Friends in Low Places

 

I just saw an interview on podcast called “Mea Culpa” between Michael Cohen and Ms. Stormy Daniels. As is well known, these two were once opponents. Mr. Cohen is well known as Donald Trump’s lawyer or “fixer” who ended up in jail for his role in trying to fix Ms. Stormy Daniels, the porn start that had an affair with Donald Trump. The podcast can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rlIEGUenwI

 

The podcast has made international news and a summary of what was discussed can be found in the following AP report:

https://apnews.com/article/stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-talk-trump-93d77a1f45d97bbff55c104672422b15

This was a fascinating podcast that provided insights into one of the most interesting presidents in recent history. What made it more fascinating was the fact that both are exceedingly flawed characters. You could say that both Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels have a clear axe to grind against Mr. Trump and you could say that both are “sleazy” characters. Mr. Cohen had a leading role in making whatever Mr. Trump wanted to happen and Ms. Daniels, as she openly says, is in porn – she makes a living having sex for the camera – not the career choice that most of us wish on the women in our lives.

I guess you would say that these are the type of characters that “respectable” society writes off. These are the type of people that “respectable” society would rush to “write-off” because they do not fit the definition of “credible.” Think about the number of times many of us have written off comments like the hawkers, foreign labourers, taxi drivers and so on especially when those words have come into conflict between the “respectable” people like expatriate white collar workers, working professionals and dare I say politicians and civil servants. Let’s be honest, most of us take the view that the first group should be grateful to whatever the second group give to them. Let us be honest, a guy in shirt and tie who speaks crisp English always seems to sound nicer than the guy in flip-flops and a singlet.

However, if you look at Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels, you will realise that the fact that they’re so flawed in the eyes of respectable makes them so much more credible. Both have effectively been screwed to a point where they have nothing to lose, and they go all out in a way that “respectable” people would not have the courage to do. Ms. Daniels comes across as a particularly admirable character who behaves in what she knows to be correct. She does not wait for government to do things for her – she goes out of her way to make things happen for her, without worrying too much about what “respectable” society thinks.

As I watched the podcast, I was reminded of one of my most “interesting” friends – Fleshball, who is Singapore’s fleshiest, dumpiest hooker, who proudly calls herself “The Queen of Lorong 16.” Fleshball is what you would call everything that no man wants in a woman and everything a woman does not want to be. I mean you are talking about someone who looks so comical with cloths on that you will not be able to imagine her without.

However, in the years of knowing Fleshball, I have realised that there a lot to be said for the saying that you need “friends in low places.” Fleshball is sharp at reading people and has an instinctive genius for being able to touch the right buttons to get certain people to fight for her. She could tell the sexuality of a person just by reading a text.

What was particularly interesting is the fact that Fleshball had a situational awareness that women with far more did not have. One of the funniest moments came when I had to admit to her when I was involved with the police because the girl, I was seeing at the time threw a tantrum in spa because the spa wouldn’t allow me to sit in the same room with her. Fleshball just looked at me and said “Oi – how many years you hang out with me in Geylang and how many times have the police asked you for your IC? Hang out with her five times in posh places and you already must show your ic to the police.”

I guess what you could say is that Fleshball has had so much against her that she has nothing to lose. Every small victory is a confidence builder and the more confident she becomes, things become easier for her. As another friend says, “What has she got to lose?”

People in low places cannot afford to be trapped in fluff the way respectable people can. Its most prominent in meetings, especially meetings involving civil servants. If you sit enough meetings, you’ll realise that nobody actually wants to come to the point because it’s a sign of their importance. Nobody leaves meetings early because it is a sign that you are not smart enough to know what the person speaking is droning on about.

It is part and parcel of being a respectable person. However, whenever you get “workers” involved in meetings, they somehow cut through the fluff. I think of a situation where the workers listened to the guy giving meeting and then put up his hand and said “Sir, you are telling us many things but where is the money.” This is ultimately the point of the meeting.

This is not to suggests that people in low places are intrinsically better than “respectable” people. However, we should not allow ourselves to be swayed by the veneer of respectability and understand that the guys in low places might actually have a very important point that needs to be made. Let us remember Stormy Daniels who has limited resources organised aid for the needy when her state was in trouble. Pastor Joel Osteen only opened his megachurch to the needy during a natural disaster after criticism on social media. There was a reason why Jesus believed in having friends in low places.   

The Guy with Roses and Chocolates

 

A lady friend of mine has recently found herself in a confusing position. After years of being in a solid relationship of several years, she has suddenly found herself with another admirer. While she has stated that she has now intention of “cheating” on the main man in her life, she admitted that she is enjoying the attention that the other suitor has provided because it has been something that she has not received from the incumbent in her life. However, in her case, competition has worked in as much as the love of her life has suddenly had to fight for her.

