The Worst Virus of the Lot

 I remember striking up a conversation with an Englishman who mentioned that “I have very little going for me in life except my pink and blotchy skin and I guess you have to use what you have been given.” I remember this conversation because this man had summed up a major truism about post-colonial societies, they can’t get over the “superiority” of the “white colonial” master. Russel Peters famously joked that “Every Indian has a home land – it’s called the United Kingdom.” The same joke could be repeated of any post-colonial society. The homeland of every Vietnamese for example is France (I’ve met quite a few Mr. Nguyen’s who are more responsive to “bonjour” than “Xin Cao.”)

In a way that’s very understandable. Leaving aside Japan and the original NICS (Newly Industrialised Countries, namely South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) Asia is predominantly “emerging.” While countries in Asia (including China and India) have been the main drivers of global growth in the past few years, life for the majority of Asians is for the most part not as good as in the West. If you look at migration flows, the Westerners (defined primarily as the US and EU) coming to Asia are predominantly well to do executives being sent by the company to run an outpost or backpackers (who usually end up becoming executives). If you look at the Asians moving West, it’s either manual labour or average middle class hopping to settle for a better quality of life.

We should also not forget that while Asia has been growing and prospering, the West remains a world leader in most things. Asia, has for the most part built its prosperity on building or doing things cheaper. The “world-dominating” parts of America are in “ideas” industries like software and movies (the type of industries that require you to be open to diversity). French and Italian fashion still set the tone for what we want to wear. The world’s most solid cars are still built in Germany. While these countries are becoming increasingly diverse in their ethnic mix, they are predominantly inhabited by Pink and Blotchy people.

So, I do get the continuing reverence for all things pink and blotchy. The “world standards” or the places where the world’s best want to be are predominantly “pink and blotchy” lands. Asia and the rest of the “emerging” world would be much better off if we had many of the elements of Western society like the culture that encourages people to be different – we’d have far more innovation and creativity.

However, thanks to Donald Trump, there is a twist to this. Just as America and the West is a world leader most of the things that make modern life the wonderful and convenient thing that it is, the Western world also has highly effective nut-jobs who are effective and being nut jobs.

While no ethnicity or religion has a monopoly on nut jobs, the ones in the West have something that the others don’t have – a voice. Nobody cares about the other jobs as long as they stick to screwing up their own people. Sure, we get upset about the Mad Mullah’s who were behind the Taliban in Afghanistan and all the horrible things they were doing. However, nobody cared enough about them until September 11 2001 when Osama Bin Ladin, who was their ally, claimed responsibility for the attack on the Twin Towers. We all knew that Idi Amin in Uganda was a nut job but nobody cared as long as he stuck to brutalizing black Ugandans.

Western ones are a different matter. Not only do they have a voice, they usually have the ability to spread the virus of insanity and to encourage otherwise normal and intelligent people to take on the virus of stupidity.

This was exposed by Covid and the mismanagement of the Trump Administration. While every other leader around the globe was imposing lockdowns, mask mandates and social distancing, the Trump administration decided to do the opposite. Then there was the infamous recommendation of the then President prescribing the injection of bleach.

Now, this on its own would not be so bad if it was limited to the Trump and his team. However, you had ordinary citizens doing the same and dying. Now, I don’t know about you but the guys who took it because a politician whose previous career was in reality TV told them to take it despite the doctors telling them otherwise is asking for it. One nut job had spread the virus of insanity.

Even without the Trump in the White House, the insanity virus persist and continues to encourage stupidity. You have an opinion host who sees that wearing mask, a proven protective measure against Covid as being a sign of a mental disorder. Mr. Carlson thought he was promoting sanity and freedom. The sane world understood that he had the virus and was busy spreading it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVC7VYlGmx8

I’m not saying that the Asian leaders were all great in their handling of Covid-19. In Singapore, ours planned things well for the main elements of society but somehow forgot that there was a large population of workers housed on overcrowded dormitories. China tried to cover up the initial outbreak and “silenced” a couple of scientists who tried to speak out. However, the difference here is that we know that China is a nasty totalitarian state and so we expect this sort of thing. We know that Singapore doesn’t give a s** about construction workers as long as they remain cheap. You could call the Asian ones “intentionally nasty.”

The Western ones are different. They seem to be nicer and more well-meaning. Apparently being told to wear a mask is a violation of freedom and having your kids vaccinated from a host of horrible diseases is also against personal liberty. Somehow that’s worse than letting the kid die of the disease. For the record, vaccines had a role in eradicating small pox and keeping tuberculosis under control – no rational being should doubt that certain diseases kill and vaccines that have gone through clinical trials work.

Yet the Western world is filled with nut jobs who think otherwise and somehow the virus of insanity spreads. As long as someone with pink and blotchy skin says something, you’ll have an army of Asians, Arabs and Africans who will buy it. I think of the taxi driver who announced “What’s the big deal – I agree with Donald Trump, it’s no big deal.” He forgot the minor fact that while the Trump was announcing that it was no big deal, he was busy telling Bob Woodward that this was airborne, very bad and worse than the flue.  

The worst thing about the people who spread the virus of insanity is that they are against factual observations and believe that everything that doesn’t go their way is either a left- or right-wing conspiracy. Just take a look at the following Linkedin post by Mr. Devadas K, CEO of Future-Moves Group.

 

I looked up Mr. Alan Fairnington and found out that he was J. Walter Thomson Asia Pacific for 25-years. As with the case with a lot of expats, one is left dumbfounded by the level of happy stupidity. Here is someone smart enough to get a prominent job in a credible company buying into and peddling stuff that encourages dangerous behavior in a pandemic.

The insanity virus coming out of the Western world encourages people to do stupid things and it seems that it has a particular effect on people who should be otherwise clever people. What makes this virus especially dangerous is that other people start following the example of the people who have this insanity virus.

