives Movement protest, where you had Asian Americans siding against Black Lives Movement protest as can be seen in this Hassan Minhaj video explains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_FE78X-qdY

In Singapore, this is seen in the Tamil minority community. You have Tamils who speak several Chinese dialects fluently but can’t speak a word of Tamil. In Thailand and Indonesia, the ethnic Chinese communities have taken local names. Mr. Chearavanont who runs Charoen Pokphand, one the largest animal feed companies in the world is actually Mr. Chia. When dealing with Americans, I’ve noticed that it’s always Americans descended from an ethnic group that always make it a point to stress that they are “AMERICAN” while the “White” Americans are more at ease about talking their ethnic origins. The Irish in America are particularly proud of their “Irish” roots.

What defines race? At the most basic, its often what you look like. In the decade that I lived in the UK; I was obviously Oriental. It was just a question of whether I was Chinese, Japanese or Korean. Officialdom in Singapore defines race as being what your father happened to be. When I adopted the Evil Teen (Who has since become the Fierce Adult), her race on her Singapore IC became, Chinese.

However, while there is a legal and physical definition of race, there is also a question of what race do we identify with. I, for example, am racially Chinese but my spoken Chinese is awful and I’m more likely to get myself understood in Hindi than I am in Hokkien. While I am physically Chinese, I don’t see myself as particularly so. I am just me. Or as a former client (who happens to be Gujurati Jain) said, “Are you sure Tang is Chinese, he sounds more Indian to me.”

Then there’s the example of “Bruce Lee,” whose first language was Cantonese and grew up in Hong Kong. Mr. Lee always played the “Savior” of the “downtrodden” Chinese people in his movies.

Interestingly enough, the “Perfect Chinese Hero,” is a quarter German and his mixed-race heritage played a role in his formative experiences, including being banned from martial art schools.

https://thesixfifty.com/the-time-lapse-the-secrets-of-bruce-lees-heritage-are-in-san-bruno-20b60fa7af6c

 

The Ultimate Chinese Hero wasn't pure Chinese

Many years later, there was “Barak Hussain Obama,” who became the 44^th President of the USA. Mr. Obama became known as “America’s First Black President.” However, if you look Mr. Obama’s heritage, he is merely black because his father was from Kenya and his formative experiences are far removed from the blacks who were born and raised America.

While it made political sense for Mr. Obama to identify himself as the “Black” President, Mr. Obama is in fact half white. His mother’s life story is actually fascinating when it comes to breaking racial boundaries. His mother, Ms. Ann Dunham was a white girl who grew up in the 60s (when racial segregation was very much legal and culturally accepted) and chose to have children with not just one but two men of colour (Obama’s stepfather is Indonesian)

 

The Black President was more Colourful

If you look at the racial mix in Mr. Obama’s family, you’ll realise that identifying him as a “black” president was actually disservice to the cause of civil rights. Sure, it gave the “black” community a hero but at the same time it limited the race debate to being a black versus white one and given that his successor ran on the platform of being an “Anti-Obama” we ended up with a larger white-versus-black issue.

Now imagine if he had been able to say that he was the first “multi-ethnic” and “multi-cultural” president. If only Mr. Obama had said “I am from every community.” Let’s hope that Ms. Kamala Harris, the current Vice-President understands that. She is promoted as the first “black” and “Indian” vice-president. Now, if only she could find a way of showing how a “black-Indian” lady can be happily married to a White Jew as a good example of racial unity.   

 

 

 

The Real Celebrities are – Politicians

 One of my oldest friends who studied popular culture at the University of Southern California, told me once that he noticed that in Singapore, the real celebrities were politicians. My friend, who had spent a year taking up acting roles on local TV pointed out that while our home-grown media stars were “well known” they were given very little for their proverbial fame unlike their counterparts in Hollywood. Sure, MediaCorp did not pay the “stars” badly but they were still paid employees of the only broadcaster in town, which happened to be government owned and had to make their “real” money from product endorsements. My friend also pointed out that unlike their counterparts in Hollywood, nobody actually cared much about what our local celebrities did.

