As It Should Be

 One of the saddest moments of 2021 will undoubtedly be the passing of Archbishop Desmond Tutu on Boxing Day at the age of 90. The late Archbishop was a champion for justice, having worked alongside Nelson Mandela during the struggle against “Apartheid” and he was also a person who worked tirelessly to unite a much-divided nation when he was Chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee.  Even in retirement, the archbishop was a voice that continued to speak for those who didn’t have a voice and he drew the ire of the Zuma Administration (an administration that gave us the term “State Capture.)

I don’t think that there’s much more that I can say that hasn’t been said about Archbishop Desmond Tutu than what has already been said. However, as a student of Tibetan Buddhist student of Anglican Theology, I like to remember him for his great friendship with the Dalai Lama, whom in his letter of condolence to the Archbishop’s family talked about the spiritual bond between them. So, how did an Anglican Archbishop who promotes God and a monk from a faith that does not have a good find a “spiritual bond.”

https://www.dalailama.com/news/2021/condolences-in-response-to-the-death-of-archbishop-desmond-tutu

 

 Copyright – Tibet Sun

Well, it would appear that they found a common bond and spoke up for the common good. Both men understood that spirituality was not about promoting their “religions” but in using the platforms that their respective religions provided them in order to make life better for humanity.

Both men were famously aware of how religion could be used to do good and also to do harm. Desmond Tutu described it like a “knife” that could either feed people or harm people:

 

 The Dalai Lama was famously asked what was the best religion and he famously replied that the best one was the one that made you a better person.

 

It shouldn’t be the case but the views that these old men have are fresh air. The points on faith that these men made are guidelines of what spirituality and being close to the divine should be about. Its so sad that they are of a generation that is dying (Desmond Tutu died at 90 and the Dalai Lama is 86). Contrast this attitude to the growing religious chauvinism, whether is Evangelical White Supremacy as shown by many parts of the Republican Party, Islamic extremism in much of the Middle East, Hindutva in India or the violent version of Buddhist Dharma that encouraged the slaughtered Rohingyas in Burma.

I remember putting up my position of being a Buddhist who studied Christianity but has been blessed by Muslims and getting a few responses about being confused and to an extent, getting ready for hell. Seriously, in this day and age, why are people so keen to use their religion and relationship with the divine to kill off anyone else?

The Dalai Lama and Archbishop Tutu understood that faith and a relationship with the Almighty was meant to unite humanity and to make life better for others rather than to impose dogma onto people. These are real men of God and as they get ready to pass on (or already have as in the case of Desmond Tutu) and the voices of extremist get louder, it feels as if humanity will get further away from the Almighty.

Is There a Difference between a Whore and a Prostitute?

 

I’ve noticed two stories on the Independent Singapore (a website that occasionally picks up pieces from this blog), about the link between money, income, status and relaitonships. The stories can be found at:

https://theindependent.sg/nus-student-feels-like-a-loser-because-her-boyfriend-bought-her-a-louis-vuitton-wallet-instead-of-a-chanel-one/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1LJ2NJxyYO993mljS8isaBONhQpbAKjfo2vNwKU0IQGCXqQ0AHbettA40#Echobox=1640390423 ; and

https://theindependent.sg/money-minded-woman-says-her-husband-earns-4000-a-year-at-one-point-but-she-still-loves-him-nonetheless/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1GCMDRbAlorAZmxShJxepyV6FeXPEsPAlbR0ctEh3sIueHb800xGp6mYs#Echobox=1640679535

These stories illustrate something fundamental about Singapore. At the surface level, you could say that the relationship between money and relationships touches on the key social issue caused by the influx of foreigners. Much of the focus on the discussion of foreigners has been about jobs or specifically the “threat” of other Asians (specifically Indian Nationals) taking “professional” jobs from the local population. While its received less attention in recent months, the issue of foreign girls (specifically Mainland Chinese) “stealing” from old men through “dubious relationships” has also been part of the key complaints about the influx of foreigners since 2004.

One does not need to be a data scientist to understand that there were plenty of Mainland Chinese and Vietnamese girls who selling their bodies in the redlight district. There were also plenty of old men throwing away their pension money on young, nubile things, mainly from the Mainland China and Vietnam. When Covid Clusters started exploding in dodgy karaoke lounges, everyone was focused on the evils of “dogy Vietnamese girls.”

So, I get it that Mainland Chinese and Vietnamese girls are as well liked in “PMET Singa-Land” as Indian Nationals with professional jobs. There are dodgy Mainland Chinese and Vietnamese girls just as they are Indian Nationals with dodgy degrees. However, as with the Indian Nationals (let’s remember that whilst you have the lot with dodgy degrees, you have the lot from IIM and IIT – places that produce Fortune 500 CEOs, something which our “world class” universities have yet to do), we not only have to ask ourselves if tarring every Mainland Chinese or Vietnamese with the same brush is fair, we also need to ask ourselves if we’re any better?

Whenever a Singaporean man ends up going for a Mainland Chinese or Vietnamese girl, you’re bound to get a flurry of comments on how the man is going to get screwed for money. You will also get a load of comments about how Singaporean men are “Marrying Down” and as one of my colleagues from my last agency job said “Singaporean men can’t live up to the standards we set for them.” Apparently Singaporean Chinese men cannot take independent, intelligent women in the same way that their Western counterparts can (though having seen what many white guys end up with, it’s a natural instinct to question the judgement of a White Man on Asian women as it is to question a White Man’s work ethic).

However, as the stories in the Independent would suggests, the “standards” that are being set have less to do with character and more to do with earning power. I mean, if a young student feels that she’s being short changed over a branded handbag, it does reflect something about her value system and what she’s been brought up to expect. Given that this is a university student we’re talking about and not a farm girl, the question remains what type of “elite” class are we raising.