So, while everyone is understandably worried about the outbreak of the virus in India and thus restricting travel to and from India, surely, we should also be looking at doing the same with the Pink and Blotchy people from the Western World who are spreading the virus of insanity and getting us to not take a dangerous pandemic seriously.

How Old is Too Old?

 Singapore has been going through a “leadership” crisis in recent weeks with the announcement that the Prime Minister-in-Waiting, Mr. Heng Swee Keat announced in early April that he would be stepping aside and would not be succeeding the current Prime Minister as everyone had expected him to.

This news sent the entire government machinery into a dizzy spin. A cabinet reshuffle has taken place and the online sphere has exploded with stories about how the once famously efficient PAP machinery had botched a succession.

There is plenty of speculation as to why Mr. Heng decided to step aside. He has said that he’s now 60-years old and said that he’d be a little too old for the job by the time the current Prime Minister steps down and he didn’t have a long enough run way to be the Prime Minister that Singapore deserved. 

Mr. Heng’s reason’s for stepping aside have given the online crowd plenty to talk about and many are speculating that his “too old” reasoning is an excuse for something else. Leaving aside the speculation on why Mr. Heng suddenly decided to step aside, has raised one of the most pressing but under reported issues of our time – ageism. As American comedian, Bill Maher has aptly said, “Ageism is the only ism that nobody hates.” He’s right. You can get sued and crucified in the public space for being “racist” and “sexist” but have you heard of anyone being sued for being “ageist.”

Mr. Heng is definitely not the only person in Singapore who has been deemed “too old” for the job at 60. He’s merely the first to declare himself “too old” and the most prominent.  Ageism is rife in Singapore. I remember when I got hired by the liquidator in 2014, when I was turning 40, people told me, you better hold onto that job because it’s the last one you’ll probably have. Funnily enough, they had a point. Here is a WhatsApp exchange I had with an employment agent for a “restaurant” job that I had applied for:

 

Why should I be surprised by this when……..

This wasn’t a high-level corporate position that I was applying for. I was applying to be a restaurant manager.” I have seven years of experience working in a restaurant. I have a track record of being able to get people to spend money on premium dishes and wine (in two restaurants). Add to that I’ve seen how accounting and marketing in restaurants are done. I am qualified for the job (some might argue over qualified). Yet, I fail the most important criteria, I am past a certain age. This isn’t the first time that’s happened. I’ve replied to ads that have said they were desperate for people only to be told by the job poster that they didn’t need anyone and then only for them to post the ad the next day.

 

It happens at the highest levels

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/explained/article/3129004/heng-swee-keat-out-running-who-will-be-singapores-next-prime

I’ve reached a stage where I’ve learnt to accept things as they are and so, rather than fight against a trend that I can’t fight against I try and look for a different route. I keep my day job because it pays the bills and I look for side hustles to bring in some extra money. I may be “too old” for a high-flying corporate career it does not mean that I can’t be useful for the odd project here and there.

To an extent, I can understand the ethos of wanting to hand the job over to someone younger and fresher. Old folks who hang onto top jobs have a way of screwing up the very nations or organisations that they devoted to building. The Arab Spring of 2011 which saw the removal or Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt provide examples of what happens when old folk don’t know when to step down and hang on past their sell by date.

However, there is a difference between letting old men (they’re usually men) at the top hang on past their dotage and allowing them to hobble progress and discarding every old person trying to make a living. This is especially true in a place like Singapore where the cost of living has risen and the prospect of “work-till-you-die” has become a fate an increasing number of us seem to accept. There’s only one problem with “work-till-you-die,” which is the fact that employers are likely to ax the old folks and the ones that get axed are not likely to get another job, even one that is below their qualifications.

I’ve worked mostly freelance for the better part of my working life. So, although I’ve not made much money, I’m psychologically prepared to hustle to get “gig-jobs” and I’m willing to work in menial jobs here and there to ensure there’s cash flow. I’m a weird exception in this respect. My contemporaries who have had “successful” careers take losing the stable job much harder.

Something has to be done about this and one of the best places to start is the definition of old. While I’ve past 45, I for one, refuse to accept that I am old. I am considerably fitter in my “mid-forties” than I was in my thirties and I’ve got more energy that quite a few people significantly younger (At 46 I do the lifting in the office because the under 45s who inhabit it would die of coronary if asked to carry anything heavier than a file and to walk beyond their desk). However, I’m reminded by my 21-year-old that I’m a “disgusting” old man whenever she catches me eyeing up the pretty young things who are closer to her age than mine. So, while I’ve have reached an age where it is “inappropriate” to eye up the chicks, I am by no means beyond the age of being useful. So, what does someone like me do?

Well, if I was born in the USA, I could probably run for President. America, which is seen as the global creator of “youth culture” and all things hip was run by a 74-year-old who has now been succeeded by a 78-year-old. Say what you like about the two grandpas who fought last year’s election but they managed to galvanize more people to turn out and vote than in any other election in history. Let’s face it, Donald Trump and Joe Bidden are by any standards “Way too Old” managed to get more people excited about coming out to vote than Barak Obama who sold himself as young, hip and trendy.