He then made the point that the only comparable phenomena to a Hollywood celebrity in Singapore were our politicians – specifically the politicians from the ruling party. His point was this simple – nobody in Singapore cares about what actors do or think but everyone seems to care about what the politicians do. While the actors are merely paid employees of the government, it is the politicians who grab the headlines and let’s not forget the money-making opportunities.

In fairness to Singapore’s politicians, they are not the only “political-celebrities” around. The US has plenty of examples of celebrities who became politicians. Donald Trump is merely the most successful celebrity to turn his celebrity status into political success. America is not the only place where the line between being a celebrity and being a politician happens. World famous boxer Many Pacquiao is a senator in the Philippines and the current President of Liberia is former Manchester City player George Weah. A list of celebrities who have become politicians can be found at:

https://www.businessinsider.com/famous-celebrities-who-became-politicians-2018-3#jesse-ventura-was-a-member-of-the-us-navy-underwater-demolition-team-a-professional-wrestler-and-an-actor-who-starred-in-action-movies-alongside-schwarzenegger-before-he-served-as-governor-of-minnesota-from-1999-to-2003-13

The link between being a celebrity and a politician is an understandable one. A celebrity is in a position to build a brand and a base and as its not unreasonable for one to want to use that brand and base for something else.

Then there are the former politicians who become celebrities by virtue of having held office. America’s list of ex-Presidents who have written books and gone onto lecture circuit. Let’s face it, certain events capture the imagination and the people who were “there” are inevitably interesting.

I don’t believe that being a celebrity should disqualify one from being a politician. There is no evidence that celebrities make bad politicians. Ronald Regan who started out as a “B” movie actor turned out to be a fairly effective President. Arnold Schwarzenegger ran California in fairly competent manner and was a Republican who listened to science and behaved rationally.

Then, if you live in a country where the political scene is fairly closed, there is a need for alternative voices. I remember former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong giving Catherine Lim, an author, a public dressing down for being “critical” over one of his policies. His main line attack can be summed up as “if you can only criticize politicians if you become one.”

Mr. Goh could use that line of attack because, well this was Singapore. The rest of us would grumble but wouldn’t do much. Ms. Lim was simply not in the position to do much either. Now, imagine if her celebrity status had provided her with the following and by extension the cash to take the Prime Minister on his offer? It happened in America we had the example of Donald Trump who ran for office after Barak Obama made fun of him in public.

However, there is a problem with celebrity-politicians – namely the fact that it makes it easier for the people in power to develop a “God” complex where they believe that they can do no wrong. Leaders need to have a thumb on the pulse of what is going on and “God Complex” stops that from happening.

The risk is particularly high in Singapore where politicians are constantly being placed on pedestals and government is seen as the solution to everything.

I do think there’s much that is worth commending about Singapore. We remain a pretty clean and green city and our politicians and civil service are pretty good when compared to many of their global counterparts.

However, giving them a “celebrity like” status has issues and these need to be aired. Firstly, we celebrities don’t understand the fact that just because they were stars in one career that they’d be stars in another. One only needs to think of Michael Jordan, considered the greatest basketball player of all time, who decided to become a baseball player for a while. The magic he had on the basketball court simply didn’t happen in baseball.

In Singapore, we perpetuate a myth that an academically brilliant person would make a brilliant military general who in turn would make a brilliant business person. One only needs to look at our train system, which was by two men who were “stars” at getting good grades, who then became untested generals and have become CEOs with a less than spectacular record of competence. In Michael Jordan’s case he was made to realise that he wasn’t going to be a star baseball player and quickly returned to the NBA. Our “star” civil servants don’t have that ability to recognize when they’re not doing a brilliant job.

The second point is that “celebrity” has a way of clouding personal judgements. Hollywood is filled with stories of well to do and well-liked movie stars who are great on the silver screen but awful in real life and can’t handle it (hence the drugs). Celebrities get so used to getting what they want that they forget that this isn’t necessarily a good thing.