Let’s face it, unless you are Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, money plays a key role in survival. I go to a job and deal with people in suites who make me want to puke because I need to pay bills and my job puts food on the table. Let’s also be perfectly honest, we all like nice things. Between sleeping on a park bench or a fluffy bed, I chose the latter?

However, whilst money is important and material things are nice to have, we need to question if these things should be the defining of one’s character. I believe that for some, money is merely a commodity to be exchanged but to many, money, career and whatever they own, define them. I would argue that this is where we need to distinguish between a prostitute and a whore.

 

 

 Is she really that different – copyright South China Morning Post:

 

 

 From them – Copyright Mashable

To an extent, a prostitute is someone who has sex for a living. Every girl on the street corner of Geylang is a prostitute. It’s their job. They have to sell a fantasy to whichever customer comes their way in order to ensure they have money. You could say, all of us are prostitutes because we get f** for a living in one way or another and somehow, we need to sell fantasies to the clowns that pay. However, our job does not necessarily make us who we are.

A whore on the other hand is a different story. A whore doesn’t necessarily walk the street corners of dodgy places hopping to turn tricks. What a whore does is to try and get a paying person who will keep paying. Whereas the transaction with a prostitute is clear (money for a good time), its not necessarily so with a whore. Whores may actually have a genuine love for you as long as you have money. One of the most distinguishing signs of a whore is how she treats other people, particularly those whom she perceives as “lower” down. I remember a young Pinoy girl who married one of the partners in the Bistrot. With me, she was pleasant. However, I used to get very upset when she was talking to the Pinoy guys. Didn’t have to understand Tagalog to get the idea that she was reminding them that she had risen above them – and they were the ones doing honest work.

The issue I had was not so much her relationship with the partner in question but the fact that she couldn’t help but lord it over the Pinoy guys who she used to hang out with. The message was clear – she was too good for them.

Whilst all of us are to an extent prostitutes, we actually have an option of not being whores. Yes, we all put on a façade to do what we need to earn to get the coin – but we can choose how we behave when we’re in a position of having money.

I know great guys who have made pots of money but it never seemed to affect their personality. I think of Hans Hofer, founder of Apa Guidebooks who was happy to take the tube in London and was also happy to do drinks in ULU (University of London Union). I also think of Arun Jain, current MD of Intellect Design Arena, a listed company, who had no issue jumping onto the MRT (apparently has no issue with the tuk-tuks when he’s in India). Mr. Jain’s personal net worth is probably north of the US$100 million. These guys are examples of men who chose not to be whores when they made lots of money. They chose not to be whores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2zsf4Kg_9I

 

 Would you believe the name squatting down for a meal with his hands was one of the richest men on earth?

By contrast you have the “professionals” in places like Shenton Way, who are officially “respectable” but after a drink or two, you realise that they make the residents of Geylang look like the saintly division of the Salvation Army.

There are professional accountants who are very insistent that they are professionals and therefore you have to speak to them in a certain way. However, they think its perfectly acceptable to whistle at waitresses to summon them and whilst payments for their fellow professionals will flow, there’s always a cash flow issue when it comes to issuing payment to people like the stationary company.

This is the type of behavior that makes what goes on in the whore houses saintly. In the whore houses, you have girls who will f*** the wealthy (the wealthier the better) so that they can give the money to the poor – specifically the families they’ve left behind. By contrast the respectable whores will screw over the poor so that they can give money to the rich. I remember one of them was very upset with a Vietnamese girl for “cheating” a Caucasian lawyer. Complained that the gave her money but she “screwed other guys.” What was not mentioned that the Caucasian guy was a lawyer who managed to get himself “barred” from entering Singapore, a country that can’t get enough of “Caucasian” Professionals, whilst the girl in question built a business, sold it and travels in an out freely. The man must something to an extent that even the Singapore government wouldn’t be able to cover for him and we need to ask – really, who is the dubious one here?

Let’s understand that there is a difference between a prostitute and a whore. Let work towards making it easier for the people trying to make a living and at the same time, let us bring up our young with values beyond the material. A nation of whores is really no nation at all.

God’s Fine Print

 Now that the festivities are winding down and the actual day has passed, I thought I’d make the point that although my school boy theology is nearly 30-years rusty, but its most likely that the person we know as Jesus of Nazareth was not born on December 25. I’ve heard several reasons for this, ranging from the change of the calendar by the Emperor Constantine (the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire) to the fact this date was associated with Saturnalia, an old pagan fertility festival that the early church founders found easier to adapt than abolish.

That little snippet of trivia should in no way distract from the significance of the festival. The birth of Christ is the central theme of Western and by many extents, global civilization as we know it and if the date of December 25 is a “set-up” it was a pretty clever one in as much as the day after is St Stephen’s Day or Boxing Day as its better known. Stephen was the first martyr of the Christian faith. He was, a man who refused to bow down to the version of God as expressed by the Sanhedrin and penalty for Jews who p*** of the Sanhedrin back in those days was stoning.

 

 This was how Stephen died for this faith - Not the best way to die ……..Copyright – Lee Jay Walker  

So, why would the early church leaders choose to commemorate very brutal death of the first Christian martyr straight after it celebrated the birth of Jesus, or the reason for the church’s very existence?

As a matter of disclosure, I did take Christian theology up to A-levels and my teacher expected me to read theology at university. However, I realized that I didn’t have the patience for detailed study and the thought of learning ancient Greek (the compulsory element as you have to read the New Testament in the original language) and used the national service period as a reason to abandon the dreams of those who had great hope in me. I place this disclaimer so as to clarify that I am merely giving an opinion based on my personal beliefs and observations.