I think of this story because we live in a day and age where the word “loyalty” has become overused, and “appreciation” seems to be a word that has disappeared everyone’s (especially those in positions of power) vocabulary. Take all the talk about returning to the office as an example. Everyone is talking about the value of “employee loyalty” to the organization but not nobody is taking about appreciation for the work that employees do in difficult times.

The most prominent example of expecting loyalty for nothing comes in the arena in geopolitics, especially when the People’s Republic of China is concerned. Around a month ago, Australia got terribly upset because the Solomon Islands entered a security deal with China. The then Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Scott Morrison got upset and made all sorts of noises about how Australia did not want a Cuba in its backyard. Mr. Morrison made the point that Australia remains the largest aid donor to the Solomon Islands and has sent troops to quell unrest in the Solomon Islands – which was polite geopolitical speak for “You depend on us so do as we say.”

The Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands Mr. Manasseh Sogavare, rightly told Mr. Morrison where he could stick it and Mr. Morrison had to defend Australia’s position. Then, an article in Foreign Policy said that Australia was basically overreacting. More can be found at:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61329518 and

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/13/china-solomon-islands-asia-pacific-security/

Australia’s reaction to China’s movement in the Solomon Islands is not particularly unique. The European Powers get upset whenever China builds relationships in Africa and Eastern Europe and the USA gets upset whenever China makes overtured to Latin American countries. You’ll get all sorts of articles about how China is placing poor and impoverished nations into “debt traps” and how they “promote corruption.” You will get all sorts of “alarmist” headlines like the following:

 

 Taken from VisualPolitik

This is not to say that China is a saintly partner to the third world countries that it courts. As Sri Lanka’s debt crisis has shown, China has more than happy to exploit corrupt government officials. However, the problem here is not so much China’s overtures to certain countries but the feeling of resentment that the “other” power feels. Australia in the South Pacific, the USA in Latin America and Europe in Africa feel that China is “tackling their girl,” and their dialogue to the country dealing with China sounds inevitably like an entitled boyfriend – “Look here you ungrateful b*** - leave me for him and you’ll regret it.”

What these powers fail to consider is that they do not exactly have a glorious history of bringing prosperity in their respective backyards. Australia dumps unwanted refugee in the South Pacific, the Americans have a history of removing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with some of the worst despots in history in South America and the Europeans do not exactly have a record of doing something other than exploiting people in Africa.

So, whilst China is not exactly known for being benign, they do get things done. If they promise to build a road, it gets built. Here is a story that I noticed on my Linkedin feed that makes this point:

https://hansstoisser.com/en/emerging-africa/china-or-europe-who-is-africas-better-partner/

 

 Copyright – Hans Stoisser

If you read through the comments, you will note that Mr. Stoisser does state that he believes that Europe would be the better partner for Africa in the long run. However, instead of figuring out how to show the Africans they’re the better partner, they’re just complaining that China is encroaching on their territory because Europe was the first colonial power in Africa and therefore Africa somehow owes Europe.

Think of the Western Powers as the husband that at best, neglects the wife but expects her to be loyal because of some accident of history. China by contrast is the guy who woes the lady daily with chocolates and flowers. Who can blame a woman for flirting with the guy giving her attention when the guy at home does not really do much for her?

Why should sovereign nations commit themselves to a single power which takes them for granted. I think of the Saudis in 2006 who stated, “We are a Catholic Marriage with the USA but since we’re Muslim, we can have more than one wife,” when describing their opening up to China and India.  

Just as nations should never be forced to be “devoted loyalist” to more powerful nations, businesses and people be tied to any force as if their lives depended on it. The best example comes from Singapore’s elections where the ruling party expects people to vote for them without due consideration. Sure, on balance you can argue that ruling party has done a good job in providing the goodies, however, it still needs to show that it values the voters. One of Lee Kuan Yew’s worst mistakes came in 2011 when he told voters of Aljunied GRC that they would need to “repent” if they voted for the opposition. The voters didn’t like religious connotations with the election and voted the opposition which have stayed there ever since 2011.

A grassroots member for the ruling party once confessed that the problem that the ruling party faces when dealing with wards that fall to the Worker’s Party is the fact that the Worker’s Party have not raised costs for residents but have kept service standards on par with what the ruling party had. The ruling party by contrast has consistently raised costs.

Now, given that the opposition presence in Singapore is negligible, this fact is being ignored. However, voters in other constituencies are seeing an alternative model of getting things done and suddenly they have less reason to be beholden to a single party.