While “God Complexes” make actors and musicians difficult people to deal with, they become dangerous in those who hold power. People in public office need to have a hold on the pulse of the public if they are to be able to do their jobs with some sort of competence.

However, when people in power spend time promoting a message to the point that they believe that this is who they are, they lose the ability to deal with a “reality” check. One only needs to look at the war on smiley faces. Is this an extreme that we want in the people who have power over us?     

 

Eat Less and Move More

 The single best thing that happened to me during last year’s circuit breaker was losing weight. In the two months that I was away from the office, I managed to drop from a heft 90 – 92 kilos to around 81 kilos. Since I’ve returned to office life, the weight has gone up (I now hover between 85 to 89 kilos) but I’ve managed to stay below my pre-circuit breaker weight.

If I look back at by physical transformation would be the fact that much of our modern life is actually downright unhealthy, particularly if you work in the corporate sector. For those of us in the corporate sector or those of us who have to wear the title “Working Professional” end up spending our lives tied to our desk. Modern communications, particularly with the arrival of Zoom, have made it such that we really don’t need to move very much. As long as I have a workable internet connection, I can get hold of pretty much whatever I information I need for what I do with a click of a mouse nor do I really need to walk out to meet people because I can pick up the phone and if I really need to see people, we can just do it over video conference.

What’s particularly interesting is that the further up you climb in the corporate world, the less you’re obliged to move. Success means a bigger office with less need to move beyond that said office.

Furthermore, Singapore’s central business district is a strangely great food paradise. My office is within a five-minute walk from restaurants of a variety of cuisines and interestingly enough from both the street end and high end of the market. Just as food is easily available, so is booze and when you’re out of client entertainment there’s a temptation to indulge – after all who is not going to enjoy food and drink at a faceless corporation’s expense.

Our modern corporate culture strangely promotes a dangerously unhealthy way of life. Just look at the way in which corporate executives brag about how many nights they can go without sleep as they deal with phone calls and conferences from all over the world at the most unpredictable of hours.

How healthy can this be? Why do we promote work cultures that take us away from the important things in life? Is it to make more money? Let’s state the obvious, the cost of healthcare has gone through the roof as has the need to “show that you are working hard” in the office. However, wages have barely kept pace with inflation. We’re all sold on the idea that its somehow beneficial to work outrageous hours. Apparently, you need to justify your salary and even get a bonus if you’re lucky. Nobody has asked how spending all that time affects your body and in turn your mind (contrary to what has been said – there is a link between a healthy mind and a healthy body).

Work cultures need to change. Instead of looking for employees to work long hours, we should look at what those hours do to one’s body and mind. If this government is serious about increasing productivity and getting people to make babies, it should look at getting people away from their desk.

I’ve never been much of an exercise type but getting healthier has made me feel better and made life easier. I really hope more people will find the same.

Trying to move more in my daily life - the record of walking from the office to the bus home

Success in the Heartlands

 Last week, I had an unexpected windfall. I was awarded a bag filled with frozen foodstuff and I got $18 richer. The source of my good fortune came from a weekend gig I had taken on just before the Chinese New Year season selling frozen goods at the NTUC FairPrice in Bedok. Apparently, my team and I managed to sell so much frozen food that NTUC FairPrice decided to award us with a hamper with $20 worth of frozen goods and an $18 cash donation.

 

Me with the Prize

While the “prize “wasn’t something that would make a major difference to daily life, it was exceedingly gratifying. I’ve never been much of a salesman (I can move products – but I need a while to build a rapport, which is I why I move stuff at the Bistrot but its not in my nature to go for the kill with strangers – hence I would die if I went door-to-door) and for the most part I had to operate in a language that is my poor and distant fourth (Mandarin). So, being awarded for something I don’t do well in an environment that I struggle in felt that much more satisfying.

