What Makes You a National?

 

One of the most interesting reactions from my last post about the new British Prime Minister, Mr. Rishi Sunak, came from my former editor at Arab News, Mr. Khaled Almaeena. He forwarded me a WhatsApp message, which made the point that Mr. Sunak is not the first leader of a Western country to be of Indian-origin. The current Prime Minister of Portugal, Mr. Antonio Costa and the current deputy Prime Minister of Ireland (who was previously Prime Minister and at the time of writing looks set to taking back his old job), Mr. Leo Varadkar, are both of Indian-Origin. Unlike Mr. Sunak, both men have won elections in their respective nations, yet neither of them captured the imagination of the global Indian community in the way that Mr. Sunak did. The message suggested that their failure to capture the imagination of the global Indian community could be because neither are Hindu.

 

 The First Indian-Origin Leaders of Western Nations – Copyright Indian Express

Given that I am of limited intelligence (I earn less that half a million Singapore dollars a year), I shall leave the deeper debate to those with more brain. One could say that the reason is simple, Mr. Sunak does have an Indian connection through his wife, Ms. Akshata Murthy, daughter of Mr. Narayan Murthy, which neither Mr. Costa or Mr. Varadkar have.

However, the point that someone has equated being Indian with being Hindu should be discussed. Automatically equating a nationality with an ethnicity or religion isn’t something new and unfortunately its something that has seen a resurgence on a national level in many places. Ethnic or religious majorities are making the point that they are majorities and therefore entitled to set national agenda. It’s even true in Singapore, which is officially “regardless of race, language or religion” still makes the point that the public is “not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister.”

At its most reasonable, the call for dominance by ethnic and religious majorities was once best expressed by India’s BJP, which argues that as Hindu’s are the majority, India is a Hindu nation that allows the existence of religious minorities just as the UK is a Christian nation (there is an official church) that allows religious minorities to practice their religions freely.

I’ve always found this argument to be unnecessary in as much as majority cultural dominance is pretty much a reality on the ground. Take Singapore as an example. We are officially multiracial and multicultural. However, by virtue of being in the majority, the Chinese, specifically those of Hokkien origins rule the roost. Whatever the PAP government tells you, the language on the streets is the Hokkien Dialect and its not uncommon to find those of Tamil origins speaking fluent Hokkien, even if they don’t speak Tamil. It goes without saying that you don’t find Singaporean Chinese learning Tamil. The reason is simple, the minority learns to speak like the majority in order to get by. There is no need for the majority to adapt to the minority.

However, whilst that is the case on the grounds, is it something that nation builders and intellectuals should be promoting? I like to think that people should look beyond race and religion as a unifying factor. If anything, I believe that using race and religion as unifying factors are damaging to society in that it produces “group think” and inbreeding, which stifles just about everything that creates prosperity. People who can only operate with their “own kind” set themselves up for being sacrificial lambs. I think of my favourite “Brexit” voter who was so determined to kick out links with the French without relaising that his entire living was dependent on the free movement of goods and people between France and the UK (he was brining in cheap French cigarettes into the UK, which was perfectly legal under EU law).

To put it crudely, ethnic and religious majorities can lose their position. Demographic changes can affect national identity if those are the only things holding a nation together. This was one of the major points in dealing with Northern Ireland, where the point that Catholics would eventually outnumber Protestants.

So, its always best to find things beyond race and religion to unite people. One should find ways of getting people to share experiences. For me, I credit national service as being one of those experiences that has helped unify Singaporeans. I think of a function I went to where one of the attendees was asked “Are you Singaporeans?” The reply was “are you asking if I have served national service – yes, I have.” National Services, as they say, is something that every Singaporean guy can share whenever they meet. More can be done in Singapore and the rest of the world to create greater unity among people.

So, whilst race and religion will always play an important role in people’s lives, one needs to look at things beyond that if they want to create stronger societies where people are united by shared experiences regardless of religious or racial affiliations.

The Inevitable Disappointment

 

Kinship Based on Race is just Skin Deep

The United Kingdom has done it – they’ve finally got a Prime Minister from a minority ethnic community. Mr. Rishi Sunak, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, became the first “Indian-Origin” Prime Minister and at the age of 42, he is the youngest Prime Minister in the last two centuries.

Mr. Sunak is the third person to take over as Prime Minister this year and his ascent to power was positioned as a chance for the ruling conservatives to avoid a wipe out in the next General Election Unlike his predecessors, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, Mr. Sunak is presentable (his nickname being “Dishy Rishi) and articulate. In his first address to the nation outside Downing Street, Mr. Sunak seemed to say the right things, and acknowledged that “mistakes” were made. Unlike Mr. Johnson and Ms. Truss before him, Mr. Sunak comes across as someone who knows what he’s doing and this was reflected by the reaction of the markets. The pound returned to its level against the US dollar that it was before Ms. Truss took over.