I believe the significance of having St Stephen’s day after Christmas sends a clear message about faith and just about everything else in life, which is the fact that you cannot have glory and joy without being prepared to suffer for it. The point is easier to explain at Easter where we commemorate the pain of Good Friday before the glory of the resurrection of Easter Sunday. However, the point should not be lessened at Christmas. Think of St Stephen’s day as the fine print of the divine contract. Everyone gets excited by the “birth of the savior” on Christmas day because it’s a promise of all sorts of wonderful things. However, there’s the fine print, which says that in order to reach the promised land of heavenly glory by following the proverbial “savior,” you got to be prepared to lose everything, including your life.

This is important because much of the modern capitalistic system is based on instant gratification without the painful bits. Lotteries are the prime example. The odds of winning the lottery defy logic. According to Forbes, you have a 292.1 million to one chance of hitting the big power ball jackpot. By contrast you have a 300,000 to one chance of being struck by lightning. You’d think that with such poor odds, no logical person would by a lottery ticket. Yet, despite these odds, lotteries throughout the world continue to thrive? Why? Everyone is attracted by the prospect of being wildly rich without having to slog and save towards wealth. Being rich is attractive – working to the extent of having to pay a personal price is not.

Another extreme example is “miracle diets” which promise you a beautiful body is you just buy them. I would love to be as lean and trim as Bruce Lee in his prime. Training for six hours a day and 365 days a week like Bruce Lee is a different story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dklsnzXT8yQ

These are extreme examples but the point remains, most of us want the glory without having to struggle for it and there’s a twist to it in Singapore where an “easy life” is seen as an “entitlement.” Too many of Singapore’s leaders forget that one of the key elements of our success came from having to do the ground work. Lee Kuan Yew wasn’t born Prime Minister. He had to struggle to know his electorate. The English-speaking Mr. Lee had to force himself out of his comfort zone to communicate in Mandarin and Hokkien to get people to vote for him.

However, this isn’t the case today. How many of the ruling party’s potential candidates for parliament have had to leave their comfort zones to know the electorate? The only criteria for parliament seem to be checking the right boxes set by an all-knowing party executive and before you know it, you have a cushy side gig paying an allowance that is five times the national average wage.

At least politicians have to face some form of competition every five-years.  Lower down the line you have senior civil servants being appointed CEO of big companies in businesses that are unrelated to their previous work experiences. It’s called “Sharing talent” with the private sector and everyone is supposed to believe this will benefit the rest of us. Doesn’t work like this in 2021/2022. Bosses are expected to understand the ground and know how their organisations work. Yet, nobody expects the former civil servants to know the businesses they have been parachuted to run. Why are we surprised when the companies run by former civil servants end up with floundering share prices and un-balanced sheets despite having a national monopoly on essential services and products?

The leaders of the media industry once claimed that the market was “too small for competition.” The reality is that it is “too controlled” to punish managerial incompetence. Too many of our leaders across all sectors fall in love with being the boss without understanding that bosses need to do work. Hence, they rush out of their way to lavish luxuries and opportunities on hedge fund owners but struggle to pay what is due to movers and stationary providers without understanding that their business needs the support of partners. Yet, the system shields them from incompetence.

This has to change if Singapore Inc is to have a future. Market forces must be allowed to punish leaders who fail to do the work of leaders. In religious terms we all want the divine glory that Jesus brings but are we prepared to put the work that Stephen died for? Unless we are willing to answer in the affirmative, we shouldn’t get the divine glory.  

When the God from the Gutter Gets Old

 

It’s officially Christmas Eve and I’ve already started having attend the various celebrations that one has to go to as part of the corporate scene. Company lunch and Middle Eastern restaurant was excellent and I left the place rolling – so much for the year’s efforts to look that bit slimmer.

I love Christmas or at least I love the good food and opportunities to drink. If I were in Europe, the highlight would be the family goose, which my mother has turned into an art form (or as the Evil Young Woman said when I brought her back for Christmas – “Oh Grandma cooks good). I’m not big into presents but I guess that comes from the fact that I’ve been into shopping – never understood the thrill of owning things.

However, as much as I love Christmas revelry, I’ve always found it strange that we would celebrate the birth of Jesus by endless consumerism. The man that we call Jesus Christ, was from a family so poor that he had to be born down in a manger with the animals. I guess in modern terms, he had to be born in a petrol station because there was simply nowhere else for him to be. If you read all four gospels, you will note that Jesus preferred the title “Son of Man” as opposed to “Son of God,” and he hung out with social outcast (tax collectors and prostitutes.) His teachings cheered on the lowest of the low and he admonished those in power. Jesus of the gospels wasn’t exactly a capitalist by traditional definitions, let alone a member of the Tucker Carlson fan club that is the modern American Republican Party.

So, if you look at who the gospels tell us Jesus is, it goes without saying that celebrating his birth with endless consumerism shouldn’t be the way to go (not that I’m against good food for the season). Instead of trying to benefit retailers, our Christmas celebration should be more in line with that of Mr. Gilbert Goh, one of Singapore’s better-known activists, is doing:

 

 Taken from Gilbert Goh’s Facebook page.

I guess you could call Mr. Goh a “Social Welfare Entrepreneur,” who spends his time serving an ignored market – only in this case he’s giving food to those who are unable to help themselves rather than selling a product or service.

Whilst there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Goh is doing this in the name of any particular faith, he is doing that the early Christians used to do – go out, heal the sick and feed the hungry free-of charge.

One would imagine that Mr. Goh would be the type of person that the rich, famous and powerful would want to be seen with as part of their efforts to burnish their credentials with the people by being around a guy who is doing what he can to ensure the vulnerable have things a little better.

