They’re Good People

 

Can the Good Guys Prosper?

When Ratan Tata, former Chairman of Tata Sons died at the age of 86 on 9 October 2024, it felt like someone personally important had left the stage. I never met Mr. Tata but I had the privilege of interacting with Tata Brand on several occasions, including doing a very small PR job for them back in 2019, when I helped to get some coverage for Tata Crucible, a quiz event that Tata Sons organized in Singapore.

Given that I’ve had several interactions with the Tata Brand, I thought I’d try and see what it was that made them so special. I mean, Tata is undoubtedly a behemoth by any standards. Back when Mr. Ratan Tata was at the helm, the group was valued at around US$400 billion, which the Indian media took great pleasure in pointing out, larger than the GDP of Pakistan, India’s perpetual rival in just about everything (Or as one Indian executive said “Partner in Destructive Competition.”)

https://www.indiatvnews.com/business/news/tata-group-valuation-bigger-than-pakistan-economy-1-million-employees-2024-10-10-956462

 

 Tata is not just big. Its dominant. Go to India and you’ll find that the Tata name is on just about everything. However, Tata isn’t just an “Indian” brand. It’s an international brand, that owns other world-famous brands like “Jaguar Land Rover.” This dominance and out word presence of Tata has made the Indian brand that outsiders want to deal with and the one that everyone wants to work for.

However, these are things you could probably say about any company. What makes the Tata particularly unique is the fact that, as far as corporate entities are concerned, they known as the “good guys.” No other firm in India has the reputation that Tata has. The entire commercial organization is known for being “good.” Let’s look at the great American philanthropist of the last two decades, who have given away billions to causes. All of them, started out as ruthless businessmen before they became good guys. Bill Gates for example was known as ruthless monopoliser in the IT space before he became the world’s nicest guy.

Despite the economic dominance of the Tata Companies, Ratan Tata was never on anyone’s rich list. In fact, nobody in the Tata family is (this is not to say that they’re living normal middle-class lives). The nearest rival to the Tata Group is the Reliance Industries, which has made its chairman, Mukesh Ambani, one of the richest men in the world with a net worth of some US$107 billion. Mr. Ambani is known for being the owner of the world’s most expensive private house and host of the most expensive weddings.

So, whilst Tata and Reliance are around the same size, how is it that the family behind Reliance has acquired so much wealth whilst the Tata’s avoided the “wealth” of the Ambani’s? Well, if you look at the amount the Tata’s have given away, its around US$102 billion, which is nearly the same as Mukesh Ambani’s net worth:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/meet-the-indian-man-who-outshines-mukesh-ambani-ratan-tata-and-azim-premji-as-the-world-s-biggest-donor-101728634899611.html

 

So, are the Tata’s more inclined to being nice when compared to everyone else? Well, the answer may lie in the fact that even if there was a Tata who wanted to be a greedy little p****, he’d (they usually are), the corporate structure of the Tata Group is ultimately controlled by a charitable trust. Tata Trust controls some 66 percent of the Tata Group.

Tata Trust, works on delivering a number of philanthropic services to India and the wider world:

https://www.tatatrusts.org/about-tatatrusts

 

 Ratan Tata was not the perfect businessman. As his obituary in the Financial Times points out, his sacking of his successor, Cyrus Mistry caused the group to suffer from unwanted publicity and when he stepped down, a lot of the business seemed to lack a certain focus. The majority of revenue of Tata Sons came from Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), the largest of the Indian IT outsourcing companies.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a405ffe-e9ef-4ebf-9203-ce2283f6d203

 

 He did, however, play a role in putting Tata on the map and was known for being a humble man, despite his clout. Nobody begrudged a businessman getting a state funeral and nobody questions whether Tata is creating wealth.

In a way, the closest comparison is Bertelsmann in Germany, which dominates the German and European media market. The majority of shares are owned by private foundations and charitable trust. Bertelsman has revenues of around 20 billion Euros a year.

In a way, the most interesting thing for the world, will be for companies like Tata and Bertelsman to become case studies of how companies can be “good” and “prosperous.” They’ve made the relationship between non-profit foundations and businesses work. Ultimately, the world becomes a better place when companies prosper by doing good.