Incidentally enough, the 78-year-old in charge has been, despite being called “Sleepy” by his opponent, has been focused and managed to get things done. If the Trump Presidency was a golden gift for comedians, the Biden Presidency has thus far been a disappointment for anyone hopping to crack senile jokes at his expense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPSK7inXesA

https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-holds-up-joe-biden-as-the-ultimate-way-to-debunk-ageism-video/

 

Thus far Mr. Bidden has not only proven himself to be more effective than his predecessor but also when compared to the “young” and “hip” man whom he served under as vice-president. The qualities that people had tried to use against him have proven to be his greatest assets – namely experience and wisdom. A report on the Biden Presidency can be found at:

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/3/31/donald-who-how-biden-is-outshining-trump-and-obama

There might be some Asian readers who would argue that Messers Biden and Trump are different because they are “Ang Moh” (local Singapore slang for Caucasian). Well, closer to home, there’s the example of Malaysia’s perpetual Prime Minister, Dr. Mohamad Mahathir who was not only Malaysia’s longest serving Prime Minister, but in less than a decade of “retirement” Dr. Mahathir broke away from UMNO, the party he was from, formed a new party and assembled a coalition to unseat UMNO in a General Election, which was the first time in Malaysia’s history that UMNO had been unseated. He did this at the age of 94.

Say what you like about Dr. Mahathir, but he’s shown no sign of letting age hold him back as can be seen from this video of him dancing:

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

 

Copyright – RojakDaily

Yes, by all means, its important to have “leadership renewal.” However, we need to learn how to value older people and the experience that they bring to the table. Medical science has reached a stage where the old are fitter and stronger than they used to be and so, old rules of sell by dates are not as “true” as they used to be.

Leslie Fong, former editor of the Straits Times once talked about “Older and more valuable” eye balls. He has a point. In an aging society, we have to do more than throw money at women who have options in life in the futile effort to get them to have children they may not necessarily want to have. We need to see how we can prolong the “usefulness” of the people already in the work force as much as we try and bring in the young.

Singapore had a ninety-year-old who managed to stay employed till the end. It’s such a shame that he was the only one who seemed able to be “useful” in a nation of more than five million. Instead of letting only one old person contribute, we should find a way of allowing more old folks add to our social fabric. A nation that proclaims it only has human resources should stop wasting it.

 

It Actually Matters if You’re Black or White

 The trial of Derek Chauvin, the police officer accused of murdering George Floyd is over. Mr. Chauvin was found guilty by a jury comprising of both white and black people and based on the news reports, there is a sense that justice was served.

However, there is a segment that believes that Mr. Chauvin has become a victim of “political correctness.” This is a segment of society that feels that there is a dictatorship of the politically correct punishing Mr. Chauvin for doing his job in arresting a “drug crazed” low life and setting a chain of rioting and looting. This attitude is best summed up by the following Facebook posting:

 

 The message is clear. Derek Chauvin is a well-behaved guy being punished for doing his job and George Floyd is a scum bag who deserved what he got because he didn’t know his place in the scheme of things. The message is further to extended to the riots that followed Mr. Floyd’s murder were merely about lawlessness.

Let’s make one thing clear. The evidence shows quite clearly that Derek Chauvin used “excessive” force in restraining Mr. Floyd. While Mr. Floyd may have been high, he was in no way violent and there is no way the police could claim that they needed to “put him down” for the greater good of public safety as the following report from the BBC shows:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-56598432

 

 

The attempt to portray Mr. Floyd as a “dangerous junkie” was also not true:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-56670095

 

It was also clear that Mr. Floyd was in serious trouble after Mr. Chauvin had his knee on his neck for over nine minutes:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-56595180

 

There should be no doubt about it that it that Mr. Chauvin’s actions lead to the demise of Mr. Floyd.  Excessive force was used in restraining a non-violent and non-threatening person. One’s political persuasions do not change the facts.

Much has been said about the reasons as to why the ensuring riots took place and on the feelings of the African-American community. However, the question remains – why would anyone feel and promote the idea that Mr. Chauvin was merely doing his job in restraining a dangerous junkie? Unfortunately, this isn’t the only instance in the world where an ethnic majority has failed to sympathise with a minority group that gets the wrong end of the official stick.

In the case of Singapore, substitute “Black” for “Indian” or “Bangladeshi,” and you get the same scenario. In 2013, when the workers rioted in Little India, it became a story of how we needed to restrict the sale of alcohol in Little India because a group of drunk and unhappy people went on a riot. Everyone seems to have forgotten the fact that one of worker was run over by a bus driver and the police seemed more protective of the bus driver than the guy who got run over.

Interestingly enough, this phenomena of a segment of an ethnic majority defending brutality of an ethnic minority were best summed up by a Black British conservative candidate for Mayor of London called “Shaun Bailey,” who coined the phrase “Browning of Britain.” Mr. Bailey said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-mayor-election-shaun-bailey-b1794896.html

“lots of white communities were “terrified” by the “influx of foreigners of all shades”, and warned that attempts to foster a spirit of tolerance “often turn into a quest to make everybody the same and … pushes communities apart”.

Interestingly enough, I do get Mr. Baily’s point. The “Browning of Britain” that he talks about has certain parallels to recent Southeast Asian history, where the wealthy Chinese minority gets on the wrong end of the sick from the ethnic majority. Part of this is economics, the Chinese in Indonesia for example are only three percent of the total population and many more times the economy. The majority gets scared that its going to become a dependency of the minority.

I grew up as an ethnic minority, so for me, I remember “minority rights” was always a big part of my conscience. However, I remember moving back to Singapore and hearing my boss, PN Balji often say, “The minority needs the majority to feel comfortable.” So, where is the balance between the rights of the minority and the comfort level of the majority?

Contrary to what Michael Jackson says, it actually does matter if you’re black or white (a good sentiment even if Mr. Jackson started getting whiter with age). So, how so we make it matter less or at least bring it to a point where nobody cares?

Well, nobody seems to have found an answer. However, what is clear is that the dialogue must keep going on. Majorities need to respect private spaces and not to assume the minorities will become exactly like them. Minorities need to show that they add value to the overall fabric and they need to understand that while the majority has to respect their private spaces, they also need to respect the wider public spaces. I often state that when I lived in the UK, I was free to celebrate Chinese New Year in my own home on my own time. However, I had no right to expect Chinese New Year to be made a public holiday.