There is a worse example of taking people for granted. That is the Singapore media, which has been a duopoly between the print controlled by Singapore Press Holdings and the broadcast by MediaCorp. When they were made to compete, they ended up running back to the government crying because they said “the market is too small for competition” instead of improving their product, they continued with their monopoly products. In the end, people stopped reading newspapers and the advertisers noticed. SPH has gone from profit generating company into a non-profit at the mercy of the taxpayer.

As every successful husband knows – you need to show your wife that she’s appreciated and valued so that she stays and ignores the guy with flowers and chocolates. Success is a daily struggle to ensuring why people know you’re better than the competition. Countries, businesses and political parties that expect loyalty without showing love to their target end up in a divorce that was a long time coming but they never expected.

The Right Type of Darkie

 

The race to replace Mr. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been narrowed down to two and in September, the UK will either have its third woman or its first “non-white” Prime Minister.”

What makes this fact, so intriguing is the fact that both Mr. Sunak and Ms. Truss are members of the “Conservative” party, which has, for most of its history been about the supremacy of the white male in the UK. So, how is it such that a party which has traditionally been the bastion of white male supremacy thrown up so many women and minority candidates for the top job?

The struggle to answer this question has gotten many people wringing their hands. I just saw an article in the Malay Mail, which talked about the leadership lessons that Singapore can learn. After all, despite being actively “non-racist” and “meritocratic” for the last 55-years, Singapore still makes a point that “Singapore is not ready for a Non-Chinese Prime Minister,” and all our leaders have inevitably been men from the majority community. The article can be found at:

https://www.malaymail.com/news/opinion/2022/07/24/lessons-in-leadership-from-the-uk-to-singapore/19055

 

 Having lived in the UK as an ethnic minority for the better part of my formative years and having listened to rhetoric about how we are not ready for a “non-Chinese” Prime Minister, I would like to see Mr. Sunak win. I admit I have a soft spot for the Indian community that came from Africa and ended up in the UK. These are the guys who worked hard and sent their kids to school and don’t go on welfare and complain that people that people are stealing their jobs. So, to have a member of this community take the top job would be a wonderful celebration of the hard work they put it to make the UK function. Plus, I don’t think a man of Mr. N Narayana Murthy would allow his daughter near Mr. Sunak unless he felt there was something special about him. Then, there is the point that if the UK can elect an ethnic minority to the top job, there’s no reason why Singapore can’t.

However, whilst its good to see so many candidates from “non-traditional” backgrounds going for the top job, the question remains how “non-traditional” are Mr. Sunak and Ms. Truss really. If you look at the background of Ms. Truss and Mr. Sunak, you will find that their gender and race are pretty much irrelevant in as much as both have very standard backgrounds for Conservative politicians. Both went to Oxford, and both worked in huge companies before joining politics. The only thing that really distinguishes Ms. Truss from the standard Conservative party politician lies between her legs.

As for Mr. Sunak, he’s as “Elite British” as it gets. He was born in Southampton, went to Winchester (the oldest public school in the UK and a competitor of Eaton, the alma mater of Prince William and David Cameron) and then Oxford. The only thing that’s “exotic” about Mr. Sunak is the fact that his name is “Sunak” and he’s a shade tanner than the average Conservative politician. The only thing about him that is “actually” Indian is his wife and her family.   

I hope Mr. Sunak takes the job because it would be a good boost for one of the most productive communities in the UK. However, whilst people of Indian origin will celebrate any success of his, Mr. Sunak is not an ethnic minority who made it but the exception that proves the rule.  Let’s be honest, he’s where he is because he’s at the top of the system rather than an outsider on the fringes.

The truth remains that ethnic minorities still need to work harder to get to the same place as members of the ethnic majority. In many ways, an ethnic minority has to be smarter and better educated than their counterparts in the ethnic majority and you have to blend into the majority in a way where your pigmentation becomes secondary.

Let us go across the Atlantic, where everyone talked about Barak Obama as the “first black president.” While Mr. Obama was undoubtedly a shade darker than many Americans, that was probably the “blackest” thing about Mr. Obama. His mother was “white” as were the grandparents who raised him. The man went to Columbia and Harvard. His life experiences are as far away from the experiences of the chaps who grew up in Harlem as it gets.

https://medium.com/frame-of-reference/the-united-states-presidents-ranked-by-education-level-7be42397c4ab

 

 Mr. Obama like Mr. Sunak is a “darkie” but the right type of darkie as far as “white society” is concerned – hence perfectly electable. They are the type of “darkie” that most white liberals are comfortable with – a shade dark enough to be different but actual fact the same.