“I’ll Never Sell My Home” – Pn Balji, former Editor-in-Chief of the Today Newspaper.

 On 9 October 2024, Dr Lee Wei Ling, daughter of Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew and sister of our third, Lee Hsien Loong, died. The tributes to Dr. Lee have been pouring in and many are remembering her as what my former boss, Mr. PN Balji called her in an article for Yahoo News – “A dissident in the making.”

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-lee-wei-ling-a-dissident-in-the-065731420.html

 

 Dr Lee was happy to call out government departments and their bosses. Her conflicts with then A *Star Chairman, Mr. Philip Yeo and the head of Government Communications, Mr. Janadas Devan made headlines.

However, the most prominent person that she took on, was none other than her brother, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong. Dr Lee and her younger brother, Mr. Lee Hsien Yang accused their brother, the Prime Minister at the time of “abusing power” and Dr Lee went as far as to call the Prime Minister a “Dishonourable Son.”

I’ll leave the larger political commentary to the wiser people. All, I’ll do is to mention that this family dispute was centred around 38 Oxley Road, which was Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s house. Both Dr Lee and Mr. Lee Hsien Yang had argued that the elder Mr. Lee wanted his house demolished after his passing, which was contrary to the government’s plans of turning the house into a monument. This dispute, has been best summed up by the following t-shirt slogan:

 

 I think of this t-shirt because the concept of house and home have become confused. Too many people think the two are the one and the same and the result is that people end up very unhappy.

This is especially true in small, dense and rich places like Singapore and Hong Kong, where every square centimetre of space cost a small fortune. The way to “build wealth,” particularly in small places, is inevitably to buy a few centimetres of land and sit on it until prices reach a certain level.

Houses, are inevitably the centre of a family’s wealth. Now, the term “house” is replaced by the term “property,” and the standard advise that is dolled out to any young person starting out is for them to get onto the “property” ladder, where they will buy a house, stay there for a few years, sell it and buy a bigger one, and continuing this cycle, until they can sell it for a fortune and “retire.” Owning a “property” is not just about economics. It’s about romance too. When a Singaporean man wants to propose, he does not say “Will You Marry Me?” He says “Let’s get a flat together.” *

I can’t help it. I work for a liquidator and I’ve grown accustomed to seeing the problems in every rosy scenario. In this case its pretty easy to spot. Everyone is focused on having a “house” or a “property,” and the dollar signs that come with property. Family wealth centres around the house. It’s more often than not, the main investment.

However, the sad reality is that blood is not thicker than water when large sums are involved and a good portion of disputes centre around money, particularly the stuff that’s stored in the collection of bricks we call a “house.” When a couple splits, the disputes centre around the house. More worryingly in our “aging” society, it’s becoming increasingly common to hear stories of how elderly parents are booted out of the houses they so hard for by the kids they raised.

In Singapore its perfectly normal to walk into someone’s house and ask “How much did you pay,” or “How much can you get for selling?” After all, what is a house except a collection of bricks that you spend a few hours in daily?

I think of my ex-boss, Pn Balji, who said “I will NEVER sell my home,” when someone pointed out that his home would worth considerably more than what he paid for it many moons ago. I remember this conversation because it makes a clear distinction between a house and a home.

So, what is a home? I guess you could call it a place where you want to be. It’s a place where you grow memories and build a life of sorts. If you think about it, you can stay in just about any house as long as you either own it or the owners invite you in. After all, a house is a collection of bricks designed as a place to stay.

A home is different. It’s a place that is part of your being. You develop certain memories and relationships with the place. Home is the place where you want to come to every night. It’s the place that gives you a certain sense of safety. It’s a place where you get to play a part in creating a sense of belonging.

Yes, a house is a collection of bricks designed for you to stay in. A home is a place where you want to go home to. That’s the key difference.

 

The Land of Milk and Money

 

A while back, I wrote a piece about the British elections and someone asked me how I would propose to solve the UK’s immigration problems.

I am not a very intelligent person and generally go out of my way to avoid claiming to be able to solve hot button topics like immigration.