People need to share experiences. France did it in the 1998 World Cup with a team captained by someone of North African descent. America does it through the NBA and who can forget Nelson Mandela presenting the 1995 Rugby World Cup to the Springboks? These things cannot be left on the basket ball court or soccer pitch. The things about a sports team that brings people together to celebrate unity needs to be pushed and harnessed to bring a nation together.  

“All the time I feel I must justify my existence.” – Charles, Prince of Wales

 My formative years were spent in the United Kingdom and the seven of the ten years that I spent in the UK were in a school of people who came from families that voted “Tory,” (the one “freak” known to vote Labour was the art teacher and one of the more eccentric teachers declared “You got put a blue faced baboon in this constituency and it will still be voted in”) Part of growing up in this environment meant that the presence of the Royal Family was always in the background (it was a point of Pride that the Duchess of York came to open a building – however, her name was quietly removed from the plaque on the building once she got divorced from the Duke).

The one member of the Royal Family that I always had a soft spot for was Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales and heir apparent. Charles is what you’d call a man struggling to do the right thing, despite his circumstances. On one hand, he was born into a life that most of us cannot even dream of (every material need can be met with a snap of his fingers – there’s no question of where his next meal is coming from) yet at the same time, he’s born into a situation where most of us would never want to be in (As far as the entire nation is concerned, he’s public property and has no right of privacy and thus far his only purpose in life has to been to wait for his mother to die). He has been slammed all over the place for being an adulterous husband who made life hell for his wife (who for the record was no saint either). His rather publicized personal life was summed up by a friend who said “He’s the type of man who kicked a beautiful blonde out of his bed for an old hag.”

 

Copyright – Vanity Fair

Having said all these things, one has to give credit to Prince Charles for not squandering his time and for being aware of his role in the grander scheme of things. The man has been actively trying to use the wealth and privilege he was born into to make the world a better place and when I stumbled across a quote of him saying “All the time I feel I must justify my existence,” my respect for him grew. He is very aware of his situation. In the 1990s, he alone of all the royals turned over a portion of his income to the tax authorities (in the UK, royalty don’t have to pay tax – tax under British law is revenue paid to the Crown hence the Crown cannot tax itself). When he got injured playing polo he got in line and waited to be treated (the waiting time in the British NHS is notoriously long)  

Let’s look at it this way – he has two things that most of us don’t have – namely time and money. However, unlike other people in his position, he’s actually used it to create projects to help the less fortunate and to better the environment. A list of initiatives pioneered by the Prince of Wales can be found at:

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/initiatives

 

The man was born into a situation of privilege but he’s aware of that. He’s aware that his situation is by the grace of the public that he is due to rule over and so he feels compelled to justify his existence to them.

This is a priceless attitude in public figure. I think of Bill Clinton who gave an “angry” response when quizzed about the truth of the “Lewinsky Affair.” Sure, it was a private matter but when he started on “Presidents must have private lives,” the only thought was “Ya, but you’re being funded by tax payers who want to know how you’re spending their money – so sorry, your life isn’t private.”

I think of the usual debate on ministerial salaries in Singapore. Instead of showing the tax payer what they’re getting for their dollars, it’s always met with a lecture on how you need to pay for top talent. Instant thought to such lectures is inevitably – “Erm, we’re paying you by way of our taxes therefore you should be justifying your existence not lecturing us.”

Sure, Prince Charles has been on the job for an incredibly long time. However, it’s not about the length you spend on the job but what you do in it. I ask, for example, about the initiatives launched by our elected presidents? Thus far, the only one that comes to mind is the “President’s Star Charity” launched by the late SR. Nathan and now, there’s a new initiative launched by the current president to recognize the contribution of workers:

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/president-halimah-to-launch-new-initiative-to-recognise-contributions-of-workers

 

That’s two initiatives between three presidents in 22-years. Sure, Prince Charles is funded by the Duchy of Cornwall (Prince of Wales is funded by the Duchy of Cornwall and does not take from the Sovereign Grant) but our presidents were funded by the tax payer. In the case of Dr. Tony Tan, the inability to come up with a single initiative is particularly harsh. Not only did Dr. Tan enjoy state funding as President for six-years, he also well compensated as deputy prime minister for over a decade and that’s not even counting his personal wealth and monies earned running OCBC Bank. Surely a man in Dr. Tan’s position could have come up with something.

The Prince of Wales is supposed to stay out of politics and be a decoration. Yet, this man with no “work experience” has managed to pioneer initiatives. He’s been accused of being whiney and interested in “new-fangled” ideas like caring for nature and helping the underprivileged. Yet, despite that he’s put his money and the weight of the office he holds where his mouth is. Sure, not all of his initiatives will work but he’s at least creating visible experiments to solve very common social problems.

Shouldn’t other non-political public office holders follow this example? In Singapore, I look at our presidents and ex-presidents and ask why can’t they lead in creating initiatives? If an unelected royal feels the need to justify his existence and does so, why can’t former and current elected officials feel and do the same?  

Is Your Chef from ……

 

One of the questions that customers often ask me is, “Is Your Chef Italian?” This question used to annoy one of my chefs. He felt that the implication was that if the chef wasn’t European, it meant that the food was probably not good.

I understand where he’s coming from. However, I also worked on the reverse. Would I be able to accept a European behind the kitchen in a Chinese restaurant? The answer would be that it would be a struggle to do so. We all have, as they say, preconceived notions of who can do what and when it comes to food, we all have a certain sense of nationalism.