Singapore is not immune to this. I think of the number of Tamils who speak better Hokkien than Tamil because they have to become part of the mainstream in Singapore. If you listen closely enough to the coffee shop chatter on our Tamil politicians, you’ll note that there’s always an appreciation for one that marries a Chinese girl. The common remark being “Ah, their thinking is different.”

So, just as America had a black president who had to be whiter than white and the UK may have an Indian Origin Prime Minister who is as elite British as it gets, Singapore will one day have an ethnic minority Prime Minister who is more Chinese than Chinese.  

The Importance of Local Flavours

 

One of the most interesting things that Covid-19 has done for me, has been to turn me into something of a Netflix junkie. Thanks to limits on where you can hang out, life pretty much consist of work, exercise and trying to watch movies and various tv serials.

Thanks to Netflix, I discovered “Nollywood,” which has given me an interest in all things African. For example, I am suddenly fascinated by the way the rich and powerful live in Banana Island in Lagos Nigeria than those in Beverly Hills. Following Nollywood movies has also made watching travel videos by vloggers like “Drew Binsky” more interesting.

My most recent discovery in “exotic” cinema has been “Malayalam Cinema.” In the last two weeks, I’ve managed to watch three different movies, all of which have been crime dramas.

One of the great things about discovering Malayalam cinema is that it’s a wonderful reminder of the scope and diversity of a place like India. It’s a reminder that India and Indian is more than just the new arrivals from India or the Sarabat stall owner. When most people think of India and portrayals of India, its internationalised Bollywood like Slum Dog Millionaire or Bollywood stars like Shahruk Khan. In Singapore, most associate the word “Indian” to mean Tamil and shows on Vasnatham Central.

However, when you watch Malayalam cinema, you will notice that there are differences with Bollywood (gritty stories with less song and dance) and its southern cousin of Kollywood (Tamil movies, which most local Singaporeans will be familiar with).

 

 Malayalam Cinema isn’t …….Copyright – Onmanomara

 

 Kollywood ….Copyright Times of India

 

 Let alone Bollywood……Copyright – Go Beyond Asia

I’ve only talked about three different movie industries in India. There are a myriad of film industries catering for the various languages that are spoken on the Indian subcontinent. If you take the term “Indian” into consideration, you’ll suddenly realise that it can mean many different things. India, as they say, is not a single country but a collection of countries with various cultures.

Why is realising this important? The answer is simple – geopolitics and economics. Thanks to the world becoming increasingly interconnected, Singaporeans need to look overseas for more growth opportunities and the growth markets are increasingly in markets like India, China, and the African continent. Even the Western world as we know it is no longer limited to the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, and the European Union. In today’s world, a European opportunity could mean Poland or the Czech Republic as much as it could mean Germany or France.

In a way, Singapore is blessed by being small. The feeling of being a “Singaporeans” is pretty much confined to being Singaporean. We do not have great regional communities the way other countries do. This makes “nation building” relatively easy in that you need only focus on creating a single identity. Its always about Singaporeans against the rest of the world.

Let’s face it, we’re just Singaporeans and regional identities are temporary. Being a Singaporean from Balistier or Tanjong Pagar isn’t like being a Malaysian from Kuala Lumpur or Sarawak. It’s probably one of the reasons why S-League has been a disappointment whereas the Malaysia Cup remains etched in memory (who cares about Balistier versus Tanjong Pagar the way everyone cares about Singapore versus every state in Malaysia?)

Whilst we do not have great regional communities, we need to remember that other people do. Whilst our proficiency in English helps us reach a vast number of people, we need to understand people through their regional identities to really maximise their value to us. Pigeonholing people has limits. Sure, we have managed to deal with the European Union because the EU operates in English. However, think of how much more we could achieve if we could reach the Europeans in their native languages? We need to understand that not all white people are the same.

That should also apply to dealing with Africans (not every black person is African), Indians and so on. I think of one of my friends who helped organise the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIM) events. She said that “All of us speak Hindi but our native languages like Bangla and Tamil come from the heart.”

That can also be applied to the Chinese communities. We all speak Mandarin but its our dialects that move us. We speak Mandarin in the same way that we speak English – its something that you need to know to function. However, our emotional connections come from our dialects.

The world is a big place offering various opportunities and challenges. One of those challenges will be understanding the growing attachment of local flavours in a globalising world.

Interesting Bed Fellows

 

The race to succeed British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson has become an international sensation, particularly in India. The reason is simple, the front runner of succeed Mr. Johnson, is the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Rishi Sunak, who is of Indian descent.