However, whilst I may not be the brightest spark around, I am very much alive and kicking and I thought it was worth having a crack at making a few points that I’ve noticed from several experiences like being an “expat kid” in Europe (Stepdad was an ad man for a multinational agency that transferred him around the world), married to someone who thought my nation was the paradise I didn’t see it as and there’s the fact that the work I’ve done involves people from elsewhere.

I believe that the most important place to start is to ask “why do people leave one place and move to another?” Generally speaking, most people like being at home or at least a place where there’s some sort of familiarity. Sure, its fun to go on holiday to a place where people speak a different language, don’t look like you and the culture resembles outer space, is fun for a few weeks as a tourist. It’s a different story when involves uprooting your life and everything you’ve ever know and moving to somewhere totally alien.

Why do people do it? Generally speaking, most people who uproot themselves want a better life for themselves. At the mildest, its about going to where the “career opportunities” are. Hence, you get “expats” moving to wherever their employer sends them to. At worst, you get people fleeing war and persecution. Donald Trump is not wrong when he talks about “s***hole” countries. As a rule of thumb, people don’t uproot from “nice” places or places that are “nice” to them. They flee from places where they are treated like “s***” and the place has become a “s***hole” for them. People don’t want to “harm” their host country – they want to get out of a “s***hole.”

So, the first place for any nation to start, is to ensure that your neighbourhood is relatively peaceful and less of a “s****hole,” which is especially true if you happen to be a superpower or a country with clout on the international stage. If you do things like support ruthless dictators who crush their people or you disrupt existing power structures, you are going to create a mess, which will drive people out and towards you.

So, create peace and prosperity around the neighbourhood and people are less likely to flee. If I take Singapore as an example, we do invest in Malaysia and Indonesia. Our investment creates a certain amount of prosperity and both places have improved. Sure, Malaysians and Indonesians still want to come and work in Singapore thanks to the stronger currency. However, its not a case of needing the navy to keep Malaysians and Indonesians from overwhelming us.

Now, this doesn’t guarantee that people won’t want to migrate over. However, it does mean that less people will want to leave wherever they came from and the ones that do come over happen to be the type that will be more “useful” to the host.

Then, the question becomes one of, what do you do with the ones that come? The answer should, inevitably be to find a way of making them as useful as you can. To an extent, Singapore has gotten “lucky” in the sense that the people from elsewhere generally do jobs that we either don’t have the skills to do or won’t do. I

It’s a different story in most of the developed world, where plenty of migrants, be they asylum seekers or economic migrants end up living off the state, while the bureaucratic system takes years to process their application or they end up working for the criminals. My stepdad, who worked in a hospital that treated the “social cases” in Hamburg. His observation was that many of the migrants couldn’t speak a word of German except for the social welfare office.

Think about it for a moment. Integrating people who don’t look like the rest of society is tough enough. However, it becomes a hot political issue when the local population sees people from elsewhere plonked into the middle of their communities living off their taxes.

As an ethnic Chinese growing up in the West, I actually faced very little discrimination on the scale of things. The fact that I am native English speaker helped a lot. However, I believe that I was fortunate because a lot of English people had a good image of Chinese people. The stereotype of the Chinese was the fact that they set up take away restaurants (exotic tasty dishes) and laundromats. Chinese migrants as a generalization were not known for living of welfare and demanding Chinese holidays – yes, I did celebrate Chinese New Year in the UK but only my private space.

Chinese migrants were perceived as “useful” to society and kept themselves to themselves. Hence, nobody really bothered them. This wasn’t limited to the Chinese. A lot of Indian people became prominent members of the UK – think Rishi Sunak as the classic example of a migrant success story.

So, part of the problem would be solved by cutting red tape. Getting people off the state’s payroll and working should be the priority. Integration becomes a lot of easier when people don’t see your community as “sponging” off the rest of society.

The second part would be to get people from elsewhere working or setting up businesses which contributes to the overall economy. People are less likely to have it in for you once they think you’re adding value.

Bashing immigrants makes impotent politicians look good. However, every economy needs a sense dynamism, which people driven out of one place and into another tend to have in spades. As the Financial Times notes, bashing migrants may be good politics but bad economics. Policy planners should take note:

https://www.ft.com/content/c975fc2c-e6b9-402d-baa6-d87f036fc1d3

What We’ve Learnt?