For the native eating his or her cuisine, it’s about the taste of home. For the outsider, eating a different cuisine is about having a flavour of another culture. When I lived in England, going to a Chinese restaurant was about being with “MY” people. Going to a Chinese restaurant was inevitably about introducing my English friends to “MY” flavours in “My” environment (I use the word “MY” sparingly. The language that is part of me, is in fact English. My spoken Cantonese is horrible and I am Chinese illiterate. However, other than my physical appearance, being able to communicate in something other than English marked me as different from my peers, which give me a sense of purpose.)

So, when you look at this question from the perspective of a dining experience being a nationalistic one, the question “Is your chef from…s,” is in fact a compliment and now that I have started a part-time gig in a Vietnamese restaurant, I get the same question with a twist – “Is your chef from Vietnam?”

The answer to both questions is no. The owner and main chef of the Bistrot is French and the team in the kitchen for the better part of the last few years is Tamil and Filipino. At the Vietnamese restaurant the guy doing the cooking is Filipino. I believe that this is a sign of progress and part of the way that the world should be. Food is one of the most treasured parts of culture. When someone from a different culture can recreate food of a particular culture to an extent where people don’t realise that the person preparing the food isn’t a native, it’s a sign that culture can be celebrated and enjoyed by any and everyone.

 

 Does it matter if this Pizza is prepared by someone from Naples?

If there’s anything that unites human beings, it is the need to sit down for a good meal and good food is one of the things that helps break the ice between people from different worlds. In Singapore and Malaysia, one of the nicest sights is watching local Tamil’s tuck into Bar-Chor mee or local Chinese tuck into Roti Prata or Roti Cannai as they call it in Malaysia. The experience of having and enjoying a cuisine is an act of taking in another culture.

So, it goes without saying that the next step in cultural participation is going in and learning how to prepare the cuisine of another culture to a level where the “natives” of that culture enjoy your efforts.

 

It’s not who prepares the food but who enjoys it that matters.

Which brings me back to my experience of living in England as a Chinese boy. I remember English people telling me that one of the best ways of judging a Chinese restaurant was by the number of Chinese people who ate there.

They were right. The best Chinese food in the UK was inevitably in London’s China town because it served food that people who knew Chinese food would eat. In the small towns where the owner of the only Chinese take away was inevitably the only Chinese person, the food was inevitably what English people imagined Chinese food to be (I remember my mother asking a waiter at Chinese restaurant in Hamburg what was good on the menu – the answer was “nothing – it’s served to cheat the Whites. In another incident, I remember being in the Thai restaurant in Petersfield, the small English town where I grew up. Mentioned that my stepdad was going to Bangkok the next day – whereupon the waitress said “Oh, you’ll get real Thai food.”).

Now, I apply this experience to the restaurants that have been my home. The Pizzeria & Grill and the Bistrot had regular customers from Italy. The Vietnamese restaurant where I’ve been working at has more than it’s share of Vietnamese customers (including my 21-year-old).

So, if you want to figure out if a restaurant of a particular cuisine serves, don’t focus on culture of the chef but on who the customers are. That would give you an idea of the “authenticity” of the food. Celebrate that chefs can produce cuisine from all over the world.

I go back to my earlier point on whether I would accept a Westerner cooking in a Chinese restaurant. Yes, I would struggle if I saw a blond-haired blue-eyed chap behind a wok. However, if I noticed lots of Chinese people eating there it would signal to me that he was producing good Chinese food. My respect for this person would grow because it would mean he was passionate enough to learn Chinese food as a Chinese tasting it.

Many of us forget that the product is not the person doing the work but on the work that is produced.  

Taking Out the Trash

 It is more important to have a system of removing bad government with the least amount of bloodshed in the most peaceful manner than to minimize the roadblocks for a Competent Government

I’ve just seen an article on Aljazera English edition which announced that the Brazilian Senate is going investigate the handling of Covid-19 cases by the administration of Jair Bolonaro. The report can be found at:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/14/brazil-senate-investigating-bolsonaro-handling-of-covid-19

 

My only thought upon reading this headline was “Thank God,” and “Finally.” While Brazil under the “Trump of the Tropics” has received less global attention than the original version to the north, the disaster that is Brazil’s Covid experience is not less painful. At the time of writing, some 362,180 Brazilians have died from Covid-19. Only the USA has had more deaths.

Brazil, under Mr. Bolsonaro cannot use the excuse that it is a poor and under-developed nation in its management of Covid-19. Other poor and third world nations have done much better.  Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh which have a population similar to that of Brazil come no where close to Brazil in terms of either infections or fatalities from Covid-19.

To get a picture of where Brazil stands, one can just confine it to South America where it is the undisputed giant. If you compare Brazil to its regional rival Argentina, you’d notice that Brazil beats Argentina hands down – Covid has killed 0.171 percent of Brazil (362,180 divided by 211,715,973 times 100) whereas it is killed 0.128 percent of Argentina (58,542 divided by 45,479,118 times 100). Covid 19 has infected 6.46 percent of Brazil (13,677,564 divided by 211,715,973 times 100) and 5.72 percent of Argentina (2,604,157 divided by 45,479,118 times 100).

Covid-19 has done one great service for the world. It has shown us that leadership matters. The top three countries that have screwed up Covid are the world’s most prominent military and economic power and two of the world’s emerging giants. What do all three have in common? The answer is leadership. In India, it’s been a case of bad execution. In fairness to Mr. Modi, he has avoided saying stupid things but the execution of Covid-19 measures has been as well executed as say the demonetization and implementation of GST. The story in the USA and Brazil was different.  Both Mr. Trump and his tropical clone made it a point to “downplay” the severity of the virus and repeatedly undermined efforts by state governors to control the virus and to add fuel to the fire, they proceeded to actively make life difficult for medical experts.

 

World Geniuses in Botching a Crisis

Copyright – Economic Times

The only saving grace for the three biggest failures in Covid-19 management is the fact that they are democracies within an inbuilt system of checks and balances, which hopefully underlines the great point in favour of democratic systems – namely the fact that the democratic system provides a nation with the most effective and peaceful way to remove incompetent government.