It was also an educational experience in getting to know the heartlands or Singapore as it is rather than what the government would like you to think that it is. I, for example, spend most of my time in an accounting firm in the financial district. It’s tempting to think that what I do in the land of spreadsheets is the be all and end all of what makes the economy tick. The truth is, the fate of the real economy is not based on what the faceless suites like me do. It’s based on what the “Uncles” and “Aunties” in the Heartlands do. Any entrepreneur who hopes to build a sustainable business in Singapore should focus on winning the loyalty of this group.

So, how did my team of supermarket promoters find success? Well, in all honesty, the real hero was not me. It was the promotion. The lead promotion was a hefty discount on pork (an important part of any self-respecting Chinese New Year meal). This in turn made it easy to sell the second promotion, which was to get them to buy a few more items to win a small prize of a cooler bag.

 

The Promotion Behind me is the Real Hero.

The Uncles and Aunties in the HDB estates have a nose for a bargain and as long as you can show them that there is one to be had, you can plant the idea of getting them to buy a little bit extra just to win something. The hero was the promotion itself. We merely had to find ways of making sure that they were aware that there was a bargain to be had.

Their keen nose for a bargain did mean that one had to do a little bit of crowd control. From time to time, one had to remind the crowds that Covid-19 is very much around and crowding together is dangerous to one’s well-being, and poking the plastic cover of the pork was also unacceptable.  Another part of this involved positioning the product around the freezer in order to get people to spread out.

So, whenever one deals with the crowd in the heartlands, one has to understand that they are fierce value hunters and what they want is the sense that they have gained value for what they’ve bought.  

 

Between the Bargain and Social Distancing?

The second point that I noticed was that the other heroes of this success story was the guys who I was partnered with. The guys I was “partnered” with were significantly older. This was the first work environment where I was actually referred to as “Xiao Di” or “Younger Brother.”  

If you watch these old guys work, you’ll notice that whatever they may lack in physical speed, they more than make up for it in enthusiasm. One of the old uncles that I was partnered with, managed the inventory of bags and tirelessly engaged customers.

 

This Old Boy Has the Energy of Get Things Explained Clearly

Anyone who thinks that “Old” people don’t have value to the work place is clearly trapped in a cubicle in some strange office. Sure, I could do more of the physical stuff like going into the cold room to replenish supplies, these guys were able to push customers in ways that I could not.

Much is being said about how we’ve become an aging society and the government is trying its best to get people to make babies. However, as well as looking at making more young people, the powers-that-be need to get creative about our “human” resources. The old people that I worked with want to be useful and finding ways to let them have that opportunity can only be beneficial to the rest of us.

 

Fighting People Who Can’t Fight Back Makes You A Crappy Fighter

 Thanks to the military coup of Myanmar, the question of civil-military relations has come into the focus. What exactly is the role of the military and how should the military relate to the rest of the governing apparatus?

As a rule of thumb, its very clear in most democracies that the military is always subordinate to the civil structure. Take the American example where the nation’s top soldier, the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s is merely an advisor to the president and has no operational authority over any troops. This is repeated further down the chain of command where the uniformed heads of services report directly to civilian secretaries. This example is not just limited to America. This appears to be the case in other places.

So, when someone who has grown up in a system where the military is merely a tool of the apparatus of state, hears of a military coup or a situation where the military takes over the government, one tends to groan and see disasters for the nation where the coup has happened.

While there have been situations where a military coup can be helpful in situations where civilian politics starts to become dysfunctional as was the case in Thailand in 2014 when the then Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra was removed by the military and the same could be said for Pakistan in 1999 when the then head of the army, General Pervez Musharraf removed Nawaz Sharif. There are leaders of military coups who have done a good job. Jerry Rawlings, former Ghanaian President comes to mind. This former air force office was described as a “Beast” by a Ghanaian friend.

However, with these notable exceptions, things tend to go downhill when the soldiers stay in power after their sell by date. Economies usually tank and so do the social indicators of a country. Nigeria, for example has done better since it returned to civilian rule many years ago.