 It’s the anniversary of the October 7 on Israel. At the time of writing, the Israeli military has been commemorating the event by pounding Lebanon back into the stone age.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/10/7/live-hezbollah-rockets-hit-israels-haifa-wounding-10-blasts-rock-beirut

 

 The attack on Israel and the subsequent retaliation against the Gaza strip have been, what you might call a pivatol moment.

Firstly, the event has shown us how polarized the world is. In this discussion, one is expected to be on one side or the other. This argument is summed up by Medhi Hasan in a debate with former Israeli government spokesperson Elyon Levy as “Nothing Justifies October 7 but October 7 justifies everything.”

Unfortunately for the extremist in the argument, this isn’t the way things work. In the case of this, its clear that both sides committed a wrong and the question is not one of right or wrong but the lesser of two evils. If you were to point to a “bright-spot” in this entire situation, it would be the fact that International Organisations get it. One only has to look at the fact that the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mr. Karim Khan issued arrest warrants for the leaders of Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant. October 7 was a crime and so was the response.

Another bright spot lies in the fact that the “Global South” is getting its voice heard and not simply taking dictation from the “Global North.” Take the very obvious example of South Africa’s case against Israel for “Genocide” in the “International Court of Justice” (ICJ) and the subsequent findings by the ICJ is a very clear sign that the Global South is trying to get its voice heard and using the International Rules based order to get its voice heard.

Then, there’s the fact that with notable exceptions, the entire world has voted to recognize the right of Palestinians to have a state.

However, as Mr. Faisal J Abbas, Editor in Chief of Arab News (as a matter of disclosure, I have contributed articles to Arab News), of Saudi Arabia observes, the United Nations has been exposed as being quite hopeless. The entire world votes one way but as long as the nations that count, namely the United States and its Western Allies, votes differently, who really cares what the rest of the world thinks?  

https://www.arabnews.com/node/2574183

 

 Look at it this way, UN Inspectors have been kicked out of places before. UN Peacekeepers have been made to look redundant as in the case of the 1994 massacre in Rwanda. However, when has a small nation, that claims to be the only “civilized place” in its neighborhood actually had declared the UN Secretary General “Person Non Grata.”

Say what you like about Bibi, but he’s been a genius at playing up the groups that count in Western Capitals. If you look at the way American politicians on both sides of the isle were cheering him on in ways that they wouldn’t cheer each other on, any neutral observer can’t help but get the idea that Bibi runs actually runs America rather than Joe Bidden, Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.

What makes this blind support for Israel particularly sad is the fact that the nations rushing to sell arms to Israel are the nations that present themselves as champions of all that’s great. Human rights, rule of law and the subsequent prosperity that things brought about, were championed for years by the US and Europe. If you look at recent events, its these countries that drive much of what makes the world great. Yet, the blind support for Israel’s actions have gotten the rest of the world to question – “Are the good guys really good.”

Most importantly, a large portion of Jewish people both in and out of Israel are aware that this war is pointless and unwinnable. They know that no matter how many bombs are dropped on Gaza and Lebanon, the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah are not going anywhere:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-10-06/ty-article/.premium/israel-is-conveying-that-its-going-off-the-deep-end-a-recipe-for-another-disaster/00000192-61ea-da6d-afda-7dfbd1430000

 

 The only way that Israel will achieve any form of security is by working with her neighbours to secure peace:

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-10-02/ty-article-opinion/.premium/jordans-foreign-minister-told-israelis-and-inconvenient-truth/00000192-4dc3-d2cc-a5d7-edff907e0000

 

 As the conflict grows, one can only pray that sane voices will find a way to get heard and some form of de-escalation takes place.

Proud of Being Stupid

 

It’s been a good few days for my ego. The reason is simple, I have been remembered by a troll, which means that my rantings in cyberspace are actually important to someone out there, or at least, I’m important enough for someone to need to comment on my postings.

This troll is particularly fond of my postings on the Israel-Gaza conflict. So, when I wrote my last post, the troll could not help but remind me that he or she existed and promptly did the usual of dubbing me a “Hamas Supporter” still trying to justify October 7, 2023.