 

 Note the joy on their faces – Taken from Mr. Gilbert Goh’s Facebook page.

However, this being Singapore, Mr. Goh is considered something of a trouble maker by Singapore’s elite. I thank Thambi Pundek (aka, Singapore’s Young Muslim Politician who believes in feasting on pork on a Ramadan Day), for explaining it most clearly “Why you want to do these things – there’s the government and grassroots?”

Well, whilst I am not “Anti-Ruling Party” (though I wish I really had the millions some of my fans on TREmeritus imagine I’m being paid to write ruling party propaganda), per se, Mr. Goh is providing a necessary service to market that is tragically only going to increase – namely a growing army of dispossessed old folks.

 

 He is part of a growing number ……taken from Mr. Gilbert Goh’s Facebook page

Let’s state the obvious, these are not “welfare louts” or “druggies” that make the number of destitute in the Western world. They are not the tramps who lived on the same street as me in London’s Soho. If anything, these were the guys who made Singapore what it is. They didn’t have much but they slogged hard and sent their kids to school. As a rule of thumb, these guys don’t beg or ask for spare change. They try to sell you tissue paper at the hawker centre or they rummage through the dustbins looking for cans that they can sell to a recycling agent. You’ll see them trying to flatten drink cans with a rock even if they barely have the strength to lift the rock.

Then, as was part of my lunch conversation, a good portion of them end up getting screwed by the kids they devoted their lives to. It’s a classic case of the kid and his family see that the old man or old lady has a property that can be turned into cash (this being the land of very expensive property) and before you know it the old person is conned into moving in with the kid and the his or her property is sold. Then somewhere down the line there is fall out with the child or the in-law and before you know it grandpa or grandma gets turfed out.

Then, as another client of mine explained to me, there are government programs to assist the poor. However, many don’t know how to get them and need assistance – let’s not forget that we are talking about a generation that had it imprinted on its DNA that seeking assistance was the greatest act of shame.

Something needs to be done and when you consider the fact that Singapore is officially one of the richest nations in the world:

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/

 

 We have the money and we have the ability to look after our vulnerable elderly. We have bragged that we are a wonderful “Asian Values” society that respects its elders, yet at the same time we are content to help them go through the trash to look for a means of buying a cup of coffee. How can this be right on a moral standpoint?

In a strange way, solving this issue would probably help solve a few others. Let’s put it this way, every time one sees a homeless elderly person, one is bound to get the idea that ending up like that is a reality. Would you give your all to contribute to a place that will toss you aside once you are old and vulnerable or would you take what you can and then get out to look for more welcoming pastures the moment it looks like you won’t be able to pee straight? If we are to learn anything this Christmas it should be the fact that looking after the vulnerable is not an airy fairy concept created by politicians but a practical and essential element of building a resilient nation that people want to contribute to.

Balance

 

You could call it a series of coincidences. My Facebook feed was abuzz with friends sharing the news of Loh Kean Yew being crowned badminton world champion:

 

 It was really good news. It’s been something on a disappointing year for Singapore sports. The Tokyo Olympics was a let down after the celebration of our first ever gold medal in the Rio Games in 2016. We had another controversy over a boy who had been selected for the English Premier League not being allowed to play and then, well, we were beaten by Thailand in the AFC Suzuki Cup (though admittedly there is still someway to go). So, if you consider this background, Mr. Loh’s victory was that much sweeter.

By sheet coincidence, someone shared an article on my Linkedin about a speech given by our Minister for Manpower, Mr. Tan See Leng, who was talking about how he was going to roll out measures to build a “more resilient migrant workforce.” The article can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mom-to-embark-on-multi-year-road-map-to-build-more-resilient-migrant-workforce-tan-see-leng

 

 I hate to sound cynical but the most interesting thing about the article was the choice of words or specifically the word “resilient” What exactly did the minister mean about making our migrant workforce more resilient? Whilst the treatment of migrant workers only became a national issue when outbreak of Covid-19 cases in the dormitories last year, the truth is, we’ve always known that the migrant workers were badly treated and many of us took comfort in the fact that “it’s better than where they’re coming from.” Mr. Tan’s predecessor as Minister of Manpower had the unenviable task of admitting that the government which takes pride in doing the “right” thing was in fact in the hands of the construction industry. Ms. Teo admitted that migrant worker living conditions were generally substandard but the government had shied away from doing anything about it because the construction industry would inevitably complain about rising cost.

Whilst these events might seem unconnected on the surface, they are in fact part of the “gospel” of Singapore’s economic belief system. Since the 1960s, we have competed on the world stage by doing things cheaper than the West, including Japan but better than our competitors in the rest of Asia. Our currency follows the same pattern. The Singapore dollar is strategically more expensive than most Asian currencies (the countries we buy from) but cheaper than the Western ones (the countries we sell to).

If you follow any discussion of manpower issues, you will find that our ministers genuinely find it hard to understand that ordinary Singaporeans can excel at anything in particular or even to create anything that the rest of the world will recognize. Lee Kuan Yew, the original LKY, used to make the point that we were a small nation and we would never have the economies of scale to do much on the world stage. Hence, the best that Singapore and Singaporeans could ever hope to do would be to work for the government or for Western multinationals as middle management at best.

It’s hard to dispute that Singapore hasn’t done well. However, the often-repeated point is that what worked in the 1960s does not necessarily work in 2021. Unfortunately, the 1960s playbook has become more like a gospel rather than a set of guidelines to be adapted.

The answers to most of our pressing issues are based on this “gospel.” Why do you need so many foreign professionals? The answer, because we need people to lead Singaporean enterprises and create jobs for Singaporeans. Why do we need so many foreigners doing menial jobs? Because it’s the only way we can ensure Singaporeans have housing they can afford and so on and so on.