Unfortunately, the part of Mr. Sunak that has received the most attention is the fact that he is of “Indian-Origin.” His rise of the Premiership gives the British establishment an “aspirational” story to sell to the rest of the world. Singapore was affected too. Suddenly we had the likes of Professor Tommy Koh asking us to reflect on the irony that the UK, a former Imperial Power would have an ethnic minority as Prime Minister long before officially “non-racist” and “meritocratic” Singapore. The South China Morning Post went as far as to ask whether Mr. Sunak’s rise in the UK would promote “soul-searching” in Singapore:

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3197207/will-rishi-sunaks-rise-uk-prompt-soul-searching-chinese-majority-singapore

Everyone in the global Indian diaspora is thrilled by Sunak’s success. It should be noted that one of the first world leaders to congratulate Mr. Sunak was non other than Mr. Narendra Modi, his Indian counterpart. Mr. Modi went as far as to call Mr. Sunak a “bridge” between the two nations.

Having grown up in “White Anglo-Saxon country,” as one of a handful of ethnic minorities, I get the fascination that the global Indian community has with Mr. Sunak. When you grow up with the idea drummed into your head that you need to “grateful” to the ethnic majority and as much as ethnicity may not figure in your day-to-day interactions, you will feel a certain need to see one of your own coming to the top. My childhood hero is Bruce Lee for a good reason. He was the only visible person of my complexion winning somewhere by being Chinese.  

So, I get why the Indian community around the world was so happy to see Mr. Sunak climb to the top of British society on Diwali. The global Indian Community has taken pride in a shot people who have run the world’s biggest corporations and now having a Prime Minister of a G7 economy feels like icing on a cake of multinational CEOs:

https://www.inventiva.co.in/trends/indian-ceo-multinational-company/

 

 However, whilst I get the wanting to see someone like you rise to the top, one has to ask that most troublesome of questions – how exactly are people like Mr. Sunak, Indian and what makes one think they will have any relationship with India?

Ironically, it was Wion, an Indian news channel, that made the point that the Indians who have climbed to the top of the corporate ladder elsewhere, do not owe any loyalty to India or to the Indian diaspora. They owe their loyalty to shareholders who are more often than not based in the West. Wion made it a point that unlike India, China did not produce CEOs of Western companies – instead, it produced unicorn tech companies in China:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096928/number-of-global-unicorns-by-country/

 

 

What is true of those who become CEOs of multinationals becomes even more true of politicians. Whenever Indian News channels pointed out that Mr. Sunak is “Indian-Origin” everyone that they interviewed who lived in the UK would reply “Let’s remember he is Prime Minister of the UK and not India.” One White Englishman went as far as to say “He’s more English than I am.” If you look at Mr. Sunak’s personal story, you will notice that the most Indian thing about him is that he married a girl from India.

This then leads to the point that Mr. Sunak is inevitably going to disappoint someone and the community that is probably going to be disappointed is non other than the global Indian diaspora.

Whilst Mr. Sunak has played upon his “migrant” backstory, anyone who thinks he’s going to make it easier for Indian-Born professionals to get work in the UK is going to be disappointed. Mr. Sunak made it clear that tighter border controls would be part of his agenda and he did argue that whilst he is a child of immigrants, he is a child of “LEGAL” immigrants. How did Mr. Sunak make this clear – he reappointed Ms. Suella Braverman as home secretary. Ms. Braverman who, like Mr. Sunak is of “Indian Origin” fell out with Mr. Sunak’s predecessor partly because she was against signing a trade deal with India. Ms. Braverman holds views that would ironically make Enoch Powel proud:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4N_5qAiF6o

Why would Mr. Sunak appoint someone who seems so intent on harming the interest of the people who have been celebrating his success the most? The answer is simple – electoral mathematics. Mr. Sunak is Prime Minister of Britain and not India. He has to be seen “looking after British” interest and “not Indian” interest and he understands that there is a segment of the British voting public that believes that includes making it harder for people from places like India to set foot in the UK. One of the best explanations of where Mr. Sunak’s loyalties lie are best seen in the following clip by Trevor Noah:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t952Gnpjr0

I get the need to see someone who looks like you coming ahead. However, we should also understand that just because someone looks like us, it doesn’t mean that they have the same sympathies and loyalties. Those who expect Mr. Sunak to be a bridge between East and West are bound to be disappointed.  

“He backs the Strikers; We Back the Strivers.” – Liz Truss, former Prime Minister, United Kingdom

 

Say what you like about Liz Truss’s short stint as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom but it did produce a few gems for those of us thinking of headlines. While the one that comes to the mind of most is probably her famous “I am a fighter; not a quitter,” line which was spoken two days before she quit. Less famous but I believe equally important was a line that came in that same exchange, which was “He backs the strikers (referring to the rail strike); we back the strivers.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYe6gxXFQNs

 

 Ms. Truss was probably not conscious of it but she was echoing a sentiment that had scared has been part of the Singapore DNA.

Singapore has spent a good portion of recent history being held up as what a developed nation can do. Our success has become a text book not only for developing countries to follow but even our former colonial power, Britain, even went as far as to pay us the compliment of stating in the Brexit campaign that they would make London to become “Singapore on the Thames.”

Singapore makes no secret of its success. We’ve positioned ourselves as the oasis of calm in a region of turbulence and we consistently make the point that Singapore has the rule of law and unlike other post-colonial places, we welcomed “investment” from our former colonial powers.