 

 

As flattered as I am to have a pet troll, I’m a little disappointed by the troll’s inability to actually read anything I’ve written on the topic or to have any understanding of reality. This is the type of intelligence that makes slugs worthy of Ivy league degrees by comparison.

Here’s the personal declaration. My biggest benefactors in life have inevitably been from the Indian Subcontinent and more often than not, Muslim. My biggest moment came from working for the Saudi Government back in 2006. Yet, at the same time, I have family in the USA and many Jewish friends and family whom I love dearly.

Having people, I love on both sides of the debate, shouldn’t stop me from forming opinions based on what I see and hear. I have the good fortune of not being born an American politician and so, I don’t have to be a prisoner of delusion.

For a start, I have “never” said that Hamas were nice people. I have never said that they were justified to do what they did on October 7, 2023. I have argued that what they did goes beyond what most would call “resistance” and I have argued that Israel has every right to go after the perpetrators.

Having said that, I am not an American politician that takes dictation from Tel Aviv and I do not have to buy the idea that “Nothing justifies October 7 but October 7 justifies everything.” While it is clear that October 7 went beyond “resistance” the reaction to October 7 has gone beyond “self-defense.” If you look at the death toll of October 7 of October 2023 of approximately 1,200 people killed and compare it to the 40,000 killed as result of Israel’s assault on Gaza, you have a clear case of one side trying to out crime the other.

Now, let’s take out the “They started it” argument because it will go nowhere. Let’s look at what’s happened and what its actually achieved. If you look at things from “what has been achieved,” you’ll realise that the response and subsequent actions and reactions can only be called “stupid.” The Middle East could well burn. Big powers will be damaged and Israel itself is weaker than before.

Let’s start with the hostages. Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has gone on about how he’s bringing back the hostages. Well, if you Google “hostages rescued” you’ll notice that the figure that comes out, doesn’t exactly show a glorious success for the IDF in this regard.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hostages+rescued&sca_

 

Then there’s the fact that the IDF itself killed hostages:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/3-hostages-likely-mistakenly-killed-idf-airstrike-rcna171197

 

 Then, there’s the war objective of wiping out Hamas. How successful has that been? As mentioned earlier, some 40,000 people have been killed. Hospitals have been bombed and every day, the world gets to see images of children dying. Oxfam has effectively described this as one of the worst atrocities around:

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/more-women-and-children-killed-gaza-israeli-military-any-other-recent-conflict

 

 The Israeli government spokespeople have argued that many Hamas fighters have been killed and they are doing everything to eliminate the group. While Hamas may not necessarily have the firepower that the IDF has and may have taken a beating, the constant bombardment of Gaza has opened up several fronts. The Houthis in Yemen and now Hezbollah in Lebanon have the joined in the fray. Iran, which has traditionally done things via proxy has also had its go in firing missiles at Israel.

Even with military help from the West, Israel will find it challenging to deal with a war on several fronts and whilst groups like Hamas may have taken a beating, the bombardment of Gaza is a gift for the recruitment drive of Hamas and many militant groups. So, the answer is no, the war is not going to achieve its aim of securing peace by wiping out Hamas and similar groups.

What makes it even sadder is that prior to October 7, 2023, Israel was gaining diplomatic recognition. The Abraham Accords saw Israel sign treaties with the UAE, Bharain, Sudan and Morocco. There was even talk about “normalization” between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the powerhouse in the Gulf Cooperation Council (“GCC”).:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/20/saudi-crown-prince-mbs-says-israel-normalisation-getting-closer

 

 You can argue that many of the Arab leaders don’t like Islamist Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas or Hezbollah, whom they regard as a threat and would be happy for Israel to wipe them out.

However, the assault on Gaza has raised the temperatures on the streets of every Arab nation to an extent that no leader and the Arab world can be seen to look at Israel with any form of friendliness. Take the UAE for example. They were one of the main drivers behind the Abraham Accords. Today, key figures in the UAE have to distance themselves from Israel.

https://www.wam.ae/en/article/b33kzd6-abdullah-bin-zayed-denounces-statements-israeli

 

 Yes, October 7, 2023 was a “bad” thing. But there’s no way that a reasonable person can justify the response. Even if you leave aside the fact that far more have been killed in the reprisals than on October 7 itself, the results have not left Israel stronger or safer. If anything, Mr. Netanyahu has done more to damage Israel than the extremist in Hamas, Hezbollah and so on, could ever have dreamed of.