There was a great example in sports. In the early 2000’s the government spent millions on “foreign” talent and paid one of the best rates in the world for winning medals. What we got was a few silver medals in table tennis because China’s “B” team of table tennis players realized they could make way more coming in second for Singapore than they could winning the gold for China. Which is precisely what happened – they got the silver, took the money and went back to China to live very comfortable lives.

You can’t blame the Chinese for doing this just as you can’t blame Western expats for doing to where they’d be revered for being Western. Why wouldn’t you go to a place that pays you well?

It was only in 2016 when Joseph Schooling won our first ever gold that we realized that there were native born Singaporeans who could excel and they could do it without the government propping them up. As has been pointed out, Mr. Schooling won the gold for Singapore but the years of preparation for that single moment of glory had to be done elsewhere. As was pointed out, the biggest challenge was not so much financial but having to fight the case for him to get exemption from National Service.

Suddenly we noticed that Singaporeans could do things if you allowed them to. Singaporeans like Mr. Schooling as a swimmer and Mr. Sim Wong Hoo of Creative Technology had to go out of Singapore to excel and get recognized on the world stage. The only contribution of the government was to make them so comfortable after their initial success that they lost the drive to be world beaters.

In a way, Mr. Schooling and Mr. Sim’s success in their respective field is problematic for the government. It shows ordinary people that if they are willing to break away from the government’s embrace they can succeed in the wider world.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Loh’s life story could be a guideline in our talent management policies. Mr. Loh moved to Singapore from Malaysia when he was a small boy. He won a scholarship to the Singapore Sports School and funnily enough the government actually showed the flexibility it cabe provide when it wants to. Mr. Loh did serve National Service but also managed to play for the armed forces.

Here is the case of the government providing the necessary infrastructure to allow Mr. Loh to develop as a player but not trying to dictate terms. The government, as in the case of Mr. Loh, has shown that it knows that there is a balance to its role. If only it would show such wisdom in everything else that it does.

Always Trust Your own to F** You Up

 At the start of this month, I based out a piece called “IT’S EASIER TO GET MORE FROM AN EXISTING CUSTOMER THAN TO LOOK FOR A NEW ONE,” (December 6, 2021) where I talked about how the Singapore government was so obsessed in being world class at this and that to the extent of pouring millions into getting things from elsewhere but somehow couldn’t help but screw up the locals who had the talent to be world class.

The obvious comparisons were in classical music where we had built the Esplanade and great cost and continue to run at a loss in the name of building a cultural scene. However, we won’t let the only known Singapore-born classical pianist into Singapore because he didn’t serve his national service even though he left Singapore as a child and had since become British. The same is true in sports where we will spend millions so that world-class European level clubs play in Singapore yet when it came to two boys who were offered a contract to play at the highest of levels, the government said no, they had to serve the army first (which would have made them redundant to the clubs that were offering the contracts).

Its not like the problems with the individuals would have been costly or painful. The issue at hand were simple and could have been solved with a little bit of flexibility – which is a quality that the Singapore government does have.

Yet, the powers that be chose not to demonstrate flexibility to allow talented Singapore-born people to flourish. Its as if the government would rather commit vast amounts of tax payer funds to grand projects than to negotiate a simple paper exercise to allow local talents to flourish.

This mad desire to promote everything except the home-grown talent, is not limited to sports and music. I spent over a decade as a freelance consultant and my personal experiences suggests that one of the largest hurdles that local SME’s and one-man operations face is a system that treats small enterprises as a nuisance rather than the backbone of the economy, as they are in any other place. Like it or not, it’s the foreigners whom many Singaporeans accuse of “stealing jobs” who are more inclined to give business to the SMEs that hire the bulk of Singaporeans.

I was reminded that this isn’t just my personal experience, when I ran into a Linkedin posting of a local surgical mask maker and a local manufacturer of temperature sensors:

 

Both made the point that their products were as good, if not better than the products from elsewhere. Yet they faced greater hurdles than their foreign competitors when trying to get their products into the local market. One of the gentlemen provided a clip from the Straits Times, which talked about the difficulties that local ART test manufacturers faced when trying to get their products to market:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/local-makers-having-difficulty-applying-for-approval-for-retail-use-of-covid-19-art

 

 One has to be clear here that nobody is advocating buying local because it is local. What is being advocated here is that local products and services need to be able to flourish in their domestic market on their own without the government trying to cripple them.

I’ve used the economic rice stall as an example of how SMEs are treated. These small shops feed the local population healthier and tastier stuff at less cost than fast food joints and hotel chains. Yet, they often pay rents and do not get “government mandated business” in the same way that the hotels get “quarantine” business. A restaurant for example can now sit up to five to a table. A hawker stall is still restricted to two per table.

What’s clear is that Singapore’s SME sector is not so much challenged by the usual challenges of running a business (cash flow, competition etc) but by a system that favours everyone else except the local entrepreneur. What at stake here? I would say creating opportunities to create a good livelihood for the locals. Instead of spending billions to attract people who don’t need the money to spend money on unproductive things, the government merely needs to ensure that our local entrepreneurs play by the same rules as everyone else.  

Regardless of Race, Religion, Social Class, Political Affiliation – We’re Still Sleazy B***s

 If there is any good that comes out of the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the lady accused of helping the late disgraced financier traffic underaged girls, it should be the fact that no amount of money can hide a nasty character. The incident risk exposing some of the most powerful people on the planet, including two (2) former presidents (Trump and Clinton, who are admittedly the two sleaziest in recent history), the Duke of York and many others.