While these points are well documented, one of Singapore’s less trumpeted but most effective selling points is an aversion to strikes. Like most things in Singapore, our national attitude towards strikes was based on Lee Kuan Yew’s realisation as to the things that could have costs him power. Mr. Lee, as a former labour lawyer who defended striking workers, knew that the “striking workers” who had crippled the economy and made life hard for the British colonial administration could easily do the same to him.

Hence, once he got into power, Mr. Lee went about ensuring that the Singapore worker would never go on strike. There was a combination of carrots and sticks. Those who had militant tendencies ended up experiencing jail time and laws were created to ensure that going on strike “without permission” would face sticky consequences. There were also some carrots. Worker’s salaries steadily increased and CPF contributions (at one time employer contributions were as high as 20 percent of the worker’s salary) ensured that Singapore had one of the highest levels of home ownership.

External events at the time also helped Mr. Lee. Left-wing governments in Western nations allowed for the development of “militant” unions. Mr. Lee, an anglophile, studied what militant unions did in Western nations, particularly in the UK, could do to national economies. Mr. Lee could happily sell Singapore to Western multinationals that they would never have to deal with strikes in Singapore.

So, the foreign multinationals poured money into the country and Mr. Lee could sell the story to the Singapore workers that “going on strike is for losers – strivers are too busy building a better life in their jobs to strike.” You had a culture where employers were considered benevolent and employees who were not “grateful” were considered the problem. When SMRT’s bus drivers went on strike in November 2012, you had people complaining that the China-born bus drivers were to blame and should have upgraded themselves, even though SMRT was engaging in “Un-Singaporean” activities like paying based on race.

The story on strikes worked for a simple reason. Money poured into the country and wages for workers went up. However, things may have reached a point where the continued narrative might be coming under scrutiny. As with other parts of the world, costs of living have been going up. However, wages have not been rising and ever since the 2011 election, even the government has understood that it cannot raise government salaries indefinitely when everyone else’s salary is not being raised.

The Singapore of today is different from the Singapore of the 60s. As a population, we are aware of how difficult strikes make life for everyone else. As an example, many of us have lived through travel plans being scrapped because airline workers went on strike. Singaporeans understand that people don’t go on strike for the sake of it.

Take the example of the case of nine (9) men who were investigated for protesting outside a light industrial building on October 18, 2022. The police took them in for “unlawful” assembly. However, my personal social media had examples of people who were sympathetic these men. The point made; the focus should have been on why the men were protesting rather than the “unlawful” assembly. It turned out that the men had not been paid and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) resolved the matter between the workers and employer. The story can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/9-men-alleged-illegal-public-assembly-ang-mo-kio-2022771

So, is there a realisatoin that being a “striver” and going on strike are not mutually exclusive. Most people understand that anyone who takes a job is primarily trying to “strive” ahead in life. However, the question remains, do we need to get to a stage where people feel like they need to disrupt things in order for get their grievances heard? It’s something that people in power need to ask themselves.

Problem with Sub-Level Subordinates

 

The United Kingdom’s (UK) new Prime Minister has been having a very tough month. In the latest move, she had to sack her Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Kwasi Kwarteng after 38-days on the job. The move comes merely a few weeks after Mr. Kwarteng announced a “mini-budget,” which included things like a tax cut on the very wealthy and the removal of caps on bonuses for bankers. The move promptly tanked the pound and earned the UK a rebuke from the IMF, something which one associates with third world backwaters rather than a G7 economy.

You could say that Ms. Truss was doing what any sensible manager does when dealing with an incompetent subordinate. However, given that Mr. Kwarteng had been seen as close to Ms. Truss, nobody believed that this was a case of sacking an incompetent subordinate but find a scapegoat for one’s own incompetence:

https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/jeremy-hunt-appointed-new-uk-25264755

 

 In a way, Ms. Truss was demonstrating a leadership style that is described in East Asia, as “Playing Tai Chi,” where she had gently pushed the blame for a fiasco onto someone else. Like it or not, “playing Tai Chi,” is a management style that is far more common than the style of “falling on your sword,” that most management gurus like to espouse. It’s particularly common when bosses push the blame onto subordinates.

One of my earliest encounters with “Tai Chi Management,” was in the army. I was the Guard Commander on duty when my Battalion Orderly Sergeant (BOS) found that the live rounds that were under my care had been dented (implying they were damaged or someone had tries to use them). During the inquiry, the Regimental Police (RP) Sergeant said to me, “Too bad your BOS found this, otherwise you could have pushed it onto your men.” It never occurred to me to push this onto the men because at the end of the day, I was the commander responsible for taking things over and the issue ended up becoming between me and the previous Guard Commander, who was from a different unit.

However, while it had never occurred to me that “pushing it to the men,” was an option, it was clear that the practice of pushing the blame to subordinates was not new and seemed to be the practiced doctrine of leadership rather than the things about the leader being responsible as was taught in the command schools of OCS and SISPEC (now rebranded SCS).

When I went out into the “real world,” this became even more prevalent. It was not uncommon for bosses and supervisors to tell the client that things could not be delivered because the subordinate in charge of the item had screwed up. In one of the most prominent cases, I was actually involved in a liquidation of a restaurant where the CEO blamed everything on a “Managing Director,” he hired.