It’s been argued that democracy is messy and autocratic systems can be more effective and efficient. In Singapore, our Prime Minister gained notoriety by saying that if there were more “opposition voices” (note that the complaint is not about having an opposition that could form an alternative government), Singaporeans would suffer because he’d have to spend more time trying to “fix” the opposition than running the country.

To be fair, to him, Singapore is in many respects exceedingly well run and there’s been a degree of competence at the top which other countries envy us for. A wise and benevolent ruler can do wonders for a nation and to be fair to Singapore’s system, we’ve thus far had reasonably capable people in charge.

However, as Bhutan’s King-Father who imposed democracy on his nation argues, “What’s to guarantee that future kings would be wise, benevolent and competent?”  Cracks do appear in “perfect systems,” if they’re not fixed, they end up being broken. Only problem with cracks is that nobody will fix them unless someone alerts the powers to be to the nature of the crack and that cannot be done if the powers that be treat criticism as treason. One only needs to look at Indonesia during the Asian Financial crisis of the late 1990s. Suharto ran a growing economy. However, nobody challenged the status quo and when the crisis hit and revealed that much of the growth was based on unsustainable debt, everything collapsed. Instead of trying to fix the problems, Suharto’s government dug in and it took violence on the streets to get rid of him.

Hence, the need to remove incompetent government in as peaceful and efficient a manner as possible is more important than creating efficiency for the government of the day. The likes of Hosni Mubarak, Suharto and Ben Ali were only removed when blood on the streets was spilt.

While my insane-right leaning friends would beg to differ, Trump was removed by the ballot box. Bolsonaro looks like he will be called to account by senate for his mismanagement of the crisis. Sure, Trump didn’t go quietly the way he should have upon electoral defeat but it was still the most efficient and peaceful way (which to be fair to Trump, he exposed the weaknesses in the system, where people assumed things would work in a certain way rather than having it written into the system itself) for him to be removed. Hopefully the Senate will act and if not, Brazil’s electorate will give Mr. Bolsonaro the boot for his incompetence.

Aspiring autocrats need to remember Bhutan’s King-Father who took the move to remove his institution from the day-to-day running of things and gave power to the people so that people would be ready for the possibility of incompetent government and have to means to remove it peacefully.  

Be Careful Where You Stick It

 I know it’s not a nice thing to admit but I love the idea of getting laid and getting laid regularly with a variety of women. While I am past the age where getting laid on a daily basis with multiple partners is no longer a priority, I like looking at beautiful women. The only reason why daily commutes to the Central Business District are tolerable is the view of the numerous good-looking women who inhabit the place. My only defense for confessing to all these things in the public space is that I’m probably no different from just about every normal heterosexual man around.

Having confessed to having a sex drive, I have to admit something rather uncool. I don’t get laid as often as people have imagined me to.  Part of it is due to the fact that I’m a married man with a young daughter. As such, my priorities have changed from my 20s. It’s as simple as this, if I have a $100 extra in my pocket, I save it for next week’s groceries rather than spending it on dinner with someone in the hope of an hour of fun.

The second reason why I don’t put my fantasies into action when it comes to sex is because the risk-reward ratio for being a rascal looks increasingly lop-sided. Biology has made the male and female sexual strategies different. For men, we are biologically inclined to “sow” our seed. For women, they’re rather more selective. The reason is simple, they are the ones who carry the child for nine months. In that period, their physical strength is compromised. After that, the child has to raised for nearly 20-years. It is in a woman’s interest to ensure that a man sticks around to help her with the kid or kids. Biologically speaking, when a woman enters a sexual relationship, she is going to expect exclusivity.

Modern birth control has to an extent “liberated” women and the “rules” about women being confined to exclusive sexual relations, while men sow their oats has been loosened. It’s less of a taboo for a woman to have more than one sexual partner than it used to be. Things like “friends with benefits” where men and women have “sex-only” relationships are also becoming more acceptable.

However, while social norms on sexual exclusivity are loosening, biological instincts do make their presence felt. This is particularly true when “wondering” men get punished for breaking the concept of exclusivity by the women who felt that the men had promised exclusivity to them.

One of the most prominent examples in Singapore’s social circle involves a Dr. Julian Ong and a Ms. Serene Tiong. Details of the story can be found in my previous posting “HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE A WOMAN SCORNED,” published on 1 December 2020. This was a case of a woman who went against a man because she felt that the man in question was, for want of a better term, leading her man astray. Ms. Tiong made a complaint against Dr. Ong and Dr. Chan, who was her lover at the material time to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), alleging that the doctors were swopping notes on female patients whom they could take advantage of and have sex with. Ms. Tiong claimed that she had screen shots of text messages of the two doctors colluding. Dr. Ong sued for defamation and won. 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/julian-ong-serene-tiong-defamed-doctor-judge-overturns-decision-13178276

 

Dr. Ong and Ms. Tiong – Copyright Channel NewsAsia

One might have assumed that this was the end of the matter. Ms. Tiong failed to prove her case about the "bad" behavior of the two doctors and in addition to her legal cost, she had to pay damages to Dr. Ong. While Dr. Ong had the legal victory, he was also placed under extreme stress of having to fight her legal challenges. One might have argued that while Ms. Tiong failed to ruin Dr. Ong, she did the  make life difficult and would have been content with that after having legal damages awarded against her. 