 

 Republican - Copyright, the Washington Post

 

 Democrat -Copyright, the New York Post

 

 Royal - Copyright, BBC

The incident has shown that despite all the “tribal” rhetoric that has come out to fore in recent years (think Trump and Brexit), certain people are united by the fact that they’re sleazy at their core. Trump for example is a Republican and Clinton is a Democrat who were once on friendly terms. Then, along came the 2016 Presidential Campaign, when Mr. Trump ran against Mr. Clinton’s wife and the friendly relationship descended into a mud slinging match, so much so that you would have imagined that the two had nothing in common. However, this was not true. The Trump turned out to be as sleazy as his counterpart across the aisle, with accusations of paying off sexually inappropriate behavior with a variety of women. Stories of their involvement with Mr. Epstein can be found at:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-and-jeffrey-epstein-partied-together-then-an-oceanfront-palm-beach-mansion-came-between-them/2019/07/31/79f1d98c-aca0-11e9-a0c9-6d2d7818f3da_story.html ; and

https://nypost.com/2020/08/18/photos-show-bill-clinton-getting-massage-from-epstein-accuser/

Things were not better across the Atlantic. Whilst the Americans had examples of how different political parties were united in sleazy behavior, the British example showed that it didn’t matter if you had blue or red blood. In his now infamous interview, the Duke of York, Prince Andrew showed that it really doesn’t matter if your born into royalty. If you’re sleazy at heart, you’ll be sleazy for life:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtBS8COhhhM

 

I also need to remind Asians reading this, that being sleazy is not a particularly Western disease. In 2012, Howard Shaw, grandson of Runme Shaw, the cinema tycoon, was sent to jail for 12 weeks for getting involved with underaged prostitutes. Mr. Shaw, was caught along with 41 other men, including a school principal and regional head of an international banks. More can be found at:

https://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120731-362346.html

 

 In a way, I can understand men who get involved in sexual escapades. As a normal heterosexual man, I am attracted to nice female bodies. Napoleon Hill, who wrote “Think and Grow Rich,” argued that a high sex drive was a good thing because if channeled, it could drive a man who achieve things – or in simple terms, you strive for money and power to become attractive to get laid.

However, whilst I can understand guys who are on the way up, getting involved in all sorts of escapades, I’m curious as to why men who have everything would ever need to get involved in this type of thing. Bill Clinton for example is a decent looking 70-year-old with oodles of charisma. Money is not a problem and he was the President of the USA. He could snap his fingers and have women throwing themselves at him. So, why does he need to be associated with Mr. Epstein and his girls? As for Mr. Trump, he’s married to Melania, who is the masturbatory fantasies of the masses and he’s had a well-known affair with a porn star whom mere mortals would lust after. Was the thrill of being with a guy who was openly into girls who could be his granddaughter?

Sure, no charges have been brought against the former Presidents in relation to Mr. Epstein. Yet, its already questionable as to why they would even want to be near Mr. Epstein once he started admitting indulging in young and underage girls? Same could be said of Bill Gates and Prince Andrew.

Then, there’s Ms. Maxwell herself. She is essentially, a woman who had everything. She’s unquestionably good looking. As a young girl, she was quite stunning:

 

 Copyright the Times

Time and age have also been quite kind to her in terms of her physical looks. Now, in her late 50s, Ms. Maxwell remains and elegant figure in the social scene:

 

Copyright – The New York Times

Ms. Maxwell was born into money and had contacts galore. She is, as they say, a woman, who could have anything she wants. She’s not a prostitute from the streets whose only way up in life is to get other girls into the business. She is as privileged as it gets.

So, why would she, as a woman (working on the assumption that women are more decent when compared to men), even go anywhere near girls who were under the statutory age of consent to get them to have sex with an admittedly wealthy but old man. Whatever she felt that she may have owed Mr. Epstein, it surely could not have been worth coercing so many young girls.

The trial is still going on and more could come out. However, what is clear is that as ordinary folks, we need to assess how we relate to the rich and powerful. Sure, they have more money and power but this entire incident has shown that they are no stretch better people than the rest of us.

When Small Guys get Together.

 

One of the great truisms of a fight came from Voltaire, who remarked that “God is on the side of big battalions.” It doesn’t take a genius to realise that when it comes to a fighting, whether its on the battlefield or in a street fight – the bigger guy usually wins.

There is, as they say, a correlation between size and raw physical power, which is in many cases the determining factor in a fight. In military tactics, the bigger force only attacks a smaller one (as Eisenhower once said “Never send a battalion to take a hill if a regiment is available.”). In nature, it’s the large animals that don’t have natural predators – they would squash any potential predator and would therefore not be worth the risk for any potential predator.

Like it or not, size matters. In any direct confrontation, the biggest guy will prevail. There is, as they say, a good reason why boxing matches are separated into weight classes. If you look at the geopolitical scene in the last fifty years, you’ll notice that the super powers are inevitably huge (USSR, USA and China were and are huge both geographically and demographically). Nobody takes on the biggest guy on the block and the big guys don’t get into fights directly because any conflict will be expensive in terms of blood and money.

So, given that the big beast will inevitably crush the opposition in any direct confrontation, what are the smaller creatures to do. The answer, as always, lies in nature where the smallest of creatures have found a way to survive against larger foes. On land, one only needs to see how bees have mastered the art of cooperation and collaboration to create honey and keep out predators. A swarm of bees have the ability to make a bear flee. In the insect kingdom, a beehive can be destroyed by a single hornet. However, when the bees of the hive cooperate and flap their wings in unison, they can actually heat up and burn the hornet.

In the waters, the most fearsome predator is not the huge killer whale or shark. It’s a group of piranhas, which are tiny. A single piranha takes just one bite out of the prey. However, a group of piranhas can strip any given prey to the bone in a matter of seconds.