When I think of all the incidents of “Tai Chi Management Style,” that I’ve encountered, there’s one question that comes to mind, which is “If this subordinate was so incompetent, what does it say about the boss?”

As a rule of thumb, people get hired because they can do things for the boss. The value of an employee comes from freeing up the boss’s time. Look at it this way, business functions can be divided into two – you are either “getting the business,” or “doing the business.” The boss is more often than not the one responsible for “getting the business,” and so he or she needs to hire good people to “do the business,” so that they can focus on bringing in the business. The less a boss has to focus on the doing part, the more they can focus on getting the business.

However, while it may be relatively easy to tell if a “seasoned” employee is any good, it’s a different story when it comes to juniors who do not know anything. Hence, it takes time for companies to “train” up their employees so that they can reach a certain level of competence.

Now, there is such a thing as employees who don’t get it. I remember dealing with an employee at the Bistrot who proceeded to annoy everyone from the boss down to the customers. There was one night where we were so crowded that Raffy and I were running ourselves ragged. A customer asked what happened to the staff, then said “Oh, that Indian chap, he’s no good, so you two are better off without him.”

Tried to counsel the poor guy but in the end, it was clear he wasn’t going to fit in and I became the only part time worker who had the authority to fire people.

Like it or not, there are employees who don’t perform. There are employees who cause dissent in the ranks. In such cases, firing them becomes like an act of amputation, where you cut off a cancer to stop it from spreading.

However, until the point where the employee is removed, his or her competence actually speaks volumes about the organisation and the boss. The two usual questions would be, how did the employee get hired in the first place if there were early warning signs and what did the boss do to ensure that the employee reached a level competence?

So, when bosses bitch about their employees, you got to ask, what’s wrong with them. Surely, they would have screened properly and tried to train them up. If not, why do they keep an employee who is incompetent unless it is to cover for their own inadequacies.

You’re morbidly obese and it’s going to kill you – Piers Morgan

 

I remember chatting to an American customer at the Bistrot, who, upon mentioning the former president, said very emphatically, “There is no such thing as neutrality” on this topic. I remember this because if you look at every discussion these days, you’ll find that people expect you to be on one side or another.

While former US President Donald Trump remains the one character that inspires extreme views, the person who actually coined this phenomenon was his predecessor, George W Bush, who told the world that “You are either with us or against us.”

Modern discussions on science or politics are no longer discussions about science or politics but the propagation of religious beliefs, where people of a single position take the belief that theirs is a heavenly message whilst anyone who disagrees is part of satanic spawn that needs to be eradicated.

Whilst holding an extremist position of just about every issue may be fun and may be better at selling newspapers, the truth is that life is more often than not, far away from being a religious experience. Getting through one’s day-to-day existence does involve dealing with people who may hold different views from you and coming to a compromise. The national inability to work with people you disagree has reached a national level in many parts of the world, where large democracies have found themselves not being able to do anything because voters won’t let political parties “compromise” with each other.

In an age of polarisation, the “middle ground,” ends up being the most attacked because both sides refuse to believe that people don’t agree with their “divine mission.” Unfortunately, for extremist, things only get done in the middle ground.

Take the “Me-Too” movement as an example. Yes, its good that powerful men get taken task for using their position to get sexual favours. However, we need to ask if it’s reached an extreme stage where a man needs to get legal indemnity before he compliments a woman.

Then there is the issue of trans-rights. Yes, its right that society does not acknowledge that there are people who have a different psychological gender from their biological one and where possible, we should allow them to medically bring their psychological and biological gender inline. It’s also right that they are protected under law from abuse and discrimination. However, do we really need the other extreme where “pronouns” need to be “gender neutral,” to make people feel better or more importantly, to prevent reasons for law suites.

I discovered one of the most ridiculous case of “extremist” ideology when my nightly web surfing brought me to the infamous Cosmo UK cover, which featured Tess Holliday, a “plus sized” model, who is 165cm (5ft6) tall, weighs 127kg (279lbs).

Ms. Holliday is what you would call the cover girl of the “body positive” movement, which argues that people, particularly women, should be comfortable with their bodies instead being forced to conform to what the “patriarchy” expects them to look like:

 

 Copyright Cosmo UK

I am, an overweight 48-year-old, and I realise that I don’t have the discipline to deny myself some of the less healthy foods in life or the discipline to hit the gym with a strict routine to have a beautiful body. As such, I agree with the concept of “body positivity” in as much as we need to recognise that not every guy wants to look an Olympic athlete and not every girl wants to look like a Victoria Secret model. We should be comfortable with who we are and that should not stop us from feeling attractive and being able to attract people.