“They’re Eating the Dogs…..They’re Eating the Cats” – Former US President and Republican Nominee for President – Donald J Trump

 

One of the great highlights of the most recent presidential debate in the US came when the Republican Nominee, Donald J Trump went on a rant about Haitian Immigrants eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio. The former President got very upset because the moderators proceeded to inform everyone that the Mayor of Springfield Ohio had confirmed that there was not a shred of evidence to suggest that Haitian immigrants were eating dogs and cats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY

 

 So, if there was no evidence that Haitian immigrants were eating the pets of Springfield Ohio, why then did the former president go on this particular rant? There are two clear elements to this.

Firstly, the former president has always had a relationship with the truth that one can compare with his relationship with his wives.

Then, there’s the fact that he has a proven genius for brining out irrational fears in people and he’s not wrong in taking the view that immigration will be a hot topic. Nothing scares people more than the idea of being overwhelmed by people who don’t look or sound like them.

Unfortunately, this isn’t limited to the USA. Far Right parties have found that having electoral success on an anti-immigration platform. Even here in “multicultural” Singapore, it’s now impossible to escape complaints about the “unhygienic” and “uncouth” Chinaman or the “snooty” Indian expat.

Let’s face it, having an “influx” of people into any given area is never going to be easy. Resources meant for a million are bound to be stretched when you have an additional two million using them. In Singapore’s coffeeshops there is a direct correlation between the complaints about new arrivals and the complaint about the rise in prices of things like housing and the decline in public services like our public transport. Now, this is in Singapore, where things are heavily controlled (mainly very wealthy expats and the movements of lower waged workers are highly controlled). One only needs to multiply that many times over when you talk about places where things are not so well controlled.

So, I don’t disagree that immigration can be a problematic issue. However, is it acceptable for public figures to “target” ethnic groups for their own gain? I mean for me; the answer should be no. I got put off Trump when he started the “Mexicans are Rapist” thing. What’s shocking is the number of people, specifically the young who defended it with things like “Oh, he didn’t really mean it and didn’t say it very well.”

I also agree that free speech is often ugly but you still need to defend a person’s right to say ugly things even if it offends you.

However, there has to be a line somewhere between someone being an a***hole and someone targeting specific, vulnerable groups for personal gain. In a way, this line comes from who you are. If I (and I am guilty of it) make awful remarks, I’m just an a***hole. My irrelevance helps in this case. However, if I was a famous person running for the most powerful office in the land and started making derogatory remarks about a particular group, it would be a different story. That should disqualify one in the mind “voters” and the fact that it does not, should be worrying. Let’s put it this way, if you accept that Mexicans are rapist, you should also be able to accept that Hitler wasn’t wrong when he said that the Jews were economic criminals.

What makes the dogs and cats story even more disturbing is the fact that the politicians are quite comfortable with making things up as Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate, Mr. JD Vance was happy to do:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/15/jd-vance-lies-haitian-immigrants

 

 Once again, we all accept that public figures are bound to stretch the truth. As humans, we’re bound to silence our flaws and play up our moments. Politicians in particular, are prone to sprouting “BS” on a regular basis.

However, there has to be a difference between “bs” and “exaggeration” and a downright lie and making things up to suite a narrative against a particular ethnic group. One only has to watch the interview where Mr. Vance admitted that he was happy to “make up stories” in order suite his need. He provided virtually no verification to any of his claims other than what he claimed he was hearing from constituents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djpTr5r0zMQ

 

Many of us, myself included, are guilty of believing what we want to believe. We tend to use facts to confirm our preconceived notions and prejudices. However, most of us are not running to become what is effectively the understudy to the most powerful man in the world. Surely, our expectations should be higher when it comes to judging public and powerful people. Yes, they’re human to. They’re entitled to their prejudices in their private lives. However, should those prejudices be the formation of policy? The answer should by all accounts be no.