Size matters in a confrontation. The big guy will inevitably have power at his disposal. However, as nature has shown, the small creatures can even the odds and send their opponents packing when they work together. Small nations that form consortiums can make quite an impact on the global stage. In my years in the insolvency business, the people that I come across that have the “most money” don’t actually work in large structures but in consortiums like bees.

On the national level, one of the small countries that comes to mind is the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is made up of seven different emirates. Sure, the most dominant is Abu Dhabi, which is where the bulk of the oil wealth lies and the most well known is Dubai, which is where most of the commerce is. However, each emirate has found security and by extension prosperity working together within the federation structure than they would have on their own.

The driving force behind the formation of the federation was the then Emir of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, who would go onto become the first President of the UAE.  If you look at the history of the UAE, you could argue that while oil did provide a steroid shot of prosperity, the real blessing for the UAE was the fact that it was created by a leader who understood that small units can achieve great things when they cooperate and collaborate.

Furthermore, if you look at the geopolitical situation that Sheikh Zayed found himself in back in the 1960s and 70s, the creation of the UAE was a master stroke. The British, who were the proverbial big fish and the protector of what was then known as the Trucial States, suddenly withdrew. What we know as the UAE sits between Iran and Saudi Arabia, two much larger neighbours, whom have not always been friendly (Iran or Persia as it was known had seized three islands from the Emirate of Sharjah, which remain in Iranian hands). Sure, oil made the Emirate of Abu Dhabi wealthy overnight but in a sense more vulnerable (one does not want to be a rich minnow next to a hungry lion).

So, the creation of a federation was a way of unifying people and working together in what is essentially a tough neighbourhood. As Sheikh Zayed’s Wikipedia page notes, he was exceedingly generous with Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum who was then ruler of Dubai. The point being that he understood whatever he gave to the ruler of Dubai would be more than repaid if they could work together. Sheikh Zayed’s Wikipedia page is as follows:

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

One can argue that Sheikh Zayed was also lucky in that he had a partner in Sheikh Rashid, the then ruler of Dubai, who also saw great value in working with Sheikh Zayed in a Federation. As Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the current ruler of Dubai recalls – Sheikh Zayed offered the presidency to his father (who was the elder of the two), who refused it and insisted that Sheikh Zayed be the president. The current Dubai ruler notes that this is something that has never happened in the Arab World. The Dubai ruler’s recollection of that event can be found at:

https://gulfnews.com/uae/the-beginnings-of-the-uae-as-told-by-sheikh-mohammed-bin-rashid-1.1574682989637

The UAE, which celebrated its 50^th anniversary recently has been a success. Whilst oil wealth has undoubtedly played a part in that success, a good part of it is due to leaders who understood the value of working together and being open. Sheikh Zayed, as its founding president was generous in using the oil wealth of Abu Dhabi in helping build up the human resources of the other emirates. Whilst he was at the time of the formation of the UAE, one of the wealthiest men on the planet, he kept himself close to the people and was happy eating with Bedouin tribes in the traditional manner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2zsf4Kg_9I

 

 How Many “Modern” people do you know would sit for this meal?

The UAE is not perfect by any means. Its record on treatment of foreign labour, particularly those from the Indian Subcontinent is not great and it has not exactly won international praise for its participation in the War in Yemen. However, you cannot argue with the fact that the country has come along way in 50-years, particularly when you consider that at its formation, it was described as being like a collection of desert tribes. The National, Abu Dhabi’s main English daily describes the initial meetings between Sheikh’s Zayed and Rashied as being “like tribal chieftains.”

https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/heritage/2021/11/15/how-the-uae-was-formed-meetings-in-the-desert-led-to-new-union/

Then, you have to look at the fact that the UAE is not the only “amalgamation” in the region. There was the union of Egypt and Syria under the United Arab Republic between 1958 and 1971, which failed. Both Arab republics had a long history of statehood than the Emirates. So, how did they fail whilst the Emirates succeeded?

Simple argument, the individual Emirates found a way of working together. Sheikh Zayed allowed the other emirs a degree of independence, thereby giving them power within their sphere. By contrast, then President Naser of Egypt had no intention of giving his Syrian partners any real power. In the United Arab Republic, there was never a need to cooperate and collaborate like there is in the United Arab Emirates.

When small units are given the chance to get together when they need work together and are also allowed to be themselves when there’s no need to be in a large group, they achieve great things. By contrast, if you get a situation where units come together but only one personality insist on perpetual power, the union is bound to fail. The Emirates succeed because they are together when they need to be but they have autonomy to be themselves. The United Arab Republic failed because one man wanted to control everything.

Its even true at the commercial level. In seven years of being insolvency, the best business structure come from my asset buyers. These are consortiums of individuals, who contribute their talents for that particular project then go their own way when they want to act on their own. These guys have always been easy to deal with and when they pay, they pay in large sums. At the other end, the organizations that end up as boxes in the office, are usually run by ego maniacs who insist on controlling the brand of boxes used by the business and insist in not allowing their clients to speak in meetings. These are the guys who somehow talk big but shrink as they make half hearted attempts to put dreams into reality.

It’s Easier to Get More from an Existing Customer than to Look for a New One.

 

Indians around the world have been cheering. The Overseas Indian Community now claims yet another CEO of a top technology company with the elevation of Parag Agrawal, who replaced Jack Dorsey as CEO of Twitter.