However, there is a difference between being comfortable in your body and being unhealthy. Britain’s most “infamous” TV show hosts, Piers Morgan, ended up a few spats because he was quite public in his disagreement with Ms. Holliday’s front cover, arguing that she was morbidly obese and promoting a lifestyle that had the ability to endanger people. Mr. Morgan’s letter in the Daily Mail can be found at:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6190487/PIERS-MORGAN-Stop-lying-Tess-youre-morbidly-obese-going-kill-you.html

Whatever one might feel about Mr. Morgan, the science does back him up. People who are obese are many times more likely to suffer from a host of nasty diseases and in another segment of Good Morning Britain, argued that he was against obsess models promoting obesity and also against anorexic models promoting anorexia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxGEJqLEk2c

When it comes to human biology, it is clear that it is unhealthy when you are obese:

 

 Copyright TLC

However, there is also the other extreme, which is also unhealthy:

 

Human biology shows that extremes are bad for you. The body does not react well when you are either too fat or too skinny.

What is true of human bodies is also true of human societies. When people take one position to the extent that it cannot compromise with anyone and end up in power, they end up doing great damage. Hyper Communist systems ended up collapsing in 1991. However, hyper capitalistic societies have not been doing that well either. Balance is not a “trendy” word invented by those who cannot make up their mind but the essence of survival both on an individual and social level.

Keeping it is not Necessarily a Virtue

 

It’s been reported by the Today Newspaper that Singaporeans are more open to online dating but four in ten singles have never been on a date. The report can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/online-dating-singles-singapore-never-dated-survey-2015846

 

 This news report reminds me of a meeting I had with an English lady back when I was still at university. She mentioned that she worked for what was then called SDU or the Social Development Unit doing what she considered the most unusual job – teaching young men and women how to approach each other. Her reasoning was this, in any other country, a gathering of 100 young men and 100 young women would lead to the entire hotel being booked out. From her experience, it was simply strange to teach people how to act on what their natural instincts should be.

I will undoubtedly get a few brick bats for telling this story but there is truth to what she mentioned. Singaporeans have been strangely preconditioned into doing things that everyone else might find unnatural.

As a matter of disclosure, I am not great with picking up women or seducing them. My mother has spent the last forty odd years complaining that I prefer to wait to be picked up rather than chasing what I want, hence many of my relationships have ended badly. However, I’ve always enjoyed the company of “players,” and I’ve had the good fortune of observing them.

My “player” friends have one thing in common – they’re good company. These guys have found a way to be serious enough about life without being boring. As a rule, they have decent enough careers (you don’t have to top up their bus cards) but not the extent that the career defines them as people. These are the people that you can hang around with in any random setting without worrying that they’re going to engage any and every one they encounter with a monologue of their CV and inventory.  Players have decent enough social skills and when they get flirtatious with the girls, they are not crude to the point that you worry that you might be called up in a sexual harassment suite (there is a difference between telling a woman she looks nice in a tank top and asking her to sit on your lap).

If you at what I’ve just mentioned, you could argue that I’ve not mentioned anything particularly special. However, while I’ve not mentioned anything particularly special, the ground reality is that we have become so conditioned to deal with people in a certain way that what should be normal social skills have become unusual.

As anyone who has studied overseas will note – Singaporeans are great academically. We come up top in exam tables. We outwork just about every other ethnic group in university. Yet, once we hit the real world, the highlight of every Singaporeans career is to work for the white boys who didn’t work as hard or do as well in their studies. While I don’t have hard facts, I do notice that many of the Caucasians tend to be socially more able than our local workers.

How did this happen? I believe that a lot of it comes from the way our people have been trained from birth. Success, we are told, is highly dependent on your academic results and parents make it a point to see to it that their do nothing else except study. Parents will do whatever it takes to ensure that their kids mix with other kids from the same background and in the situation.

It goes without saying that people brought up in this situation, will continue this behaviour when they go to work. We have a situation in Singapore where people brag about, they work the world’s longest hours because this is a continuation of their school days.

This is compounded from external factors. Property prices are constantly rising as are car prices. Social messaging states that you need a bigger and better house and car if you are to be regarded as anything respectable in society.

Hence, we have a population that do well when someone else gives them a job. It goes without saying that when it comes to things like “dating,” people don’t have time to date or to look at anything outside the text book. The common reason why you have people over 25 proclaiming that they’ve never had a girlfriend or still virgins, is that they are “concentrating on their careers,” and will settle down and have kids. Unfortunately, by the time they reach the stage of “established,” they’re usually too old to adapt to having normal human relationships.

We shouldn’t need to have to “teach” people how to get along or to be able to act in social situations. Yet, this is precisely the situation that Singaporeans have been conditioned to do. It’s time that the people be allowed to do what comes naturally without being pressured into acquiring things that won’t make a major difference to their lives.

When Do You Hear the Fat Lady Singing?

 

One of my colleagues and I like to describe ourselves as being in the “past the sell-by date,” club. For me, it’s simple. Most of my working life was freelance and I only got “properly employed” at 40 in a standard office job. Given that I switched modes “late in life,” it was clear that there was only going to be so much I could achieve in the context of corporate Singapore and as long as I can pay bills, I take what I can get.

My colleague is in a different situation. He has worked for multinational in a “sexy” department (finance) and the proof of his competence is found in the fact that he was sent round the region by his former employer as a “trouble-shooter.” There is, however, one fatal flaw to his CV, which cancels out whatever knowledge and experience he may bring to the table – he’s over 60.