The news of Mr. Sunak’s success has gone set the Indian media on fire and his expected accent to the premiership of the UK is portrayed as “karma” for British rule of India.

In a way, its good to see Mr. Sunak succeed. If you look at it from the Singapore perspective, the only question one can ask is “how is that nobody in the UK seems to care that Mr. Sunak comes from a ethnic minority, whilst in Singapore, despite 55-years of pledging to be “regardless of race or religion,” we’re still told that we are not ready for a Prime Minister from an ethnic minority.”

The fact that Mr. Sunak’s rise has not raised an eye-brow speaks well for the UK. Its as if ethnic origins have become immaterial. The British Press has thus far not talked about a “First Indian Origin” Prime Minister in the same way that the American press talked about “First Black” President when Obama took power back in 2008.

There’s much going in favour of Mr. Sunak. He’s highly presentable (he’s officially known as “Dishy Rishi” and was voted sexiest male politician by Daily Mirror readers) and articulate. He was praised for his handling of the Covid-19 relief. After three years of an incompetent fat slob, it would be nice to have someone presentable and vaguely competent in charge.  

There is, however, one major but unfocused minus point against Sunak. The minus point that everyone focused on was the fact that his wife. Ms. Akshata Murthy, daughter of Infosys co-founder, Mr. N.R Narayana Murthy, was registered as “non-domicile” in the UK and didn’t pay a penny to the exchequer on her very vast dividend income from Infosys shares.

Being a “non-domicile” was not illegal but it didn’t look good. More importantly, it distracted everyone from the real issue – which is what exactly is the influence that Infosys plays in Mr. Sunak’s political career.

Now, Mr. Sunak has admitted that he has received advice from his father-in-law and he’s admitted that his father-in-law is not easily impressed. This isn’t what you’d call anything abnormal in a family situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rq8RIAP20g

 

Then, in fairness to Mr. Narayana Murthy, he is one of the “good guys” in the capitalist story coming out of India. Mr. Murthy made his fortune in a sector of the Indian economy that functions at international standards (Intellect’s Design’s Managing Director, Arun Jain, once called it the sector that the Indian government stays out of). He isn’t “inherited” wealth nor did he use dubious letters of credit to swindle people. Mr. Murthy is a “hero” by anyone’s standards and if there is anyone you should take advice from, it is Mr. Murthy.

Mr. Sunak is rightfully proud of what his in-laws have achieved and, in many ways, their success story is what “conservative” parties should proclaim:

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/rishi-sunak-hits-back-over-wife-infosys-wealth-8036715/  

However, while nobody expects Mr. Sunak not to have any contact with Mr. Murthy at all, what role is the well being of Infosys going to take in Mr. Sunak’s decision making. As benign as Mr. Murthy is, every political office holder in a democratic system needs to be clear about where their interests are.

While nobody has yet to raise the question and nobody has yet to suggests that it has. Ms. Akshata Murthy merely owns shares and Mr. Murthy has officially left the running of Infosys in 2014. However, Mr. Murthy is still an influential figure in Infosys and when so much of the family wealth is tied up in a single company, one needs to make clear where the lines are drawn. This isn’t to suggests that Mr. Sunak or Infosys will do anything unethical but, in a day, and age of social media, one should be very clear about certain things.

Let’s face it, the record of politicians being a bit too cozy with business isn’t stellar. America just had four years of a president who used the state to further his own business. While the Donald was loud about how he was only working for a single dollar a year, somehow the Trump International Hotel in Washington became the favorite haunt of international dignitaries and whenever he visited Mar-A-Lago, he could bill the state for the Secret Service accommodation.

Believe it or not, he wasn’t the first politician who refused to sever ties with his business whilst in office. In the 1990s, the Italians had Silvio Berlusconi, who became the European role model for Thakshin Shinawatra a few years later. All these men never really made it clear where their business interest ended.

Singapore has a different take on “conflict of interest.” For years, the head of the “Sovereign Wealth Fund” (which Temasek Holdings is in practice, even if it legally isn’t one), was married to the Prime Minister and the daughter-in-law of the highly influential first Prime Minister.  On paper, there was no official conflict. Temasek Holdings have been shouting about how they are “independent” of the government. Then, there’s the fact that Temasek Holdings is owned by the State rather than the Lee family, you could say that there’s no issue here (even if Madam Ho’s salary was a state secret while her husband’s was out in the open).