Interestingly enough, one of the institutions that suffers in a military coup is the military itself. Instead of being a mean and lean fighting force that keeps the nation safe from foreign invaders, it becomes a flabby force used to keep the civilian population down.

These guys look tough

 

Copyright ABC News

When they’re fighting these guys:

 

Copyright Money Control

But How would they do if they had to face these guys?

 

Copyright Bangkok Post

The record of militaries in fighting wars has been pretty dismal when it comes to fighting other nations. As one former Indian National Pointed out – Pakistan’s military dominates Pakistan but in the three wars they have fought against India, they have lost miserably.

A record of the Pakistani Military in wars can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Pakistan

Another country that has seen more than its fair share of military coups is Nigeria. How has the Nigerian Army done in conflicts? If you look at the list of conflicts the Nigerian military has been involved in, you’ll note that its usually against separatist or as part of an international coalition. The one victory its had against Chad back in 1983. A record of the Nigerian military can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Nigeria

How has years of military rule been for the Myanmar military? Well, the nearly half a million Myanmar military’s main experience has been fighting various internal insurgents, each with a force of not more than 10,000 men. The military has been in conflict with these groups since 1948. Now, you would imagine that a national force would have been able to shut down much smaller insurgent groups if it really was an effective fighting force?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Myanmar

Wouldn’t it be better for all parties involved if the military went back to the barracks and focused on brining order against insurgent rebels, which in turn would encourage foreign investment, which would benefit everyone.

Can It Happen Here?

 One of the more difficult things about being a “dissident” in Singapore is the fact that on the surface, things appear to be darn good in Singapore. I’ve seen it on so many occasions. Whenever a Singaporean says something about Singapore being less than perfect, they will get their American and European friends looking at them like “What the heck are you complaining about?” Then there are the friends from less well-off places who would happily remind you that its often much worse elsewhere.

Sure, I don’t disagree with the sentiment that Singapore’s physical infrastructure is pretty sound, especially when you compare it to a few other places in our neighbourhood. As I finished writing a piece about Singapore’s vendetta against “Smiley” 😊 emoji’s, a friend of mine who is based in Myanmar got in touch with me and shared some photos of what was going on.

Whatever is happening in Singapore, it is inevitably worse in Myanmar. Singaporeans, as the following clip from Al Jazera reports, are not being gunned down in the streets:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/3/un-envoy-says-38-dead-in-bloodiest-day-since-coup-hit-myanmar

In fairness to Singapore’s government, our boys in blue have not, for example, taken particular visible joy at shooting people in the same way that the guys from Myanmar have:

 

So, yes, no matter how bad things get in Singapore, they seem much worse elsewhere. Our government does not shoot people on the streets. The people outside of Singapore will inevitably remind us that nobody starves and nobody gets shot on the streets.

Sure, Singapore is not just clean, green and rich, it is also peaceful. One can argue that this is the basics of what a nation should be and one cannot possibly ask for more. However, looking at what happens elsewhere and thinking that its still best in Singapore is not correct either.

Start with the obvious. The idea of looking at elsewhere and telling yourself that no matter how bad it is elsewhere so you should be grateful with what you have also works both ways. If one expects a citizen to look to the government and be grateful for the one that they have, surely the same logic should be applied when the government looks at its citizens. Our citizens protest by standing there with a smiley😊 face, they don’t take to the streets.

 

Copyright – ABC News

The second point is that we have to ask ourselves how societies end up with people on the streets. In Singapore the strategy of keeping people off the streets has been based on a combination of making things comfortable enough for people not to want to risk what they have and at the same time using fear an intimidation. The government, for example is obsessed with ensuring that foreign investors keep their money in Singapore. At the time, Singaporeans are reminded that the government can be heavy handed if its power is every challenged as can be seen by the vendetta against smiley faces 😊

However, there comes a point when people lose their fear of heavy-handed treatment and start thinking about something other than themselves. One has to look at places like Tunisia and Egypt in 2011 when the people took to the streets to get rid of Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak respectively. Both Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak were quite open in using brutality to keep the people down and its worked for decades. Then things reached a stage where things were so bad that people lost their fear at the risk of being shot in the streets.