However, this didn't happen. Ms. Tiong has shown that even though her allegations against the Dr. Ong had been proven to be defamatory in a court, she's willing to attack him though other means. The first is to ensure that the world sees her as a victim. Her performance in the following video is a clear illustration of her efforts to get herself portrayed as a "Second Parti Liyani," and Dr. Ong as another version of Liew Mun Leong. Ms. Tiong's performance can be seen in the following clip:

 

While Ms. Tiong was stressing that she lacked the resources to fight any legal battle against Dr. Ong, she neglected to mention that she had opened up another legal pitfall for Dr. Ong. This time, instead of targeting Dr. Ong directly, she tried to take action against HC Surgical Specialist (HCSS), the listed company that had an interest in acquiring Dr. Ong’s Endoscopy Surgery. Ms. Ong bought enough shares in HCSS to attend the AGM and tried to take legal action against both HCSS and its Chief Executive (CEO), Dr. Heah Sieu Mien. Ms. Tiong’s legal actions have been dismissed by the court as lacking no merit. Reports can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/woman-on-quest-for-revenge-has-appeal-dismissed-ordered-to-pay-costs; and

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/apex-court-dismisses-spore-woman-quest-for-revenge-160140073.html

It’s clear that Ms. Tiong’s attempts to take action against HCSS and Dr. Heah did not have legal merits. Neither Dr. Heah or HCSS had any role in the "love affair gone wrong," which at the heart of Ms. Tiong's complaint against the two doctors. It doesn't take a law degree to realise that the suite against Dr. Heah and HCSS had no merits and she would lose and damages would be awarded against her. Given that Ms. Tiong is a reasonably successful professional in her own right (she was a Business Development Manager at Thomson Medical), it's hard to imagine that Ms. Tiong would be unaware of her chances of success in pursuing the matter. So, why did she do it, other than to make life uncomfortable for Dr. Ong by attacking his potential business partners. This was summed in the judgement in the case against Dr. Heah and HCSS. A copy of the judgement can be found at:

https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/-2020-sghc-201-pdf.pdf

The best part about this event is that Dr. Ong was not even her lover in the first place. There is no evidence which suggests that Dr. Ong was either her lover or doctor. What we do know is that he was a friend of Dr. Chan, who was involved with Ms. Tiong. If Ms. Tiong feels "cheated" in a love affair, her issues should be with Dr. Chan and not Dr. Ong.

So one has to question Ms. Tiong's issues with Dr. Ong. Why has she gone through such extremes to punish Dr. Ong and continues to pursue Dr. Ong despite losing two court matters and being forced to pay hefty legal fees and fines. Ms. Tiong seems to be more than just a woman scorned. 

Political Crowd Funding – The Common Man says F** You

One of most prominent moments in the Godfather came when Michael Corleone tells his finance that his father, the Godfather of the Corleone family, advised Michael’s adopted brother Tom, to study law because “A lawyer with brief case steals more than a Gangster with a Gun.”

This gem of wisdom from the most famous fictional mafia don is often used as the centre of political jokes in Singapore. Singaporeans often quip that Singapore is a gangster town, its just that the gangsters all wear white (the standard dress code of the ruling People’s Action Party). It’s often said (in hushed tones) that Lee Kuan Yew was the biggest gangster in town and the only difference between Mr. Lee and his contemporaries was that he used “legal” means of dealing with political opponents. Unlike, say, the military rulers of Burma, Mr. Lee never sent troops in the streets to shoot people. However, if you said something he didn’t like, chances were, you end up with a hefty fine for libel imposed by the courts.

The late Mr. Lee was a good lawyer who, unlike his regional contemporaries, understood that Singapore needed the good will of the international community and that would require making sure that everything would be done legally. Being the good lawyer that he was, Mr. Lee understood that power was not so much a case of the letters of the law but how they were applied. If you look at the cases where the Singapore government has sued people, it’s hard to argue that they were technically wrong because if you followed the letter of the law, they were correct. It just so happened that whoever they were suing would inevitably be political opponents or publications that had given political opponents a voice. Even the most recent case, which involved the current Mr. Lee suing a blogger, Mr. Leong Sze Hian for the crime of sharing a post of his social media followed this pattern. The judgement in the matter can be found at:

https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/-2021-sghc-66-pdf.pdf

Think of this as a more advanced version of Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations,” defense. Technically he was not wrong because if one looked at the letter of the law, the definition of “sexual relations” did not constitute what he had received from Ms. Lewinisky, even if most of us would find it hard to imagine how one could be on the receiving end of a b**j** with someone one was not having a sexual relationship with.

The government’s use of lawsuits has become the stuff of legend. The late Mr. Lee famously bankrupted the late JB Jeyaratnam who was our first opposition member of parliament. Some of the most respected publications like the New York Times, the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Asian Wall Street Journal (now known as Wall Street Journal Asian Edition) were all taken to task in Singapore’s court system and made to pay hefty sums to Singapore’s political leadership.

The libel laws have been such that being an editor is a tough job in Singapore. One has to ensure that news is published but it’s done in such a way where one does not get sued. Editors er on the side of caution or as said officially, one learns to be “responsible.”

The late Mr. Lee made a name for suing. His immediate successor used them a less often because by then, most of us knew what was good for us and editors had become responsible.

It is, however, a slightly less rosy picture for the current Mr. Lee in as much as the internet and social media has allowed more people to enter the fray. Even someone as obscure as me can become a publisher. All I did was to sign up on the blogger platform with my gmail account. Sure, I don’t make money from blogging but who cares? I’m just a small and insignificant fry. Online sites, like TRemeritus and the Onlinecitizen have grown, thanks to an army of volunteers. If the editors of the mainstream were trained to be “responsible”, the same cannot be said about the team at these websites.

Mr. Lee has threatened to sue and sued bloggers. In some cases, as in the case of Mr. Alex Au and Yawning Bread, the threat of a law suite was averted when Mr. Au apologized and took down offending post. However, the threat of legal action made it such that Mr. Au’s brand became even more prominent (or as one of my friends often says – it showed he was important enough for him to be threatened.)