Like it or not, ageism is a problem in Singapore, a society that proclaims that it has “Asian Values,” or respect for the elderly. For many, the reality of a decent old age is clearing trays and flipping burgers at McDonalds. While the “homeless” in Singapore may seem small compared to other places, most, if not all, are old.

These sights may be the most visible example of the horrors awaiting anyone growing old. However, age discrimination is also more subtle. The fact is that anyone past 45 struggles to get a new job, no matter how qualified they may be for the said job.

However, as with the case of other “isms” in Singapore, whenever someone says that an “ism” as a problem, there will be an equal or greater number of people trying to justify that “ism.” In the case of “ageism” we had Members of Parliament voicing concerns that employers felt that being able to be sued for “age discrimination,” was a bad thing laws against age discrimination were a “concern.” It took the president to inject common sense into the discussion.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/law-against-sacking-workers-old-age-retirement-misunderstood-president-halimah-2013726

However, laws on their own aren’t going to change things. Culture needs to be changed and given how pervasive the influence of the government in society, the government should lead the change.

Unfortunately, a government stuffed with “brilliant” people has proved unable to move beyond existing paradigms. Everything seems to centre around inviting the global one percent and their minions to buy expensive housing in Singapore, even when it comes to the lack of babies. The government’s argument is that since people are not reproducing despite the government throwing money in subsidies at the maternity ward, it become necessary to attract the one percent and their minions to keep the nation young.

However, the reality is, you can’t force people to have kids if they don’t want to and as a few letters to the press have pointed out, people who are constantly stressed from paying for the world’s most expensive properties, don’t make babies.

Singapore’s manpower planners should look at our water policies, which have been brilliant. We managed to maximise and recycle every drop water to the extent that nobody feels that Singapore is in fact water scarce. Why can’t we do the same with our manpower?

Sure, I get that people under 40 may appear fresher and may be inclined to work for less. However, those of us over 40, bring certain advantages to the table. One of the greatest gifts we bring is the fact that we understand our strengths and weaknesses. The young are looking for what they want in life and need the space to experiment. We, the proverbial oldies, know what we can get done.

The example that comes to mind, is the story of George Foreman, who at the age of 45, became the oldest man to win the Heavy Weight boxing championship, when he knocked out the 26-year-old Michael Moorer.

Foreman was officially “past his prime,” in a sport that involves getting hurt. He was slower than the likes of Evander Holyfield and less “explosive” than Mike Tyson. However, the “old” Foreman knew his strengths and weaknesses and used them to give himself a far better game plan than his opponents. As the link below states – the Foreman past his prime was in some ways better than the prime George Foreman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeLeNhix2pk

 

 Big George Knew How to Fight with what he had.

Instead of trying to force everyone not to sack the uncle in the corner or to be a bit nicer to the aunty carrying trays, let’s listen to what the “uncles” and “aunties” and try to design job scopes that utilise the things they can do most effectively.

Sure, redesigning jobs is not going to be easy but it would be a worthwhile investment if you can maximise human resources. People who get a second chance often prove to be exceptionally motivated and effective. George Foreman could reinvent himself as a boxer in his forties to win a title. The Public Utilities Board (PUB) ensures that every drop of water used in Singapore is maximised. Why can’t we do the same for the human resources that wants to be useful?  

When All My Options are S***

 One of the nicest things that I’ve done was also one of the stupidest. I was a student in London and I befriended a Canadian tramp called Murphy. In a moment of kindness, I led him into my flat to take a shower in return for cleaning my bathroom. When he went to shower, it occurred to me that things could go south, so I stood in a corner and held onto my Swiss Army knife telling myself that I better be prepared for a nasty outcome. Thankfully nothing happened and Murphy did his part and eventually got himself off the streets.

However, it occurred to me as I was holding the knife that I was pretty screwed if Murphy suddenly chose to turn nasty. I would, at best be robbed, dead if he had gotten the better of me in a fight and used the knife against me or in jail if I had gotten the better of him and used the knife. I was very lucky but had I not been, I was screwed whichever way things went. Murphy on the other hand, had nothing to lose. He would either have walked off with something of mine, died (which given the way his life had been, was a viable option) or in jail (which would have meant three square meals a day and a warm bed, which was a lot more than what he was getting on the streets).

I tell this story because one of the things that many of us forget is that there are people out there who have “nothing to lose and everything to gain,” when we deal with them. At the very worst, most of us have a roof over our heads, even if its just a one-room HDB. Our inability to understand the concept of “nothing to lose,” has coloured our view of things. Talk to Singaporeans about the Palestinian or Tibetan issue and the reply will inevitably is inevitably “why do they bother protesting – the other side is way stronger and richer.” As far as most of us are concerned, the fight is not worth it if you’re going to lose anyway. What we never seem to understand is that you’re talking about people who have the reached the point where they believe that there’s nothing to lose.

The main point is that people who have everything to gain and nothing to lose, make dangerous opponents. People who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by contrast are easy opponents. As was made in the classic “Rocky III,” the guy with nothing to lose goes all out to wreck you, while the guy with nothing gain holds back.

 

 He had everything to gain and nothing to lose

Hence, governments, like the Singapore government work very hard to ensure that the population never reach the “nothing to lose” stage. If anything, the Singapore government peddles the story that “You have everything to gain” provided you follow the “right” path.