One can argue that its not going to happen in Singapore. Our government is obsessed with keeping on the right side of the international business community and it understands that shooting people on the streets is going to make people with money flee the country. However, just because today’s government is at least self-interested enough not to instigate mass shootings, who is to say that a future government might not resort to those methods.

Myanmar was a brutal military dictatorship for many years. Then in 2011 they decided to open up, freed the opposition leader Ms. Ang San Suu Kyi and the foreign investors poured into the country and began to build things up for the better. Ms. Ang was willing to accommodate the military and went as far as to throw away her reputation for saintliness and turned a blind eye to their slaughter of the “Rohingya” community.

You would have imagined that the military would have quietly stayed in the background and enjoyed the fruits of the growing prosperity. That was the “logical” thought but then, the military decided that this was not the way to go and they’ve been happy to shoot people protesting against their illegal take over.

 

It’s not just the humans that the military have decided to go after. Even the dogs have not been spared.

 

Top-down systems can work. If the guy at the top is super competent and the fruits of his or her actions benefit the governed things work. However, as societies, economic and social systems become more complex no leader can claim to have the perfect solution to every problem. The governing and governed need to have a constant dialogue. You cannot have a dialogue if you see threats in 😊 because it’s a sign that you’re not interested in listening. If you constantly treat people who have smiley faces 😊 in jail for disrupting public order, you set up the stage for a situation where people will no longer care about public order because you may have made normal life too unbearable for them

😊 – Rest of the World = Smiley and Happy: 😊 - Singapore= Symbol of Anarchy

 I just saw a news clip in the Today Newspaper, which said that Mr. Louise Ng, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency (GRC) was being investigated by the police for holding up a “smiley face” encouraging people to support their local hawkers. The full story can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/police-investigating-mp-louis-ng-holding-smiley-face-sign-supporting-hawkers

 

It goes without saying part of the reason why the police are investigating Mr. Ng is the fact that the Onlinecitizen, one of our socio-political websites asked if Mr. Ng had obtained a public license to do so and whether he’d be charged for holding up a smiley face in public if he had not. This is a particularly pertinent question especially when it comes right after an activist called Jolvan Wham put Singapore on the map by getting charged for causing “public disorder” for holding up a placard of a smiley face. So, in fairness to the Online Citizen, it was important to raise the issue of whether there were any “double standards” in how the law was being applied to an MP and an activist.

However, what I find particularly interesting is why the smiley face has become a symbol of public disorder. There is, as far as I know, no evidence of any terrorist group that has resorted to using an emoji, let alone a smiling face (😊) as its symbol. The smiley face 😊 as far as I know is a symbol of happiness.

So, why did the authorities find so threatening about Mr. Wham and Mr. Ng holding up a smiley face in public. Mr. Wham’s case is particularly interesting in as much as he was charged with “public disorder.” What exactly was the public disorder that he caused? Did he cause any damage to any property? Did he harass members of the public? Did he hold any symbols glorifying racism like the Nazi or Confederate flags? Mr. Wham’s crime was the fact that he stood in public holding a smile 😊. How exactly was that “Public Disorder.”

Look, nobody is against laws to protect public order. Even the online media, which is more “anti-government” in its slant has not gone after the government when it canes vandals. What people do question is why the “smile” 😊 has become such a threat to the established order. One might suggests to the powers-that-be in Singapore that by not allowing someone to stand there holding up a smiley face in public, they are only going to drive the symbol underground and more importantly, the act of turning a symbol of happiness into a symbol of anarchy is a sign of internal weakness when you see threats in the most innocent of things.