In a sense the internet has shown that the government is at a loss as to how to deal with people who are not motivated by that most effective of incentives – money. However, even more worrying for the government is that the internet has given “dissidents” a means of finding a way where a crippling law suite is no longer crippling.

First incident came in 2014 when the government took Mr. Roy Ngerng to court for defemination. Mr. Ngerng, wrote a post, which effectively accused to Prime Minister of misappropriating the national pension fund. Mr. Ngereng, who was at that time working for the National Health Care Group as an insignificant worker was promptly terminated. One would have imagined that a jobless worker would have capitulated at thought of having to fight a law suit, let alone face the prospects of the damages the court would have awarded the Prime Minister. However, Mr. Ngereng took to crowdfunding and as the article from the Straits Times states, he raised more than his estimated cost:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/blogger-roy-ngerng-sued-by-pm-raises-81000

 

Copyright – Straits Times

While Mr. Ngereng lost his legal battle and now lives in Taiwan, the point became clear. There are enough members of the public who were willing to support Mr. Ngereng when he was facing the prospect of a law suit from the government. Admittedly, Mr. Ngereng’s accusations were serious and he didn’t have the means of proving them in court. However, while that may have been legally true, it became clear that there were enough people who saw this as the powers that be bullying an ordinary person.

Mr. Leong's case, seven years later, has certain elements which Mr. Ngereng's did not have. Firstly, this is about a post that happened three years ago. Mr. Leong did not write the post, he merely shared it without comment on his Facebook. When he was told to remove it, he did so within three days. Yet, despite his efforts to comply with the letter of the law, Mr. Leong was sued for damaging the Prime Minister's reputation. :

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-lawsuit-primeminister/singapore-blogger-crowdfunds-99000-to-pay-pm-damages-in-defamation-case-idUSKBN2BS08P

 

Copyright – Reuters

The message should be clear, the public or at least enough of the public is willing to support people whom it perceives as being bullied.

The lesson the government will inevitably learn is that it needs to tighten its grip on the internet. One should not be surprised if laws on crowdfunding tighten. The argument will be made that this is to protect the public from unscrupulous people and the definition of “unscrupulous” will made to include anyone that the government or courts deems so.

This will inevitably be the wrong lesson. The right lesson would be one that involves acknowledging that the public is losing its fear and losing tolerance with “bullying” techniques. One has to figure out new ways of doing things and just as the government has always had the letter of the laws on its side, the public is also learning to use the laws for itself. The government needs to get innovative instead of relying on the playbook written for a different era. 

The Pain and Misery of the Crucifixion Came Before the Glory of the Resurrection

 I don’t normally post about religion. I see faith and the relationship with the Almighty as personal and in many ways private. We relate to the Almighty in different ways and when you comment on the relationship, you’re bound to stir unnecessary passions. Covid-19 has also put the religious establishment under the spotlight and in many cases they’ve failed miserably. There were plenty of sad examples of religious leaders in proverbial “Shithole” countries telling people to feat the Almighty and not the virus. Unfortunately, this wasn’t just limited to “backwater” countries. America, the world’s most advanced nation in human history was plagued by jet-setting pastors who chose to tell their congregation that they would be cured by touching their screens and that they could continue paying tithes despite losing their jobs:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kenneth-copeland-blow-coronavirus-pray-sermon-trump-televangelist-a9448561.html

 

However, while the Charlatans of all faiths manage to grab the headlines, I do believe that there is good that comes from having faith. I am with the Dalai Lama when asked about which was the best religion – his answer being “The One that Makes You a Better Person.” The Dalai Lama, to his credit, was a religious leader who made it a point to reach out and to befriend other leaders. His friendship with the late Pope John Paul II was one of the best living examples of interfaith friendships.

 

Anyway, I like to think that religion does bring out the good in as much as it does bring out the bad. As it will be Good Friday, I believe that one of the best lessons that religion can bring people is hope. This is an especially important point during a global crisis like the current pandemic, when it becomes especially easy to get pessimistic about things. The best example comes from most backbone of the Christian faith – namely the fact that Jesus rose from the dead – he conquered death and those who follow him would have eternal life.

Now, it’s been easy for branches of the Christian faith to focus on the glory of his resurrection. Essentially these branches argue that Christ died for mankind’s sins and therefore being a Christian is to join a happy go-lucky club of instant joy and let’s not forget prosperity.

While this argument about Christianity and probably every other religion, it really doesn’t gel with the way life works. In fact, many people forget that Jesus had no money for the better part of his life, hung around the dregs of society and more importantly went through enormous suffering before there was any glory.

The “glory” of the Christian faith is the fact that Christ was able to overcome suffering. Fact remains, Good Friday, which commemorates the day that Jesus was crucified comes before Easter Sunday, the day when he is said to have overcome death.

What Jesus went through is in many ways like normal life. All of us experience good times and bad times. While most of us would prefer not to have any bad times. However, bad times do serve a purpose, which is to get us to work on our weaknesses.

Look at the 2008 financial crisis. Prior to 2008, banks were ridding high on creating innovative new products like the subprime. House prices were going up, people were going on a debt binge and economic statistics were heading north. However, the good times were built on shaky foundations and so, they collapsed. Sure, bankers were thrown out of work and people suffered from the collapse of financial institutions. However, the “bad” times and the suffering that came with them made the financial institutions get their act together and the survivors emerged stronger.

 

He Showed us that you need to go through this:

 

To Experience this:

So, the pandemic has caused pain and suffering. However, we need to remember that going through hard times is part of life. It’s not so much a question of how bad the times are but what we learn from them. Such, times allow us to prepare for the moment when the times ahead get better. Christ went through suffering but emerged from them with glory. It’s something that is worth remembering as most of us deal with the suffering and stress caused by the pandemic.