However, if you look at the way Singapore Inc has functioned, you’ll notice that the “big” Singapore companies have inevitably failed to grow beyond Singapore’s miniscule domestic market. The only exception would be SIA, which operates in a space where domestic protection is pointless and SingTel, which bought companies from elsewhere. How is it, for example, that laws get passed that seem to benefit the big players. One of the most prominent areas is in finance, where as Emanuel Daniel, publisher of the Asian Banking and Finance Journal pointed out – the regulator ensured that FinTech companies would be mere subcontractors to the banks instead of competing with the banks. Officially, there’s nothing wrong with our companies until they have to function outside the protected ecosystem of Singapore.

Mr. Sunak has a chance to be something exciting for the UK. However, he needs to be clear as to where Infosys’s interest end and his begin. As long he does that he should be a decent enough amount of fresh air after the incompetent Johnson years.

What are the Benefits of Creating the Problem and Killing the Solution?

 

Aside from the January 6 Committee hearings in the USA, the hottest topic around has been the overturning of “Roe vs Wade,” the landmark legislation which guaranteed the right of women to have an abortion.

Abortion is an emotive topic and the repercussions of “Roe vs Wade” are not limited to the USA. The arguments used by anti-abortion activist in America are used around the world. When I wrote a piece on the topic, where I admitted that I ended up in my first marriage because my then girlfriend only agreed to the termination of the pregnancy if we got married, I was accused of “confessing to murder,” and placed under the cosmic punishment of having to work as a waiter.

My position on abortion remains the same as Singapore’s legal position on prostitution. While unpleasant, it is better that it is in the open and done in medical clinics rather than in back alleys. Just because something is not pleasant and downright nasty, it does not mean that it should be illegal.

I will leave the abortion debate to the intelligent because there’s been an even more interesting side story, which despite my limited capacity, I hope is never adopted in Singapore. In the aftermath of the ruling on abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas made a statement that suggested that the court needed to review several recent decisions like gay marriage and “the right to contraception.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/thomas-constitutional-rights-00042256

 

 Now, I can understand that not everyone is comfortable with the idea of “Gay Marriage.” However, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would be against contraception, especially if they were against abortion.

I don’t have any hard statistics on hand, but if my personal experiences were anything to do by, a good proportion of abortion cases come from people not knowing how to use contraception. The great “emancipation” of women came with the invention of the “pill” which gave women greater control of when they wanted to get pregnant. As for men, the advent of HIV made condom use a given. If I had, for example, been smart enough of fork out $12 for a box of condoms every week, we would have saved $4,000 plus on a termination and three years in a marriage that made both of us miserable.

So, logic has it that if you are against abortion, you should be pro-contraception. If more people used contraception, they are less likely to need an abortion. A state that is run by rational people who understand human nature would do something like this. They would make contraception incredibly easy. Then, if anyone walks into a clinic needing an abortion (with the exception of incest and rape), you could impose a fine on them on top of the cost of abortion – thus discouraging people from having abortions.

However, rationality and understanding human nature, particularly when it comes to sex, is a scarce commodity when it comes to laws governing sex. Suddenly, you get a group of God’s appointed agents trying to compensate for their own misdeeds.

The stupidest aspect comes from what I’d call an “anti-knowledge” movement, which argues that if you “teach” kids about anything, they’ll end up feeling bad and do bad things. The most visible sign of this can be seen over the teaching of “Critical Race Theory,” where we needed a decorated combat veteran to make the point that you need to study things in order deal with them because a veteran sex offender was upset that kids of his pigmentation would feel bad for being born with their pigmentation if they studied a certain subject.

Anti-Knowledge is most often seen in the debate on sex. You have the group that actually believes that if you teach kids about contraception, they’ll end up having sex and you should teach them “abstinence.” It goes without saying that in every experiment where a group of teenagers are taught “abstinence only” and another are taught “abstinence plus” (best to control your hormones but in case you can’t), there was inevitably a higher need for abortion in the “abstinence only” group.

Laws can be used to promote certain social behaviors or to discourage behaviors that have a negative social outcome. However, they need to be crafted intelligently with an understanding of human nature and ground reality. You got to recognize that solutions exist to problems and promote the solution. If you kill the solution, you are only going to make the problem worse.

As mentioned, the best form of crisis management is to ensure that the situation doesn’t get to crisis stage. If you go against contraception and abortion, you are only creating a crisis that can’t be managed. However, it becomes easier if you understand that contraception is the solution to lessening abortion.   

Them’s the Breaks – Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

 

It’s been a dramatic week for Prime Ministers of the most powerful nations on the planet. The most recent news was the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister and a few days earlier, Mr. Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was forced out of power.