It’s Not A Question of Keeping Out. It’s A Question of What Happens Once They’re In

 I’ve had a glance of the news story of Shamina Begum, the 21-year-old former ISIL child bride who has been denied entry into the UK. The story of Shamina Begum can be found at:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/26/uk-top-court-says-shemima-begum-cannot-return-to-britain

 

There are, as far as I can see, only two mitigating factors in Ms. Begum’s favour. One, is the fact that she was 15 and therefore a minor when she ran off to join ISIL (though, while I may sympathise with who wasn’t silly at 15 – joining a group that happily butchers people for the world’s press is beyond silly) and the other being that it’s quite clear that under the letter of international law that you cannot just strip people of their only citizenship just like that.

Other than that, it’s hard to feel sorry for Ms. Begum. She grew up in the UK with all the perks of British citizenship and yet she chose to run off to join a known enemy of her country of birth and for her to complain about losing the citizenship of a country she chose to fight against, now that things have turned south for her, does sound wrong.

I’m going to leave the wider legal and moral debate to the experts. However, I will make the point that when it comes to migration, most people only look at the most basic question – do you let them in or not. Donald Trump famously framed the argument with his talk about building a great big wall. Most of his supporters gobbled up his argument with glee, arguing that keeping out undesirable people would keep them secure.

The general rule of thumb when it comes to whether or not you let people into a country or not, it boils down to money and skills. Everyone wants the very rich and working professionals. When it comes to the poor and uneducated, nobody wants them. In the Singapore context, our immigration policy can be described as “those who smell” and “those whose money we’re trying to smell.”

While countries around the world compete to “smell the money” of a certain class of immigrants, they grudgingly admit the people from the “smelly” category because, well as countries prosper the citizens lose the desire to do the “dangerous” and “dirty” jobs. In USA it’s the Mexicans, in Germany it’s the Turks and here in Singapore we have our usual gang or Bangladeshi, Indian and Pilipino workers.

The migrants from the “smelly” group have an unfortunate fate in as much as when things go sour, they get blamed for all sorts of shit. Apparently, the Mexicans in the US steal jobs in the same way that the Pakistanis steal them in the UK and so on and so on. Donald Trump famously described Mexicans as being “rapist” (though I will never tire of repeating how a Mexican chap argued that Mexicans were only rapist because blonde white girls preferred “Latin Lovers” to the drunken slobs who couldn’t get it up).

The truth is a little more subtle. From what I’ve seen, first generation migrants are usually the best residents a country can get for the simple reason that whatever you hand to them is better than what they were getting back home. They will happily do all the “shit” jobs that no one else wants to do because it seems like a reward compared to what they left. I think of a Gujarat from Uganda, whom I met on a bus who talked about “MY QUEEN.” As far as he was concerned, India was a distant land of ancestors, Uganda was the place that took everything his family had and the UK was where he rebuilt his life.

Everyone focuses on the first generation and whether they should be let in or not. While there are “settling” in problems, as a rule of thumb, first generation immigrants don’t pose an obvious security threat to the host nation. None of the major terrorist incidents in the last decade or so were committed by first generation migrants who had slipped into the country through illegal means.

The problem lies in the second generation, or the group that are born and bred in the host country. For the likes of Shamina Begum, the UK is not a “saviour” nation. This generation does not remember the “hardship and horror” of the “motherland.” This is the group that is most prone to radicalization. Let’s not forget that the bombers who committed the 7 July 2005 bombings were born and bred British citizens. The guys who attacked Charlie Hebdo were French. I’m old enough to remember that there was a time when terrorist in the UK were mainly Irish, who were funded by Americans born in the 1950s and beyond who believed they were funding freedom fighters for injustices committed in the 1850s and beyond.

Nobody denies that borders need to be patrolled and that there needs to be some supervision of the people coming in and out of a country. However, the hysteria about letting people in is, from a security point, misdirected. Outsiders who come and don’t share your culture are an easy target.

The record of terrorist events would suggest that one would get a better return on security by focusing more on the second generation. People who may not look like everyone else in the host nation but are to all intents and purposes citizens of the host nation. It’s harder to police those who have become part of the landscape than obvious outsiders but it would be money better spent than that on hysterical fears of outsiders.