To be fair, this was the case for many years. People went to school and then got good jobs. With the exception of a few opposition politicians, life seemed fairly comfortable. Nobody rocked the boat because there was no need to.

This trend is clear in the evolution of the Singapore media. Clement Masenas, who led the last journalist strike in 1971 was once quoted as saying that the journalist victory in the strike was a pyrrhic victory. The journalist got much better pay – in fact far better than they imagined and they lost all incentive to question the government that had ensured they got their hefty pay increase.

This was seen very clearly in the early 2000s, when our late Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew was interviewed by young journalists. A few people wrote into complain that the journalists were not giving Mr. Lee the due difference, without realising that Mr. Lee had behind the scenes made them do several takes until they were critical enough in their questioning.

Think of how silly this sounds? Young journalists in most places are the most “aggressive,” because they’re hungry to build a name and they effectively have nothing to lose. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein could break the Watergate story because they effectively had everything to gain and nothing to lose. Doesn’t happen here because the young believe they have everything to lose if they go against the official line. What aspiring journalist is going to p** off a ruling politician when it could end a career before it starts.

In the UK, the situation is different. Young journalists, particularly in the obscure regional mediums, have far less to lose when it comes to dealing with national politicians. Think of Liz Truss’s recent series of interviews where young journalists said things like “Where have you been?” Or, “Are you ashamed?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0rlT-5oxE

So, here’s the moral of the story – never drive anyone to a point where they have nothing to lose by going after you, even if you have significantly more power and money. Someone who is determined to bring you down and believes they have nothing to lose, will do unexpected and unpleasant things to you if they believe it is what is necessary.

“The worst thing that happened to you, that can happen to any fighter: you got civilized.” – Micky to Rocky in Rocky III

 

Ever since I started watching more Netflix, I’ve started to appreciate how art and life imitate each other. Sometimes, its possible to draw news commentary from movies, as it so happened when I saw a story in Mothership, which described how our Second Minister of Finance, Ms. Indranee Rajah ended up arguing with Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, Mr. Leong Mun Wai over the funding that the government was handing out to SPH Media Trust, the non-profit that had taken over the entire media business from what was then called Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), a listed for-profit company. The story can be found at:

https://mothership.sg/2022/10/leong-mun-wai-public-expenditure-indranee-rajah/

 

The argument between Ms. Rajah and Mr. Leong centred around the issue as to why it was necessary for the tax payer to fund what had been until recently a license for printing money. Ms. Rajah, it seems, took issue to the fact that Mr. Leong seemed to imply that this subsidy to the media was an implication that the government was not being prudent.

Since, I am earning below the rate of competence (pegged at $500,000 a year), I shall leave the debate on financial management to the people earning the rate of competence. However, what I will point out is that moving the print business into a non-profit and funding it is a sign of what is perhaps the biggest problem in Singapore – a lack of competition.

As a whole, one of the biggest gripes that Singaporeans have is that, we live in a competitive society. If you listen to enough young parents at play, competition is thrust upon every Singaporean before they’re born. Parents start competing for places in the best day care centres long while the kid is the womb and school is essentially a cut throat place, where kids are not only expected to ace exams but get involved in the right extracurricular activities and so on. Competition doesn’t stop there. When you start work, you enter a “rat-race” to earn the biggest and best pay checks to live in increasingly expensive housing and to drive increasingly expensive cars. Add to that, the government is now trying to get us to compete in having more children, who will be better and brighter than everyone else.

So, as far as the average Singaporean is concerned, we live in a ruthless place and you can’t afford to be a nice person. I remember my ex-wife yelling at me whenever I thought it was ok to chill out instead of planning for the big wedding she was hoping for. Her most common phrase being “This is NOT an ANG MOH (White man) COUNTRY – THIS IS SINGAPORE.”

However, while competition for every little thing in Singapore can seem a little intense to most, we aren’t exactly the competitive society that we like to portray ourselves as. While school kids face competition of the most intense sort, there’s actually very little “real” competition for grown-ups or more specifically “special” grownups. If anything, competition is regarded as something that is only for the poor and stupid.

Our scholarship system is the prime example of this. We take our best and brightest and train them at the world’s best universities. Then, we give them good, stable jobs in the government. Original concept of getting the best and brightest to serve the nation is not wrong. However, the act of removing these guys from facing any form of competition has meant that we end up wasting the best and brightest and dealing with competition is left to people below the rate of competence.

Let’s think about it. We are supposed to have the world’s best government (hence we pay more than anyone else for our ministers). We have the “best” people running our home grown “big brands.” Yet despite 57-years of Independence our manpower policy is only about attracting people from elsewhere to do the jobs rather than encouraging Singaporeans to go overseas and make their mark.

Take our “Rolls Royce” ministers for example. As far as I know, only George Yeo went onto take a top job outside of Singapore and more importantly outside anything controlled by the Singapore government when he became Chairman and Executive Director of Kerry Logistics. I remember when I worked on 3M’s PR in the early 2000s, it was considered exciting news to have a Singaporean running 3M’s HR department. When we complain about Indian nationals running the local branch of a multinational, we forget that India (admittedly a small segment of India) does produce people like Ajay Banga former CEO of Master Card and Indra Nooyi, former CEO of Pepsico. It’s much tougher to think of a Singaporean, educated in the system who ran anything outside the HR department in an organisation not controlled by the Singapore government.