While Mr. Abe’s assassination has been the more dramatic of the two, Mr. Johnson’s “political assassination” is perhaps more instructive to political systems around the world. What made it particularly instructive was the fact that Mr. Johnson was forced to resign by his own party rather than by any external force like a vote of no confidence or an election defeat. Mr. Johnson’s resignation speech can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL8vtjgM7JQ

 

 In the aftermath of Mr. Johnson’s resignation, the American media held a series of shows on the differences between the Conservative Party in the UK and the Republican party in the USA. The main question was “how was it such that the Conservatives were willing to dump Boris, while the Conservatives were quite happy to dump Boris?” On my social media feed also had people asking if Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) would ever dump a party leader in the same way that the UK had.

The answer to this question is simple. It’s also a brutal reminder about the nature of leadership, organisations and loyalty.

Let’s start with the obvious. Mr. Johnson had become a liability to this party. While the Conservative Party under Mr. Johnson saw its majority increase (increase 48 seats and Labour lost 60) in the 2019 General Election, Mr. Johnson squandered his electoral victory in a series of scandals like Partygate and the Pincher Affair. A list of Mr. Johnson’s scandals can be found at:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-62070422

The end came for Mr. Johnson came when he started bleeding members of his cabinet, most noticeably losing the likes of Health Minister Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same day. The message that the party thought that Mr. Johnson was an incompetent and self-interested SOB could not have gotten any clearer. Mr. Johnson was not going to have the support of his party, let alone the support of parliament.

Mr. Johnson’s forced resignation isn’t the Westminster System. I’m old enough to remember when the Conservatives Forced Mrs. Thatcher out of power. Unlike Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Thatcher had a reputation for competence and had a track record of winning three (3) General Elections with decent sized majorities. However, by 1990, she was embroiled in two potentially vote losing issues, specifically Europe and the “Community Charge” or the “Poll Tax.” Her Cabinet Colleagues read the winds of change and realized that she could cost them their jobs and her “track record” was no indicator of future performance in the polls and so they dumped her. Something similar happened to Mr. Blair nearly a decade and a half later.

In the Asia Pacific Region, we’ve seen several cases of internal party struggles. Most noticeable examples are in Australia, which saw the change of power twice between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard from the Labour Party and more recently between Tony Abbot to Malcom Turnbull to Scott Morrison. The reason for all of these power changes was the same as in the UK. The party believed the leader was a liability rather than an asset.

Unlike Mr. Johnson, Mr. Trump has yet to be perceived by the Republican Party as a “vote loser.” Say what you like about Mr. Trump but he has been an effective vote getter from a certain segment of the population, who have stuck with him despite the various scandals and issues surrounding him. Republican candidates for office have been very aware that Mr. Trump has the ability to swing votes in their direction or away. While Mr. Trump was never a “preferred” candidate of the Republican Party, he had and still has a very powerful assert – namely a core group of followers who have until now done as Mr. Trump has requested. This isn’t lost on Republican candidates for office.

Now, should any of the factual findings of the January 6 Committee affect the way his followers think, things could change for Mr. Trump.

Whilst Singapore’s electoral system has yet to reach a stage of accommodating a two-party system (Opposition Parties still fight elections on the premise that they will be stronger opposition parties rather than replacing the governing party), something similar happened. Our Prime Minister-in-Waiting was Mr. Heng Swee Kiat. Then in April 2021, Mr. Heng ruled himself out of the running for job that the public had perceived that he was already anointed for. Mr. Heng cited his age and health as a reason for stepping away from the top job. The more cynical have suggested that his ability to bring in votes as seen in the 2020 General Election was the bigger factor.

Like it or not, one of the key facets of staying on top is the ability to take care of the people below you. In electoral politics this usually means taking care of your political allies who want to b around you because you bring in the votes. While it’s less obvious in non-democratic systems, the top always retains an eye on the bottom. Hungry people with nothing to lose can be exceedingly dangerous to the top. As a rule of thumb, revolutions do not happen in places where people feel they are well taken care of.

What people look it is also the here and now. As is often said, past performance does not indicate future success and while “demanding” in the present has been decried as short-term thinking, it’s also a sign of maturity. Here in the “developing” world there are too many examples of modern political parties screwing up and fighting on the grounds that they were the party of an independence leader. Example that comes to mind is the ANC in South Africa that rest on the legacy Mandela. Some might argue that Singapore’s PAP fights elections on the premise that the population has a debt of gratitude to Lee Kuan Yew.  

Let’s remember that political leaders, no matter how good, a merely servants doing a job and the only appraisal should be the here and now. Think of Winston Churchill, the leader who won a war that nobody expected the British to win. Was he lionized? He was but shortly after being the war, he was kicked out of 10 Downing Street because the electorate didn’t believe he could win them the peace. While Churchill did get a second term, he was effectively pushed into retirement by ill health. The public in the UK showed maturity in understanding that gratitude to the hero of the war did not extend to giving him continued access to the levers of power.  