At the age of 37, Mr. Agrawal joins a distinguished list of people of Indian origin who have become big time CEOs, like Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Shantanu Narayan at Adobe, Indra Nooyi of Pepsico and Ajay Banga of Mastercard. A more comprehensive list of people of Indian Origin who have become CEOs of international companies can be found at:

https://www.viralindiandiary.com/indian-ceos-international-companies-networth/

Mr. Agrawal’s elevation to the top job at Twitter has made management theorist excited. Articles about how Indians, who only make up some six percent of Silicon Valley, managed to get a “disproportionate” share of the top jobs around have bene popping up. The following article from the BBC is an example:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-59457015

Mr. Agrawal’s elevation has been a good moral booster for “Brand India,” “Brand IIM” and “Brand IIT,” which for my personal branding, was great, since two of my career highlights came from serving “Brand IIM” and “Brand IIT.” Working for the respective alumni associations was great for “shoulder rubbing.”

However, one has to ask, how does the elevation of Mr. Agrawal benefit anyone else besides himself and Twitter. This was the question raised by Wion News (which is a channel, I don’t often watch based on the fact that their views tend to border on being a little Indian Jingoistic.).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K37cElKncI8

 

There were two key points made. Firstly, is the fact that the loyalty of a CEO of a Company is not to the country of his birth but to his shareholders wherever they may be.  The Wion report talked about how Google led by Indian born and educated Sundar Pichai was currently fighting court cases in India. Mr. Pichai’s duty is not to make India prosperous but to ensure his shareholders in America got the best returns possible.

This leads to the second point raised, which was the fact that China, which produced none of Silicon Valley’s CEOs, has produced far more tech unicorns (a start-up with a valuation of USD one billion). It goes without saying that a technology unicorn in a country does more to create wealth in that particular country than having person born in a country become CEO of a big company in another country.

If you take these points further, it would seem that the key advantage that China has over India is the fact that its “talent” wants to come back. The Chinese with brains and drive move back to China to do things. There was a time when the wealthiest Chinese were people like Li Ka Shing of Hong Kong and Ng Teng Fong from Singapore, who moved outside of China and bought land the most expensive real estate markets. Today, the wealthiest Chinese are people like Jack Ma and Ma Huateng of Alibaba and Tencent, who are technology people, creating new ways for people in China to do things.  

With notable exceptions like NR. Narayana Murthi of Infosys (who was working in India before he started Infosys), Azim Premji of Wipro (who had to cut his studies at Stanford when his father died) and Arun Jain of IntellectDesign Arena (who was offered a job at Wang Laboratories in the USA but turned it down), the Indians who have brains, prefer to stay outside of India.

One of China’s great tricks in its rise was to harness the Chinese diaspora. Initial foreign investment and expertise came from Chinese origin businessmen in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Say what you like about the Communist Government in China but making China welcome to Chinese born outside of China was strategically sound.

Can India do the same. The Indian diaspora is not just rich in funds but also in expertise. Indian have thrived in America and Europe as well as remote markets like Africa and the Middle East. However, while you have the odd Arun Jain of Intellect Design Arena, India has yet to create an emotional bond with its diaspora the way China did. I think of a young Indian executive in a multinational IT firm who said “I DON’T want to go back to India,” when I suggested that he could have a good life earning in USD but living in India (The Company he worked for had been bought out by a US based Company).

As much as the Immigration and Check Point Authority (ICA) may not like to admit it, India does provide quite a few lessons, namely in the fact that we have to question if our immigration policies are making it such that talented Singaporeans don’t want to stay and build things in Singapore.

The main debate on immigration in Singapore has been about attracting talent, including members of the Indian diaspora. The government argues that we need “foreign talent,” to invest in Singapore and to create value-creating jobs for Singaporeans. The people on the ground complain that people from elsewhere “steal” jobs from the locals.

I will avoid getting into the nitty gritty of that debate since everyone else does so. In principle, I don’t disagree with being open to talent from elsewhere. As a small trade dependent nation, we cannot afford to shut our doors and let’s face it, we need to measure ourselves against “best in the world” rather than “best in Singapore.”

However, we need to ask if we’re going all out to get “foreign” talent at the expense of driving away local talent. Let’s take a look at what happens in the field of music. Singapore goes out of its way to attract musicians from all over the world as part of our efforts to be a “global city.” We spent lots of money to build a “world class” facility in the shape of the Esplanade and we lose money so that we can have great cultural events and get great musicians from elsewhere to play here.

Yet, what did we do when we produced one classical pianist that the rest of the world seems to value? We threatened to lock him up for not serving his national service even though he left Singapore as a child. Think about it, you can listen to Melvyn Tan play anywhere in the world – except in Singapore.

Look what happened with Ben Davis and Harry Britwistle, who were talented enough to be selected to play in English Premier League Clubs. They had to give up their citizenship to pursue their dreams. It was National Service and keep the passport, by which then they would be of no use to the clubs that selected them, or never to set foot in Singapore and pursue the dream. It should be no surprise which path they chose.

Whilst we deny talented Singaporeans the chance to play in the English Premier league or any of the top European leagues, we’re more than happy to spend money bringing those teams to Singapore:

https://www.scmp.com/sport/football/article/3008389/asia-pre-season-tours-barcelona-manchester-clubs-and-juventus-lead

Nothing wrong with attracting talented foreigners but it should not be at the expense of our local budding talents. We have some 340,000 Singaporeans living overseas. Many of them are highly educated and talented people, who have left for a variety of reasons. A list of “Overseas” Singaporeans can be found at the following link:

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

Many of have taken different nationalities and I can understand that. Unlike, say the USA, which is huge, there are limits in Singapore’s limited geographical space. However, shouldn’t we be cultivating links with them – the people who are already here rather than trying to get more people from elsewhere?

It’s this simple. In business, they say its easier to get more business from an existing customer than to look for a new one. If you apply that logic, it’s surely easier and cheaper to get a talented Singaporeans to work for Singapore than to spend so much money to get people from elsewhere to work for Singapore. Sounds simple to me, if only it were so for our policy makers.