The best explanation for this is found in two scenes in Rocky III. The first is when Micky wants to walk out on Rocky for taking Clubber Lang’s challenge because he believes that Rocky is going to be “killed,” His argument is simple – Rocky has not been hungry since he won the belt and has become “civilised,” whilst Clubber is hungry and has become a “wrecking machine.”  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONit4ATZmhw

 

 The second scene that sums this up, comes when Apollo Creed, Rocky’s former rival offers to train him. He says that when Rocky won the title from him, he had the “Eye of the Tiger.”

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

 

 

Any native-born Singaporean with the “eye of the tiger” is encouraged to become “civilised.” Life becomes comfortable. Prime example is our one and only Olympic God Medallist, who had the “eye of the tiger” before 2016. He faced competition in the American eco-system from hungry competitors. His form has been, well, a little off since he won the medal, came home and became “civilised” by the Singapore Government.

Logic has it that a government stuffed by people who believe competition is for the little people, will not want hungry journalist talking to them. It is easier to fund them than to have them become like British regional media, which jumped at the chance to ask the tough questions of the Prime Minister, which the national media admitted they would have refrained from (regional media only speaks to Number 10 once every five years, national media by contrast worry about being cut off from access).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0rlT-5oxE

 

There is, as they say, a difference between the media asking “where were you,” and the media explaining why you weren’t there during a crisis.

Where is the Race Won?

 

Since it’s the Formula One (F1) weekend in Singapore and everyone is going to be focused on who will win what could be a pretty intense race and what we’d call the thrill of sporting competition.

F1 is the type of event that the Government of Singapore gets very excited about. It’s glamorous and attracts the world’s wealthy. The global TV cameras are focused on Singapore, as the host to a lot of glamorous people.

However, the truth is, that while F1 does attract a lot of attention, the race itself is pretty dull. If you look at any given F1 race in the world, you’ll find that they’re pretty predictable. Short of a major accident or a freak breakdown of the car, the guy who starts out in front, usually stays there.

Like other sports, F1 has its superstars like Senna, Schumacher and now Hamilton. However, whilst the superstars get the media attention, the reality is that an F1 race is won by a host of people whom you never see. Former racing driver, Nico Rosberg has gone as far as to suggests that a F1 race is 80 percent car and 20 percent driver:

https://onestopracing.com/formula-1-driver-or-car-which-is-more-important/

 

 The Unseen Guys Who Win the Race – Copyright Mark Sutton/ Sutton Images

As with most sports, F1 remains a fairly unequal place. Superstars earn millions just for doing what they do. However, while being part of the pit crew doesn’t earn you millions, it does pay well enough. Members are given a yearly salary and they get bonuses for every race they work in. The reason is simple, the manufacturers know that in F1, the superstars will need good pit crews to work for them in order for the superstars to be superstars:

https://www.thefocus.news/sports/motorsport/f1/how-much-does-an-f1-pit-crew-make/

In a way, this reality of F1 holds parallels in politics and in the management of a country. Like an F1 team, countries get to shine when superstar drivers, be they entrepreneurs, innovators and so on, but these guys won’t be able to win the races if they don’t have a decent “pit crew” to support them.

If you take Mr. Rosberg’s saying that 80 percent of the race is actually dependent on the car and the pit crew, it means that most of your investment should actually be focused on the car and the pit crew. Sure, a driver can make the difference, especially at certain moments but those moments a few and far between. As mentioned earlier, F1 races are predictable.

A similar analogy can be made in Singapore’s “talent policy.” Now that Covid restrictions are falling, we’re going on an all out to win the race for global talent, which means that Singapore is going all out to win those on the ultra-high salary. As I’ve often noted, nothing shows this more than when you deal with the Economic Development Board (EDB), the government body that deals with bringing in big companies into Singapore. Getting things out of EDB is like teaching a Hogwarts. By contrast dealing with IE Singapore, the body responsible for helping Singaporean businesses expand outside Singapore is like sitting in a dentist chair.

While nobody is against the idea of brining “talent” and “investment” from elsewhere, the truth is that the backbone of our economy remains in the SME sector or in F1 speak – “Pit Crew” companies. I think of my favourite data analytics entrepreneur who is from India. He said “You’d get a lot more return on your investment if you put the money you spend on bringing foreign investors into your start-up sector.”

It's this simple truth – superstars can leave and are conditioned to go where the best offer is. Aryton Sena was winning at McLaren. Then, when he lost the championship to Nigel Mansell  in his Williams car, he promptly jumped ship to Williams (his last team – died at the San Marino Grand Prix).   The pit crew at McLaren stayed and they worked until they produced another winning car for their new superstar, Lewis Hamilton many years later.

If we invested in the pit crew, we’d develop a far more resilient economy. The superstars will go to the place that gives them the best support, which means where the best pit crews are. However, superstars who do not bring pit crews along. It’s something the government should consider in when thinking of our talent development.