I Hardly Know Her

 

My latest hobby has been to follow the January 6 Committee Hearings on YouTube. It’s been fascinating as witness after witness has described the behind-the-scenes activities in what is probably the most “interesting” US administrations in history on what s probably the most prominent day in American history. At the time of writing, the American news media has been focused on the testimony of Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson who has been to all intents and purposes a very credible witness (she’s been calm, collected and provided lots of specific details). To add to her credibility, the vice-chairperson of the Committee, Ms. Elizabeth Cheney then presented examples of how there were attempts to intimidate witnesses.

It goes without saying that the media has been obsessed by this and being the publicity junkie that he is, the former president has had his say of television and as expected, he’s done his best to trash Ms. Cassidy. The clip of the former president in action can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7abUPtWrP0k

 

 If you leave aside the politics (Mr. Trump being one of those people who evokes strong emotions), there are several things that can be learnt from this. While Mr. Trump is the most prominent world figure to have “issues” with his “ex-employees,” he is by no means the only businessman to have such issues. Unless one works as God’s personal valet, one is bound to come across at least one instance of employer-employee disputes in ones working life.

So, let’s start with the first point, which relates to crisis management, which is where PR consultants make their real money (a case of the client needing you more than you need the client). The first rule of crisis management is actually pretty simple – don’t let it get to crisis stage. Sure, there are situations where one doesn’t have any control over. Examples include things like a plane crashing or terrorist holding hostages in your hotel. However, whilst these instances exist, most things can actually be avoided if you plan for them. In Public Relations terms – better spend on “issues management” than “crisis” management. As long as you anticipate issues and have a plan to deal with them, chances are you’ll be OK (which was one of my tasks in my last agency job when the agency I worked for had to anticipate issues for the PUB).

These days, I don’t deal with crisis communications via the media. However, I do deal with a lot of angry people who are put in crappy situation. My first instinct is to try to bring the temperature down because, you’re not going to achieve anything by yelling back at yelling people and the cost of pushing people beyond their limit is not worth it (sure, the guy goes to jail and you can sue but what’s the point if you end up a broken nose). Don’t let it get to that point.

In the case of the January 6 riots, it would have been much better to avoid them and plan properly for a come back in 2024. The plan was a bit too obvious (it took my Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC to point out that there was a reason why he rushed to get “his justice” onto the Supreme Court before the election) and as everyone who’s testified has pointed out, they were on dubious legal grounds to begin with and operationally – very unlikely to succeed. A wise man would have not gone ahead with something as audacious as a “riot” when everyone had said it was unlikely to succeed in its initial aims and would give you legal issues. Given that the Trump Organisation currently has plenty of legal issues, one has to question why he’d want another one.

Secondly, there’s a golden rule about slagging people off. Generally speaking, employees should never ever slag off their old bosses. It’s a red flag for potential employers. If anything, employees should always speak of their former employers in glowing terms. However, there are certain exceptions and variations to this rule.

The main point is legal. Most sensible employees will always speak well of their previous employers. However, the former employee should always ensure that the employee has no reason to turn against them, particularly if it involves anything legal. Both Ms. Hutchinson and Mr. Rusty Bowers are Republicans who have no reason to speak against the Trump. However, both were in a legal bind and could not give “favourable” testimony as to what they saw and communicated with the Trump team.

Then, just as employees should never slag off their employers, there is also a case for the reverse, especially when you’re in charge of an organisation with a high staff turnover. Sure, most people can accept that you had a problematic employee or two but when you start having issues with every employee……people are bound to wonder about you. The guys who do this, tend to be the type who get off of believing that they’re wonderfully credible and have the power to “make” or “break” careers – hence “I’ll talk bad about you,” becomes one of the threats they’ll use (to which one would actually be grateful if they slagged you off because its part of their nature and if they didn’t – it would be out of character). Prime example, was how Trump complained about Jim Mathis, who didn’t slag him off directly in his resignation.

If anything, one should always maintain a decent and friendly enough relationship with former employees. You never know how they may be useful to you in the future. One of the most interesting examples of this comes from my former clients at Polaris Software Labs (Intellect Design Arena as they’re now known). Each ex-employee has the potential to learn the tricks from other people and who knows if they can come back and add those experiences to you.  A wise HR practitioner needs to treat everyone coming through the company’s doors as a seed that can be used even after the employee leaves. Treating every employee who leaves as an enemy is only going to create more problems, which is inevitably bad for business.